Evening star., 1899-02-04
WooDFoRD EXPLAIN S
Did Not Say That the Navy Was Unpre-
parsassae' War
Recent Address Was MisquOted - His
Remarks RefeHred to the
Army ordnance.

Mr. S L. WoodfAtd fbrmer United States
minister to Madrid, has written letter to
the Secretary of the Navy in explanation
of statements made by him at a recent
banquet in New York ia regard to the al
legged lack of preparation on the part of
the navy at the beginning of the war with
Spain. The letter is as follows:
My Dear Mr.. Secretary: This morning on
reaching my law office. got your letter of
yesterday, saying that you find that the
papers attribute to me certain statements
with regard to the supply of ammunition
in the navy during the war which are so
erroneous that you cannot believe that l
have been correctly reported. You add that
you have asked the bureau of ordnance to
give you the exact facts and you inclose
copy of its statement.
The remarks attributed to me by news
papers refer to = talk which | made before
the members of the Army and NAVY club
last Saturday evening, January 2S, at their
clubhouse. The meeting was of club mem
bers and their guests. 1t was not a public
meeting, but a gathering of clubmen and
their friends. l had been assured that no
reporters would be present, and ! did not
see any person taking notes The com
mittee of the club tell me that no reporters
were invited, and that they did not see any
person there taking notes. Certainly there
We're none near me. But this would not
excuse any lnaccuraey in the reports which
may have been written out by the news
paper representatives from hearsay or poor
memory. In the published remarks [ find
that am reported as saying that "on Feb
ruary IS, there were not on American ships
or in the ordnance depots in the United
States two rounds Of powder per gun at
that time
What l intended to say was that l had
been informed during February 1898 that
on the 18th of February of that year there
were not more than two rounds of ammu-
milton per gun and per man in the ordnance
depots and arsenals of the United States,
and thai l did not then believe that we
were ready for offensive operations or could
be before the 10Th of April. That this was
not true with regard to the navy is the
boast of that department and the pride of
all people. If | conveyed any other
idea in my remarks to the Army and Navy
Club l regret it. There were earnest friends
of the navy present and all seemed to ap
prove and none then criticised
My remarks with regard to the shipment
of ammunition across the continent to San
Francisco and thence to Honolulu and
thence to Hong Kong by the United Steamer
Baltimore related to the reserve supplies of
ammunition, in regard to watch your letter
to me of October 30 last says: 1T is true
that quantity of ammunition was sent by
rail to California, thence by the MOhican
to the Sandwich Islands, where it was
transferred to the Baltimore and by that
vessel taken to Hong Kong, arriving there
on April %, three days before the sailing
of the fleet to Mrs Bay" You added to
that letter that the bureau of ordnance had
advised you that Admiral Dewey had on
hand before the arrival of the Baltimore
sufficient ammunition for his Immediate
needs, of which only 80 per cent was used
during the battle Of Manila Bay.
L ventured the statement with regard to
the ammunition train across the continent
because it seemed to me demonstrative of
the marvellous foresight of your department
and of the energy, of the ordnance depart
ment that the reserve ammunition required
by Admiral Dewey for all the possible con-
tingencies of his service in the Philippines
should have been sent. SO promptly and
have reached Hong Kong so opportuneIy
on the 22d of April, three days before
Dewey sailed for Mrs Bay and Manila
l meant no criticism on Captain O'Neil.
or the ordnance bureau. or the navy but
said what 1 did in Intentional and hearty
praise of yourself and your department