HARD CASES AND RED-TAPE.
TN a letter to the editor, printed elsewhere, a correspondent directs our attention to what we may call without exaggeration a cruel case. Many stories are current about the harsh treatment financially of officers who have been disabled in the service of their country, but as we are unable to guarantee the truth of them we prefer to say no more than that many of the stories are circumstantial enough to make us feel uneasy and to justify a demand for inquiry. The story which we print elsewhere is on a different footing so far as we are concerned, as we have been able to satisfy ourselves of the accuracy of the statements. Not one of us at the beginning of the war would have thought it possible that a boy who joined the Army without a moment'a hesitation, caring not at all for his professional prospects, or indeed for anything but his immediate object of serving and saving the State, should be treated, when he is partially disabled for life, summarily or inconsiderately, much less harshly. We do not say that the. officer referred to in our correspondent's letter regards Iris own case as cruel or outrageous. He is probably disciplined enough, by the Army and by suffering, to accept his fate with a mouth tightly shut. The responsibility for the description of the case which a correspondent has laid before us is therefore entirely our own. Any epithets we use have nothing whatever to do with him. But we are certain that our readers will be as horrified as we are at the thought that a young officer who has given everything which he could to his country should be required to refund money to the War Office which he had legitimately supposed to be his pay, and which he had probably already spent on the incidental ex- penses of a long illness. At the beginning of the war we all felt that the scale on winch allowances were being made to the dependants of soldiers was an indication that the soldier himself, whether a man or an officer, would be treated very generously. Never before had such payments been made to men's families as have been made in this war. Never before have soldiers been so well cared for. All this was in accordance with the strong popular wish. " Nothing," said the public in sum- marizing the proper treatment of soldiers, " is too good for them." Private soldiers and N.C.O.'s who are disabled by wounds are, we know, recognized as a direct charge upon the War Office. The theory is that they shall be kept under a form of military control or discipline till medical treatment has either restored them or proved that it can do no more for them. The object is to fit them .for some appropriate civil employment, and thus, in whatever degree may be possible, to restore them to independence. Of course strict rules are necessary, and we imagine that just because -they are less elastic in the case of men than of officers the men have less substantial grievances than officers; who are treated as though they were normally in a state of independence, if not of wealth. It is of the officers, then, that 'we write, taking the case before us as a type of many similar stories. Moreover, we confine ourselves to the treatment of seriously disabled officers. Much, no doubt, might be said about the curious rulings under which the pay of officers in the field is sometimes reduced. We have heard of a Lieutenant in the Yeomanry who received a Captain's rank and pay for doing a Captain's work while his regiment fought in the trenches; but who after some two years had his local and temporary rank taken away, and was ordered to refund to the War Office the pay he had received while he was a Captain! That was a hardship for a young officer who had served most creditably, whatever the reason for the War Office demand may have been. We only know that it was not dissatisfaction with the record of the officer in question. But in any case the manipulation of officers' pay is a matter of very little moment compared with the treatment of disabled officers. The assumption that officers in the New Armies are men of means, who have large enough balances at their banks to enable them to carry on whatever happens, or who have fathers standing ready with cheque-books in their hands, is' an entire mistake. To spring suddenly upon a disabled boy the news that £90 too much has been placed to his credit, and that he must hand it back, is an outrage. It seems still' more cruel in view of the fact that only two-thirds of the wound pension of £50 a year has been received in two years. The present " democratic " Army Is not a-rich Army. In the old Army a large number of officers could afford to laugh at' the rules by which their pay was mysteriously regulated. They were only paying what they could afford for an ancient joke. But the conditions now are absolutely different.
As we have said, we certainly do not assert that the cruel treatment of a single officer is typical. We say only that it is typical of similar stories. We should like to know whether these stories, or any appreciable proportion of them, are true. We should also like to know whether- the War Office have established, or thought of establishing, a special Department for the consideration- of hard cases. Where men have given so much—have in so many instances sacrificed health and comfort and the hope of wealth—no hard cases ought to be allowed to remain. At least there should be no hard cases- which could be adjudged such by any Committee of reasonable' and humane men of the world. Rules, we admit again, are bound to be strict, but it is very undesirable that the adminis- trators of rules should be their slaves. A slavish administrator always victimizes others. Some one, we think, ought to be placed at the head of a special Department or Committee who would have enough authority to cut the bonds of red-tape from the hard cases. An officer not high enough or not made strong= enough for a work requiring much discretion and independence can really do nothing. We should like to see a Welfare Officer appointed who could teach the doubtful battles of the Pay Department where to rage. There may be all the necessary machinery now. But if there is, we suspect that the strong hand which combines humanity with authority is withheld. An ex-Field-Marshal would be a suitable officer for the very im- portant and highly discretionary post we have in mind. Lord Grenfell, for example, if he will forgive us the use of his name, would be the very type of man. The name of Sir Neville Lyttelton, among the Generals at home, also occurs to us as illustrating the qualities we mean.
We have written as persons who do not pretend to know the truth, but who want to emphasize on principle the importance' of scrupulously considerate treatment of disabled officers. We ought to say that we have no intention of becoming a conduit' for the conveyance of grievances either to the War Office or to the light of day. We could not investigate the truth' of the statements and nothing would be gained. If we printed' correspondence on the subject, we should open a sluice and devastate instead of irrigating the land to be cultivated. Nothing is decided by newspaper correspondence in these cases. A newspaper is not, and never ought to be, a Tribunal ; it is a watchdog, a giver of warnings, not a Judge. Trial by newspaper is as mischievous as it is pretentious. But- in putting these limitations on ourselves we appeal to the authorities more confidently to make very sure that no genuine grievances of disabled .officers go unredressed.
Previous page
