The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-11-12
HENRY N. STANLEY.
He Tells an Old Friend About the
BarttelOt Controversy.
THE CHARGE AGAINST JAMESON.
TrOup Exonerates Him of the Fearful Charge
About Cannibalism = The Explorer
Demands That All be Told.
Especial to THE NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. Dispatcb 7

Especial to THE HERALD-Examiner Dispatch I
NEW YORK, Nov. 11.-Henry NJ Stan
ley, Notwithstanding his resolution to let
the Barttelot controversy rest, unbossomed
himself to-day to an old friend. This
friend announced that he intended using
the matter for publication. Stanley made
no objection.
The explorer began by saying he had
spent the entire day, of reading Major Bart
telot's published memoirs. He had read
the cabled interview with Ronny which
was published in the London Times in
which Stanley's statements regarding the
conduct OF the commander of the rear col
umu were upheld and corroborated
] Mr. Bonny has gone further than 1
did," he said, ''but he has told nothing
That did not know. He has spoken of
one or two things which had escaped nv
memory but which l recalled upon reading
his statement. The account of Barttelot's
lnhuman treatment of his men has nat
urally given the public great shock. They
nave been slow to accept it, because they
are loath to believe that white man could
ACT In such brutal way. Now [ want
the whole truth to come out and | will
court a law suit or parliamentary inquiry
Are you going to take any action to
bring 1t into court of law!n
IL am have retained Sir Charles Rus
sell, who will thoroughly familiarize him
sell with the matter and prepare nv case
so tnat we may go into court Immediately
on my return to England. That will not be
IN null
with Major Pond until that time."
when did you first discover how Major
Barttelot had been behaving?n
When read the log book of the rear
guard. noticed that day after day there
were records of the most extreme punish
ments. If it had only been occasionally
tnat such entries were made [ would not
nave PAID much attention to the matter.
put IL was every day. Then L questioned
bonny and he told me the whole horrible
story"
MIR. Bonny says in his interview in the
London Times that the natives would have
killed Major Barttelot if he had not taken
him by force and bound him.
That is nonsense. All they would have
mad to do would have been to put a guard
over Barttelot and he would have heen
perfectly safe from any danger of personal
violence. There were four able-bodled,
strong men against one man twenty-nine
years old. and yet they allowed MIN to 90
on with his barbarous conduct day after
day and keep it up for months
Mr. Bonny says that Barttelot was in
sane. Do you think that he wasln
mat Is the very question which asked
Bonny when 1 first heard of the cruelty.
| said: But, Bonny, this man must have
oeen mad, he must have been crazy to do
what he did He answered me. mo. Mr..
Stanley, ne was not crazy he was as sane
as you or am. He was simply wicked and
cruel'''
''And about Jameson, was he, too, insane
When ne bought that poor girl and sold her
to the cannibals, so he might see lust how
they went about killing and eating hu-
man being?"
Il cannot understand how a sane man |
could have done such thing. jameson |
was a mild-mannered, pleasant fellow. |
rather retiring and quiet. He always ap |
peared to me to be perfect ntleman ESIt |
was not until reached Cairo that learned |
cannibals. '--O
=! was afraid to trust Barttelot at first.
II it had been possible for US all to have
Travelled together, | would never have left
him to follow cut of my sight He looked
like 1ocky or prize fighter, but was NOT
warned about him until it was too late. He
had been guilty of cruel acts in the Nile
officers knew this'
do you think that his brother. CAPTAIN
Barttelot, was innocent in what he did?D
mo. He is the majors twin brother in
everything. He has the same vindictive
disposition. He knew what he was doing
when he reused me to tell all that knew. ,
What have you TO say about Troup's
other day."
II have this to say: That the only omar
rel had with Troup was because | would
not publish in my book his attack upon
Major Barttelot. l said to him: You are
too general in your attack The man is
dead; take out some of your abuse. and 7
Will print what you have to say This he
declined to do and so my book came out
without his statement. For this he is
angry with me-"
'How did the natives look upon these
cruel practices? Did they blame others
besides Barttelot!"
=, Ihey said the great master had allowed
the little masters TO do as they pleased with
them, to beat them and to kill them. Yes.
they blamed the others too There is a
great deal yet to be told. 1t will not come
out until it is brought out in a
law court. Then only will every
thing be explained. Then will
be vindicated for the course [ have
pursued, and tits important should be. If
the matter was allowed to rest here, what
would be the result! Why, in future ex- {
petitions commanding officer would be ,
afraid to censure his subordinate officers.
whether they deserved it or not. He
would be afraid to speak the truth about
Them. For the benefit of other commanders
IS well as for my own vindication, it is i'm
oortant that the truth should be established
the relief expedition
MIR. Stanley, you have spoken of the ,
punishment inflicted by the officers of the
ear guard as having been cruel and excess
I'VE. What did you consider a proper
method OF Furnishing men in African
=! spoke of Barttelot's punishments as
iaving been cruel because they were so,
errioly SO. He would beat men for steal
ng until their flesh dropped from their !
packs AS Benny has said, he killed man {
~ giving him 150 lashes That mans real
'ffense was stealing piece of beef.n