The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-11-14
old CHARGES RENEWED
Rev. ]. +. Clark Recalls the Ac-
cident to the Charleston.
Declares in n Communication to the
Navy Department That Officers of
Ship struck "a Recf-Snilors Said to
Have Been MronEfully Punished.

The charge that the officers of the
cruiser Charleston were drunk when that
vessel struck on a reef off the ror h Goa ST
| Of Lrzon one year ago was revived VS.
terday in communication received at
the Navy Department. The investigation
made developed the fact that the accused
men had been completely exonera.e ed aft.r
beard of enquiry had looked into the
matter.
The Navy Department has heretofore
declined to give the name OF the person
VINO brought the charge to its at;en ion
II was shown by the official papers sen
yesterday that he is Rev. J. F. Clark, mis-
sionary Of the American Board, who has
been stationed in bulgaria MI Cl-rk e.
tuI ned TO Boston recently, and the n W
Voice" Prohibition newspaper, cited
him as authority for the statement that
drunkenness among the Charitsion's off,
GERS did exist when the cruiser was
wrecked. a clipping Of this article was
sent to the Navy Department by BIS
ten clergyman. who requested TO be N
formed whether these charges had been
investigated. An answer covering the
result of the enquiry made by thc De art
ment will be sent to this gentleman.
Tho papers show that an electrical en-
ciEeer on enc of the American ships In the
Philippines wrote TO Rev. MIR. Clark. then
in Samo- kco, Bulgaria. that enlisted men
of the Charleston had told him that sew
eral officers OF the Charleston. particularly
the navigator. were drunk when the YES
sci struck. III. Navy Department asked
NJ. Clark 70 furnish the name Of his in
forrianl and &c ds6 So with copy CT the
eieclricai engineers letter containing the
charges.
Sear Admiral Watson. then in com
mand Of the Asiatic Station. was instruct
&C 10 investigate the charges. and the
Investigation was in progress when he
WAS relieved by Rear Admiral Remey. who
completed the enquiry.
Captain Pigman of the Charleston was
not accused of being intoxicated. but he
was called on for a statement. He de-
MED the charges and exonerated the navi-
gator and other officers.
The navigator also Indignantly denied
the charge and said that he never drank
while the ship was under way, or for sew
eral hours before that time, and that he
had not touched any intoxicant for two
weeks before the disaster. He claimed
that the accusation was the result OF spite
on the part of men on the Charleston con-
victed of false swearing before the court
of enquiry which Investigated the YES
sells loss. This court exonerated Captain
Pigrlan. the navigator. and other officers
from blame.
The Investigation Of Mr.. Clark's charge
showed 20 the satisfaction Of the Navy De-
partment that il was untrue and the de-
partmeEt disposed of the matter in a COM
murication 10 the commander-in-chief of
the Asiatic Station, the main paragraph of
which follows:
The department accepts your sugges-
tion that for the reasons stated by you
further investigation of these matters is
now unnecessary"
With the revived charge there is coupled
a new one, that "a number of sailors who
less was caused by the drunkenness of Off
GERS. were punished for such testimony by
sentences to imprisonment from two to four
thority for the statement that the men
were released on telegraphic orders from
Washington
The records Of the Navy Department
show that several enlisted men of the
Charleston testified at the court of en-
quiry that an officer had brought ashore
his personal effects after the men had
been forbidden to take theirs from the
wreck. These men were accused of false
swearing and were convicted, receiving
sentences Of from one TO four years. i'm
prisonment Owing to legal irregularities
in their trials, the proceedings against
them were disapproved and they were re-
leased. Although every member OF the
crew was asked, at the court
of enquiry, if he had any complaint to
make. none came forward to accuse any
officer of drunkenness