456
which it is desirable to remove.
You
state in paragraph 3 that "Cadet Officers
have in theory a preferential claim to
legal equally with other appointments" and,
in paragraph 4, you speak of "the posts
to which under the conditions of their
appointment to the Service Cadets have or
!
should have preferential claims to act
(even if their claims to substantive
appointment cannot in all cases be
recognized}"
I am not aware that it has ever
been suggested before that Cadets have
a preferential claim to legal appoint-
ments, and I think it well to state at
once that I cannot recognize the existence of
any such claim.
In paragraph 8 of his despatch
Chamberlain gave a list of the appointments
which were to be regarded as belonging to
the Cadet Service, including a number of
posts which had not previously as a rule
been held by Cadet Officers but to which he
considered that they should generally be
appointed in future, if qualified.
That
list has since been modified by the excision
of the Police appointments and by the
addition of some newly created posts in the
Cadet service, but so far as I am aware no
change in the general principle has been
approved or even suggested.
Therefore,
the only posts to which Cadet Officers can
be considered as having a "preferential
claim" are those marked with an asterisk in
paragraph 8 of Mr. Chamberlain's despatch
and even in those cases the extent to which
No. 171 of the 13th of June 1902,
Mr.
Chamberlain
preference will be given to Cadet Officers
is limited in two respects (a) Cadet
Officere must be qualified for appointment,
and