The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-05-03
LONG SCORES CHADWICK
REPRIMANDs HIM FOR HIS sTRIC-
TUREs ON ADMIRAL sCBLEY.
His Statement of Circumstances I'm No
Way Mitigates the Severity Of
the Secretary's Letter.

WASHINGTON, May 2-Secretary Long
to-day made public the correspondence
which has taken place between the Navy
Department and Captain Chadwick respect
ing the published interview I'm which the
captain is reported to have seriously re-
fiected upon Rear Admiral Schley. The
secretary's letter was forwarded to-day,
and was forwarded only after the secretary
had had a conference on the subject with
the President at noon. The departments
action in the case is severe reprimand,
and it is noteworthy that it's letter has
been made public, a fact which in itself
adds to the weight of the punishment adj
ministered.
The correspondents consists of two let
tiers. one from Captain Chadwick and the
other from Secretary Long. In his letter to
Secretary Long. which is dated New York
April ~. Captain Chadwick says:
Il have In no way been privy to the pub
LEGATION of the said article. The circuu-
stances on which IL is based are as follows:
On the 18th or 18th of this month, in pass
ing Fourteenth street, in Washington. I
was saluted by Mr.. Atkins, correspondent
of the Brooklyn Eagle, gentleman whom
1 have known in Washington a number
OF years and always favorably. Mr.. At
kins had called my attention Jan. q TO an
editorial in the Brooklyn Eagle of. / think.
Dec. 81. 1899. expressing an extreme desire
for me to read 1t and asking If he could
see me. / declined to see him. as / knew
that he probably wished to discuss conf
Dental subject. / later obtained copy OF
the paper referred 10 and read the edi-
torial mentioned. 1t was discussion of the
controversy -egarding Rear Admiral Schley
and proposed a remedy. viz the promotion
of both Rear Admiral Schley and Rear Ad-
miral Sampson to vice admiral.
AT the casual meeting mentioned. on
the 18th or 18th inst. entered into CONVEX
sation with Mr. Atkins regarding the edi-
torial. / asked IL he had received a note
which I had sent him on reading it. in
which I said the writer was evidently not
aware of the facts in the case and that he
entirely mistook the principle involved.
This was the extent of the note. so far as
/ remember. Mr.. Atkins said he had re-
ceived the note and had not used IL In any
way. i replied. Of course. not that II was
entirely private. i repeated what 1 had
said I'm the note and said the question upon
which the navy stood was not the advance
ment of any particular man, but one of
honor. L added that the whole difficulty
in the matter was with the President. who
facts, based upon Rear Admiral Schley's
own signals and dispatches. stated in the
letter of the secretary of the navy to the
Senate OF the 9th Of February, 1899: that
the people I'm general were thus ignorant
of the true status of the case: that the
sec-etarys letter, which, OF course. was
virtually the Presidents statement of the
matter, was as severe an arrangement as IL
was possible to make regarding an Of
ficer. and accused him OF conduct such that
no officer should remain silent under the
accusations: that every sentiment of mill
tary honor demanded that Admiral Schley
should ask for a court to clear himself OF
such charges. and that believed every Of
ficer of the navy would be most pleased to
see him cleared for the honor of the serv-
ice. and that certainly say so for myself:
that so long he remained silent under
these / would not take his hand or meet
him socially: that IL was impossible 10 ad-
vance Admiral Schley, as the editorial pro-
posed. so long as he rested under these
charges without destroyine the whole
| standard of honor and duty I'm the navy;
that the whole navy, so far as knew IL.
was of this opinion, and that its attitude
was a matter of self-preservation.
THE foregoing gives my remarks in sub
stance and purport. far as my recollec-
ton serves me. The conversation was en-
tirely private-so regarded by me and also.
/ suppose by Mr.. Atkins, as evidence Of
which latter is the fact that he knew my
note, which consisted of. as far as I re-
member. but this one short phrase men
toned. was private. and also that nearly or
any conversation publicly. IL was In no
sense or I'm part intended for publica-
ton nor considered an interview"
Secretary Long, I'm his letter. says:
1.-The department regrets that n has oc-
casion to reprimand an officer OF your rank
and experience for inexcusable indiscretion
and offense against the navy regulations.
1T appears from your letter that in your
interview with Mr.. Atkins, who you knew
to be newspaper correspondent, you
spoke of a fellow-officer. your senior in
rank I'm a way calculated TO bring him
into contempt You knew this TO be a vio-
lation of the naval regulations. which for
bid the communication by interviews OF
such comment and criticism. You knew IL
10 be against the good order and discipline
of the service. because IL Is the example
OF one officer in high rank rejecting upon
the honor and character of another-a.> ex-
ample which, unrebukcd and followed.
tends to bring the whole service into con-
tention and scandal You knew that the
professional business OF your interviewer
is 10 collect material for publication. While
he may not have had justification I'm pub
fishing what you understood. and regarded
as understood by him. 10 be private con-
versation. you knew the risk YOU ran and
within a year had been reprfmanded for
similar misconduct In putting yourself and
the welfare OF the service TO the same risk
with the same result. You have thus again
and further impaired the confidence OF the
department I'm your discretion.
at Is true that your case differs from
of other officers In that Objectionable re-
marks made by them were made on occa-
sions and under circumstances which they
knew assured their publicity. In your case
the department unreservedly accepts your
statement that your remarks were In no
sense and In no part intended for publica-
ton nor considered as an interview IL is
for this reason that II takes no other ac-
ton than this emphatic repftmand. the re-
ceipt Of which you will acknowledge"