DRAMATIC NAVAL TRIAL

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 319, 2 April 1928, Page 12

DRAMATIC NAVAL TRIAL

Royal Oak Court-Martial TROUBLE WITH AN ADMIRAL

By Cable. —Press Association. — Copyright.

GIBRALTAR, Saturday. THE most dramatic and sensational naval trial of 100 years has commenced, in the court-martial of Commander Daniel. Aboard the aircraft-carrier Eagle, this officer is facingcharges resulting from dissensions aboard Rear-Admiral Collard’s flagship, the Royal Oak. The scene at the outset was extraordinarily picturesque and impressive.

POMMANDER DANIEL drew his sword and surrendered it to the court, placing it on the table in front of the president. Outside lay the "whole of the Mediterranean Fleet riding at anchor in the Bay of Gibraltar. Within was the court composed of nine officers, all in frock coats, -with epaulettes. Commander Daniel, keen-faced and brisk, sprang up after the reading of the charges and said in loud tones: “I plead not guilty to all the charges.” Then came the speech of the JudgeAdvocate and the reading of the sensational letters. When the evidence for the prosecution had been finished, the court heard evidence regarding the Royal Oak’s morale. Captain Dewar’s successor, Captain Osborne, said the discipline and morale were very high. The officers were a loyal company, and most keen. Commander Daniel’s successor, Commander Warren, said Uiere was good discipline on a and no discontent. The chief stoker stated in evidence that Captain: Dewar had greatly improved the happiness and morale of the ship's company by laying stress on the fact that everybody was entitled to complain of ill-treat-ment. Counsel for accused announced that Commander Daniel would give evidence. He addressed the court, claiming that Commander Daniel’s action was proper, justified and necessary. He was in duty bound to keep the captain informed if he believed Admiral Collard’s actions and demeanour were undermining discipline. The hearing was adjourned until Monday. CHARGES DETAILED Commander Daniel is charged with committing a breach of discipline in connection with a report upon the events connected with the departure of Rear-Admiral Bernard St. G. Collard, which the former addressed to Captain Dewar. The terms of this are alleged to have been subversive of discipline and contrary to the King’s Regulations, as they contained criticisms of his superior, Rear-Ad-miral Collard. An additional charge against Commander Daniel is that he publicly read from a document in the wardroom of the Royal Oak, certain remarks regarding,«and criticisms of, the conduct of a superior officer, Admiral Collard, in a way calculated to bring Admiral Collard into contempt and also subversive to naval discipline.

Captain Dewar is charged with accepting and forwarding ffiommander Daniel’s letter to Vice-Admiral Kelly, who was commanding the first battle squadron. Captain Dewar and Commander Daniel are jointly charged under section 43 of the Naval Discipline Act, which provides that a person guilty of an act of disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline, shall be dismissed from the service with disgrace involving forfeiture of pensions, medals and decorations, and incapacitating him from serving in the Navy, Army or Air Force or Civil Service. The penalty may be modified to one of dismissal from the service or dismissal from the ship. “A GREAT COMMOTION” The proceedings were begun with the reading of the charges against Commander Daniel, who was described as now of the warship Cormorant, and formerly of the Royal Oak. The Judge-Advocate quoted from Commander Daniel’s letter, which is the basis of the charges, describing the circumstances which attended Admiral Collard’s departure from the ship. It referred to a great commotion on the quarterdeck owing to the Admiral’s anger, saying he was indeed furious.

The letter also said the Admiral had declared that he was “fed up” with the ship. The writer said he considered the morale of the ship had suffered and that discipline had been endangered by the -•-'’-lent. He added: “All the officers were deeply resentful of the humiliation to which their ship and Captain had been subjected. Apologies would serve no useful purpose.” Commander Daniel went on to say that he had not suffered, but he considered it would be cowardice not to report the matter. He pleaded “not guilty” to all the charges. QUESTIONS RULED OUT Formal evidence was given as to the typing of the letter at Commander Daniel’s dictation. Admiral Collard followed. He said he had received the letter and had handed it over to the authorities on shore. Cross-examined, he said he agreed that it was a serious matter which concerned him personally. The Judge-Advocate would not allow certain questions referring to Admiral Collard’s conduct, on the ground that they were irrelevant. The charges were against Commander

Daniel. Counsel for tlie accused protested that the court-martial was granted at the request of accused. In order to give him an opportunity to clear his character. The whole purpose of the inquiry would he defeated if questions were not allowed. The Court was then cleared to consider the point, and finally it ruled that questions regarding Admiral Collard’s conduct were irrelevant but admissible.

STORY OF A "JACOB’S LADDER’’ The Judge-Advocate then detailed the incidents connected with Admiral Collard’s departure from the Royal Oak. He said Commander Daniel received an order from Admiral Collard through a lieutenant, requiring a boat and also a “Jacob’s ladder” in case the boat could not approach the accommodation ladder. Commander Daniel said he had ordered a “Jacob’s ladder” to be prepared on each side of the ship, but not to be lowered until he ordered it. He next heard that the Admiral wanted him and was angry because the port side accommodation ladder was not placed in position. Admiral Collard was furious, but Commander Daniel said he was determined to maintain silence because there were ratings within hearing distance. Admiral Collard then ordered Commander Daniel personally to superintend the lowering of the ladder. Commander Daniel replied: “Aye, aye, sir,” and obeyed orders. Personally, he would not have chosen the port side owing to the state of the sea.

Commander Daniel told the lieutenant he was satisfied with the way his orders were carried out, and that he would take full responsibility. Commander Daniel said that after the last occasion great pains were necessary to restore respect for the Admiral on the lower deck. He thought Admiral Collard was unfair. He also felt he had been insulted in the presence of nearly 100 officers and men. DEWAKS GRIEVANCE

the Court admitted the evidence regarding Admiral Collard’s conduct the Judge-Advocate explained that it was only admitted to give the accused every reasonable latitude. The Judge-Advocate then read Captain Dewar’s letter. The writer commenced by saying he was loth to criticise a superior officer, but he considered it his duty when discipline whs undermined. Once Admiral Collard had criticised the ship’s band, saying he had never heard such a band. He abused the bandmaster, whom he described as a this and that. The missing word was not mentioned in Court. Captain Dewar added that Admiral Collard said within the hearing of ratings: “The Royal Oak is not fit to be an admiral’s ship. He treats me worse than a midshipman. I cannot get my orders obeyed. Counsel for accused asked Admiral Collard if he thought the complaints of Captain Dewar and Commander Daniel were justified? He replied that he considered them both insubordinate, as it was their duty to bring complaints to him verbally. Asked if the two officers had acted honestly he replied that they had acted foolishly. He explained the dance incident. He said he saw many ladies sitting out instead of dancing, and he told Commander Daniel it was disgraceful and that the commander must do his official job. CAPTAIN THREATENED

According to Captain Dewar’s letter of complaint addressed to ViceAdmiral Kelly, Admiral Collard gave a party on board the ship on January 3. During a dance Admiral Collard threatened Captain Dewar in the presence of the guests. He said that unless he made Commander Daniel do his duty by introducing people to each other he (Admiral Collard) would make Commander Daniel do it. Captain Dewar said he considered the admiral was unjustified, as all the officers were taking turns at introducing people. Captain Dewar also said he considered Admiral Collard’s manner was improper. The same evening the admiral told the bandmaster, before the whole band and several guests, that he had not heard such a clanky noise in his life. The bandmaster should be sent back to England, he said. Captain Dewar dismissed the band and summoned the jazz band. Later the admiral repeated that the bandmaster must be sent home without delay. The letter written by Captain Dewar added that he protested to Admiral Collard, and that the bandmaster requested permission to resign and sacrifice his pension. Admiral Collard's attack on the bandmaster had caused indignation among the officers, who had all tried

to make the dance a success. Later Admiral Collard told Captain Dewar that the chaplain had been inquiring about a report to the effect that the admiral had called the bandmaster a an investigation on the spot conclusively confirmed the allegations. Continuing, Captain Dewar's letter said the writer would have dropped the dance iAci dents if no further incidents had occurred. He told Admiral Collard that harm had been done and that henceforth his ship must come first. In a further reference to the ladder incident, Captain Dewar said the admiral also remarked: “This ship.” He added that he would ask to have his flag removed. Next day Admiral Collard ignored the commander and others, and shouted his own orders. Nor did he return Captain Dewar’s salute. ARGUMENT ABOUT DANCE Admiral Collard cross-examined regarding Captain Dewar’s letter said that when he found the ladies sitting out while men were standing around, he drew Captain Dewar’s attention to it. Captain Dewar replied angrily that the commander had charge of the arrangements. Admiral Collard told him to make the commander do his job. He saw that the bandmaster was apparently sleepy. The music was dragging and the dance was becoming a “frost.” He told the bandmaster he had never heard such a awful noise called dance music. Nobody overheard him.

Admiral Collard emphatically denied having called the bandmaster an Indecent name. Further cross-examined he said the chaplain came to him on January 14 looking most worried. He asked if it were true that the admiral had called the bandmaster a He indignantly denied the charge, and asked who said so. The chaplain declined to say because he had been told officially. The admiral said he questioned Captain Dewar, who said Commander Daniel had told him. He then questioned the commander, who admitted that Admiral Collard did not call the bandmaster a , but accused him of saying, when the bandmaster had gone, that he would not have a like that on board his flagship. The whole affair had ended amicably with an exchange of dinner invitations. LADDER INCIDENT

Regarding the ladder incident Admiral Collard said that when he found his orders were not obeyed he summoned Captain Dewar, who came angrily. He drew the captain’s attention to the neglect of his orders, adding: “I am sick of you as flag-captain. Either you go or f shift my flag.” Captain Dewar blamed Commander Daniel, and became very angry and argumentative.

Admiral Collard denied that any of the incidents had happened in the hearing of other persons. He also explained why he gave his orders personally. When he was reboarding -he Royal Oak there were no officers in sight. He added that if it had been simply a letter from Captain Dewar he might have discussed the matter personally, but attached to the letter was such insubordination that he could not discuss it. He had no alternative but to convey it to the viceadmiral.—A. and N.Z.

rnual° r nf , an im P°rtant part in the ” a ' al . courts martial. Every officer to be tried, irrespective of rank S 1 “ r ‘ s h l sword to the court. After ?i 1 „V le 6 i' den . ce has been heard the court their Ending ““ memberE deliberate on V'l! l ™ ! be court resumes to deliver its fr™ i’v the accused Is brought in. and from the position of his sword on the table around which the members of the h?lJ rt r Elt ’ h a® kbows his face. If it is lying hilt toward the door through which he enters the accused officer knows he has been acquitted. If pointed toward him. thJ„ ° rd sienifl6s "guilty” and the court then passes sentence. The members of the court, from five cont S^' en * n num her, are comprised of captains or commanders from ships other |” a ° that in which the accused serves, in the case of a junior, or of captains

and admirals in the case of a senior officer. The Judge-Advocate (usually a deputy, judge-advocate officiates) is an accountant officer of senior rank. In this c*s« it would probably be the secretary to tht Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Station, a Paymaster-Captain. Tb« Judge-Advocate acts as legal adviser to the court, but has no say in the finding or in the assessment of the sentence. Captain Dewar, whose rank is equivi. lent to that of a colonel in the army, wsj in command of the Royal Oak. Commander Daniel’s rank is equal to that of a lieutenant-coloneL He was th* second in command. A rear-admiral ranks with a major-general.