The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-03-03
UNJUST CRITICISM.

There have been many expressions OF APP
prevail by foreigners of the conduct of the
government and people of the United States
| since Ihe destruction of the Maine, and they
are well deserved. No people in similar try
ing circumstances could have acted with
more dignity and self-eontrol We have
made a record In that regard that will be
remembered to our credit for a long time
and have good effect in shaping the for
.eign estimate of national character.
But to this general rule of patience and
| reasOnableness there are some exceptions
| on the part of those who are criticising the
government for it's lack of energy and the
court of inquiry because, as they say. it is
so long about reporting the cause of the
disaster. Those who make these criticisms
are devoid of reasonableness if not of rea-
son. Apparently they would have had the
government jump at conclusion hit or
| miss, declaring war first and Investigating
afterwards. IL the government had done this
it might have made a terrible mistake If it
had assumed off-hand that the destruction
of the Maine was a cause of war and had
committed Itself to a warlike policy it might
have discovered before it had gone far that
1t was not on tenable ground and have been
compelled not only to back down but to
apologize to Spain. That would have made
us the laughing stock of the world. 1t was
far better to assume that the disaster was
due to accident and then order an in
vestigation before deciding any line of
action. The go-ahead policy is all right in
its place, but before we go ahead we want
TO be sure we are right.
Criticism of the court of inquiry is equally
unreasonable. First, consider the import
ance of the investigation and the oonse-
quences depending on it. 1t involves the
issue of a naval war between two nations,
both of which are fairly well equipped with
up-to-date destructive fighting machines.
| Such war is infinitely to be deprecated I'M
less it is absolutely necessary for the vim
dication OF the national honor. No other
court of inquiry ever sat upon SO important
| question as this. If the investigation did
not involve anything but the cause of the
| loss of a fine battle ship and her crew under
| ordinary circumstances it would be a very
important one, but in this case the dis
| covery of the cause involves the possibility
| CT war. "A unulnS WHICH may ne UTMOST
I equivalent to a declaration of war should
| only be reached after a most exhaustive
| investigation Then, consider the difficult
ties under which the investigation is being
made-the ship under water. twisted out of
all resemblance to her original shape, a
| wilderness of impossible obstacles, many
| parts gone, her hull sunk in the mud, the
| water reeking with filth, etc. Finally, it
should be remembered that the court has
been in session only ten days. A trial in q
civil court involving only few thousand
| dollars sometimes occupies weeks. The trial
| of Sheriff Martin for shooting the rioters at
and is not finished yet. That is an import
! ant case, but in respect of momentous in
terests and consequences involved it is not
to be compared with the case of the Maine
So, from whatever point of view the mat
ter is considered it is evident that the
criticisms Of the government and the court
of inquiry are most unreasonable and un-
| just. 1t is true they do not represent the
general sense of the American people, but
| they do to some extent mar the unanimity
| Of popular Judgment in approval Of the
course of the government and of the
practically universal confidence in the court
| of inquiry. Those who make these criti-
cisms may imagine that they are actuated
| by superior patriotism, but the great mass
of the American people know better.