Captain Guilty

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 323, 7 April 1928, Page 1

Captain Guilty

DISMISSAL AND REPRIMAND

Naval Court-Martial Ends

CAPTAIN G. B. DEWAR has been dismissed from his ship and severely reprimanded by the court-martial which tried him on charges resulting from the trouble on RearAdmiral Collard’s flagship, the Royal Oak. The sentence is the same as that passed on Commander H. M. Daniel.

By Cable. —Press Association. — Copyright.

LONDON, Friday. On the charge of accepting and forwarding a letter from Commander H. M. Daniel to Vice-Admiral Kelly, Captain Dewar was found guilty. The court found that the second charge had not been proven. This was brought 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. Captain Devyar was dismissed from the ship and ordered to receive a severe reprimand —a similar sentence to that imposed upon Commander Daniel. At the court-martial proceedings the closing part of the prosecutor’s crossexamination of Captain. Dewar hinged upon his ideas of discipline. The Prosecutor: You say the interests of the ship should be the first consideration in future ? Captain Dewar said he meant that a desire to avoid scandal affecting the admiral should be over-ridden by the necessity for considering the interests of the service on the ship as a whole, irrespective of the individual. Witness said he did not necessarily approve Commander Daniel’s general remarks in his letter, but he thought it represented in an expressive form the state of affairs which he thought it extremely probable existed. The Prosecutor: Would you, as captain, tolerate a letter from a lieutenant saying he looked forward to vindictive fault-finding from you?—Captain Dewar said Commander Daniel’s letter did not say that, but indicated that it was the impression on the ship. If he had put it the other way witness would have correcetd it. UNCONTROLLABLE TEMPER Witness said he did not desire it to be thought that he was engaged in a Machiavellian plot against Admiral Collard. He did not intend to convey the impression that the ship was in a state of latent mutiny, or that some-

thing terrible would happen if something were not done. The Prosecutor: How can you describe the incident of March 5 as a recurrence of the dance incident? — Captain Dewar: Beause both were due to uncontrollable fits of temper. The Prosecutor: Do you consider your action tended to promote the welfare of the fleet? —As it turned out, no. But I thought so at the time. Certainly my action was not calculated to promote my own welfare. Would not your bearing on board have made a difference if you had adopted a policy of “laugh and the world laughs with you” 7 —Captain Dewar replied wearily: It would have made no difference. DANIEL PALE AND DRAWN Commander Daniel, who looked pale and drawn, after having repeated the evidence he had given in his own case, was cross-examined. He denied that he had been actuated by animosity toward Admiral Collard, but said he was sure the admiral’s conduct was detrimental to the morale and discipline of the ship’s company. In questioning witness about the

wardroom conversations the prosecutor quoted the dictum of Admiral Lord St. Vincent, who was prominent in the settlement of naval mutinies at the Nore and Spithead in 1797: “I do not dread the seamen. It is the indiscreet and licentious conversation of the officers that produces our ills.” Commander Daniel replied: That is very appropriate. Asked to give an example of the indignation in the wardroom, he said a senior officer remarked: “Admiral Coilard might as well have been offensive to my wife.” AN ADMIRAL’S SNEER Navigating Commander Brownlow stated that Captain Dewar told him to anticipate Admiral Coilard*s wishes. He considered it correct to say the | officers were flaming with indignation, j He took no action, thinking it best to j let the steam blow off. Lieutenant - Commander O’Donnell! said Admiral Coilard did nor. salute ■ when he came on board on March 6 Moreover, he sneered when he was passing Captain Dewar. Speaking in his own defence, Captain Dewar reminded the court that the charges were firstly of accepting and forwarding a letter subversive of discipline, and secondly of accepting and forwarding a letter contrary to the King’s Regultaions and the Admiralty’s instructions. He pointed out that the second charge omitted the essential part of Article 11., namely, “tending to bring a superior officer into contempt,” which was sufficient to invalidate the charge. The prosecution had magnified one charge into two, of which the second included the first. If it failed, both failed. It was excellent to have two strings to one’s bow, but the prosecution had provided only one arrow. The court must know that Commander Daniel’s letter was true. The idea that a captain of witness’s seniority would trump up a charge was absurd. SORRY FOR HIS CHIEF In Justifying the forwarding of the letter Captain Dewar 3aid it was essential to stop the criticisms of Admiral Coilard, which were broadcast over the ship. He viewed discipline as a reciprocal friendship among the various ranks, ensuring efficient, willing and intelligent co-operation in the labours and trials of the great service. Nothing was more destructive of the spirit of discipline than the bullying and undeserved abuse of a subordinate. How could he maintain authority if he was attacked in this manner? He was convinced the incidents must be stopped and he knew that if he went to Admiral Coilard he would be bullied. He might have gone privately to the vice-admiral, but he did not believe in creeping up the back stairs. Commander Daniel’s letter had painted a true picture, which the prosecution had not produced a single witness to disprove, although it must have searched for them. All the evidence showed that he (Captain Dewar) had dutifully done everything he could to help Admiral Coilard. He was very sorry for him, and nothing he had done deserved the scandal this case attached to his name. SMILES AT SENTENCE The prosecutor submitted that Admiral Collard’s behaviour was irrelevant to the case. The defence's plea of justification tactitly admitted the offence. Every unfounded rumour regarding the incidents had been exploited and many unfair and untrue innuendoes had been made. Admiral Coilard had a perfect right ; to find fault when his orders were not | carried out. His method of faultj finding might or might not be open to | question, but the notoriety of the trial I might have been avoided by more de- ! liberate reflection. j Captain Dewar’s certificates of service declared that he was a zealous and efficient executive officer of excellent judgment, who would do well in the higher ranks. On hearing his sentence Captain Dewar smiled.—A. : and N.Z.-Sun. NAVAL LANGUAGE WHAT THE CHAPLAIN HEARD GIBRALTAR, Friday. The chaplain of the Royal Oak, the I Rev. Harry Goulding, at the Royal [ Oak court-martial, admitted having

heard some talk on board the ship. But the first he knew of the trouble was from a London newspaper. The ship’s company was feeling the case very deeply, but behaving sensibly. He said he asked Admiral Collard to explain his ungentlemanly action in insulting somebody who was not in a position to reply, in the presence of ladies. The admiral told him there were very severe penalties which could be inflicted on the flag-oflicers who were his accusers, and added: ”1 will have you court-martialled.” Counsel for accused, Mr. Kimball: Did he send for the captain? Witness: He dived for the bell, but missed it. (Laughter.) During tho greater part of the interview he was out of control. I had the greatest difficulty in remaining in the cabin. (Laughter.) “Six ratings indignantly complained to me that power had been abused. Nobody complained of the actual expression used, which, none the less, was a technical matter. The term used is very common in the men’s conversation generally.” Witness said the officers were furious because the men had been cruelly insulted. He had heard Admiral Coliard described so offensively—the expression used including “little swine” —that he was obliged to stop the references.—A. and N.Z.