Lieutenant J. W. Crampton. who was wounded on Gallipoli and has latterly been on the Christchurch staff as signalling instructor, has received notice of his appointment as provost-marshal at Samoa. He left last evening for Auckland to join the next steamer for Apia. -NZ Herald, 8/11/1916.
2nd Lieut. J.W. Crampton is granted the honorary rank of captain while acting as Provost-Marshal and Judge of the Native Court in Samoa. -Dominion, 16/1/1917.
Lieutenant J. W. Crampton, who left New Zealand will the Main Body and was invalided to New Zealand with a gunshot wound in the back some twelve months ago, was sent to Samoa recently with the honorary rank of captain to act as provost-marshal and judge to the Native Courts of Samoa. Latest advice states that Captain Crampton is again returning to New Zealand for duty. -Star, 1/2/1917.
Second Lieut. (Honorary Captain) J. W. Crampton has relinquished the appointment of Provost Marshal and Judge of the Native Court in Samoa. -Dominion, 28/2/1917.
Lt. (temp.) J. W. Crampton, N.Z. Permanent Staff, is appointed Officer in Charge, Military Detention Barracks, Wanganui (5th March). -Press, 7/6/1918.
WANGANUI DETENTION BARRACKS.
THE THOMSON CASE.
The hearing of the charges against George Samuel Thomson in reference to an alleged trespass at the Military Detention Barracks, took place at the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr. J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M, The Court was filled with spectators.
Mr. C. C. Hutton appeared for the Defence Department.
The first two charges — that of being found in the vicinity of Military Detention Barracks for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining information, and that of entering upon such defences without permission of the officer commanding, were withdrawn.
The charges proceeded with were:
(1) That he did refuse to depart from the vicinity of the Military Detention Barracks on being requested to do so by the person in charge.
(2) That on the 19th June he did trespass on a building in the possession or use of the Crown, contrary to regulation No. 13 of the Regulations of November 10, 1914, made under the War Regulations Act, 1914.
The accused pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. Hussey.
The first charge was laid under the Defence Act, 1909. The charges were taken together.
James William Crampton, lieutenant in charge of the Wanganui Military Detention Barracks. Witness detailed the arms and equipment kept at the barracks, and which were for the purpose of holding men on warrant until released. The interned men were all members of the Defence Force on active service. Remembered June 19th, when he was told the defendant wanted to see him, and witness asked for him to be shown into his (witness's) office. Prior to this, on June 13th, he instructed the staff that Mr. Thomson was not to be given admittance. It was on that account that the sergeant on guard reported that Mr. Thomson was outside, and witness invited him in. On arrival, defendant asked if witness had received a letter from Major Lilley, and witness replied that he would not tell him even if he had received twenty letters. Defendant became excited, and put forth insolent demands and asked for information as to the contents of communications from Headquarters. Witness replied that he would have no discussion with Thomson, and again asked him to leave. He refused to leave, and persisted in. his argument. Then he said, "Very well, lieutenant, there's a way to get even with you and your bullying staff, and you will all go sky high." (or words to that effect). Mr. Thomson had backed towards the door as he said this, and then stood at the door. Witness ordered his senior N.C.O. (Sergt. Smith) to remove Mr. Thomson, and escort him from the premises. Mr. Thomson refused to go, and continued to talk about "getting even with me." Heard Sergt. Smith say, "Come along, Mr. Thomson, and get out." Mr. Thomson still took no notice till he received a roaring command from the sergeant, "Get out!" The sergeant then pushed him out without further delay, and witness heard Mr. Thomson say, "Don't put your hands on me, bully. I'm not one of your prisoners!" The sergeant took the man down to the gate. In consequence of what Smith said when he returned, witness ordered Corporal Parmenter to go down to the gate and order the man away. At the same time witness rang up the police and waited the return of Parmenter. Witness subsequently went to the gate with Parmenter. While at the entrance witness saw Mr. Thomson standing outside the gate, almost over the creek, and said to him, "Mr. Thomson, haven't you received my orders to depart from the vicinity of these grounds?" Defendant replied to the effect. "Come out here! I'll talk to you!" he again refused to leave, and witness had him placed under arrest, and taken back to the barracks.
Mr. Hussey: Do you know that where he was arrested is a public road? — I know it is under the bylaws of the Borough Council.
Mr. Hutton: I admit it is a public road.
To Mr. Hussey: Mr. Thomson was in the office, about three minutes when he was ordered off. Would not swear that the words he had given Mr. Hutton were the exact words used, or that they were spoken in the order in which he had given them.
To Mr. Hussey: It takes two minutes to walk from the office to the gate. Could not say that Thomson took only two minutes.
Mr. Hussey: You say Parmenter went down to the gate? — I ordered him to, but he did not go.
Mr. Hussey: How long after Mr. Thomson left the building on the first occasion did you go down? — About 5 or 10 minutes.
Mr. Hussey: Do you know that he went to the barracks with another gentleman that day? — Yes, Mr. Wills.
Mr. Hussey: You admitted him? — Yes.
Had Mr. Thomson been in the habit of visiting prisoners? He made his first visit on May 15th.
Whom did he visit? — Private Nixon.
Did you take any exception to his visiting the prison then? — I escorted him on that occasion to the room where he was to visit Nixon, and owing to his attitude I became suspicious.
There was some talk about ventilation? — Yes, I brought up the matter.
Was there any arrangement that he should call the following Wednesday? — No, but I arranged that Wednesday should be a visiting day from 2 to 4.15 p.m.
The 10th was a Wednesday? — Yes.
He called on the 22nd? — Yes.
Do you know whom he came to see? — Private Nixon. At the same time he asked to see two other men under detention.
Didn't he ask to see that particular person on the 15th? — No.
Mr. Hussey: He swears he did.
Witness: I swear he did not. He asked for the names of prisoners, and I refused to give them. I may add that I have reason to believe he got the name of a certain one from Private Nixon.
Were you present on the 22nd? — I won't swear, but I believe I was.
Did he mention the other person? —Yes — Moynihan, and wished to see him. I told him he had gone to Trentham that day.
He asked to see another person? —Yes, and I told him he also had gone to Trentham that morning.
He came again on May 29th, and was refused admittance? — Yes.
Mr. Hussey: Can you give an explanation of why he was not a proper person to be admitted.
Witness: I cannot. I have an entry in my official book.
The Magistrate: That has got nothing to do with the matter. There is to be another inquiry. The facts are that Thomson was in the barracks for a little time and was arrested outside the gate.
Mr. Hussey: When did you see Mr. Thomson, again? Witness: I was with Major Lilley, and we met Mr. Thomson in the Avenue. As an outcome of this —
Mr. Hussey: Did Major Lilley refer to the medical inspection of the barracks? — Not that I remember.
Did not Major Lilley give you instructions to admit Mr. Thomson? — He does not give orders to me. I am in sole charge. He suggested that I should admit Mr. Thomson.
Was no reference made to a notice in the "Maoriland Worker" dealing with Mr. Thomson's visits to the gaol? — I don't know. I don't read the paper; I would sooner read "Truth."
Did Mr. Thomson ask Major Lilley to get information as to the physical condition of the men? — I don't remember Major Lilley saying he could get the information.
Thomas Wm. Smith, of the Military Police, said he was on duty at the Detention Barracks at 4 o'clock on the 19th, and admitted Mr Thomson to Lieut. Crampton's office. He heard Mr Thomson ask on whose authority he had been refused admittance, and on the lieutenant replying "On my authority," Mr Thomson argued about the lieutenant's powers, etc. When ordered to leave, he said "I know how to deal with you, lieutenant, and your crowd of bullies." The lieutenant then ordered witness to remove Mr Thomson, who went out under protest, making remarks the whole way about militarism and saying he would put the officers up sky-high. At the gate Mr. Thomson wanted to know about the boundary, and witness advised him to get clear away. He said he was a free citizen of New Zealand, and would stay there as long as he liked.
To Mr, Hussey: He put his hand on Mr Thomson's shoulder, but did not use force. If Mr Thomson had wanted it he would have got it. It was all the same to witness, who was simply doing his duty. Mr Thomson said, on the way to the gate, that he would put them all up sky-high.
Corpl. Frank Parmenter; in the Military Police, said that on the 19th inst. he heard Mr Thomson say to Sergeant Smith, "Don't push me, you bully. I'm not one of your prisoners." Later witness went with Lieut. Crampton to the gate. Mr Thomson was standing about 20ft. out. Lieutenant Crampton said, "Haven't you got my orders to depart from the vicinity of the gate?" Mr Thomson replied, ''Come out here, and I'll talk-to you." Witness was then ordered to arrest Mr Thomson, which he did.
Mr Hussey: How many orders did you get? — One, to arrest Mr Thomson.
This concluded the evidence for the prosecution.
The Magistrate: It seems to one that there is nothing in the case. The man went to the office, and was ordered out. He did not go like a shot out of a gun, but he went slowly, and perhaps spoke more than was good for him. He was arrested on the public street. It was raining at the time, and he could have done no harm, standing in the rain. The longer he stood there, the worse it would have been for him. I should say that was sufficient punishment.
After Mr Hutton had addressed argument regarding "armed force," Mr. Hussey called
George Samuel Thomson, who said that on the 19th he went to the prison with the object of seeing Tom Moynihan. He was accompanied by Mr. Wills, of Hawera. At the door Sergt. Smith admitted Wills, and on returning asked witness his business. Witness said he wished to see Moynihan. He was told that the man had gone to Trentham that morning. Witness then asked to see Lieut. Crampton. As that officer was busy, witness walked up and down outside. "I was then admitted to Lieut. Crompton's office. I asked him if it was correct that the sentry had been ordered not to admit me. The lieutenant said 'Yes.' I then asked of he had had any communication from Major Lilley, with whom the Lieutenant knew I had communicated. He replied that even of he had he would refuse to answer. I then said 'I take it, then, you have not had instructions from Major Lilley.' The answer I got was an order given to Sergt. Smith to take me out."
Mr Hussey: Were your demands made in an insulting manner? — No.
Mr Hussey: Why did you ask? Witness: Because on the previous Friday, when I was in Wellington seeing the "Maoriland Worker" people, for whom I act in Wanganui, I made an appointment with Major Lilley, and discussed with him a letter I had written about extended authority, also in regard to whether or not verbal instructions given to Lieut. Crampton were still in force. The letter was to the following effect: "June 11th.: — Major Osborne Lilley. — Dear Sir, — Yesterday afternoon, in the course of conversation with Lieut. Crampton, of the Wanganui Military Prison, he told me that I could not see Moynihan without written permission from you. Yesterday afternoon I wired Mr H. E. Holland, M.P., to ask you to wire instructions to Lieut. Crampton before tomorrow for me to see Moynihan. You will remember that when you saw me personally in Wanganui you told Lieut. Crampton that you considered I should be allowed to see the prisoner, and you can imagine my surprise when visiting the prison yesterday, to be told by the O.C. that he had no written instructions for me to see Moynihan. I thought your verbal instruction would have been sufficient. In regard to ministers oi religion, I understand they can visit any time. Seeing there are a number of Socialists in the prison, could not. therefore, see same privilege be extended to me to see Moynihan, Fitzpatrick and others? You will understand I have no desire to upset the discipline of the prison." Continuing, witness said that on the 12th he was admitted. Sergt. Smith put him out. Witness did not delay. He did not back out, as the lieutenant alleged.
Mr Hutton: When Lieut. Crampton and Sergt. Smith say the former told you to go, it is not true? — It is not.
You were talking pretty volubly? — I was not.
You are a fairly voluble talker? — At times.
Did you not keep on talking when in Crampton's room? — I said no more in his room than I have mentioned in my evidence.
Mr Hutton: Did you say "There is a way to get even with you and your bullying staff, and I'll put you skyhigh"?
Witness: I have never used the words "sky-high."
You will swear you did not say they would go "sky-high"? — I will swear I never used that expression.
Mr Hutton: Then they must be committing deliberate perjury? Witness: I can't help what they are doing. I say I did not use the term.
Mr Hutton: You are a Socialist? — I am.
A militant Socialist? — I am a Socialist.
A Red Fed.? — I don't know what you call a Red Fed. It's a newspaper term, so far as I know.
What do you understand by a "newspaper term"? — I understand it's a newspaper term for the old Miners' Federation which existed years ago, but does not exist to-day.
Mr. Hutton: When Lieut. Crampton and Corpl. Parmenter came back to the prison gate, didn't the lieutenant ask you if you had got his order to leave?
Witness: He told me to get out.
What did you say? — I told him that if he would kindly come forward I would like to have a word with him.
Did you go away? — Why should I go away, when I had asked the man to come and speak to me? He came a few steps towards me, and then apparently changed his mind, and told me to go.
Mr Hussey: Who were you waiting outside the gate for? — Mr Wills.
Donald Kerr Porter, Quartermaster-Sergt. at the Detention Barracks, said that Smith, Parmenter and he were in the orderly room, next the O.C.s office, when Mr Thomson entered. Witness heard Mr Thomson ask a question with reference to Major Lilley. Mr. Thomson did not speak very loudly, and witness heard no more.
Mr Hussey: Was Smith in the same position as you? — No: he was at the door.
How long was Mr Thomson in the office? — About a minute.
He just went in and then out? — Yes.
Did he speak loudly when he went out? — No; otherwise I should have heard everything he said to the O.C.
The Magistrate: Did you hear the O.C. order him out? — I heard him order Sergt. Smith to put him out.
Mr Hussey: What did Mr Thomson do when he was ordered out? — He went out.
Did he dwell at the door? — He came straight through, so far as I know.
Mr Hussey: Did you see him at the gate? —I saw him from the window. He was standing outside the gate.
Mr Hussey: You saw Smith going out with Mr Thomson? —Yes.
Did Smith hustle him? — He did not use any force.
What did he say? — "Go on; get out."
Wm. Wills, of Hawera, said that on the day of the trouble he was transacting business at Mr Thomson's office, when he mentioned that the wife of one of the prisoners at the Detention Barracks had asked him to visit her husband. Mr Thomson offered to take him over to the barracks. Witness was admitted. Lieut.' Crampton asked it witness was a friend of Mr. Thomson's. Witness replied that he had seen him only once or twice. Lieut. Crampton was very courteous, and witness was allowed to have a long interview with the prisoner. On leaving the building, he looked for Mr Thomson, and was surprised to hear that he was under arrest. He had left his bag at Mr. Thomson's office, and had to accompany the latter and a constable to the office. Thence he went to the Police Station, where he went bail for Mr. Thomson.
THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
Mr. Hewitt, S.M., said: At the outset I feel there is nothing much in this case. It has assumed exaggerated importance because of other things hinging on, or, rather, in connection with it. This man went to the barracks — supposing we take what the prosecution said is correct — and saw the commanding officer. He talked more than he should. The O.C. told him to go. He talked a little more, and went as far as the door. The O.C. told a sergeant to put him out, and the result was he got himself out on to the street. That is all there is in that. After trespassing, he found himself where he ought to be— on the street — and very shortly, too. So there is nothing in it." Mr. Hewitt said his opinion regarding the legal position urged by Mr Hutton was that it would necessitate very wide stretching of the Act to make it apply to the defendant. He would, however, look further into the subject, if counsel wished him to; but at the very outside, if Mr Hutton's contention were proved sound, he would only convict and discharge the defendant. -Wanganui Chronicle, 25/6/1918.
The Letter which was Sent to "Truth"
What apart from the trendy of the Wimmera might have been considered the sensation of the week was the publication m the "Maoriland Worker," the "Evening Post," and "New Zealand Times" of allegations of brutality to the conscientious objectors confined' at the Wanganui Detention Barracks. It is perhaps due to Mr. H. S. Holland, M.P., that the matter has been made public in the press, inasmuch as that his allegations were contained in a letter to the Minister of Defence (Sir James Allen), urging on the Minister the necessity of receiving a deputation concerning the treatment of the conscientious objectors and protesting against any secret investigation into the allegations made. While "Truth" does not wish to rob Mr. Holland of any of the credit due to him, and recognises that Mr. Holland's duty as
A PUBLICIST AND POLITICIAN, demands that he should, if he feels justified in taking the course, expose the ill-treatment of prisoners, military or otherwise, it might just as well be pointed out that "Truth" moved in the matter over a month ago, with the result that Sir James Allen has ordered a Magisterial investigation.
Towards the end of May we received a lengthy letter signed, or purporting to be signed, by nine prisoners at the Wanganui Detention Prison, which made grave allegations of brutality towards the prisoners. Not only was "Truth" requested to publish the letter, but it was urged by the mother of one of the conscientious objectors to have the matter or the grave allegations brought under the official notice of Sir James Allen. The communication was duly set up in this office, read and revised, and a printer's proof was forwarded to the Censor, Colonel Gibbon. CMG., and the official version was awaited. We considered this the proper course to adopt, inasmuch as we proposed to publish the allegations and the official reply simultaneously. Moreover, on May 27 last, "Truth" forwarded under cover of letter a proof of the printed letter to Sir James Allen. It is now known that following the receipt of "Truth's" printer's proof of the conscientious objectors' letter, that the Adjutant-General's Department immediately instituted inquiries into the allegations, and has since ceaselessly been prosecuting those inquiries. A military officer, Major Osburne Lilly, went to Wanganui, made investigations, and reported that the allegations made were exaggerated.
It is also known that a report was received from Captain J. W. Anderson, medical officer, Detention Barracks, Wanganui, who also supported the contention that the allegations were exaggerated. However, the following is the letter received by "Truth," and signed by nine men:
Are the Allegations Gross Exaggerations? — A Demand for a Public Inquiry
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
Alleged Brutal Treatment.
At Wanganui Detention Barracks.
Dear "Truth," — We desire, through the medium of your valuable paper, to draw the attention of the people of New Zealand to the treatment meted out to the conscientious objectors at the Wanganui Detention Barracks. The objector naturally considers he is not a soldier, but the officer in charge of the barracks, Lieutenant Crampton, tries to impress on him that he is a soldier, and as such has to obey implicitly any order, military or otherwise, given by his superior officers.
Two of our number were ordered at different times to
DON THE UNIFORM, and, of course, flatly refused. So Lieutenant Crampton resorted to what no doubt appeals to him as British fair play. He got his specially-picked bullies to work on the objectors, and forcibly dressed them, not wasting any time in being over-gentle during that operation. The first of the victims was handcuffed, and then being thrown against the wall of the cell on his head being momentarily stunned. After coming round, and still refusing to put the uniform on, he was further knocked about, and finally stripped of his own clothing and forcibly dressed in the King's uniform.
The next objector was dealt with on a Sunday morning ("the better the day, the better the deed"). A Corporal came round with a uniform, and ordered this man to put it on, and, with his refusing, three or four of he heroes got in and put it on for him. He tore it off again, and then they employed their bulldog pluck and sailed into him fists, boots, and all, one cur kicking him over the heart, from the effects of which, he still suffers, though it is nearly three weeks since it happened. After dressing him again they fired him -
INTO THE "DUMMY" to await the arrival of the O.C. In the interval the parson arrived at barracks to hold church service, at which the majority of the guards, along with the O.C, were present, taking part in the singing of hymns and bowing their heads in prayer. No sooner was the service over and the parson gone, however, than they began to torture their victim again. The O.C. ordered him to do two hours' packdrill for refusing to put on the uniform. They fastened the sixty pound pack on his back, and ordered him to take a rifle and march round the yard. He refused to carry the gun, so it was tied to his side, and, as he then refused to march, he was pushed, punched and kicked, and dragged by the hair of the head for over an hour. These ruffians, who call themselves British soldiers, delight in their work, knowing perfectly well that there's safety in numbers. The yard, which has been very aptly named by the O.C. "the slaughter yard," is about 50 feet by 20 feet, and is surrounded by a 12 feet wall. When approaching a wall it is a favorite practice of these heroes to give the objector a good send-off, so that he cannot help but collide with the wall, (and if his face comes in contact with it so much the better) the officer, meanwhile, encouraging them with exhortations to
"PUSH HIS B_____ HEAD through the wall if he won't walk." Should the victim happen to be pushed down, as this one was on several occasions, he is kicked until he gets up again. This chap also had the rifle bumped against the side of his head until there was very little skin left on one of his ears, because he refused to carry the rifle properly. The language used by these heroic torturers during these performances, which, if committed by Germans, would be called "brutal atrocities," is absolutely disgusting.
The following day, another objector arrived from Wellington, in charge of Sergeant Smith, of the Red Caps, and late, coal-dealer of Petone, Lieutenant Crampton's right-hand man. On refusing to do certain things against his principles, he was forcibly dressed in denims, handcuffed and then dragged round the yard by means of pullthrough ropes, round his neck, which nearly choked him. He was kicked and punched at the same time, and also pushed against the wall with sickening thuds, until his face on both sides was like a piece of raw steak and drops of blood were to be seen all round the yard and also on the walls. The O.C., who was m attendance all through these brutalities, seemed to enjoy it immensely and encouraged his hired bullies to greater efforts.
"AH, THE SIGHT OF BLOOD does my eyes good," he said, as the poor, hapless victim was being dragged round, bleeding profusely from his contacts with the walls. After about half-killing this man they finished up by giving him a cold bath. A still later arrival had a very narrow escape from perhaps a grievous injury. He has a badly diseased hand and arm, and how he was ever passed by a doctor as fit, is beyond any sane man's comprehension, his arm being almost useless. This man had been ordered to be taken to the "slaughter yard," there to await the coming of the O.C, when he would have received a gruelling the same as the others. The doctor, who always examines new arrivals, luckily arrived, just before the performance started, and, on examining the man, ordered that he should not be ill-treated, much to the chagrin of his intending persecutors. Now, "Truth," we desire that you give as much publicity as possible to the state of affairs existing at Wanganui. We are not sure, but we think this officer is taking a lot of responsibility on his own shoulders. We would like to have
INQUIRIES MADE INTO THIS MATTER. We do not know whether the Government is aware of what is going on in Wanganui. This man Crampton might think he is making soldiers, but in reality, he is manufacturing rebels. Hoping you will make a move in this matter and stop this brutal treatment of conscientious objectors.
— We remain, yours sincerely,
THOS. MOYNIHAN
T. BELL
J. CASEY
H. WILSON
R. G. HACKETT
A. BRATON
J. FITZPATRICK
J. BOYLE McNICHOL.
P.S. — While these brutalities are going on in the yard the rest of the detention prisoners were always locked up in their cells, but could always hear what was going on. Five of us have already been through the mill.
— "THE BOYS."
"Truth" is informed by the Defence Department that Captain Anderson, the medical officer at the Wanganui Detention Barracks, considered the statements made to be
EXAGGERATIONS OF INCIDENTS that had probably happened in the barracks. He was aware that force was being used to compel the prisoners to wear the uniform and drill, and that Pack Drill was imposed as a punishment in certain cases, and having been ordered, had to be carried out. The doctor is also said to have reported that he would have observed any signs of excessive force, if it had been used, and would have reported it to the Officer Commanding, but did not observe any signs of excessive force having been used. He would also have taken action with a view of having a cessation of force being employed, but the occasion did not arise. Generally speaking, the allegations are not supported by the medical officer, who declares that so far as his knowledge goes, the assertions in the letter to "Truth" are grossly exaggerated. The Officer Commanding is declared to be a stern man, and the opinion is expressed that sternness was necessary in dealing with the class of men in his charge. Moreover, it has been gleaned that the prisoners, when asked if they had any complaints to make, replied that they had none to make.
However, from what "Truth" concludes, Sir James Allen is not satisfied with the reports made to him, and be has ordered an inquiry to be made by Mr. Hewitt, S.M. It is clear to "Truth" that so far as the treatment of the conscientious objectors are concerned a crisis has been reached, and the allegations made are such that only the fullest and the widest public investigation will suffice. -Truth, 6/7/1918.
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
HOW "TRUTH" FORCED AN INVESTIGATION.
A demand for the Fullest Publicity.
Of late more or less mysterious statements from an official source have appeared in the daily newspapers concerning the treatment of conscientious objectors, i.e., those who have wilfully disobeyed military orders and who, for their disobedience, have been imprisoned at the Wanganui Gaol, the gaol, by the way, which is being utilised for the detention of military service objectors. The effect of the official statements, or inspired statements, which have appeared in the daily press has created in the public mind a desire to learn what all the trouble is about, and the nearest approach made to satisfy public curiosity is the re-publication of an article from a Wanganui journal, indicating that
SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF ILL-TREATMENT of the conscientious objectors have been made, in addition to which the journal referred to has had something to say on our local "Prussianism."
"Truth" feels now that more than ordinary interest has been aroused in the matter that it should state as plainly as possible what it is that has caused the greatest concern manifested by the officials. Some time ago we received a statement purporting to be signed by nine contentious objectors, who were undergoing terms of imprisonment at the Wanganui Gaol, in which grave allegations were made against the military officials at the prison. These allegations, if true, called for immediate action, and "Truth" took prompt steps. The allegations contained in the letter were brought under the notice of the higher military authorities in order that, side by side with the allegations of the conscientious objectors, could be published the official version. To date "Truth" has not received an official version for publication. However, not content with bringing the matter under the attention of the responsible military authorities, "Truth," in compliance with a request made, brought the conscientious objectors' complaints under the notice of Sir James Allen, Minister of Defence.
Now, it is interesting to observe what has followed. "Truth" cannot altogether be ignored in all matters, and on more than one occasion the military authorities have been pressed to give their side of the story, because, to put it as plainly as possible, "Truth" did not intend to be put off indefinitely. We have gathered that a military official was dispatched to Wanganui immediately upon receipt of "Truth's" complaint. He found that though force had been resorted to by the military officers to compel obedience to their orders, he concluded that the allegations of ill-treatment were
GREATLY EXAGGERATED. It was also found necessary to have a medical report made, but "Truth" is unable to say with what result.
Now the latest statement on the subject has been made by Sir James Allen, and he has declared:
"I had Departmental inquiries made from the military and medical points of view, both of which were satisfactory, but I feel sure that further inquiry is necessary. I have therefore arranged with the Minister of Justice to enable a Magistrate, Mr. J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., of Wanganui, to make full inquiry into the conditions. The inquiry will begin immediately. Whatever has been remitted to me will be sent on to the Magistrate."
Incidentally, it is gathered that the inquiry will not be public, and the Minister declared that the public could trust the authorities to do what was right. What authorities, Sir James Allen does not say. Does he mean the military authorities? At any rate, "Truth" is glad to note that the Wanganui Second Division League is moving the matter, and during the week carried a resolution urging that the
INQUIRY SHOULD BE HELD IN PUBLIC.
"Truth" offers its protest against any secret inquiries. Let us have all the facts, and let the public judge for themselves. The fact that Sir James Allen feels that, despite the inquiries made by the military and medical authorities, a further inquiry is necessary indicates that the Acting-Prime Minister and Minister of Defence is not satisfied, and we can hardly express surprise at that. -Truth, 19/7/1918.
Camp or Starvation?
Weird Ways at Wanganui.
The following additional letter has been received, signed by all the detention prisoners confined in Wanganui gaol at the time the letter was written:
Dear "Truth," — The men who have signed their names to this paper are living here in a state of semi-starvation. That being so, we ask the "People's Paper" to voice our complaint, and see if something cannot be done to alleviate such a state of things as now exists here. As satisfaction cannot be got by complaining to those in authority as gaolers over us, our only hope is in getting you to do the best you can on our behalf. We quite understand we are doing detention for various breaches of the military law, but that is no reason why they should keep men who are all doing hard labor drill, wood-chopping, etc., on
THE VERGE OF STARVATION. Here is our regular day's rations: Breakfast, three-quarters-of-a-pint of porridge, one slice of bread (tin loaf size), about half an inch thick, with very small bit of butter, and a cup of weak tea. Two ten-quart billies of porridge, partly filled and very thin, have to do fifty men — 38 detention prisoners and twelve of the staff. Less than six pounds of meal are used to make the two billies of porridge. From that you can see that it works out at a very small allowance per man. Dinner: Three-quarters-of-a-pound of meat (p'r'aps), with small quantity of vegetables, half-slice of bread and cup of tea. Supper: Two slices of bread and butter and cup of tea. The butter is very shy, and there is never. enough to make the bread palatable. The food we do get is clean and well-cooked, but you can see for yourself that it is a considerable way from being sufficient, and that is
OUR ONLY COMPLAINT. We have no higher authority to appeal to than the O.C, of this place, and we think someone of higher rank than he ought to visit this place at short intervals to investigate the complaints of the prisoners. Seeing that "Truth," by its able appeal for justice to the men in detention, has been able to secure better treatment for conscientious objectors confined m this place, we hope it will be successful m having our grievance removed.
— We beg to subscribe ourselves
J. MORRIS
A. LIDDLE
F MARSHALL
L. SAUNDERS
G. CAMEN
T. McCALLUP
R. CUBAS
J. CLARKE
T. STACEY
J. DOOLEY
E. TAYLOR
C. H. BENNETT
D. KENDALL
B. MANSEY
C. A. PORTER
A. ROSS
J. H. JONES
E. HANSEN
R. RAMSAY
D. COSTIGAN
R. SCOTT
H. BRYANT
J. BENNIE
J. LUNAY
J. GRANT
J. D. BARCLAY
R. MOXHAM
L. J. BENNETT
W. M. COLTON
J. JOHNSTONE
J. TAYLOR
T. SKINNER
J. COTTER
T. O'LEARY
G. CAFFERY
A. PETERS
A. FLINT
J. R. HUGHES
L. D. MOUSLEY
The following is the reply of the Defence Department to the above letter: The men responsible for the appearance of the above document have set themselves the task of irritating and annoying the Defence authorities, and are prepared to do and say anything to accomplish this object. They have not hesitated even to add fictitious names to the letter. Furthermore, investigation has shown that several prisoners refused to associate themselves with the attempt to foment trouble, on the ground that the ration supplied was sufficient, and they accepted the reduced scale as part of their punishment; yet, notwithstanding this, the names of these men were added to the letter without their consent. During mealtimes complaints are asked for, and if any are made they are immediately dealt with. The scale of rations as approved by statute is strictly adhered to, except that the bread ration has been increased to 1lb. This increase took effect as from January 6, 1918. It would seem as if the letter under review was written outside the gaol. Whether this is so or not, the fact is the complaints made are
ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT FOUNDATION. They are made by unscrupulous and discredited men who are of sat purpose up against military — and indeed all other authority.
It is regrettable that valuable time and newspaper space should be wasted at the instigation of men, who after fair and impartial trial by court-martial, have been sentenced to various periods of detention for refusing military duty. Practically the whole of these men deserted from his Majesty's forces, the punishment for which, at the front, would prevent any malicious newspaper controversy. The treatment these men are deceiving daily is both humane and firm and strictly in accord with regulation and instruction laid down by competent authority. -Truth, 27/9/1918.
Some military prisoners, (says the Wanganui "Chronicle") think that now peace is near at hand they will be released from gaol. Perhaps before long, however, they will realise that they will have to serve their full sentences. It is the "after war" period that will be hardest for conscientious objectors and Red Feds to beat. Lately, at the Waipukurau camp, which, is an offshoot of the Wanganui detention barracks, there has been a tendency to kick over the traces. Men are sent there for such useful work as roadmaking to returned soldiers' farms. One day, a week or so ago, a squad of men took it into their heads to refuse to march to work. A conscientious objector was the ringleader. The scone which followed must have been something like a Wild West drama. Argument being of no use, the guard pulled out his revolver and fired into the ground behind the man. He jumped about two feet into the air, and thereafter his conscientious scruples troubled him no more. All the men. however, were railed back to Wanganui, where they quickly came to their senses, and were sent to camp again. On Wednesday evening four other men arrived back for having declined to do certain work. -Ashburton Guardian, 20/11/1918.
CAMP CRUELTIES.
REMOVAL OF STAFF
WELLINGTON, December 6.
"What punishment has been meted out to the men. responsible for the cruelties practised on the men detained in Wanganui gaol?" asked Mr L. M. Isitt of the Minister of Defence in the House of Representatives to-day. Sir James Alien said that the report of the Commissioner had been adopted, and one of the main items of the report was that the staff should be removed. The staff had been removed with the exception of the command, who had been delayed on account of the epidemic. As soon as possible he would be removed.
Mr Isitt: Are they dismissed or merely transferred to another position? The Minister: I don't know about that: the order was to remove them.
Mr Holland asked the Minister whether he would lay on the table of the House all the papers in connection with Lieutenant Crampton's term of office at Samoa. The Minister said that he would be happy to table any papers which were not confidential. -Ashburton Guardian, 7/12/1918.
THE OBJECTORS.
TREATMENT IN WANGANUI BARRACKS.
MAGISTRATE'S CONDEMNATION.
REPREHENSIBLE METHODS.
[From Our Correspondent.] WELLINGTON, December 6.
The report of Mr J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., on the allegations of ill-treatment. of prisoners in Wanganui Detention Barracks, is that the allegations are substantially true.
"I knew," says Mr Hewitt, "that I might expect to meet exaggeration on one hand and prevarication on the other, and I approached the inquiry with this in mind, checking the statement of one against that of another, and examining each person with reference to the statements of others. I have been able to discover little or no exaggeration in the statements of the prisoners. So far as I have been able to check them they are fair and truthful. On the other hand, I am satisfied that many of the statements made to me by members of the barracks staff were untrue.
"It may be well to state that although none of the men was seriously injured, it is possible, for one who knows how, to inflict severe punishment without leaving many marks, and that is, I think, what happened in these cases. Moynihan and Donovan are spoken of as determined Irishmen, who had set themselves to defy the authorities by refusing to wear the uniform or to drill. These men were ordered two hours' pack drill. Neither of them stood it a full hour. Donovan is said to have been a man who in resisting capture had fought with two policemen, and Moynihan is described as something of a pugilist: I am satisfied that it would take something more than moral suasion to reduce Moynihan to subjection if he had made up his mind to resist, yet he and Donovan in less than an hour were transformed from determined and defiant objectors to obedient and well-conducted prisoners. The amount of force used in each case would, of course, depend to a great extent on the opposition shown.
"Generally speaking, 'breaking in' was accomplished in this way; A weighted pack was put on the prisoner's back and a rifle fastened to his side by means of handcuffs and a piece of cord, one handcuff being attached to the stock of the rifle and the other to the prisoner's wrist. The barrel was tied by a cord to his shoulder. If he was wearing uniform, instead of being tied to the shoulder the barrel was passed through the shoulder strap. The prisoner was then ordered to march, and if he did not march he was pushed from behind and helped along by the arms round the yard. When he came to a corner he was pushed so as to bump against a wall, often so that he would strike it with his head. At times he was punched and thumped on the back and on the neck, and his heels were trodden on. In some cases he was kicked. In Donovan's case, which I consider the worst, a rope was used by which to pull him round. Water was thrown on him while on the ground, and he was dragged for some distance along the floor of the yard. Beaton also was pulled round the yard by means of a cord, and he, Moynihan and Donovan were caught and pulled by the hair. From time to time the men would be stopped and asked if they would wear the uniform and do rifle drill, and if they refused or would hot reply they were driven round the yard again until they were worn out and exhausted and gave in."
Amongst other things the Magistrate finds the following matters proved: —
1. That on the occasion on which Wilson was forcibly dressed in his cell he was handcuffed, and while so handcuffed was knocked against the wall of the cell by Corporal Parmenter so as to strike the wall with his head.
2. That Moynihan was forcibly dressed on three occasions on the Sunday on which he was dealt with in the yard, he having between times torn off his uniform or part of it; that these dressings resulted in a general melee or, as one of the guards describes it, a "mixup"; that while these things were going on Moynihan, no doubt, received some knocks, that he had his head knelt on by one of the guards, and that he received a kick on the chest. I am of opinion that the kick or knock was one of the general results of the scuffle, and was not intentional.
3. That Badger and Pallesen were dressed in uniform against their will, but that, as they offered no resistance, they received no real rough treatment.
4. That Badger had a rifle handcuffed to his wrist, and that he was kicked and punched by Sergeant Smith while being drilled in the staff yard.
5. That on the occasion spoken of in prisoner Carian's statement, and in the circumstances and in the manner described therein he was kicked by Guard Williams.
6. That Fitzpatrick was ill-treated in the yard by Lieutenant Crampton and Sergeant Smith. I am unable, owing to Fitzpatrick not being available, to ascertain full details of this ill-treatment, but I am satisfied that as a result of what happened in the yard Fitzpatrick was bruised on the arm and was bleeding at the ear.
7. That prisoners Badger and Pallesen were spoken to by Lieutenant Crampton on the occasion of his taking their particulars in the office and by others of the Staff on other occasions in the manner described in their statements, and that this treatment was in ways as hurtful to them as was physical ill-treatment to other prisoners.
8. That McConville was assaulted by Lieutenant Crampton in the yard while undergoing punishment drill. I am unable to sav whether McConville was actually struck by the rifle, but I am satisfied that Lieutenant Crampton caught McConville by the throat, pushed his head against the wall, and at least threatened to strike him, and that the object of this assault was to frighten McConville into taking uniform and kit when it should be offered to him on his arrival at Trentham, and was not done for anything McConville was doing or had done or omitted to do in the yard.
"It was contended by Lieutenant Crampton," the report continues, "that according to the custom of the service force similar in kind to that used by him was applied in all detention barracks, and evidence was adduced to me as to the practice in the Abbasin and Citadel detention barracks in Cairo, and in some punishment compounds under imperial rule in France. The defiant objectors give Lieutenant Crampton credit for being quite fair with them. He was determined that military discipline should be maintained in barracks and he made this quite plain to them. As soon as one of them had given in and agreed to carry on there was nothing to complain of on the part of Lieutenant Crampton. His attitude towards this stamp of man was 'Either I beat you or you beat me, and I'll take care you don't beat me.' He took a short cut towards solving the problem before him.
"Under the regulations what appears to me to be ample power of punishment is given to officers in charge. Under Regulation 131 they may order close confinement, punishment diet and deprivation of mattress for any period not exceeding three days. But it is very much open to question whether it is right to deal with them at all in this way. It has to be remembered that these men were military objectors, that for refusing their kit, which really means refusing to perform any military duty, they had been sentenced to detention. To again offer them the kit or part of it, or to require them to perform acts of a military nature while under detention and to further punish them for refusal is in effect to punish them twice for the same offence.
"It is not within my province to discuss the general question of the treatment of objectors, ranging as they do from the shameless coward and the open rebel to the man who, whatever may be thought of the soundness of his principles, is sincere and is prepared to sacrifice everything for them. It is difficult to devise means of treatment applicable to all cases. I submit the following recommendations as to the future conduct of the institution:
(1) That the barracks be used as a place of detention for military offenders only, and that objectors to military service should not be sent there.
(2) That the personnel of the staff be changed. So far as I can ascertain none of the present staff possesses any experience or particular qualification fitting him for this kind of work. Some are clearly quite unfit to act as prison warders. I suggest that the new staff be composed of specially chosen men, none under the rank of non-commissioned officer.
(3) That in addition to military official visitors the Minister should appoint suitable persons, being civilians, with duties and powers similar to those of a visiting justice of a civil prison, and that all members of the Prisons Board, Inspector and stipendiary magistrate of the district be so appointed ex officio.
The report was laid on the table quietly and members wishing to discuss it were caught napping. To-day, however, Mr Isitt asked whether any punishment had been meted out to men responsible for cruel practices.
Sir James Allen replied that the staff had all been removed except one.
Mr Isitt: Dismissed or merely removed?
Sir James Allen: I don't know.
Mr Holland asked whether Sir James Allen would table a report on Lieutenant Crampton's term of office at Samoa. Sir James Allen expressed willingness to do so, excepting confidential parts. -Lyttelton Times, 7/12/1918.
"Confidential parts." James Crampton's Army record as available online contains nothing which would be regarded as "confidential." It records a gunshot wound in his back sustained at Gallipoli. It records a return to light duties afterwards in New Zealand. It records his travel to Samoa in November, 1916, to take up the position of Provost-Marshall. It then records his relinquishing of the role the following January.
It does not record the reason for his leaving Samoa.
WANGANUI SCANDAL.
CRAMPTON'S RECORD.
A SAMOAN COURT-MARTIAL.
ASSAULT ON A WOMAN.
From a Special Correspondent. WELLINGTON, December 7.
Although the House of Representatives has been promised an opportunity to discuss the report of Mr J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., on the Wanganui Detention Barracks scandal, it is probable that in the rush to let the political leaders away that opportunity will not come, or, if it does occur, that it will be curtailed. So members are not likely to have much time to get at all the facts behind the scandal during the present session.
The Commissioner's report certainly has aroused a great deal of adverse comment. That is not because of any great amount of sympathy for the prisoners in the Wanganui Detention Barracks — the average citizen has not much liking for the type of "conscientious objector" which has been sent to Wanganui — and it is a frequent comment that the prisoners deserved more than mere detention. But the point made most often in discussions of the matter is that Lieutenant Crampton and his satellites need not have descended to Prussian methods. As a matter of fact, if Lieutenant Crampton had contented himself with exercising the powers of even a civil gaoler he could have disciplined his prisoners pretty severely. Conformity with military law would not have left scope for so much manhandling.
The principal criticisms which are levelled in connection with the scandal are really against the system which allows a man with Lieutenant Crampton's record to be appointed to such a responsible position as officer-in-charge of the detention barracks. Lieutenant Crampton 's substantive rank is that of a staff sergeant-major on the New Zealand Permanent Staff. Apart from the fact that the Defence Department could easily have found a reliable man with previous experience of control of detention barracks, there is an ugly fact in Lieutenant Crampton's record, and some awkward inferences may be drawn from matters connected therewith. Returning from Gallipoli with the temporary rank of 2nd-Lieutenant, Lieutenant Crampton was for some time attached to Base Records, as an inspector of recruiting offices. His next appointment was a much more important one. He was sent to Samoa to take up the position of Provost-Marshal, Commissioner of Police, and Judge of the Native Court there. It is whispered that the official reason for this was that as Crampton some years ago held a commission in the garrison at Suva, Fiji, he could be considered to have some knowledge of methods of dealing with natives. Of course, Fiji is a long way from Samoa, and the Fijians are different from the Samoans, but such a fact might not occur to some of our authorities in New Zealand, nor would the fact that officers with some knowledge of Samoa and its natives were available, be allowed to count.
How did Lieutenant Crampton deal with the Samoans? His method was an illustration of the way some men will throw away golden opportunities. Crampton's salary in Samoa was about £500 a year. His free house, his orderly, his Chinese servants, and his other aids to comfortable living brought the value of his appointment to, it is estimated, about £800 a year. But within a month of his arrival in Samoa he was so regardless of his position as to become involved in charges in which a halfcaste widow was concerned. He was court-martialed on three charges. The charges involved serious ones, in which morality was concerned, but this particular aspect was not upheld — it is said there was some technical weakness in the charges. On a charge of assaulting the woman, however, he was found guilty — he had thrashed the woman with a stick. For that he was merely reprimanded and his return to New Zealand was recommended. Possibly the Court took into consideration the fact that he had been wounded, and opined that his experiences on Gallipoli had left him unduly excitable.
Crampton returned to New Zealand by the next available boat, and so his stay in Samoa was of a duration of only about two months. Yet, in the face of what had happened in Samoa, he was then appointed to the Wanganui position. Why? The true answer to that question would be interesting. It is also interesting to notice that Sergeant Smith, Crampton's right-hand man at Wanganui, was simply transferred to Christchurch, where he still holds his rank in the military police, without his suffering any reduction of rank or pay as a result of the Wanganui revelations.
"I DON'T KNOW."
WHERE IS SERGEANT SMITH?
[From Our Own Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, December 9.
A question asked of the Minister of Defence by Mr G. Witty to-day was whether it was correctly stated that Smith, formerly Lieutenant Crampton's right-hand man at Wanganui Detention Barracks, was now a sergeant of Military Police at Christchurch. If so, remarked Mr Witty, that was the "removal" of which the Minister had spoken.
"I don't know," replied Sir James Allen. "I'll make inquiries."
Mr Witty: If it is, it is a shame. -Sun, 9/12/1918.
Crampton's serious bullet wound, received on Gallipoli, occurred while he was serving in the Canterbury Infantry Regiment. His wound is not recorded in the Regiment's Official History. He seems not to be mentioned in it at all, which is a little strange for an officer.
CRAMPTON COURT-MARTIAL
Opens and Adjourns at Wanganui
HARRY HOLLAND, M.P., SEEKS TO INTERVENE
Are the Charges Properly Laid?
(From "Truth's" Special Rep.)
The court-martial to try Lieutenant James William Crampton in connection with the ill-treatment of certain prisoners who were under his charge at Wanganui Detention Barracks, sat at the Drill Hall, Wanganui, on Wednesday of last week.
The court was composed as follows: President, Lieut-Colonel Colquhoun; Majors P. G. Hume, Mackesy, Henty, Ashworth and Talbot, and Captain Smith. Captain P. E. Baldwin was Judge Advocate. Captain F. Hudson acted as prosecutor. Mr. N. G. Armstrong, acting as junior counsel to Mr. Loughnan, of Palmerston North, appeared for accused.
The charges allege acts of ill-treatment against Privates Harry Wilson, W. B. Donovan, Joseph McConville, Thomas Moynahan, Alister Beatson, Wilfred Badger, Frederick Pallesen, and George Corian.
After the preliminary convening and swearing in of the court had taken place, Mr. Harry Holland, M.P. for Grey, who was in attendance, asked the permission of the court to sit at the prosecutor's table to assist him in his work.
Mr. Holland said he based his application on a footnote to page 42 of the manual of military law. It read: "If the prosecution is instituted at the instance of a civilian, that civilian may be in court and assist the prosecutor, but he cannot speak or take part in the prosecution except as a witness."
"In accordance with that paragraph," said Mr. Holland, "I wish to make application to be permitted to assist the prosecution in the terms of that clause. I do not think any question will be raised as to my being the instigator of these proceedings. The first public charge in connection with this matter was made by myself at Reefton on May of last year. On many public occasions since and on the floor of Parliament House I made my demand on the Government for a court-martial or trial, and I do not think that anybody will seriously deny, therefore, that this court-martial has been instituted as a result of demands and representations made by myself."
Mr. Armstrong opposed Mr. Holland's application. "Mr. Holland's contention," said counsel, "depends upon what is meant by 'instigator.' I submit that the Instigator of proceedings must be something
MORE THAN NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENCE or asking questions in the House. It must be somebody who actually brings about the proceedings. These proceedings are the result of an application by Lieut. Crampton himself. He, himself, applied to the authorities to have a court-martial. The instigator, I submit, is therefore the defendant himself."
Captain Baldwin: "The word is 'instituted," not 'instigated.' It is stronger than 'instigated.' It must be one who by some definite act caused the proceedings to be started. The paragraph further reads: 'A civilian may be.' That means that his inclusion is at the discretion of the court. There must be special reason for his inclusion — that he has special qualifications, or that the prosecutor has not special qualifications or lacks knowledge. Can it be said that Mr. Holland has this? I submit not."
Captain Hudson: "The manual lays down that a civilian may confer with but not assist the prosecutor. I myself fail to see how Mr. Holland can be of very much assistance to me. On the other hand, if the court wills it, I have no objection to him sitting with me."
Captain Baldwin: "As a matter of law, Mr. Holland does not come within the footnote he refers to. The footnote only refers to an occasion where a civilian himself has laid a definite charge against an officer."
The Court conferred on the matter and ruled that Mr. Holland was not entitled to sit.
Mr. Armstrong then made application for an adjournment. Before stating his reasons he asked that Lt. Crampton be not asked to plead until the application for adjournment had been decided upon. This was agreed to.
Counsel said that Lieut. Crampton only got his papers a week ago. At that time he himself was ill. He set about obtaining Counsel. He to engage Mr. Loughnan, of Palmerston North. At that time Mr. Loughnan was travelling in the North Island and communication was only established with him on Sunday night. He agreed to take the brief on Monday. That left him only two days to get home and prepare his case. That time was manifestly too short to prepare a case of such importance. There were eleven witnesses to interview, and in respect to these, the procedure was that the convening officer should issue summonses requiring their attendance. Counsel himself, had seen three local witnesses who said that they had not received such summons. He did not know the witnesses outside Wanganui. A very important witness, Sergt Smith, second in command at the Wanganui Detention Barracks, took suddenly ill on Sunday and was taken to Hawera Hospital suffering from appendicitis. He could not attend for ten days at least.
Capt. Hudson submitted that
REASONABLE TIME HAD BEEN ALLOWED accused, but he had nothing to say against the other matter, which appeared to be a good and sufficient reason.
Capt. Baldwin explained that the reason why some witnesses had not been summoned was that they would not be required for some days, owing to the length of the trial. All witnesses who were officers of the Defence Forces had been ordered to attend.
The Court adjourned to consider the application and on returning said that the Court Martial would be adjourned until Wednesday, February 12, at 10 a.m.
ARE THE CHARGES PROPERLY LAID?
In reference to the above Court Martial, information has reached "Truth" by a roundabout, but nevertheless, reliable source, that the charges made against Lieut. Crampton are alleged to have been laid incorrectly. The Regulations require each charge to be signed by the Commanding Officer of the officer concerned. It will be entirely unsatisfactory, needlessly expensive, besides being a waste of valuable time if the proceedings, when the Court next commences,
ARE TO BE "BLOWN OUT" on a legal technicality. "Truth" therefore hopes that care will be taken to see that the papers are all in order. -NZ Truth, 8/2/1919.
"DISHED!"
Lieutenant Crampton, Officer Commanding the Wanganui Detention Barracks, has been honorably acquitted, by court-martial, on each of the eleven charges arising out of the alleged ill-treatment of conscientious objectors, who were forced to obey military orders. The verdict, worthy of any Court of Guardian Angels, was a foregone conclusion. -NZ Truth, 1/3/1919.
Lieutenant (temp.) J. W. Crampton, New Zealand Permanent Staff, has vacated the appointment of officer-in-charge, Military Detention Barracks, Wanganui, and has been appointed area officer, Group No. 20, Wellington Military District, as from 25th March last. -Evening Post, 16/4/1919.
PUBLIC NOTICE.
Ladies and Gentlemen, —
I HAVE much pleasure in notifying the public of Wanganui and District that I have this day admitted Mr J. W. Crampton (late of the local Defence Department) into Partnership. Mr Crampton, who is a returned soldier, has had considerable experience in Land and Stock, and is capable of handling your goods to the very best advantage. The firm will in future be known as Tunnicliffe and Crampton, who will always make it their business to see that you get a square deal all round. Thanking the public for the past support accorded to myself, and hoping to receive a fair share of public patronage in the future. I remain,
Yours faithfully, F. S. TUNNICLIFFE, Auctioneer, Land, Estate and Commission Agent, 90 Ridgway Street, Wanganui.
Our business will be carried on as usual at 90 Ridgway Street, where we hope to renew old and new acquaintances.
TUNNICLIFFE AND CRAMPTON. -Wanganui Herald, 17/11/1919.
James Crampton also became involved in local politics, become a Councillor, becoming a Councillor, until his decision to move south.
Not a Peeping Tom
Christchurch Case Collapses
Story of a Man in a Garden and of an Officer in Samoa
(From "Truth's" Christchurch Rep.)
An information, concerning an event in a Christchurch garden, was dismissed in the Magistrate's Court, after the informant had undergone a searching cross-examination.
A case in which the original information was laid by James William Crampton, one time an important personage in the Territorial Forces, lieutenant in the N.Z.E.F., and later Inspector-General of Police Force at Samoa, came before Magistrate Mosley, of Christchurch, in the Magistrate's Court on Tuesday.
The charge was that a young man employed by the Christchurch City Council was a rogue and vagabond, in that he had been found by night without lawful excuse on the enclosed premises of Crampton in School Road, St. Albans. The case was extraordinary from the fact that under cross-examination some rather peculiar details concerning the informant's past life were revealed, whilst the case against the defendant was dismissed and his name ordered to be suppressed.
ALLEGED PEEPING TOM CASE.
Chief Detective Gibson prosecuted and Mr. Roy Twyneham watched accused's interests. The case for the prosecution as related by the Chief Detective was that accused had been found late at night on Crampton's premises, peeping through a window where three females were undressing and going to bed. "it was a peeping Tom case," said the Chief Detective. Detective Kearton gave evidence of having interviewed accused, who, in a signed statement, said he was 27 years of age and had come to New Zealand from Devonshire. He was employed in a responsible position by the Christchurch City Council. On the night of May 15 he had been with friends in St. Albans till nearly eleven, and on cycling home found it necessary to dismount for a certain purpose, but on a motor cycle with bright headlights approaching he had gone into Crampton's gateway.
James William Crampton, advertising salesman, gave evidence that at about eleven o'clock his wife and family retired to bed, witness first going out on to the front verandah. While there he noticed a man's form move from the outside of one of the bedroom windows and disappear around the corner of the house. Witness gave chase and found accused crouched against the wall. Accused said he was doing no harm and explained that he had come on to the premises for a certain purpose. When asked his name, he said he was George Williams, but, on being taken inside the house to have the name verified he allowed himself to be searched and his real identity was revealed. Witness allowed accused to go, and next morning, on going outside, found that the garden had been trampled on, and footprints showing a round rubber heel were plainly marked outside the window, whilst finger-prints were also on the glass.
RELIEVED OF HIS POST.
Lawyer Twyneham: What rank do you hold? — That of lieutenant
Do you use any other name besides Crampton? Have you ever given your name as Captain Court? — No.
And you know of no occasion when you have been referred to as Captain Court? — No.
You told accused you were at one time an Inspector of Police. Have you ever been an Inspector of Police? — Yes. I was Inspector-General of Police at Samoa.
And you were discharged from that position? — No.
Then how did you come to leave it? — I was simply relieved.
Yes, relieved because of certain charges. What were the charges levelled at you? — No answer.
Come now, you must remember what the charges were. If you cannot I will suggest them. Don't you remember one was a charge of assault? — Yes.
Assault on native girls? — It was assault on a native woman, a halfcaste.
And after being relieved, as you term it, you came to New Zealand? — Yes.
And did a little private detective work? — No.
Do you mean to tell the Court that you had nothing to do with any private detective agency? — Oh, I might have done a little.
Did you ever meet Regan or Hubbard and assist them in private detective work? — I can't remember.
Well, let that go. Are you not, in short, what is known as a busy-body? — No.
Didn't accused tell you that he had been forced to go into your garden through a motor cycle coming along with bright lights? — No.
And when he saw you, didn't he come to meet you? — No.
He says you threatened him with gaol. Is that so? — No.
What right had you to order him to submit to you searching him? — A perfect right.
Where do you get the right? — It's a matter of personal satisfaction. I had every right to satisfy myself as to the identity of the man on my premises.
THE DEFENCE.
Mr. Twyneham, in opening the defence, said accused was employed in a position of trust and was respectable in every way. He was returning from spending an evening with friends and on account of a war injury he had to dismount from his bicycle for a certain purpose. At that moment, however, a motor cycle with bright headlights came along and accused naturally moved inside Crampton's fence. It was then Crampton came on to the front verandah, and, seeing a man inside the gateway, approached him. Accused also walked towards Crampton, who bullied him into giving a wrong name. Both men then went into the house, where Crampton demanded that accused allow himself to be searched. Accused then gave his real name and the incident was apparently wound up by the two men recounting their respective war experiences, Crampton finally shaking hands with accused and saying that everything was all right.
Accused in evidence stated that he gave a wrong name at first because Crampton frightened him by saying he was an Inspector of Police with wide experience of such cases and that accused would be locked up for the night. When taken inside the house, accused objected to being searched and voluntarily produced evidence as to his correct name and address. Crampton, however, wanted to see his discharge papers from the army and asked lots of other questions which had no bearing on the matter of identity. At last Crampton seemed to be quite satisfied and accompanied accused to his bicycle and shook hands on parting.
Chief-detective Gibson cross-examined accused whose answers to all questions appeared to be in his favor rather than otherwise. Accused's employers gave evidence as to his character.
CHARGE DISMISSED.
The Magistrate said he was far from satisfied with the evidence, and the case was an example of the necessity of a witness being cross-examined, and of a certain amount of latitude being allowed in that cross-examination when it was a matter of oath against oath. The section under which the charge was laid was one disliked by Magistrates and one which was often used in a way that was not intended for it to be "used" by the police, who, however, had no option other than prosecuting under that section in cases like the present. The sooner the legislature made a better provision, the better it would be for the administration of justice in New Zealand. The charge against accused would be dismissed. -NZ Truth, 31/5/1924.
James Crampton spent the rest of his life in Christchurch. He involved himself in local politics and was an advocate of sunbathing for its theraputic properties. He also maintained his military connections and had "widely varied interests," as mentioned in his obituary which, of course, did not mention his time at the Wanganui Gaol.
OBITUARY
MR J. W. CRAMPTON
Mr J. W. Crampton died at his home in Christchurch this week at the age of 72. He served with the Royal Navy and, during World War I, with the Royal New Zealand Artillery, attaining the rank of major. After his retirement from the Army he was a member of the advertising staff of “The Press” for about 20 years.
Mr Crampton was born at Amberley, and within 16 or 17 years had begun his travels by enlisting as a seaman with the Royal Navy. He served for a time in the Royal Arthur. He came back to New Zealand soon after, and joined the Royal New Zealand Artillery in Wellington about 1907. He went to Fiji and became a lieutenant in the Fiji Military Forces, and then, before the outbreak of World War I, returned to New Zealand to be appointed to the permanent staff. In 1914, after British forces had taken control of Samoa from Germany, Mr Crampton was appointed provost marshal for the island, and served there for several years. Back in New Zealand he was appointed to the district recruiting office in Wanganui, and later went into business as an auctioneer. He moved to Christchurch to join “The Press” in the advertising department. Mr Crampton had a great many, widely varied interests. He was at one time acting commissioner for the St. John Ambulance Brigade, and acting commissioner of the Boy Scouts in Christchurch. Languages occupied much of his time, and he spoke fluent Italian as well as being able to understand several others, including French, Hindustani, Fijian, Samoan, German, and Dutch. He was convener of an Italian class organised by the Returned Services' Association. He is survived by his widow, one son, Ronald, and a daughter, Thelma (Mrs Shepperd). Another daughter. Alma, who was a nurse, died in Italy during World War 11. -Press, 1/10/1954.
No comments:
Post a Comment