New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-10-30
LUDLOW'S CASE UNSETTLED
PRESIDENT CLEVELAND ASKED TO RE-
VIEW 1T AGAIN. -'
THE COMMANDER THROWS NEW LIGHT ON THE
NATTER. AND HOPES TO BE RELIEF Ell
FROM HIS PRESENT pREDIcAMENT

Washington. Oct. -2s-The- case of Commando
Ludlow promises to be one OF the most in'eres''"s
OF those affecting naval officers which the present
Administration has acted on. The case IL no' se'
tied by any means. II Is still IN the nahas VI 'e
President. to whom Commander Ludlow. through
counsel. has presented an argument IN osie"oe u
his course in furnishing seemingly contradictory
statements respecting the character and eihcieh-
cy Of Commander c. S. Sperry. recently proho'eu
70 the Navy Department Commander LUDLOW
requests the President TO review his case IN the
ligh, of the new statements submitted. or 10
order the case before a new Board. AS was toiu
in these dispatches a few days ago. Commahoer
Ludlow made two sworn reports IN rsia'ioh 40
sperrys ntnessi orpremot on. In one ne SAID mat
Sperry's character and ability were commend
able; in the other hc said tat he lacked certain
professional qualities and was not fitted Tor COM
mand rank Nevertheless L'eutenant-Commano-
er Sperry was found qualified by his examining
board and duly promoted After his advancement
Commander Sperry sent TO the secretary OIL inc
NAVY q vigorous protest against the course OF
Commander Ludlow. Later Commander Ludio"
himself came up for exami alton, and although
recommended for advancement the President
withheld his approva, of the finding of the Board
basing his action on what regarded as EVIL
dence Of malice on the par, Of the Commander.
Commander Ludlow now marks time at the
head of his grade. 1t being impossible for him 10
be promoted until the President approves rec
concentration TO that effect from board OF naval
officers
NEW POINTS PRESENTED
In his argument to the President Commander
Ludlow says that his apparently contradictory
reports in relation 10 Commanded Sperry were
justified by the facts. The friends Of the com
mander say that the points lie makes put an
entirely different ligh: on his case. Commander
Ludlow took command Of the Quinebaug 10 1885,
when that yes sci was attached to the huf"Pea'i
Squadron In July, 1884. Commander Sperry'
then lieutenant joined the vessel as executive
officer In October. 1SS5-Commander LUDLOW at
.aches much Importance to this date In the de-
fence Of his course-the commander OF the Quihe-
bauR received official Information from the Navy
Department that Lieutenant Sperry was TO De
examined for promotion TO the grade OF lieu
tenant commander There had been serious
difference between the two officers In the winter
Of 1884 and 1885 in relation to the manner OF per-
forming duty by the junior. Commander Ludlo"
finally placed Lieutenant Sperry under suspen-
sion for characterization and d.srespec'' Lieu
tenant Sperry. feeling that injustice had been
done to him. appealed to the admiral command
snR the squadron. As a result a court of inquiry
was ordered TO meet on board the fagship Ian
caster.
About this time that ship. under orders from
the Navy Department. sailed for the west coast
Of Africa Lieutenant Sperry's counsel. 1t ap-
pears then proposed to Commander Ludlow mat
the case be dropped and there being no ooJec-
zion on the part Of the commander. no court
followed. Otherwise. it seems. the relations OF
The two officers were amicable, for In his state
ment Commander Ludlow said that between
July 1854. and october. 1885. the conduc1 OF Ms
executive officer had been excellent.
HOW THE TROUBLE ORIGINATED
On October A. 1885, Commander Ludlow was
found by a medical board TO be UNFIT for service
on account Of physical disabilities incurred IN
the line Of duty. The Board recommended that
he be sent home TO a hospital for treatment out
for two and half months afterward he re-
manned in command OF the Quneoaug ii was
then that the real trouble with Lieutenant-COf;l-
mander Sperry care about In october, 1898, the
Navy Department called on Commander Ludlow
for a sworn statement as to the fitness OF Lieu
tenant Commander Sperry. THIS was eight years
after the first set of interrogatorles. and Lieu
tenant { Commando Sperry was I, be examined
for advancement 10 comrlahd rank. Commander
ludlow replied that the conduct OF his FORMER
executive was not such as to commend user 10
him and that up to December. 1855. II was not
such as to recommend him for promotion to the
grade Of commander.
lust here comes in technical poirt. The Navy
Departments interrogatories related to period
from March, 1885 to December, 1855, whereas the
time 10 be covered was from October H. 1885. 10
December H. 1885. for although Commander Lud-
lows first answers were dated October IL. 1888.
Lieutenant Sperrys promotion to the grade or
lieutenant commander was afterward dated back
10 March of that year. vacancy for him existing
from that time.
The President seems 10 entertain the opinion
that there must have been a motive on the part
of Commander Ludlow for changing his mind as
10 the professional fitness OF Commander Sperry.
FOR the reason that such radical change OF
Opinion In two months Is remarkable. The Off
cial conclusion seems TO be, therefore, that Com
1nander Ludlow bears malice toward Commander
Sperry and has sworn to q statement which Is
Inconsistent IL not false. Commander Ludlow
explains by saying that the earlier interroga,
tories Of the Navy Department covered period
when he found his executive satisfactory ofi-
Ger. and that after these interrogatories were
answered. Lieutenant Commander Sperry con-
Quoted himself in a manner not conmendabe.
The President board will again review the
case in the light Of Commander Ludlows new
statement Until decision Is reached Com
mander Ludlow viii remain at the head OF his
grade. 1t has been supposed that the holding
back Of Executive action In his case would not
operate as bar TO the promotion OF other COM
manders. Such seems not TO be the fact. Delay
in the matter means the blocking OF promotions
until Commander Ludlow's case Is settled NO
pficer can Jump over him, and as his own ad-
vancement is prevented, no promotions viii re-
suit.
An interesting feature OF the case IL that the
recent Senate inquiry into the causes Of the over
throw Of the monarchy In Hawaii and the estab-
1ishment OF republican form of government.
Commander Ludlow, Of all the Naval officers
who testified before the committee was one OF
two Witnesses who approved the attitude OF the
Administration that LiliuOkalani had been
wrongfully dethroned the result OF con-
spracy and tina; II was the duty Of the United
States considering all the circumstances to re-
store her to power