DEWAR ALSO GUILTY

Taranaki Daily News, 7 April 1928, Page 13

DEWAR ALSO GUILTY

ONE CHARGE NOT PROVED ROYAL OAK COURT-MARTIAL DISMISSED FROM HIS SHIP WITNESSES TELL THE STORY By Telegraph—Press Assn —Copyright. Received April 7, 5.5 p.m. A.P.A. —United Service. London, April 7. Captain Dewar was found guilty by the naval court-martial of accepting and forwarding Commander Daniels’ letter to Vice-Admiral Kelly. The second charge of causing a breach of discipline was “not proved.” He was dismissed from the ship and severely reprimanded. A. and N.Z. Gibraltar, April 4. At the opening of the trial the prosecutor, Rear-Admiral Royle, objected to the inclusion in the court’s personnel of Rear-Admiral Mead, who participated in the preliminary inquiry, also of RearAdmiral Tomkinson, who had seen the preliminary papers. The court upheld the objection and replaced them with Captains Monroe and Bedford. It also upheld the objection to Rear-Admiral Collard’s presence, because he was a witness.

Captain Dewar often smiled while the famous letter was being read. He pleaded not guilty. Captain Dewar is conducting his own defence, with Mr. Kimball as advisory friend.

The first witness was Paymaster Lieutenant-Commander Crichton, the Captain’s secretary on the Royal Oak.

Captain Dewar, cross-examining him, asked: “Did you think me the sort of person to lose my temper with the admiral {’’—“Never.”

“Did you see evidence of indignation in the wardroom as the result of the incidents described in my letter!” — “Yes, certainly.” The prosecutor: “It was apparent to you that Rear-Admiral Collard and the captain were at loggerheads!”—“Yes.”

The next witness was Rear-Admiral Collard, who said his relations with Captain Dewar were perfectly correct from a service viewpoint, but were not intimate. He found it impossible to make friends with Captain Dewar, although he attempted it. The prosecutor: “Did you place implicit confidence in Captain Dewar!” Witness: “I ean’t say I did.” LETTER NOT ADMITTED. When the prosecutor objected to Captain Dewar quoting from Commander Daniel’s letter, Captain Dewar produced a letter from the Admiralty stating that they were sending Rear-Admiral Collard to Gibraltar to enable the defence to elicit the necessary facts. The court considered the Admiralty letter privately and announced that it would admit the evidence, provided references to third parties were kept out.

Rear-Admiral Collard said the Admiralty proposed Captain Dewar as flag captain. He did not know Captain Dewar previously, but raised no objection. He admitted saying he was fed up with Captain Dewar, because he did not reach his idea of what a flag captain should be. He should be the admiral’s right-hand man on every occasion. The only serious complaints were the dance and ladder incidents, but he was often forbearing, hoping to complete his year’s appointment without a breach. Despite the evidence at the previous trial Rear-Admiral Collard insisted that he did not call the bandmaster a . He said he was surprised to learn that five bandsmen were prepared to swear they heard the word used.

Captain Dewar said: “Imagine yourself in the place of the bandmaster! Would you not be discouraged?” Rear-Admiral Collard replied: “I really cannot imagine myself bandmaster.”

Witness denied threatening the chaplain with a court-martial for accusing him of using' the word, but he pointed out to the chaplain that it was a most serious thing to accuse him falsely. He did not remember telling the chaplain that severe imprisonment was given to people falsely accusing a flag officer. He congratulated Commander Daniel on his tactfulness in settling the incident, but did not thank him for “geting him out of a nasty hole.” Captain Dewar: If you had been a captain trying to make the ship efficient, would you not have been discouraged 1 Admiral Collard: No; I should have told the admiral I wished to go to another ship. FAILED TO RETURN SALUTE. Captain Dewar: Would not omission to return the captain’s salute affect discipline ! Admiral Collard: Emphatically not the discipline of a good ship. It does not depend on such trivial rubbish. Captain Dewar: What Is your definition of discipline! Witness: The present interpretation of discipline will be as the court laid down.

Captain Dewar: I respectfully submit that my protest be entered in the minutes against the limitations placed upon uiv cross-examination.

The prosecutor objected to Captain Dewar referring to the interview with Admiral Collard, because the conversation was privileged. - The president said he had given Captain Dewar the greatest possible latitude but was not prepared to let this go further. Captain Dewar again asked that ais protest should be recorded. Admiral Collard agreed that the captain was justified in reporting incidents prejudicial to discipline, but said ne should report verbally. A written complaint was justified only when all other methods were exhausted. He denied tell- , ing the court of inquiry that Captain : Dewar had been disloyal from the I moment he joined the Royal Oak. He admitted that he told the court that I Captain Dewar had nearly caused a e°l- : lision at Malta on March 8. by failing to give Admiral Collard certain information. , . Admiral Collard explained that the Royal Oak and the Ramillies were entering harbour by numbered buoys. He ordered the Royal Oak to enter first. Unknown to him the numbers of the buoys had been changed. The Royal Oak blocked the fairway. He had the utmost difficulty in stopping the Ramillies ,ia lime. A aoM captain, would

have told him he was sending in the ships in the wrong order. He was not aware that Captain Dewar had told a staff officer that a warning signal should have been sent the Ramillies, but he still considered Captain Dewar’ behaviour on that occasion was an example of deliberate disloyalty. He added that he considered an admiral could take charge anywhere. He thought that a fit case. The prosecution then closed. The master at arms gave evidence of a rumour on the mess decks that Admiral Collard had told Captain Dewar that he was of no more use than a midshipman. INTERPRETATIONS OF DISCIPLINE. THE ADMIRAL “OUT OF CONTROL.” Received April 6, 5.5 p.m. A.P.A.—United Service. Ihe closing part of the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Captain Dewar hinged on ideas of discipline. The prosecutor: You say. the interests of the ship would be the first consideration in the future? Captain Dewar, in reply, said.he meant that the .desire to avoid scandal affecting the admiral should be overriden by the necessity for considering the interests of the service or the ship as a whole, irrespective of the individual. Witness did not necessarily approve of Commander Daniel’s general remarks in the letter, but he thought it represented in an expressive form the state of affairs which he thought it, extremely probable did exist.

The prosecutor: Would you as a captain tolerate a letter from a lieutenant saying he looked forward to vindictive fault-finding from you! Captain Dewar: Commander Daniel’s letter did not say that, but indicated that that was the impression on the ship. If he had put it the other way I should have corrected it. Captain Dewar added: I 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 something terrible would happen if something were not flone. The prosecutor: How can you describe the incident of March 5 as a recurrence of the dance incident? Captain Dewar: Because both were due to uncontrollable fits of temper. The prosecutor: Do you consider your action tended to promote the welfare of the fleet?

Captain Dewar: As it turned out, no, but I thought so at the time. Certainly my action was not calculated to promote my own welfare.

The prosecutor: Would not your bearing aboard have made a difference if you had adopted the policy of “laugh and the world laughs with you?” Captain Dewar replied wearily: It would have made no difference.

Commander Daniel, looking pale and drawn after repeating the evidence given in his own case, was cross-examined. He denied that he was actuated by animosity towards Admiral Collard, but said he was sure Admiral Collard’s conduct was detrimental to morale and discipline. The prosecutor, questioning him regarding the wardroom conversations, quoted the dictum of Admiral Lord St. Vincent, which was prominent in, the settlement of the naval mutinies at the Nore and at Spithead in 1797: “I do not dread the seamen; it is the officers’ indiscreet and licentious conversation that produces our ills.”

Commander Daniel: That is very appropriate. Asked to give an example of the wardroom indignation, Commander Daniel said the senior officer remarked: “Admiral Collard might as well have been offensive to my wife.”

The Rev. Harry Goulding, chaplain, gave evidence. lie said he asked Admiral Collard to explain, his ungentlemanly action in insulting, in the presence of ladies, somebody not in a position to reply. Admiral Collard told me there were the severest penalties inflietable on flag officers, his accusers, and added: “I will have you court-martiall-ed.” Mr. Kimball: Did he send for Captain Goulding ? The chaplain: He dived for a hell but missed it. (Laughter.) During the greater part of the interview he was out of control. I had the greatest difficulty in remaining in tho cabin. (Laughter.) Six ratings indignantly complained to me that his power had been abused but that nobody complained of the actual expression used, which, none the less, is a technical matter. The term is very common in the men’s conversation generally. The chaplain added that the officers were furious because the men were cruelly insulted. He said: I heard Admiral Collar.) described so offensively, including “ little swine,” that I was obliged to stop the references.