The Daily News. THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1918. GENERAL MAURICE'S CHARGES.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 May 1918, Page 4

The Daily News. THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1918. GENERAL MAURICE'S CHARGES.

It can readily be conceived that a. sensation was caused in Britain on the publication of a letter by General Maurice in the columns of the London Daily Chronicle. The course taken has, it is said, created a grave precedent. Whether the charges levelled at the British Premier and Mr. Bonar Law can be substantiated or not, it is to be deplored that an officer of such high standing, who has held the very important post of Director of Military Operations, should have failed to recogn ; se that by resorting to the press to ventilate army matters with which he has been intimately connected, and charging Ministers with making misleading statements to the country on vitally important matters, is playing into the hands of the enemy. He first justifies his action on the ground' that a large number of soldiers, knowing the statements by the Ministers to have been incorrect, "this knowledge iajbieeding such <

disgust with the Government as can only end in impairing the splendid morale of our troops when everything should be done to raise it." He then proceeds to state that he considers his duty a:; a citizen over-vides his duty as a soldier, hence the publication of his letter in the hope that Parliament may order an inquiry. It is not necessary to discuss either the disciplinary aspect of the letter or the security of Ministerial lionor, as these matters are to be dealt with by separate tribunals. The question that looms large at present is the endeavor to wash out in public the reasons for the failure of General Gough to hold a vitally important position at a critical time in the war. It is claimed by one critic that General Gough was made a scapegoat for Ministerial blunders. That is quite apart from the real meaning of the charges. It is necessary to divest this action of General Maurice of all side issues, and confine his charges wholly to the alleged misstatements by Ministers. In examining a matter of this momentous nature, the key is frequently found in the real operative motive, but it ia always extremely difficult to lay this bare. It will be noticed, however, that the motive stated by General Maurice is the hope of an inquiry by Parliament, but other equally effective steps could have been taken that would have achieved the desired end without resorting to the press, and proclaiming to the world the existence of an alleged conflict of authority between the Government and the foremost military commanders, while to intimate that the morale of the troops is being impaired by Ministerial statements is demanding too great a strain on the credulity of the people. There is very great force in the contention that it would be impossible to carry on the Government if the words of Ministers are to be impugned by any and every officer who feels inclined to sacrifice his career while earning short-lived notoriety by bearding the highest and most trusted Ministers of the King. Soldiers and Ministers alike are sworn to allegiance, but how General Maurice can reconcile his loyalty and fidelity to the Crown with the agitation he has raised would seem to be beyond conception. This is not the time to wrangle over blunders or bring the Government into disrepute. General Maurice may of- may not have personal grievances. He may be actuated by high principles, but he is certainly lacking in the sense of fitness which should govern all responsible men, no matter what rank they hold. We cannot believe that "a large number of soldiers" have been affected by Ministerial statements, and such a general statement goes a long way towards creating the impression that the real motives connected with this regrettable move by General Maurice probably differ from the ostensible reasons put forward. It is not "playing the game" to quarrel with the referee while the issue is still undecided.