Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-02-14

authority. He contented himself with
telling the Lieutenant that the paper was
no part of his orders, without calling to
account the officer who had thus pre-
sumed from this point Of view to give an
order or even a suggestion in conflict with
the terms of the written orders signed by
himself as Chief Signal officer. He GER
tainly ought to have withdrawn the paper
containing the contradictory direc-
ing Adjutant of the Office, with
orders to cancel it and if ON record to eX-
punge it therefrOm, unless, indeed, he
was prepared to make it an order, and
embody it in the instructions over his own
signature. On the contrary, he takes none
OF these steps, but wholly Omits to acquaint
his Acting Adjutant with his conversa-
ton with and last oral instructions to
Lieut.. darlington and leaves that Ad-
Jutant under the impression that the
memorandum which he remembers that
he had sent to the desk of the Chief Sig.
nal Ot1cer With the instructions for the
expedition, and with them received back
without comment for transmits
sion to Lieut.. Darlington, was
supplementary order or postscript to
the instructions of that officer, from
which course of action it resulted that the
memorandum was recorded as an enclOs-
ure to Lieut.. Garlington's instructions
and aiterward published to the country
as an indication that he had been guilty of
dIsobedience of orders in failing to make
the depot at or near LittletOn Island on
his voyage northWard. If any further
Illustration were needed of this mischiev-
Gus manner of conducting official busi-
ness IL would be apparent on reflection
that II fatal accident had befallen
the Chief Signal Officer during
Oh
OF the last interview between these two
would have been confined to the survivor.
whose testimony in repelling the charge
OF violation of his orders as that of
man deeply interested would have had to
be Judged in the light of Lieut.. CazaaEc's
knowledge only of having sent to the
Chief Signal Officer and received back
again for transmission to Lieut. CARING
ton the memorandum in question. That
IL was not signed nor mentioned in the
Dody OF the instructions over Gen. HaZen's
signature might have been regarded as
matter of form rather than of substance.
touching this memorandum itself the
court is of the opinion that neither was it
an order nor did it properly carry any
force as suggestion to the commander
OF the expedition, who was instructed to
strictly conform to the letter of Lieut.
Greely's requests.
OShs 1aACn udll IGJcCl6u the lOca Clil-
bodied in the memorandum as in conflict
with those requests, and so informed
Lieut.. Darlington, stating that they were
law to him. The Chief Signal Officer. if
he had desired or intended that Lieut..
if delayed near LittletOn Is
land on the voyage northward, /
should make depot, he could |
easily have embodied in
the orders a proviso to that effect, in
sfpqh n { nhGQnrinCr sIo,. fI,,
vague intimatiOn of discretion repOsed in |
a distant commander. to be called into (
exercise according to the facts as they I
should develOpe themselves. This discre- /
ton, however, can have no application to I
Lieut.. GarlingtOn's subsequent action. !
rs the very condition of the fact that this /
)tiicer indicated as his objection to stop /
ping at LittletOn Island to unload was /
ound here in clear and unObstructed /
passage n6rthward
Ninth. Following the custom when Of /
icers Of different services, with indie
pendent commands, are. ordered to CO.
operate in single expedition the Chief /
signal Officer should have taken care to /
nave Lieut.. Darlington furnished with a /
copy of the instructions of the Navy De-
)artment to the commander of the Yantic. /
W hlle the foregoing grave errors and /
omissions are regarded as having either
lirectly led or largely contributed to the /
lbortlve issue of the expedition, yet as they |
are all deemed to have been due to a lack !
of wise provision and sound iudg- |
nent in the exercise of wise admins I
5ration and discretion, and unattended
BY any willful neglect or Intentional
terelictiOn of duty, the court, after ma
.ure deliberatiOn, is of the opinion that
40 further proceedings before the gen.
9ral court-mOrtial are called for.