The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1900-05-03
Admitted Making Comment Quoted n I
Private Conversation,
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION.
Secretary Long Chasc!srllu Capt ChadwIsk's
Talk as an Insxcusabs Indlsoston and
0Iisnss Against Navy Regulations

Washington. May 3.-Secretary Long
yesterday made public the correspond
ence which had taken place between
The navy department and Capt. Chad
wick respecting the published interview
I'm which the captain is reported as Sc
Herely rejecting upon Rear Admiral
Schley. The secretary's letter was writ
zen yesterday and was forwarded only
Rfter the secretary had had a confer
ence on the subject with the president.
The departments action in the case
is severe reprimand. and II is note
worthy that its letter has been made
public, fact which In itself adds TO
ghe weight Of the punishment admin
tstered. The correspondence consists OF
uwo letters, one from Capt. Chadwick
and the o,her from Secretary Long. In
his letter 10 Secretary Long. which is
dated New York, April 27, Capt. Chad
wick says:
II have in no way been privy to the
publication OF said article. The circum-
stances on which IL is based are as
folows:
ION the 18th or 18th OF this month, in
passing down Fourteenth street in
washington, / was saluted by Mr..
Atkins, correspondent OF the Brooklyn
Eagle, a gentleman whom i have known
in Washington number OF years and
always favorably. Mr.. Atkins had
called my attention on Jan. 2 last to an
editorial I'm the Brooklyn Eagle OF. l
think. Dec. 81, 1899. expressing a de-
sire for me TO read il, and asking II
he could see me. declined To see
him. as know that he probably wished
10 discuss a confidential subject.
Ia oh n m nj -
ferred TO and read the editorial men
toned. 1t was a discussion OF the con-
sroversy regarding Rear Admiral
Schley and proposed a remedy. viz:
The promotion OF both Rear Admiral
Schley and Rear Admiral Sampson to
vice admiral.
HAD RECEIVED THE NOTE.
AT the casual meeting mentioned
(on the 10th or 18th inst.) l entered into
conversation with Mr. Atkins regard
ing the editorial. asked IL he had re-
ceived note which i had sent him on
reading 1t, 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 i remember. Mr.. Atkins said
yes, he had received the note, and had
not used il In any way. / replied. OF
course not, that IL was entirely private.
j repeated what 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. / added that the whole difficult
~ 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 dis
patches stated In the letter of the
secretary OF the navy to the Senate on
the 9Th OF February. 1899; that the peo-
pile in general were thus ignorant OF the
true status of the case. That this let
ter which. of course, was virtually the
presidents statement of the matter.
was as severe an araignment as X was
possible to make regarding an officer
and accused him OF conduct such that
no officer should remain silent under
the accusations.
SHOULD DEMAND INQUIRY.
THAT every sentiment OF military
honor demanded that Admiral Schley
should ask for a court to clear him
self OF such charges and I believed
every officer would be most pleased to