The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-02-04
DIDN'T CRITICISE NAVY
GENERAL WOODFORD DID NOT MEAN
TO BE OFFENSIVE.
Letter to Secretary Long in Reply to
the Lntter's Inquiry Concerning
the Ex-Ministcr's Utterances.

NEW YORK, Feb. 3-The following letter
to the secretary of the navy, John d. Long,
written by the Hon. Stewart l.. Woodford
is made public by consent of the secretary:
Mr.. Secretary-ThiS morning, on reach
ing my law Office, / got your letter of yes
terday saying that you find the papers at
tribute to me certain statements with re-
gard to the supply of ammunition in the
navy during the war which are so err
ronecus that you cannotS 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 lnclose
copy of its statement.
THE remarks attributed to me by news
papers refer to a talk which | made before
the members of the Army and Navy Club
last Saturday evening, Jan. 70, at their club
house. The meeting was not public, but a
gathering of clubmen and their friends 1
had been assured that no reporters would be
present and / did not see any person TAX
ing notes. But this would not excuse any
inaccuracy in my statements, while it may
explain possible inaccuracies in the reports
which may have been written out by the
newspaper representatives from hearsay or
poor memory. In the published remarks [
find that / am reported as saying that On
Feb. Is there were not on American ships
or in the ordnance depots in the United
States two rounds of powder per gun a that
time What 1 intended to say was that l
had been informed during February, 1898,
that on the 18th of February of that year
there was not more than two rounds of ann
munition per gun and per man in the ord
nance department and arsenalS of the
United States. ard that I did not then be-
lieve we were ready for offensive opera
tons, or could be before the 18th of April
That this was not true with regard 20 the
Navy Department is the boast of that de-
partment and the pride of all our people. If
l conveyed any other idea in my remarks
to the Army and Navy Club | regret it,
There were earnest friends of the navy
present, and all seemed to approve 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 States
steamer Baltimore, related to the reserve
supply of ammunition in regard to which
your letter to me of Oct. 30 last says: ut
is true that a quantity of ammunition was
sent by railroad to California thence by the
Mohcan to the Sandwich islands, where it
was transferred to the Baltimore and by
that vessel taken to Hong-Kong, arriving
there on April p, three days before the sail
ing of the fleet to Mrs bay. You added to
had advised you that Admiral Dewey had
on hand before the arrival of the Baltimore
sufficient ammunition for his immediate
needs of which only 30 per cent. was used
during the battle of Manila bay. / ventured
the statement with regard to the ammuni-
seemed to me demonstrative of the marvel
GUS foresight of your department and of
the energy of the Ordnance Department
that the reserve ammunition required by
Admiral Dewey for all the possible contin-
gencies of his service in the Philippines
should have been sent so promptly and have
reached Hong-Kong so opportunity on the
I'D of April three days before Dewey
sailed for Mrs bay and Manila. / meant
no criticism on Captain O'Neil, nor the
what l did in intentional and hearty praise
of yourself and your department"