The critic. (Washington, D.C.) 1890-1891, 1891-01-12
COMMANDER REITgi.s pEMANp.
Had pIonty of Chance to Justify Him.
self Before the Department.

Had Plenty of Chance to Justify Him.
self BEFORE the Department..
Nrw YoRg, Jan. 12..--Thc Tribune this
morning publishes the following from its
Washington correspondents Commander
Reiter's demand for n trial by naval court
martial ms to the justice, desert and war
rant for Secretary Tracy's censure was not
unexpected. II is received with varying
impressions. Some fail to appreciate the
evident hope Commander Rciter has for
cNoncratiOu. Others are inclined to regard
the Departments censurc as unduly So
yore--a view inspired apparently by its
tnrdy appearance In all quarters, how
ever Commander Reitcr is credited, as he
has been from the first, with an honest
purpose. His chief fault has been de-
sire 10 accept the instructions of the in
competent representative of the State
department, Mr. Miner. Commander
RCiter enters an objection to the Depart
ments method in the forcshadowng, in
January, in the public press, in the
Jr'othc among other papers, Of his CEN
sure.
This anticipation Of the Department. 8
action was on the responsibility of the
correspondents, and the Secretary had no
part in making the censure "a severe pub
lie reprimandn until January Z, by which
Niillt lldNl ItttlNtAl lnt
communication. IL must remain a ques-
tion whether the publication, as init
mated by the ccnsured officer should
have been delayed sufficiently to permit
the submission of defense. This claim
and the assertion that public reprimand
must come from n court-martial consti-
tute the basis of Commander Reiter's de-
mand for trial. That officer had the op-
portunity of defense when he visited the
nptAa NJ M rnppntly md Nyhan ha
letter supplementary to his commune
cation descriptive of his part in the Bar
rundia affair. The State Department had
published the correspondence in an exec
utive document in response to House
resolution. AS a sequel to this document
II was felt proper that the press should
have the letter of censurc, and the fact
that extracts only were used in some of
the papers does not support Reiters inn
plication that the Department withheld
portions that might offer mitigation to his
Offense.
An inquiry by court-martial is calcu-
lated to develop what Reiter's own CORE
spondenco shows an inactivity that found
poor excuse in the acknowledged cogniz-
ance of the necessity of some form of pro-
lection to Barrundia and Others who were
on the same vessel. This endangering of
the lives of innocent fellow-passengers
gave the Secretary justification for repri-
mand, not to mention the disturbance of
the general doctrine of hospitality and
protection to political refugees by United
States ships-of-war. Beyond the requests
for instructions sent Minister Miner there
was no effort made by Reiter to give pro-
lection where his Judgment prompted.
The seriousness of the affair, outside of its
international aspect is acknowledged in
one of Commander Roiter's reports, where
he says: Captain Pitts took the precau
tion to send his first officer to notify the
cabin passengers to go below and the steer
age passengers to keep forward" that Is,
out Of the range of the bullets that killed
Barrundia.
The Departments letter of censure was
written after examination of records for
precedence. The Gomez case, which
Miner had cited as sustaining his posi-
ton, was found TO be identical in circum-
stance, and in that case the Minister to
Central America refused to permit the re-
moval of Gomez from his asylum,
Pacific Mail steamer. Mr., Bayard's posi-
ton in the Gomez case was one that Mr..
Blaine regards simply, so far as 1t concerns
the absolute jurisdiction Of the country in
which Il port lies between which general
doctrine and Miners action In the Bar
rundia case Mr.. Blaiie says "there Is an
impossible space" The recall of Miner
furnished the basis of Refers censurc,
since both by their respective reports es-
tablished joint culpability.