My dear P.M.,

I lunched with Sir John Salmond [1] last week. He is a man of
considerable personality and character, and should, I think, do
the job very well indeed. He is rather of the strong, silent man
type. Although he will naturally push the Air side, he is not one
of those who think that all other arms are out of date.

I have it from other sources that he and Trenchard [2] are in very
distinct and sharp rivalry. Salmond is Trenchard's natural
successor as Chief of the Air Staff-in fact, he thinks that
Trenchard has really stolen his thunder for these several years
past. But in order to obviate the crystallising of a 'Trenchard
School' and a 'Salmond School' amongst air people, I understand
that the powers are considering appointing someone like Philip
Game [3] as a go-between C.A.S. for a short period, so that the
difference in thought and feeling between the two administrations
will not be too acute. But if you ask what the differences are
between the two schools of thought, you get a vague reply, similar
to what one is told when one naively enquires as to the different
platform of Republicans and Democrats in America. The difference,
of course, is the inevitable rivalry between men of strong
enthusiasm and personality-and little more.

Salmond was interested in finding out from me just what you wanted
him to do. I told him that I spoke from inference rather than
information, but that reading between the lines I gathered that
while, from the public and non-controversial point of view, his
investigation into the 'organisation, equipment and training of
the R.A.A.F.' was to be the main object of his visit, yet I felt
that you yourself would be most interested to have his report and
advice on the part that the Air should play in the Defence of the
Commonwealth. And, further, that whilst his investigation of the
state of the R.A.A.F. could be done practically in Melbourne and
Sydney, in order to get a proper body-guard for advice on the
larger Defence aspect, he would have to travel more widely-even as
far afield as Darwin.

I gave him briefly some of the reasons for the postponement of our
Coast Defence rejuvenation.

I have given him personal letters of introduction to General Hobbs
[4] in Perth, Duncan-Hughes [5] in Adelaide, Niall [6] in
Melbourne, Mark Sheldon [7] in Sydney, and James Horsburgh [8] in
Darwin. I cabled you suggesting that it be arranged that he stays
at Clubs rather than hotels in each capital city from the point of
view of comfort, food and privacy from the press and others.

I lunched with Hankey [9] and Admiral Sir Herbert W. Richmond,
head of the Imperial Defence College, since meeting Salmond.

Richmond is a very intelligent, well-read sailor, whose opinion is
valued by Hankey and all others to whom I have spoken. You may
remember that I sent you a copy of a letter (in a personal letter
of 8th March [10]) that Richmond wrote Hankey, expressing some
perturbation about Salmond's visit. In any event, I enclose you
another copy herewith.

During the course of our lunch, the idea developed in conversation
of suggesting to you that more balanced advice would probably
result if Salmond were accompanied on his tour by senior officers
of all three Fighting Services, and if the detailed
recommendations contained in the C.I.D. Australian Coast Defence
Report were to be discussed at each port. I cabled you to this
effect on 22nd May, as I thought you would probably like to have
the suggestion considered by your Minister for Defence prior to
Salmond's arrival. Salmond might still, in any event, desire to
submit his personal report and advice, but the combined
considerations of all of them might be an offset to any advice of
an extreme 'air' nature that he might be inclined to proffer.

I have, of course, not suggested this to Salmond.

I am, Yours sincerely,
R.G. CASEY

P. S. I showed Hankey that part of your letter of 14th April which
dealt with your views about Australian Coast Defence and he said
that he entirely agreed and that you had, in his opinion, sized up
the position correctly. [11]