The Indianapolis leader. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1879-1890, 1880-06-05
Whitaker and West Point.


The report of the Whitaker Court of
Inquiry can hardly have surprised any
body. The evidence against the colored
cadet is, to be sure, purely circumstantial !;
for no witness claims to have seen him
slit his ears, crop his hair, break his mir
ror, tie his legs, or write to himself the
note of warning. The explanation, also
which he gave of the plight in which he
was found was credible, if strange. But
when the independent and concurrent tes-
timony of five experts fastened on him,
and him only, the note of warning, even
Whittaker'e friends must have felt that his
case was desperate. 1t is still possible, of
course, to suppose that his enemies got at
his desk, and on his own paper forged his
handwriting; but even this supposition is
negatived by the experts.
Whether the court is right or wrong in
its decision, its report does not cover all
that is important in the case. With the
customary restrictive precision of military
inquiries, it puts it's judgment in these few
words:
"The court is of the opinion that the
imputation upon the character of Cadet
Whitaker referred to in the order con-
vening the court, and contained in the
official reports of the commandant of ca
diets and the post surgeon, is fully sus-
tanned"
Very likely; but the point which does
not appear is that the expert testimony,
the pivot of the case, was not in existence
when this imputatiOn upon the colored
cadet was made. The note of warning,
also, was not then key-point in the case;
yet opinion inside the Academy at once
set down Cadet Whitaker as a self-assail-
| ant. Save for that note and the revela-
tons growing out of it, il is unouestiona-
BILE that a large part of the general public
would still hold the accusations against
| the colored lad to be not sustained by
proof
We can see, therefore, why some popu-
lar indignation was stirred up against the
| Military Academy. A cadet was found
tied, and apparently the victim of the
tricks of his comrades; the injuries intlic-
| ted were trihing, and such as are not unu-
sual in institutions where hazing is allowed
| it was we'll known that hazing was acustom
| at West Point; yet the prompt conclu.
sions of the authorities and students was
that Whitaker was liar and a coward
and had himself inflicted his injuries. In
the case of any cadet that prompt outcry
would have aroused astonishment; bui
when the alleged victim was a cadet of tn,
prescribed color, ,astonishment was coupled
with some indignation.
II is true that, if the court has come {,
the right decision, the prompt judgmen
of the authorities against Whitaker wa
correct. But the point is that. whethe
guilty or innocent, it was ct once takel
for granted that he was guilty. No mat
ter how strong the case against him, tha
course Of conductwasa blunder;indeed, tn
stronger the apparent case against him
the less need was there of so promptl
throwing suspicious on him, and the safe
was it to give his theory Of the case al
possible credence, or show of credencs
until the investigation should disclose il
weakness. -.
Another blunder of like character wa
Gen. Schofeld's g issuing of an order reno,
J ing restrictions from the cadets as rewar
for their good conduct, under what
was pleased to call unjust imputatior
| against them. At that time, as was aftel
ward shown by the testimony, he had n
more proof than the public had that th