ROYAL OAK SENTENCES

Taranaki Daily News, 9 April 1928, Page 7

ROYAL OAK SENTENCES

E FEELING IN GREAT BRITAIN 1 VARIOUS VIEWS EXPRESSED P ACTION IN COMMONS URGED By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright. I. Received April 8, 5.5 p.m. s 4. and N.Z. London, April 7. r Although Mr. W. C. Bridgeman, First Lord of the Admiralty, announced that - the Admiralty statement on the Royal - Oak position would follow, it is unlikely that there will be any development . at present. Mr. Bridgeman is spending Easter in Normandy and will be there 3 at least a week. Captain Dewar and Commander Dan- . iey have telegraphed that they are 1 leaving for London from Gibraltar by the Ranpura on Sunday. Sir Sydney Hutchinson,when intert viewed, said: “The punishment may c prove nominal. I doubt whether the s public realise how Admiral Collard has r suffered.” Commander Kenworthy said: “If the . two men's future careers are to be unduly prejudiced I think the matter - ought to be raised in the House of . Commons.” . The Daily Chronicle urges Parliament . to draw the Admiralty's attention to . the regulations of the system of court- ! martials regarding naval discipline. The . fact that findings so completely opposed to the public sense of justice are poss sible, shows that amendment is needed, it says. The Daily Express says: “Public opi- . nion is that the whole incident is discreditable to the naval authorities. Mismanagement that permitted the impres- ■ sion that a mutiny was created out of a vulgar jazz band squabble deserves the strongest censure. Admiral Collard cannot be acquitted of a share of the responsibility for the incident and consequences. Captain Dewar and Commander Daniel broke the regulationsand earned their sentences, but their actions were prompted by excessive zeal and loyalty to the personnel, and for that reason their case deserves special consideration and they should be re-em-ployed at an early date.” The Daily Herald says: “It should not b e forgotten that the system of which Captain Dewar and Commander Daniel are the victims is the system under which less exalted ratings suffer even harsher treatment with the odds still more heavily weighted against them. For the latter there is no publicity, only punishment.” The Daily Telegraph says: “Public opinion has taken a much wider view than a court-martial is competent to take. It has asrived at the conclusion that these things ought never to have happened in connection with a service for whose reputation the eyes of the world and every patriotic British subject are jealously concerned. The statement from the Admiralty promised by Mr. Bridgeman is certainly necessary. It is hoped it will be of such a nature as to show that the conditions on the Royal Oak eannot I: regarded as typical of the morale and spirit of selfrestraint among the officers throughout the service.” ; The Morning Post does not doubt the justice of the decision and hopes the ' matter will be allowed to rest. i

CAPTAIN DEWAR'S DEFENCE. INTERPRETATION OF DISCIPLINE. A. and N.Z. Gibraltar, April 5. Spewing in his own defence Captain Dewar reminded the court that the charges were, firstly, accepting and forwarding a letter subversive of discipline, and/ secondly, accepting and forwarding a letter contrary to the King’s regulation and the Admiralty instructions. Captain Dewar 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 charges. “The prosecution has magnified one charge into two, of which the 'second includes the first,” said Captain Dewar. “If it fails both fail. It is excellent to have two strings to one’s bow, but the prosecution provided only one arrow. The . court must know that Commander Daniel’s letter was true. The idea of a captain of my seniority trumping up a charge is absurd.”

Captain Dewar, justifying the forwarding of the letter, said: “It was essential to stop the criticisms of Admiral Collard which were broadcast over the ship. I view discipline as reciprocal friendship amongst the various ranks, ensuring efficient, willing and intelligent co-operation in the labours and trials of our great service.” He said nothing could be more destructive to the spirit of discipline than the bullying and undeserved abuse of subordinates. “I treated Admiral Collard as a high, honoured guest, but how could I maintain authority if it was attacked in this manner? I was convinced that the incidents must be stopped, and I knew that if I went to Admiral Collard 1 would be bullied. I might have gone privately to the viceadmiral, but I do not believe in creep■ng up the back stairs. “Commander Daniel's letter painted a true picture which the prosecution has not produced a single witness to disprove, although they must have searched for them. Ail the evidence shows that I dutifully did everything to help Admiral Collard. I am very sorry for Admira Collard. Nothing he did deserves the scandal this case attaches to his name.”

The prosecution submitted that Admiral Collard’s behaviour was irrelevant. The plea of justification made by the defence tacitly admitted the offences. He added that every unfounded rumour regarding incidents had been exploited, and many unfair and untrue innuendoes made. Admiral Collard had a perfect right to find fault when his orders were not carried out. His method of fault-finding might or might not be open to question, but th© trials of notoriety might have been avoided by more deliberate reflection. Captain Dewar's certificates of service declared him to be a “zealous and efficient executive officer of excellentl Judgment, who will do well in the higher ranks.” Captain Dewar on hearing the sentence smiled.

Received April 9, 1.26 a.m. London, April 8. The early re-employment of Captain Dewar and Command r Daniel is anticipated by the Sunday Times. An Admiralty statement is expected to define the position with regard to Admiral Collard