The Portland daily press., 1900-05-03
Criticism of Schley Made
to Newspaper Man.
Captain Says He Supposed II Was
Confidential.


speoting the published intervfsw In
which the captain 10 reported a. severely
rejecting upon Rear Admiral 6chisy.
The Sectetary's letter was written to-day
and was forwarded only after the Sscre-
tary bad had y conference on the sub ] ct
with the President The departments
action In the case IL . severe reprimand
ana 10 IL noteworthy that this letter has
bs,n made public, fact which in Itself
ndds to the weight Of the punishmsnt
Administered. The correspondence con-
sists Of two letters, one from Captain
Chad wick and the other from Secretary
Long. In his letter to Secretary Lon 9.
which Is dated New York, April Va,
Chaplain Chadwick says that the CONVEX
sation which was published was the out
nome Of an interview with Mr.. Atkins of
the brooklyn Eagle on an editorial dis
GUSHING the controversy regarding Rear
Admiral sohlsy, and proposing remedy,
viz: Abe promotion Of both Rear Ad-
miral Sohlsy and Hear Admiral sampson
to vice admiral.
al wrote Mr.. Atkins q note on the
matter and meeting him some days later.
Mr.. Atkins said he had received It and
had not used Il In any way. replied Of
course not, that IL was entirely private.
I 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 difficulty in the
matter WAS with the press In general,
which had failed to put before the ooun-
try the facts. based upon Rear Admiral
Schley's own signal and dispatches stat
ed In the letter OF the Secretary OF the
Navy to the SerAte Of the 9th Of Febru-
AIRY, 1899, that the peopls 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 az severe an
arraig nm ent as it was possible to make
regarding an officer and accused him of
conduct such that NO officer should re-
main silent under the accusations. That
every sentiment of military honor de-
manded that Admiral Schley should ask
for a court to clear himself CT such
charges and that believed every officer
Of the navy would be most pleased to So
him cleared for the honor Of the Eervlce
aud that I could certainly say for my
self, that so long az he remsintd silent
under thefe would not take his hand
or meet him socially. That 1t was i'm
possible to advance Admiral Sohley las
the editorial propossd) as long as he Test-
ed under these charges without destroy
ing the whole standard of.honor and duty
In the navy. That the whole navy so far
as knew 1t, was OF this opinion and
that It's attitude was matter OF self
preservation.
"Ths foregoing gives my remarks In
substance and purport IS far as my recoi-
lection serves me; the conversation was
entirely private; 50 regarded BY me and
also. supposed. By Mr.. Atkins, as evil
dencs of which 10 the fact that
b knew that my note which consisted
O I. as lar as / remember, bot this one
short phrase mentioned, was private; and
also that nearly or quite week passed
before he mentioned any conversation
publicly. 1t was In NO sense and In no
part intended for publication nor corsi1-
cred an interview.
Secretary Long In his letter says:
"The department regrets thst IL has
occasion to reprimAnd an otficsr Of your
rank and experience for insxeusahis In
discretion and offeDse against the navy
reg ulations.
HIt appears from your letter that In
your interview with Mr.. Atkins. whom
you knew to be . newspaper correspond
emit, you spoke OF fellow on1cer, your
senior In rank, In way, calculated 90
brinR him into oontsmpt. You knew
this to be q violation OF the naval regnla-
tions which forbid the comm uni eation
by Interviews of such comment and criti-
cism. Yeu knew it to be against the
good order and dis ciplins OF the Isrvice
because it IL the example OF one oftcsr In
high rank rejecting upon the honor and
character Of another an example which
unrsbuksd and followed. tends TO bring
the whole service lnt7 contention and
scandal. You knew that the professional
husiness of your Interviewer Is to collect
material for pu utilization. While he may
not have had Justification In publishing
what you understood. and regarded as
Understood ty him, TO be private CONVEX
sation, ron knew the risk you ran, and
within . year had bean reprimAndsd fof
similar misconduct In putting yourself
ana the welfare Of the service 90 the same
risk with the same result. You have
thus again and further impaired the con-
fidsnos Of the department In youi disore-
item.
at is true that your case differs from
some recent Gases OF cffsnsa on the part
Of other officers. In that Questionable re-
marks made by them were made on 90
oasiens and under oiroum staneeg which
they knew assured their publicity. In
your case the department. unrsssrvedly
accepts your statement thAt your remarks
were 10 no sense and Ia no part intended
for pubIioation nor considered as an In
terview. 1t 10 for this reason that tt
takes no Aotion than this emphatic Fepri.
mand. the receipt Of which you " III ao-
kunw ladga