The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-05-03
DOWN UPON CHADWICK
Sits the Honorable Secretary
of the Navy
WHO ROASTED SCHLEY
But Now RoaStS Chadwick for
Talking About 1t

Washington, May 2-Secretary Long
which has taken place between the navy
department and Captain Chadwick re-
specting the published Interview in which
the captain is reported as severely re-
hecting upon Rear Admiral Schley. The
secretary's letter was written today and
| was forwarded only after the secretary
| had a conference on the subject with the
president at noon. The departments ac-
| ton in the case is a severe reorimand
and it is noteworthy that its letter has
| been made public; fact which in itself
| adds to the weight of the punis hment
administered. 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 q, Cap
tain Chadwick says:
II have in no way been privy to the
publication of said article. The circum-
stances on which it is based are as fol-
lows: On the 10th or 18th of this month
in Washington L was saluted by Mr.. At
kins. correspondent of the Brooklyn
Eagle, a gentleman whom 1 have known
in Washington a number of years and
always favorably. My attention had been
called by him to an editorial of December
81, 1889, in the Eagle, expressing an ex-
IRENE desire for me to read it, and ask
ing If he could see me. 1 declined to see
him, as I knew that he probably wished
to discuss a confidential subject. I later
obtained a copy Of the paper referred to
and read the editorial mentioned. 1t was
a discussion of the controversy regarding
Rear Admiral Schley, and proposed a
remedy, VIZ: The promotion of both
Rear Admiral Schley and Rear Admiral
Simpson to vice admiral At the casual
meeting mentioned Con the 18th or 18th
instanO I entered into conversation with
Mr.. Atkins regarding the editorial.
asked if he had received a note which L
had senS him on reading It, in which 1
said the writer was evidently not aware
of the facts in the case and that he en-
tirely mistook the principle involved.
This was the text of the note so far as
remember. Mr.. Atkins says, yes. he had
read the note and had not used it in any
way. L replied, of course not, that it was
entirely private. L repeated what 1 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. 1 added that the difficulty
in the matter was with the press in gem
eral. which had failed to put before the
public the facts based upon Rear Admiral
Schley's own signals and dispatches.
stated in the letter of the secretary to
the senate on the 9Th of February, 1883;
that the secretary's letter, which, of
course, was virtually the presidents
statement of the matter, was as severe
an arraignment as it was possible TO
make regarding one officer and accused
him of conduct such that no officer
should remain silent under the accusa-
tons; that every sentiment of military /
honor demanded that Admiral Schley !
should ask for court to clear himself |
of such charges, and that I 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 re- /
manned silent under these, l would not |
take his hand or meet him socially; that |
it was impossible to advance Admiral |
Schley as the editorial proposed) so long |
as he rested under these charges, with |
out destroying the whole standard of |
honor and duty in the navy; that the !
whole navy, so far as l knew it, was of |
this opinion, and that its attitude was a
matter of self-preservation.
The foregoing gives my remarks in
substance, as far as my recollection .
serves me; the conversation was entirely
private, or SO regarded by me, and also,
1 supposed, by Mr. Atkins, as evidence .
of which latter is the fact that he knew |
that my note which consisted, as far as
l remember Of but the one short phrase
mentioned, was private; and also that
nearly or quite a week passed before he
mentioned any conversation publicly. 1t
was in no sense and in no part intended /
for publication, nor considered an inter
view"
Secretary Long in his letter says: The
department regrets that it has occasion
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. whom
you knew TO be 4 newspaper correspon-
dent. You spoke of a fellow-officer. your
senior in rank in a way calculated to
bring him into contempt. You knew this
TO be a violation OF the naval regulations.
which forbid the communication by inter
views OF such comment and criticism.
You knew II to be against the good order
and discipline of the service, because it
IS the example OF one officer in high rank
rejecting upon the honor and character
of another-an example which. un.ebukel
and followed. tends to bring the whole
service into contention and scandal. You
knew that the professional business of \
your interviewer is 70 collect material for