Evening star., 1897-01-30
A SEVERE REPRIMAND
Secretary Herbert's Letter to Captain Waller
of the Marine Corps.
Tie Onense Was u Criticism of the
Navy Department Before
Court of InQuiry.

Secretary Herbert has administered a
scathing rebuke to Capt. L. w. T. Waller
of the Marine Corps for his criticism of the
action of the Navy Department made in an
argument before the court of inquiry, or
dered to investigate charges preferred
against Lieutenant Commander C. o. Alli-
bone and Lieut.. E. A. Anderson Of the CO.
lumbia, Of which court Captain Waller was
the judge advocate. In his address Cap
tain Waller used the following language:
Capt. Walters Criticism.
Il would rather have selected anything
than that one incident, because we have to
believe the evidence that is given here un-
der oath by the officers who were i'm
mediately concerned with that case and
we see a reprimand administered say
this with respect to the department, don't
criticise it. and say it with all due respect
to my superiors-to an officer Of high rank
in the service, and he is not only repri-
manded. but that reprimand is published
broadcast through the land without any
investigation whatever. You cannot call
that an investigation. That again is one of
the most repugnant things to our Con-
sttution that. / suppose, could possibly
oe done. 1t is thing that We could ex-
pect In an a. solIte monarchy, and as I
nave had occasion to refer to Charles Stu
that sort of thing; that was one of the
causes, of course. There was no investiga-
ton into this thing at ALL"
IL appears that the reprfmand referred to
ty capt. Waller was issued by the acting
secretary of the navy and the officer was
called upon for an explanation, which evil
IDENTIFY was not satisfactory to the depart-
ment, as shown by a letter written to him
on the subject by Secretary Herbert.
Secretary Herbert's Reprimand.
They tthe words used by Capt. Waller)
would be meaningless" said Secretary Her
bert. unless applied to some one in au-
thority who had used his power in a tyran-
nieal manner. 1t is clear that The person.
and the Only person to whom those words
were referable, Was the acting head Of the
Navy Department, who issued the repri-
mand which you were denouncing
That an officer of your age and standing
saouid allow himself to use language so
directly tending to sedition as 1his is a
matter much to be deplored
1T would not be improper for YOU. acting
as Judge advocate of the court when a
ruling Of the department was cited which.
IN your opinion, had proceeded without suf-
ncient investigation, to allude in a respect
1ul manner to the fact .ha+ as YOU con-
celved, the case was not as well considered
or as thoroughly investigated as it might
nave been. respectful criticism OF
partment, intended to lessen its weight by
calling attention to facts and c,rcum-
stances which. in the opinion of tn. officer
criticising. had escaped tae attention of
the department, would always be allowable.
NO head of department can claim to he
infallible; but for an officer of the naval
service to use the violent language above
set forth, and to denounce the Navy De-
partment by comparing its conduct with
tnat of Charles Stuart, which had caused
him to lose his head, AMI, evidently in
your opinion, justly, cannot for a mo-
ment be tolerated. Your conduct on this
occasion meets with the sevarest con-
demnation.
The court was remiss in not calling you
TO order for this violent Ind urseemly
the meaning of which could not
be misunderstood You will not be per-
mitted, for twelve months from this date,
to appear as judge advocate, recorder or
counsel before any naval court or board,
and it is hoped that reflection will bring
you to a realizing sense of your indiscre-
tiOn.