New-York tribune., 1900-05-03
CAPT. CHADWICK REBUKED
SEVERELY REPRIMANDED FOR ATTACK
ING ADMIRAL sCHLEY.
SECRETARY LONG CALLS THE CAPTAINS
ACTION AN "INEXcUsABLD INDIsCRE-
TIoN AND OFFENCE AGAINST
THE NAVY REGULATIONS"
10y TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE.

lBy TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE.l
Washington. Nav 2-The severity of the Off
cial reprimand administered to-day to Captain
French e Chadwick by the Secretary Of the
Navy exceeds that of any similar punishment
which has fallen an officer OF such high rank
for several years. This is attributable TO the
fact that IL was the second instance within a
year in which Secretary Long has been Obliged
10 reprove the same officer for violating Naval
Regulation No. 236 with a view to creating un-
favorable public opinion regarding fellow Off
Ger. and the manner in which il was sought
10 accomplish that object.
Captain Chadwick comma nded the flagship
New-York and naturally Admiral Samp-
sons most active adberent in the unfortunate
controversy which followed the siege and battle
of Santiago His first disregard of the reguia-
tion forhdding publications directly or indirect
lv,, which came TO the official attention of the
Department occurred about year ago, when
one OF the monthly magazines published broad
side against Admiral Schey founded on extracts
from official documents not hitherto made public
although Captain Chadwick had access to them
as chief of staff. Secretary Long in that IN
stance simply spread the facts on Captain Chac-
wick's record with private reprimand, at the
risk of being accused of partiality for his eX-
treme leniency.
In the present case the publicity given to the
more pointed, as it marks wide departure from
the custom of the Department in not making
public a communication to an officer until he has
had time TO receive il. 1t appears that the letter
dated to-day given to the press within an
hour or two after the President approved it and
almost as soon as il deposited in the mails
After the publication of the interview purport
ing to quote Captain Chadwick early last week
the Department called upon him for an explana-
tion which ne made in letter dated April -
and brought to Washington in person. He also
made a personal statement to Secretary Long
which was clearer than his letter. The corre-
spondence al made public to-day is as follows;
CAPTAIN CHADWICK'S EXPLANATION.
In his letter to Secretary Long Captain Chad
wick says:
of said article The circumstances which 1t is
mcnth in passing down Fourteenth-st. In Wash
ington ! was saluted by Mr. Atkins correspondent
have knewn in Washington number of years and
always fayorably Mr. Atkins had called +, my t at.
Brooklyn Eagle of, think, December 81 1899 ex7
asking if he could | declined to see him
kne that he probably Wished 10 eong 6iscass OF sh
paper referred and read the editorial mentioned
Rear Admiral schley and proposed a remedy: viz
the promotion of both Rear Admiral schley and
the casual meeting mentioned 69n the lSth r or
AK Rns regardns etS the EDITORIAL @ asked if
received a which had sent him on reading H.
Of the facts in case and that he entirely mis-.
took the principle involved Ihs was M tns said ID
yes he had received The note. and had not used IT
tT enrTeiy hai prvate repeated what said in the
and said The HPGn of anT
man but of honor. | added that the Whoie M aii-
erai which had failed 10 put before the country tI
hos Sfa N
secretarv of the Navy the Senate OF February
@ IN thaf the the true eoPe !sts n q ihe That the
secreJarys letter which od e9upsT tbe matfer was as
severe arraignment as II was possible 10 dct ahe
such thai no officer should remain silent under the
accusations. That every sentiment OF ia mi'aeS a II
for court to clear himself of such CHARGES ana
that believed every b GoeI esfed ar thf for he Sonor Of
the service and that ! could certainly say so Tor
1pese Would not take his hand or him So,
caly That IT was mpossnie 70 va long as he
cy 5ser a5 hf these hagep Without the
whole e S6 honor s1 far ana as 'q'k knew M it,
this opinion. and that its attitude was matter
The foregoing sso remarks in ssr1ss me
The entirely private & SO ,kgs TsgsFdss s
by me- and alsS the "a fact that he knew
tbst nv note which consisted of. far as re-
sm6e bnt hi. s.o onf iha shOn nea or quite
passed before he mentioned any conversation pup;
for publication considered an interview
THE REPRIMAND ADMINISTERED
Secretary Long in his letter, says
The Department regrets that It has occasion TO
reprirnand an officer OF your rank and experience
tor inexcusable indiscretion and offence against
the Navy regulations. -. ,-.or
II appears your letter that in your inter
view with Mr.. Atkins. whom you knew 10 be
newspaper correspondent, you spoke or a felioW
officer your senior in rank, in way calculated tC
bring him into contempt. You knew this TO be a
violation of the Naval Regulations, which FORBID
the communication by interviews OF such comment
and criticism. You knew IL 20 be against the soou
order and discipline OF the service. because 1t Is
the example Of officer in high rank rejecting
upon the honor and character OF another-an ex
ample which. unfebuRed and followed tenus &c
bring the whole service into contention and scandal
You knew that the professional business OF youi
interviewer is TO collect material for publication
While he may have not had justification in publish
ing what you understood. and regarded as under
stood by him. 10 be private conversation, you knew
The risk YOU ran and within a year had been re
primanded similar misconduct in putting your
self and the welfare OF the service to the same
risk with the result You have thus agair
and further impaired the confidence OF the De
partment in your discretion.
is that your case differs from some re
cent Of offence the part OF other officers