Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-11-14

Prof. Mendenhslrs Report On the Case Now
Made Public.

Prof. Mcndenhsips Report On the Case Now
| Made Public.
THE COLONEL Is SAID TO HAVE BEEN rNsUBoR-
DISArx AND DIsaEsYEcTYUL TO HIS sUPE-
RroRs AND TO HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY
REPRIMASDED BEFORE HIS RELIEF WAS
ASKED FOR.
| The Treasury Department today makes
public the report Of Prof. T. c. Mendenhaii.
superintendent Of the coast and geodetic sur
vey and member Of the light house board. 10
Secretary Foster concerning the relief Of Col
Ludlow and Commander Heyerman from duty
under the light house board.
Col Ludlow will be remembered ss q former
Engineer Commissioner of the District Of
Columbia Later he was assigned to duty a.
superintendent Of the eleventh light house dis
trict with headquarters at Detroit. While in
performance Of that duty he became involved
in q controversy with his superior officers on
the light house board and was relieved from
duty BY the Secretary Of War at the request of
Secretary Foster.
Col Ludlow made strenuous efforts to be re-
instated but Secretary Foster has declined to
recommend his reinstatement
IL is understood that Secretary Foster has
informed Col. Ludlow that il he wishes vindi-
cation he can obtain it by applying to the War
Department for an investigation of his Official
conduct by a formal court Of inquiry composed
Of his superior officers. but the Treasury De-
partment can take no further steps in his case.
IssuBoRDrNArE AND D1sn.sPEorruL-
Prof. Mendenhall sums up the case against
Col Ludlow as follows: Col. Ludlow, through
out his entire service with the board As engi-
neer of the ninth and eleventh districts, e1-
hibited disposition to exceed his authority, to
be lnsubOrllnata n thu riohte
and authority Of other officers. and TO be dis
respectful in his intercourse with the board.
Although he received the reprimand of the
board on several occasions it did not prevent
his continuing in course Ito which
the word contumacious may not Justly apply
which eliminated in the matter of the lighting
of ST. Mary river. Above it ia fully shown
how. in this case. he acted without authority,
but the gravamen of his offense was that he SO
completely kept the board in the dark as to his
plans and operations that it was forced to take
steps which have unfortunately been greatly
misunderstood by many people and grossly
misrepreserted by others. so that it has been
assumed in certain localities that the board WAS
an obstacle in the way of the successful naviga-
ton Of the st. Mary's river at night and that in
opposition to il Col. Ludlow stood out as the
originator and champion Of this most important
Improvement.
The lighting of st. Mary's river per Sc had
nothing whatever to do with the request for
the relief of Col. Ludlow, as / trust have now
made clear.
With all these facts before you am convinced
that you will agree that the light house board
could not have pursued any other course. 1t is
body charged with great responsibility. 1t is
peculiarly organized 80 as to secure independ-
ence of Judgment and action, not one Of its
members receives a dollar of compensation on
account of his connection with IL, or is in any
way dependent upon such connection. Since
the time Of Joseph Henry no government board
haa NOD hfrhx L.. 81
more through the voluntary, unpaid service Of
Its members.
II such a board has no recourse when those
detailed to its service are insubordinate, disre-
-pectful OF heven only distasteful. it is clear
that its membership could not be easily re-
cruited among self-respectful men.
LUDLOW DID NOT ORIGINATE THE SCHEME
The report of Prof Mendenhall to Secretary
Foster SAYS; l have received the letter from
Mr.. John Atkinson to Gen. X. A. Alger relating
10 the relief of Col. Ludlow and Commander
Heyerman from duty under the light house
board and have read il carefully. as you re-
quested- IL is so full of misrepresentation
erroneous and misleading statements and false
logic that il is difficult for one who is at all
familiar with the facts relating to the subject
to treat it seriously. 1t appears, however, to be
the work of an attorney or advocate employed
to prepare the most favorable presentation Of a
case which, originating in a suppression Of the
truth. can be helped now only BY more vigor-
GUS prosecution Of the same policy.
As far ia known to the board the scheme
for making this river navigable at night by the
Use Of system Of lights originated with the
Hon r.. c. Parsons of Cleveland, Ohio, at that
time q member of Congress- who wrote to the
light house board about the matter on Dscom-
Der % 1883, inclosing with his suggestion Q
scheme for lighting the river which he believed
would. IL carried out. enable ships to make
the passage safely at night.
1t is important to note this fact, in view of
the efforts that have been made to create the
impression that the credit of lighting the river
Is entirely due 10 Col Ludlow, and that the
/ light house board has main tanned an attitude
not friendly to the project. This claim for
Col Ludlow Is distinctly made in the letter Of
Mr.. Atkinson and by implication in the widely
distributed pamphlet prepared by the colonel
himself. The facts are that he was not the first
/ to suggest the improvement; that he did not
prepare the first scheme for lighting the river,
and that il was only when directed to do so by
the board early in 1883 that he gave attention
Il II conformity with the inspector Of the Dis
| trict
REVIEW OF THE CASE.
Prof. Mendenhan then reviews in detail the
progress of the scheme for lighting St. Mary's
river, as planned by the light house board.
board in the dark 10 his plans, keeping even
his colleague. the inspector in ignorance and
after referring to some technical features Of the
correspondence SAYS:
The colonel, therefore. found himself in this
situation: He had determined to radically mod
fy the approved plan Of 1880 and to increase
the number of lights from thirty-eight to forty
[ five; he had never SO informed the board and
had never asked authority for making the
change; although more than twenty communi-
cations referring to these lights had been sent
the board up 10 May 8. 1892, in not one was
there a hint that such a change was in contem-
piation; he had not even informed his colleague
the inspector although he knew that the board
would expect joint approval Of any scheme be-
fore Its adoption; not only had he thus kept the
board and the inspector in entire ignorance Of
his plans, bat he had actually gone to the ex-
tent of putting them in operation, by the erec
tion of all the lights, without a single word of
authority for such n course
In such a situation it il easy TO See that. hay-
ing himself rendered compliance with the
orders OF the board impossible ii was desira-
bic 10 compel the board to recede from the
/ position it had taken
ONLY ONE COURSE TO PURsUE.
! long correspondence followed, which re-
/ suited follows:
4 After this there seemed but one couvse Tor