Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1884-08-13
nanraster fntelIigenrer.
rrnnvanny EVENING. AUG. is, 1854.
what m Tney were CannIbals Z

what III They We're CannIbais i!
The New York Times got ahead of its
contemporaries in announcing that the
starving Greely people ate the bodies OF
their dead to keep alive, and even shot
one man, whom they ate, because he
atoIe the rations of the oilers. 1t is q
very startling story and 1t is no wonder
that the Times rushed into print
with 1t, without seeking official
confirmation of it. The truth is 1t built
up the story mainly by guess work Tle
sailors on the relieving ships seem u
have been made suspicious by I'VE man
ner in which the bodies were guarded
from observation, and the story started
among them that some of the bodies had
been eaten In whole or in part. The tale
of the shooting seems to have sprung
from the exclamation of one of the survi-
vors, who was llighty when relieved. He
is said TO have begged that he should not
be "killed and eaten, as poor Henry
was" 1t is denied, however, that any
one ever made such an explanation. The
officers of the expedition refuse to say
anything and the men are carefully
guarded at the Portsmouth navy yard so
that the reporters cannot get at them
General Hazen says he knows moth
ing which will readily be believed ;
he never knew anything. Secretary
Chandler refuses to admit or deny ;
which is evidence enough that there is
something in the story. Captain Schley
retreats behind the military regulations
and will not talk.
Evidently the story has some founda-
tion. Whatever it has should have been
made known by the authorities at once,
Their vain endeavor TO keep it secret,
only serves TO give all impression that
something very wrong and discreditable
has been done ; whereas there was
nothing wrong in these men eating the
bodies of their dead comrades to sustain
their lives. It would have been very
sensible thing to do. The bodies of the
dead could not have been put to better
use than to keep life in the living. NoT
was it wrong necessarily TO kill man
for dsobedience of orders in stealing
rations. The circumstances may well
have justified such severity Of
punishment. 1t would have been
wrong to make the mans OffenSe q
pretext 10 get his body for food ; but not
to kill him for his crime, and eat him al
an after consideration. The proper way
for the party TO have done when they
got out of food, and had to die or ca
Zach other, wJull have been TO cast lot
asto who snould lrSJ b. slain aud eater
by the rest or, better still, they Nigh
have waited until soma one died q
hunger and thea have utilized his IT
survival OF the fttest. Probably TIL
Ggeely party did this; and anyone VIII
would take exception TO such conduct
possessed of vast deal more of sens
bility than of sense. The objection
the consumption OF human flesh is all
prejudice at any rate; just as is Il
autipathy To horse flesh We are .
creatures of prejudice. We have rea
Robinson CrusOe in our youth and neve
will free ourselves from the belief tha
cannibalism is the capstone Of horribl
deeds. But our reason does not say
Flesh is flesh, aud that of man is jus
as well ADAPTED TO sustain life as that a
beasts and it life is 10 be sustained an
only human flesh is available for it,
should BE- usei. The moral and statut
law fOrbids suicide; failure to us
means to sustain lite, which are at hand
is suicide. tha,etore the law command
caunibalism to the starving.