St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-07-28
HAzEN'S REPLY.
He Denies Linten's Accusation, and
Says Greedy Did All That Could
Be Expected,

says UFeely Dlu All InaC COulu
Be Expected.
WASHINGTON, July 26.--General Hazen
has written the following letter to Linten
Kent, counsel for Lieut.. Darlington, in reply
to the latters communication OF the 22d
instant:
Mr.. Linden Kent:-Your letter of the 22d,
which first saw in the newspapers, calls for
a reply because it accuses me of trying to
shift the responsibility to Greedy and your
client, Darlington. I deny having in any
manner, either by fact or intent, done this,
or that am thiag published by my consent or
authority could lead to such accusation.
have invariably declined to be
interviewed on these subjects, and anything
that may have been published contrary to the
foregoing l repndate. But in the news
papers you have called my attention to as the
ones in which your structures are written,
there is nothing authentic in what you claim.
There is an important fact connected with
this question which you disregard Before
the first expedition started the whole plan,
embracing depots, their size and number
and location, the time of leaving a station
and route, the retreat in 1888, with the entire
scheme for three years and the rescue after
wards, was carefully elaborated and reduced
to complete plan. Being Greely's expedi-
ton it was proper he should prepare all these
instructions, which he did. So far as could
be seen the plan was faultless, and it was
approved. After reaching his arctic station
Greedy wrote out with great care a plan for
two relieving ships of 1882 and 1883,
that is, the work of Beebe and
Darlington, embracing the plan of rescue
more complete, and differing somewhat from
the first one, ending with these words: ''No
deviation from these instruction should be
permitted. Latitude of action should not be
given to party who on known coast are
searching for men who know their plans and
orders" Greedy was on the spot and was
the proper person to make this plan of res
cue, and the only prearranged one that could
be. There was but one thing to do and that
was plainly and simply to carry it out. This
was literally done by myself, Beebe and Gar
lington, and l am fully responsible for it, up
to the sinking of the ship. For doing this
you attempt to hold me culpable. This is
what | have always said, and there
is not a shadow of reflection upon Greedy,
nor has there been any attempt to
shift the responsibility to any one. This shows
that in everything done relating to depots
and the selection of Littleton Island instead
of Cape Sabine as a depot, and the intention
to land depot on the return of the vessel,
in case it did not reach Greedy, and not on
the way up, were all in exact accordance with
| these plans, and in them there was no room
for discussion. The depots upon the route
were established, so far as the boats reached
just as was agreed upon as to locality, guam
tty and kind of stores. There is not shad-
ow of reflection upon Greedy in this nor upon
! any one, and in publishing your letter you
have entirely misrepresented me. There
never was more carefully elaborated, pains
taking, con scientious plan of work than this
both by Greedy and myself, and there could
be none where q prearranged plan, upon
which everything must depend, was adhered
to with greater fidelity. Nothing could in
duce me to reflect upon Greedy, but on the
contrery, the greatest praise is due him. In
reviewing the past all men see much they
wish ID been different This covers all you
or anyone can justly say in criticism. Be-
fore leaving Washington Greedy impressed
upon me the absolute necessity of supporting
him literally in the way we had prearranged
or as he might direct after reaching his
station, saying strong influence would be
brought to have the plans changed, just as
they have been. The responsibility under
my direction ended with the sinking of the
Proteds, and Lieut.. Garlngton's con
duct up to that time had been per-
fecty efficient. A well recognized
custom of the service makes it improper for
Darlington or myself to publicly discuss the
action of the court of inquiry. This rule
equally applies to the counsel of both. Nor
does it call for great astuteness to see, in the
light of past events, wherein the plans ought
to have been better at first, so as to have met
after occurrences. Would it be just to hold
to personal account a commander who, in
battle or obedience to duty, had drawn tie
fire of the enemy by his own well directed
yolleys from which brave men were killed.
Your efforts seem to be OF this nature.
fail to see any sufficient reason for your writ
ing me the letter to which this is reply, or
in your becoming my accuser when you be-
came Garlington's counsel.
(Sgned), W. B. HAzEN.