The National tribune., 1894-01-11
WEIGH HITS BACK.
Quotes the Official Records to Comrade
Simmons.

simmons
EDITOR NATIONAL TRIBUNE: Comrade
Simmons thinks that did not carefully read
his article on the Hatteras Inlet Expedition.
Well, the fact is, read and reread it several
times and that is the reason why l said that
Simmons's statement, unconditional sur
render was demanded and agreed upon,
terms of capitulation being arranged on
board the flagship Minnesota by Commodore
Stringham," is not fair. 1t is misleading,
and seems to ignore the army officials.
Simmons should have said, by Commo-
dore Stringham and Gen. Butler" In Sim
mons's answer to my criticism of his article,
he says this: did say, and repeat it, that
the surf in this locality was not such as to
prevent the landing of troops, and you ad-
NIT it by saying that 31S went on shore.
| Then, why did not the other 500 follow them /?
We landed battalion of sailors and marines
in the very boats which you claim were
smashed or beached."
What does he mean? There can be only
one construction put on this statement, and
that the battalion of sailors and marines
| was landed after the 31S were landed in the
very boats that / claim were smashed or
beached." If Simmons would carefully read
the Official Records, Vol. 4, he wouldn't al
low himself 10 make such statement.
The 318 men ashore included between 70
and so sailors and marines, and there were
no more sailors and marines landed.
Col. Weber had the men counted after
they landed after no more could be landed.
He says: "The surf was running very high,
and continued to run higher and higher so
that but 3lS men could be landed" He had
the troops formed in line and counted, and
found, as he reports, As men of Regular
artillery, Capt. Larned and Lieut.. Lodor;
as marine soldiers of the Minnesota SO 9th
N. Y, Capt. Jardine; 1912 Goth N. Y; %
Union Coast Guards Capt. Nixon; % sail
ors (artillery). Making, he says, 316 in all.
This last number suppose included himself
and his Adjutant, who did the counting.
Now, where was the lot of sailors and ma
rines that landed, according to Simmons,
after the boats were smashed or beached?
Gen. Butler says: Owing TO the previous
prevalence of southwest gales, a heavy surf
was breaking on the beach. Every effort
was made to land the troops, and after about
315 we're landed, including SIS marines from
the fleet and the Regulars, both the iron
boats, upon which we depended, were
swamped in the surf and both fatboats
Lieut.. Crosby, u. S. N, to land
in boat from the war steamer Pawnee re-
suited in the Bleaching of the boat, so that
she could not get off 1t was impracticable
to land more troops because of the rising
wind and sea-"
What in the world does Simmons mean
by the concluding sentence quoted above:
"And little farther down the same coast
we landed 5000 men, under Gen. Terry?"
Does he mean to convey the impression
that on that same day or at that same time
the navy landed 5000 men? If he doesn't
mean il, why is it put in? Why, the 5000
men under Terry were landed some three
years after near Fort Fisher; and one reason
why the first expedition against Fort Fisher
didn't succeed was that the navy couldn't
land troops enough on account of the surf;
so you see that the surf differs on different
days, even in the same locality.
In regard to the attempt TO recapture
the works on Oct. a, you quote Gen. Mans
field az authority that not gun was fred
Gen. Mansfield was then at Fortress Monroe.
He arrived at Hatteras on Oct to assume
command, and was relieved Oct by Gen.
Thomas Williams, by order of Gen. John E.
Wool"
Gen. Mansfield was at Hatteras seven
days, heing relieved by Gen. Williams Oct
13. (See page 626, Vol. 4, Rrcords.) In that
time he made an official inquiry into the
matter and reported to Gen. Wool-WILL
L. WEIGH, Boston, Mass.