The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1899-04-21
OFFICERS DISGRACED
By the Report Of the Court Inves-
tigating a New York Regiment.
TROOPS WANTED TO GO FORWARD,

But Were Held Back, According to the
Investigators Report, "by the Lack
of Bravery and Courage and Incom-
potency OF Their Commanders"
Albany. April 21.-A hearing on the
report OF the court which Investigated
the conduct of the Seventy-first regi-
ment of New York city at Santiago
was given by Governor Roosevelt yes
terday. The hearing developed tho
fact that the court OF inquiry found
that Major Smith, who was Lietenant
Colonel of the volunteer regiment,
Captain Whittle. who was major in
that command, and Major Austin, of
the staff of Brigadier General Smith,
and who commanded a company in
that regiment, we're guilty OF lack OF
bravery and courage and of incompe-
tency.
After the hearing had closed Gov
ernor Roosevelt said in substance that
the court had found that Lieutenant
Colonel Smith and Major Whittle
had betrayed cowardice and inefficiency
on July l, when the regiment had been
ordered into battle, and should be or
dered before a court martial or court
of inquiry to examine as to their fit
ness to remain as officers of the Ma
tional Guard, and that in relation to
Captain Austin It had found that he
had exhibited incompetency in fall
ing to communicate at once to Colonel
Downs, commander of the regiment, a
verbal order from General Kent, who
commanded the division, to take the
Seventy-first regiment to the front.
Major Buchanan, who acted as Judge
advocate for the court of inquiry,
stated that the findings of the court
! had been solely upon the testimony
presented.
The testimony of Colonel Downs
showed that General Kent had ordered
him to enter the trail through which
that regiment afterward passed and
move forward until his right rested
on the San Juan river and then de-
| ploy the enemy. That meant that he
should move across the river and
carry on operations in the open before
! San Juan hill. Instead of that he had
| halted his command on this side of
/ the river in protected seclusion; had
| permitted it to become disintegrated
and he and other staff line officers had
remained behind when the regiment, in
! detached order, had moved forward to
| San Juan hill. Testimony was given
| before the court which showed that
| Colonel Downs and other stan line
| officers had made no effort to ascertain
whether they were to remain in that
position or to go forward in action.
A great deal of testimony has been
given, said Major Buchanan, which
shows that, Notwithstanding the fact
that the Seventy-first regiment was
needed at the front, and had been or
dered there, II remained idle through
out the day and was the object of ridi-
cule for the men of other organizations
who passed it on the way to the front.
One general swore that the men greet
ed him as he passed with: I'VE want
to go forward, but our officers will not
go with us. What will we do?" The
general said he told them to go any
way and leave their officers behind
Major Whittle claimed to have heard
OF General Kent's orders to Downs
to move forward The major had
also admitted that he had lost his
battalion and could not find his men
when he had been ordered to move Ia
the front. All were gone but Com
pany c, and the major did not cross
the river until nightfall.
Lieutenant Colonel Smith, said Major
Buchanan, claimed to have no func-
tions. His two principal exploits OF
the day seemed to have been being
knocked down by a rush of men tC
the rear and reclining on a lot OF
blankets. He said that If all the
lieutenant colonels in the army acted
as did Colonel Smith there would have
been no victory. Although a lieuten.
ant colonel of a regiment on the line
OF battle, he had asked to go to the
rear to search for property of the regl.
ment.
While Captain Austin was with his
company, shortly after the regiment
entered the trail he was approached
by General Kent, who asked him why
the command had not moved forward
and who had given such an order
stationing them at the side of tho
road. He replied that mis- commander
had Austin, according to his ow1
testimony, said that Kent had tolC
him to have the company moved II
the front Austin replied that hi
. would be pleased to send any order tC
his commander, but that he could de-
nothing with his company until or.
dered by his regimental commander
Major Buchanan said that Austin haC
made no attempt to communicate
General Kent's orders to Colone
Downs, and in that he was guilty O
neglect of duty. He concluded hi
argument by stating that nothing
could be done to punish Colonel Downs
because he had resigned from thu
guard before the inquiry was insti
: tuted. Smith and Whittle, he said
should be brought before a court mar
tial, and Austin should be punished
I for not obeying General Kent's orde
e to take his company into battle