New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-01-12
COMMANDER REFERS DEMAND FOR TRIAL,
HE HAD PLENTY OF CHANCE TO JUSTIFY HIN.
SELF BEFORE TIE DEPARTMENT.

HE HAD PLENTY OF CH,NcE TO JUSTIFY Rim.
SELF BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT.
Wa .hiECton, Jan. II Crpecial. Commander Ret.r.
demand for trial by naval court martial as b IN.
irs.i,c desert and warrant for Secretary Traer,
,cn,urc was not unexpected II l. received with vav.
inc impi SONS some flil TO appreciate the evids,
hone Commander Rcitcr has for cXoncration. Others
or, inclined 10 regard the apartments ccnSure az
unduIv severe view inspired apparently by it, ardv
onpoarance In AL quarters however. Command.r
Reter Is credited he hes been from The first. with
an honest purpose his chief fault has beer desire IN
accent the instructions Of the incompetent representa-,
tive of the state Department Mr.. Miner Commander
Refer enters an objection 10 the Departments mcthoA
in the forcshadowng. III January, in the public press
in The Tribune, among other papers. Of h' censuN
This anticipation Of the Department. action was On
the responsibility OF the correspondents. ard
the secretary had part in making
tho ccusure "a severe public rcprmanl until
January : BY which time Commander Refer haa
rccoved the communication. II must remain ques-
tlon whether the publication. ss ntlmated by thu
cen sured officer should have been DELAYED sufficiently
IA hermit the submission Of defence THIS claim and
the assertion that public rcprmani must come from
n courtmartis constitute the basis OF commander
Refers demand for trial That officer had the op-
po,tunity of defence when he visited the department
recently and when lie sent a letter supplementary TO
his communication descriptive Of his part In the Bar.
rnnda affair." The state Department iiad published
,Io core Spondencc IN I'M executive document In
.ponse TO a House resolution. a. a sequel to this
document ii was felt proper that the press should
have the letter OF censure. and the fact that extracts
only were in Of the papers does not support
Retnrs implication that the department wtlheA
portlons that might offer mitigation 10 HI offence.
An inquiry by court martini i calculated 10 de
vcop what Refers own cOrrc>p ondenre SHOWS, an
inactivity that found poor excuse In ~ achn0wdsd
cornnance OF the necessity Of some form OF potec-
lion To Barrlnda and Otlcr- who were on The sane
vessel This endaUgering of the lives OF lbhreM
foow Messenger, gave ilr .erctirV justification for
rrprimand not to mention the disturbance on me
general dOrtrine Of hospitality AMI prOte''Dh 10
1oIcal refugees by United states sup, war be-
youd the rrqie-s for Instructions sent Mini>tr Wilmer
there was no effort made By ltelter 10 give proc'tm
where his judgment prompted Ihe seriousness Of
tho affair ont side ~ IT. intcrnatlOn9l aspect j AZ.
know led ,ed IN ono Of Commander Ret"TS reports.
where hc saw: Captain Pitts took the precanti0n
IN Send nj. FIRST officer notify the cabin passengers
10 20 below and the Storage pa-sergr' I" Keep lD7
ward that j.. ont OF inc fdlSc Vi ' O"'ic'> IHat
killed Barruudia.
me DEPARTMENTS letter ~ censre was written after
oxam. ion Of records for precedence. lHe "1mI
case which Miner had cited sustaining M po'iu0a,
va. fo;ud 10 he Identical in Circumstance. ana IN that
ca.e the Minister ID Central America refused Ia Ter.
mil the removal Of Gomez from hi asylum. a Pacific
Mail steamer. Mr.. Eaysrd'S position ~ tho dmrcz
Gao WAS one that Mr. Elaine rrZam- SIMPLY 20 isf
as il concerns the absolute jurisdiction OF me county
i'm which n port lice. between which general hefrHs
and Miner, action in the BariTndia cs~o Mr. Bahs
saws there j. impossible space. The ic'dn o.
Miner furnished IN" 6a>i, of Reter's c"nsure since
both by their respective reports estsOl'heh !pa'
cuipabilitv.