Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-11-12
THE DIsPUTING EXPLORERS.

The outcome of the disputation between
Stanley and his dissatisfied lieutenants has
been such as to fully confirm The DIS
PATCH's opinion, expressed week ago,
that the dispute is one which discreet
course would have avoided, and which has
been carried to lengths that both sides must
regret.
As to the main point at issue, namely,
the responsibility for the failure of the rear
column to carry out SANKEY'S orders, the
most remarkable corroboration of Stanley's
position is the alleged answer of Troup
published yesterday. Troup is one of the
assailants of the explorer. Yet, considering
that the entire explosion is produced by the
assertions of Major Barttelot's brother that
Stanley did that officer injustice, and that
the important issue is whether his
course wrecked the expedition, it is de-
cisive to find Troup fully confirming
Stanley's assertions. He agrees that Bartte-
lot was cruel. and that a better leader
could have brought the expedition back to
the coast" which indicates that Mr.. Troup's
tendency is TO prefer the retrograde rather
than advance But he indIcts Stanley for
the responsibility of selecting Barttelot as
the commander of the rear column, and thus
puts the onus of the whole failure upon
him!
That Stanley had the responsibility which
attaches to any leader who assigns a subor-
dinate to duty and afterward discovers that
he is unfit for it, did not require the asser-
tion of Troup to establish it. 1t appeared
very plainly from Stanley's first statement.
But, in view of the fact, that Stanley's
material assertions are fully borne out by
Troup's concessions, it is clear enough that
the expressions which the explorer published
in his book concerning that chapter of in
competence were very mild and forbearing.
The people who have challenged those asser-
tions and rushed to the front with accusa-
tions of Stanley in return, will, when they
recover their equilibrium, perceive that it
would have been much wiser to let that very
charitable expression of disappointment and
surprise pass without dispute.
With regard to the assertion against
Jameson of provoking cannibalism, i: is
possible to regard the charge as one which
has been brought out by the heat of the dis
cusslon; but it might have been left alone
on account of the doubt as to its truth.
Neither a live man nor dead one should be
charged with such shocking act Of barbar-
ity excepting on the most conclusive testi-
mony, and the fact that practically the
same evidence which Stanley and Bonny
have was already discredited by an official
investigation, should have suggested to any
man not carried away by unjust attacks the
wisdom of leaving the old story undisturbed.
No doubt both Stanley and Bonny believe
that the evidence is sufficient; but with the
fact that the only witness against Jameson
on this score has retracted his evidence be-
fore an official inquiry it will be easier to
believe that the half-civilized witness lied
than that civilized and educated man of
standing could take the responsibility for
an act of the lowest degree OF barbarism.
This is an instance of the length to which
such bitter controversy can be carried. 1t
is not material to the main issue-the con-
duct of the expedition-on which point STAN
ley is the only man who comes out credita-