The daily morning journal and courier., 1900-05-03
IS SEVERELY REPRIMANDED
LECTION OF SECRETARY LONG IN
 CAPT. CHADWICK'S CASE.

Newspaperman The Letters Ex
 changed Between tho Captain and tn
 secretary-Reason Why More scvor,
 Action Was Not Talk on.
 Washington May 2.-Secretary Long
 to-day made public the correspondence
 between the navy department and Cap
 tain Chadwick respecting the published
 interview in which the captain is re-
 ported as severely ref1ecting upon Rear
 Admiral Schley. The secretary's letter
 was written to-day and was forwarded
 only after the secretary had had con
 ference on the subject with the presi-
 dent The department action in the
 case is a severe reprimand, and it is
 noteworthy that it's letter has been
 made public, fact which In Itself adds
 to the weight of the punishment ad-
 ministered. The correspondence con-
 sists of two letters, one from Captain Chadwick and the other from Secretary
 Long. In his letter to Secretary Long,
 which is dated New York April 27, Cap
 tain Chadwick says:
 T have In no way been privy to the
 publication of the said article. The cir
 cumstances on which 1t Is based are as
 follows: On the 18th or 17th of this
 month in passing down Fourteenth street in Washington, I was saluted by
 MT. Atkins, correspondent of the Brook
 lyn Eagle. a gentleman whom l have known in Washington urlmber of years and always favorably. MT. At kins had called my attention January 2 last to an editorial in the Brooklyn Eagle, of, think December S1, 1899, ex- pressing a desire for me to read 1t and asking if he could see me. I declined to see him, as I knew that he probably wished to discuss confidential sub
 ject. I later obtained copy of the paper referred to and read the editorial mentioned. It was discussion of the controversy regarding Rear Admiral Schley, and proposed a remedy. viz; The promotion of both Rear Admiral Schley and Rear Admiral Sampson to vice admiral.
 ''At the casual meeting mentioned (on the 16th or 17th inst) I entered into conversation with MT. Atkins regarding 
 a note which had sent him on reading it, in which I said the writer was evil dently not aware of the facts in the case and that he entirely mistook the principle invloved. This was the extent of the note as far as remember. Mir Atkins said yes, he had received the note and had not used 1t in any way. replied of course that the note was entirely private I repeated what I 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. I added that the whole difficulty in the matter was with the press in general, which had failed to put before the country the facts, based upon Rear Admiral Schley's own signals and dispatches, stated in the letter to the secretary of the navy to the senate of the sixth of February, 1899, that the people in general were thus ignorant of the true status of the case. That the secretary's letter which of course was virtually the presidents 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 accusa- tions That every sentimennt of military honor demanded that Admiral Schley should ask for court to clear himself of such charges and that I believed ev- cry officer of the navy would be most pleased to see him cleared for the honor of the service and that I could certainly say for myself that so long as he re- mained silent under these, l would not take his hand or meet him socially. l That it was impossible to advance Ad- l niral Schley (as the editorial proposed) | so long as he rested under these | charges without destroying the whole l standard of honor and duty in the navy. | That the whole navy so far as l knew | t, was of this opinion and that its at l itude was a matter of self preserva- ion.
 ''The foregoing gives my remarks in substance and purport as far as my recollection serves me- the conversation | vas entirely private; so regarded by | ne, and also. l supposed, by MT. Att ,ins, as evidence of which latter Is the act that he knew that my note which consisted of, as far as I remember of his one short phrase mentioned was private and also that nearly or quite a week. passed before he mentioned any publicly. It was In no ense and in no part intended for pub ication. nor could such be inferred"
 Secretary Long in his letter says: The department regrets that 1t has oc- asion to reprimand an officer of your ank and experience for ineXcusable h. iscretion and offense against the navy eguations It appears from your letter hat in your interview with MT. Atkins, yhom you knew to be a newspaper cor you spoke of fellow officer, our senior in rank in a way calcu- ated to bring him into contempt. You now this to be a violation of the naval egulations which forbid the communi ation by interviews of such comment nd criticism. You know It to be gainst the good order and discipline of | le service because it is the example of ne officer in high rank ref1ecting upon | le honor and character of another-an l which, unrebuked and followed, l ends to bring the whole service into ontention and scandal. You know that | ne professional business of your inter- ; fewer is to collect material for publica- on. While he may not have had justified on in publishing what you understood, | nd regarded as understood by him, to e private conversation you knew the l six you ran, and within a year had | cen reprimanded for similar miscon- l