The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-06-22
Where the Shame Lies.

All the features Of the discussion as to
the truth and authenticity Of the Schley-
Hodgson oolloquy concerning memorable
movement OF the Brooklyn at the battle Of
Santiago are now familiar to the public.
Practically the entire press Of the country
has been engaged in it, particularly from
the publishing OF Northumberland
HoDGsoN's denial" Of June II in the
Washington Post down to the Navy Depart
ment's publication Of the broader facts in
the newspapers Of June 20.
Lieutenant Commander HEILNER, know
ing the facts to contradict the apparent
meaning OF that letter. and not believing
Lieutenant Commander HoDGsoN to be ca
pable of falsehood, said In his communica-
ton to THE SUN that the Hodgson letter
must have been garbled. The SUN, know
ing what it knew, said before the recent
explanation had arrived, that "there must
be some bubble or trick in the case as it
had reached the Post and has been pre-
scented by it,"
Somewhere in the controversy" said
THE sun few days later. there is lie"
Feeling convinced that the lie would prove
not to be with HoDGsoN. we were forced
to express the conviction that the issue
upon that gloomy question lay between the
Post and Rear Admiral ScHLEY.
HoDasoN's statement to Capt CHADWICK
has marked the culprit.
The Post exonerated itself largely from
suspicion Of the dishonesty OF garbling by
| causing to have printed q facsimile Of the
letter in question, which showed that it
was complete and intact as printed, barring
an insignificant passage in which HoDGsoN
| said he would return the newspaper clip
| pings that SCHLEY had sent to him. But hav-
| Ing cleared its own skirts to this extent,
| our contemporary has sought to meet the
crushing effect Of HoDGsoN's final revela-
tion upon itself, or SCHLEY, or both. by des-
| perate effort to make HoDGsoN scapegoat,
charging that a comparison Of HoDGsoN's
letter to SCHLEY with his report to CHAD
WICK shows that HoDasoN has "lied either
to SCHLEY or to CHADWICK" Whether pas
sion or modification has disturbed our
contemporaries judgment we don't know
but to charge HoDasoN with telling one
story to ScHLEY and another one to CHAD
WICK Is an utter perversion Of the record
as it has been put before the Washington
Posts own eyes.
HopGsoN said to CHADWICK that the
colloquy printed in THE SUN was verbally
inaccurate but substantially correct. Now
| what did HoDGsoN say to SCHLEY, and what,
which Is OF vastly greater Importance now,
did SCHLEY say to HoDGsoN2 And what in
addition did ScHLEY do?
HoDGsoN's full story is that he re.
ceived note from ScHLEY incloslng copy
OF The Suns version Of the colloquy and
asking HoDGsoN to write denial" OF 1t.
SCHLEY called 1t ian oft-repeated calum.
NY" but he merely said that he "had nc
recollection OF it." HoDGsoN returned "a
lengthy letter Of explanation" giving his
recollection OF the conversation, and letting
SCHLEY know that it was substantially
true.
man OF the ordinary moral nicely,
learning, like SCHLEY, OF HoDGsoN's view
upon the case, would not have approached
the latter again upon the subject. ScHLEY
however, took different course. He wrote
again to HoDGsoN, asking again for a
denial OF the thing which HoDGsoN, with
the essentials Of it In mind doubtless had
just told him he could not actually deny
and the passage which HoDGsoN quotes
from SCHLEY's letter put by the side OF a
sentence which appears later in HoDGsoN's
statement, indicates what the pressure was
through which SCHLEY got what he wanted
for his purpose. There Is much in your
letter" wrote SCHLEY, with apparent disin
terestedncss. (Which should not like tc
use, as 1t would provoke assault upon you
which would not like to happen" Thus
SCHLEY played upon HoDGsoN's mind
persuading him to think that the phrase
"You mean starboard" for example, found
In THE SUNS version, was discourteous, and
that the effect OF the whole was to make
HoDGsoN, although it was his duty tc
warn his commander OF impending danger
liable to charges under the regulations fol
discipline. That this was the case in fact
appears from HoDGsoN's statement that
lin writing the letter / wished to refute
the fact OF any controversy eristin0 at q
critical stage Of the battle" The letter was