C.E.F. Soldier S.O.S. per "Rule 9" - Meaning?

[Gary_G]

I am reviewing the Attestation Paper number 272 for Thomas Baird Murison, signed 12 January 1915 at Calgary, Alberta.

There is a handwritten annotation across the form reading;

Quote

 

S.O.S.

20-3-15

Reason not stated

Rule 9

 

 

He has a second Attestation Paper number 735078 signed 4 May 1915 at Calgary, Alberta. 

There is a handwritten annotation across the form reading;

Quote

50th Battn. Draft

 

I should note that he had previously served with a military force. I managed to find the records for the "Royal Canadian Mounted Rifles", which later became the "Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians)". Here are the details, in case it affects the answer to the question.

   T.O.S. Royal Canadian Mounted Rifles on 20 December 1906

   S.O.S. Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) on 7 June 1909 (Reason: "Purchase" )

 

Can someone help me understand the meaning of "Rule 9" as it applies to his initial attestation? 

It appears to have had a bearing on the reason for his being S.O.S. and re-attesting.

[ulsterlad2]

Hi Gary. and welcome to the forum.

 

Could it be from the King's Regulations 1912 reasons for discharge. Check out no.9 on this list.

 

http://www.military-researcher.co.uk/KingsRegs1912/Para392Introduction.html

 

Unfitted for the duties of the corps.

[Gary_G]

Thanks for the reply, "ulsterlad2".

I checked the noted document, but am not sure if it explains the situation.

I'm looking at the records for Thomas Baird Murison, Reg. ID. 435078

He first attested on 12 January 1915 for the C.E.F.

He was S.O.S. on 20 March 1915 (Reason not stated, Rule 9).

He re-attested on 4 May 1915 for the C.E.F. and was accepted and served overseas.

The whole thing doesn't make much sense to me.

[regimentalrogue]

Looking closely at the attestation form in his service record, I would suggest that the annotation reads "Rule 8" vice "Rule 9."

 

Service record link (PDF): http://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.item/?op=pdf&app=CEF&id=B6502-S033

 

The eighth rule in the list linked by ulsterlad2 two is "Having made a false answer on attestation."

 

This may have had something to do with his claim of prior service, which was "R.C.M.R. 2 years" on that form, and "Strathcona's Horse, 2 years, 7 months" on his later attestation. That regiment, formed in 1901, as The Canadian Mounted Rifles, became The Royal Canadian Mounted Rifles in 1903 and Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) on 1 Oct 1909. I suspect it's not the name of the unit that's relevant, but the length of service. A Permanent Force engagement was for three years, and long serving soldiers would re-engage every three years to keep serving. If his service ended at 2 years 7 months (assuming the latter statement is the accurate one) he may have been discharged as an unsuitable soldier, or he may have deserted (not an uncommon means of separation from service at that time). In either case, he may not have been completely honest regarding the reasons why or his character on discharge.

 

 

[Gary_G]

Thanks for looking into it. I looked at the photocopies I received from the archives and it does seem that it could be an "8".

 

I went to the Museum of the Regiments and checked his prior service dates. Seems that he was Attested on 20 December 1906 and S.O.S. on 7 June 1909. The reason given was "Purchase".

 

I'm not sure how the "Purchase" affects your reasoning, but the length of service argument does make sense. The record book doesn't give more specifics about the reasons for behind the discharge.

 

[regimentalrogue]

Actually, "purchase" works if the reference to rule 8 is actually referring to King's Regulations for the Canadian Militia (1910). Para 322 is Discharge--Permanent Force, and the eighth sub-paragraph is "At his own request after three months' service, on payment of $2.00 per month of unexpired service."  Although his release  in 1909 would have been under the 1904 edition, the version in the hands of the recruiters in 1915 would have been the more current 1910 edition.

[Gary_G]

6 hours ago, regimentalrogue said:

Actually, "purchase" works if the reference to rule 8 is actually referring to King's Regulations for the Canadian Militia (1910). Para 322 is Discharge--Permanent Force, and the eighth sub-paragraph is "At his own request after three months' service, on payment of $2.00 per month of unexpired service."  Although his release  in 1909 would have been under the 1904 edition, the version in the hands of the recruiters in 1915 would have been the more current 1910 edition.

 

Thanks so much for your explanation. I noted the link for the 1912 version earlier in the list. So, I'm a bit confused. Why would they use the 1910 version in 1915, if there was at least a  1912 version? Also; where would I find the versions to which you refer? I have a few more great-uncles to figure out.

[regimentalrogue]

The King's Regulations for the Canadian Militia (1910) and King's Regulations (1912) are two different volumes, one for Imperial service and once particular to Canadian Militia service. In 1915 they were the respective current editions. The regulations under which Canadian soldier served on active service changed from the former to the latter.  I know they served under the Imperial KR (1912) once they left Canada but am still uncertain if that only happened once they left Canada or if there was an earlier transition point in agreeing to active service with the CEF. 

 

I was unable to find digital copies of the two volumes on line as research materials for a project and after much searching was able to purchase physical copies. If you have specific questions regarding your great-uncles, I will assist where I can with the books at hand.

[Gary_G]

Thanks, "regimental rogue". You've been a great help.

I'll add some notes to my research based on what you've stated so far.
Is it possible to get an image of just the page you noted and the front-matter showing the title and publishing info? 

I'd like to make sure I properly cite my sources. I believe this is permissible for academic study and it is solely for my own use.

I'll drop you a line if I find issues in researching the other Murison brothers. 

[regimentalrogue]

I've compiled the article on Discharges with the leading pages in this pdf: http://regimentalrogue.com/sharefiles3/KRO-CM_1910_Para_322_Discharge.pdf

 

(For some reason the images of the third and fourth pages switched order, but it should suffice for your purposes.)

Edited 24 July , 2019 by regimentalrogue

[Gary_G]

"regimental rogue": Thank you! This is perfect for what I need. You've helped me solve one of the questions about the service records that has been bothering me for some time.