The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-05-14
~ .Kipling Interviewed.

cIiO1NDoIN, eday ~o.-Ihe Daily Chronicle
puklshes an an interview with AIR., ,Rudyard
kTphng. When asked as to what he at
u . iputed the British military unprepared-
ns;s,, hess, ne replied: Mainly to- the great
al my seriously, and who have thus UNI
consciously encouraged the, system of
e e spsobbe Wao
maoe noise, or We're dangerous to in
dlylduals. who. got in, the way; ito people
who have made as much fuss about a
dozen soldiers going through a farm
yard as If a field-day were bean feast.
and consequently helped to make prop
er maneuvers for many years an impos-
sibility; and to people who think an Off
Ger cad If he wears the Queens uni
1orm when not on actual duty. These
nave nave been preparing the way for Storm
lives. ."
Spion Kop Dispatches.
LONDON, May 4-The telegraphic cor
respondence' relating to the Spion Kop
dispatches, was issued to Parliament just
Lcrd Lansdowne, Secretary of State for
War, wired on March 18th, asking the
adyise 6e 6 Of Lord Roberts about publishing
SsSr 5 ses sfsspfs sns0asa isih, Yi5a sna
Iars iagseftans ansd esE,s ss ,
iished Lord Lansdowne added: But
would not feel justified in editing the
papers unless you concur, and you may
perhaps think ii well to refer TO Butler.
4 suggest as an alternative that we
should treat youE dispatch of February
tial, and that Butler should send through
you a full narrative of the operations
This you could forward to me, with any
observations you desired 10 make for
publication.
Lord Roberts replied to Lord Lans-
dcwne, in dlspatch dated Bloemfontein,
March 31st, that he had suggested to Sir
RPdVerS Ruller a fll1 l.
tive, but that Sir Redvers Butler had an
swered follows: Il do not at all like
lie alton. l much prefer to leave it in
the hands of the Commander in Chief.
Let him select for publication whatever
To this Lord Roberts appended that he
would not himself object to the publica-
ton of paper edited as Lord Lans-
downe had suggested, but that 1t might,
perhaps, be better to overrule General
Bullers objection, and to adopt the al
tentative course suggested by Lord Lans-
downe. He asked Lord Lansdowne to
wire a reply.
This reply from Lord Lansdowne, dat
ed April I'd said:
In view of Buffers objection, / aban-
don the proposal that the dispatch should
be rewritten. and / propose to publish
the selection described in my dispatch OF
Lord Roberts answered under date OF
April 9Th: Il agree to my dispatch OF
February 18th being published
dispatches referred to in Lord Lans-
downe's dispatch of March 2Sth. The first
is from Lord Lansdowne to General Bull
Ter, dated January 5th, representing the
mpossibility of publishing his dis
patches, which contain views of the
situation and forecasts of his inten-
tions," and emphasizing the advisability
of sending dispatches descriptive of the
operations for presentation to Parlia-
ment.
The second is from Lord Wclseley tC
Lord Roberts, dated February 9Th, anC
| saying: you will, / feel sure
| agree with me that Methuen's dispatch
| regarding Magersfontein, could not be
| published as sent. There are passages
| IL it inappropriate to such documents
| and it also gives information of impor-
| tance to the army. If he likes | Will re
| wise the Dispatch but | prefer not to un
| dertake this responsibility. l sugges
! that you should ask him TO cancel thi:
! dispatch, and to write another
| The correspondence does not indicate
whether Lord Methuen Ye-wrote the dis
| patch as suggested.
! The Spion kop dispatches as publish
| ed We're exactly the selections suggested
| in Lord Lansdowne's dispatch of Marcf
| 18th