New-York tribune., 1900-05-04
SPION KOP DISPATCHES.
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE WAR OF
FICE AND THE GENERALS IN THE FIELD.


London. May 4-The telegraphic correspond
ence relating to the Spion Kop dispatches was
issued to Parliament just before midnight on
Thursday Lord Lansdowne. Secretary OF State
for War. telegraphed on March 2S asking the
advice of Lord Roberts about publishing the dis
patches saying: 1--WE cannot publish all the
documents inclosed with your dispatch of Feb
ruary 49," and suggesting certain dispatches
which, in Lord Lansdowne's opinion, might be
published Lord Lansdowne added:
But would not feel justified in thus editing
the papers unless you concur. and you may per-
haps think it we'll to refer to Butler. suggest.
as an alternative, that should treat your dis
patch of February 13 and all its Enclosures as
confidential. and that Butler should send
through you a full narrative of the operations
This you could forward 20 me, with any OBJ
servatons you desired to make. for publication.
Lord Roberts replied to Lord Lansdowne in a
dispatch dated Boemfontein. March 81, that he
had suggested to Sir Redvers Butler TO prepare a
full narrative, but that Sir Redvers had an
swered follows:
do not at all like the idea OF rewriting a
dispatch for publication. I much prefer to leave
it in the hands of the Commander in Chief Let
him select for publication whatever he thinks
proper
To this Lord Roberts appended that he would
not himself object to the publication of a paper
edited as Lord Lansdowne had suggested but
that it might. perhaps. be better to oyerrule
General Buffers objection and to adopt the
alternative course suggested by Lord Lans-
downe He asked Lord Lansdowne to telegraph
a reply. This reply from Lord Lansdowne,
dated April 2, said:
In view of Buffers objection l abandon the
proposal that the dispatch should be rewritten.
and 1 propose to publish the selection described
in my dispatch of March 2S.
Lord Roberts answered. under date of April g.:
1 agree to my dispatch of February IS being
published
The correspondence also contains two dis
patches referred to in Lord Lansdowne's dis
patch of March 2S The first is from Lord Lans-
downe to General Butler, dated January J. rep
resenting the impossiblity of publishing his dis
patches, which contain views of the situation
and forecasts of his intentions and emphasiz-
ing the advisability of sending dispatches de-
scriptive of the operations for presentation to
Parliament. The second is from Lord Wolseley
to Lord Roberts, dated February G. and saying:
You will. l feel sure. agree with me that
Methuen's dispatch regarding Masersfontein
could not be published sent There are pas
sages in ii Inappropriate to such documents and
IT also gives information of Importance to the
enemy. If he likes. | will revise the dispatch
but prefer not to undertake this responsibility
suggest that you should ask him TO cancel
this dispatch and to write another
The correspondence does not indicate whetber
Lord Methuen rewrote the dispatch as sug-
gested.
The Spon Kop dispa tches as published were
exactly the selections suggested in Lord I,ans-
dewnes dispatch of March %
THE Times" referring to the correspondence
says:
Lord Lansdowne's dispatch is a singular in
vitation to Lord Roberts to cook his oninior.
for the beneht of the unfortunate British public
Comment upon this correspondence Is aImost
supeTnuous There is nothing creditable TO
Sir Redvers Butler as his refusal 10 reWri,a y
dispatch for publication "