The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-05-03
CHADWICK HARSHLY REBUKED
DEPARTMENT TAKES NOTE OF HIS
CRITICISM OF sCHLEY.

He Explained That His Statement
Against schley Was Not Intended
for Publication - Secretary Long
Told Him He Had Further IIa-
paired the Confidence of the De-
partment in His Descretion--Repri-
mnnd Was Emphatic.
Washington, May 2.-Secretary Long to-
day, after a conference with the Presi-
dent, made public the correspondence
which has taken place between the navy
department and Capt. Chadwick. respect
ing the published interview in which the
Captain Is reported as severely rejecting
upon Rear Admiral Schley.
The department action in the case is
a severe reprimand, and IL is noteworthy
that its letter has been made public; a
fact which, in itself, adds to the weight
of the punishment administered.
The correspondence consists of two lei
tens, one from Capt. Chadwick and the
other from Secretary Long. In his letter
to Secretary Long which is dated New
York, April 27, Capt Chadwick says he
was In no way privy TO the publication
of the article. on the 10th or 17th of this
month he said he met the Brooklyn Eagle
correspondent, whom he had known some
years and always favorably. The latter
had previously called his attention to an
Eagle editorial, discussing the contro-
versy over Rear Admiral Schley and pro-
posing a remedy viz, the promotion of
both Rear Admirals Schley and Sampson
to be vice admirals
A al tfaur ia
conversed with MIR. Atkins. the corre-
spondent. regarding the editorial and ask
ed II he had received a note which he
(ChadwiclO had sent him on reading it,
merely saying the writer was not aware
of the facts In the case and that he en-
tirely mstook the principle involved.
Chadwick says:
what Chadwick Said.
IT repeated what had said in the note,
and said the question upon which the
navy stood was not the advancement Of
any particular man, but one of honor; that
the whole difficulty was with the press in
general which had failed to put before
the country the facts, based upon Rear
Admiral Schleys own signals and dis
patches, stated In the letter of the Secre-
tary of the Navy to the Senate on Feb.
6, 1899; that the peop,e In general were
thus ignorant of the true status of the
case; that the Secretarys letter, which,
of course was virtually the President j
statement of the matter, was as severe an
arraignment as 1t was possible to make
regarding an officer, and accused him of
conduct such that no officer should remain
silent under the accusations; that every
sentiment of military honor demanded
that Admiral schley should ask for
court to clear himself of such charges and
that believed every officer of the navy
would be most pleased to see him cleared,
for the honor of the service. and that l
could certainly say SO for myself; that so
long as he remained silent under these
charges, I would not take his hand or
meet him socially; that it was impossi-
BILE TO advance Admiral Schley (as the
editorial proposed) so long as he rested
under these charges without destroying
the whole standard of honor and duty in
the navy. and that the whole navy so
far as / knew it was of this opinion, and
that its attitude was q matter OF self
preservation.
'The conversation was entirely private,
and so regarded 1 supposed by Mr.. At
kins."
Severe Reprimand.
Secretary Long. in his letter, says:
''The department. regrets that 1t has
occasion to reprimand an officer of your
rank, and experience for inexcusabie in
discretion and offense against the navy
regulations.
at appears from your letter that in your
interview with Mr.. Atkins, whom you
knew to be a newspaper correspondent,
you spoke of fellow officer, your senior
in rank, in a way calculated to bring him
into contempt. You know this to be q vio-
iation Of the naval regulations which for
bid the communication by interviews OF
such comment and criticism. You knew
II to be against the good order and disc-
pline of the service because 1t is the ex-
ample of one officer In high rank reflect
ing upon the honor and character of an
other-an example which, unrebuked and
followed, tends to bring the whole ser
vice into contention and scandal You
know that the professional business of
your interviewer is to collect material for
publication. While he may not have had
justification in publishing what you un-
derstood and regarded as understood by
him to be private conversation, you knew
the risk you ran, and within q year had
been reprimanded for similar misconduct
in putting yourself and the welfare OF the
service 10 the same risk with the same
result. You have thus again and further
impaired the confidence of The department
In your discretion.
1T is true that your case differs from
some recent cases of offense on the part
of other officers in that Objectionable re-
marks mode by them were made on oc-
caslons and under circumstances which
they knew assured their publicity In
your case the department unreservedy
accepts your statement that your re-
marks were in no sense and in no part
intended for publication, nor considered
as an interview. 1t is for this reason
that II takes no action other than this en-
phatic reprimand, the receipt Of which
you will acknowledge. Very respectfully,
John d. Long. Secretary"