The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1900-05-03

and read the editorial mentioned. It was
T Re~ siSep Aa@Ira # s ses e~9n1a snd Br6 -Tegarding
remedy. viz, the promotion of both Rear
Admiral Sehley and Rear Admiral Samp-
cat the casual meeting mentioned ION
the 18th or 18th inst1 l entered into con-
editorial. 1 asked if 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
he entirely mistook the principle involved.
This was the extent OF the note so far
he had received the note. and had not
used it in any way L replied, of course,
that it was entirely private. 1 repeated
what I 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. I added that the
whole difficulty 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 dispatches, stated in the letter of the
secretary e the navy to the senate, of
the sixth of February, 1879; that the peo-
pie in general were thus ignorant of the
true status of the case; that the secre-
tary's letter, which,, OF course, was viz
tually the presidents statement of the
matter, was as severe an a-rraignnent
as it was possible to make regarding an
that no officer should remain silent I'M
der the accusations. That every senti-
Admiral Schley should ask for a court to
clear himself of such charges and that I
believed every OFFICER OF IlG navy would
be most pleased to see him cleared for
the honor of the service, and that I could
certainly say so tor, myself. That so
long as he remained silent, under the
circumstances I would not a a hand
or meet him socially. That it was i'm
possible to advance Admiral Schley, so
long as he rested under these charges
without destroying the whole standard
of honor and duty IN the navy. ina the
whole navy. so far as I knew, was Of
this opinion and that it's attitude was a
matter of self-preservation.
1.-The, foregoing gives my remarks in
substance and purport, as far as my rec
objection serves; the conversation was
also, I supposed, by Mr.. Atkins, as evil
dence of which latter is the fact that he
knew that my note, which consisted OF,
as far as l remember, but TINS one snort
phrase mentioned, was private; and also
tina nearly or quite a week passed before
he mentioned any conversation publicly.
It was in no sense and in no part intend
ed for publication, nor considered an in
Seeretarv Long in his letter says:
9Th department regrets that it has oc-
casion to reprimand an officer of your
discretion AID ofense against the navy
regulations.
ut appears from your letter that in youI
interview with Atkins whom you knew
to be a newspaper correspondent, you
spoke of a fellow officer, your senior In
rank, in a way calculated TO bring MIN
into contempt. You knew this to be q
forbid the communications by interviews
knew it to be against the good order anc
discipline of the service, because 1T is
the example of one officer in high ranl
rehecTing upon the honor and character
of another-an example, which unrebukeC
and followed, tends to bring the whole
service into contention and scandal. Vol
knew that the professional business OF
your interviewer is to collect material fol
publication. While he may not have ha1
Justification in publishing what you un'
derstnod, and regarded as understood by
him, to be private conversation, you knew
the risk you ran, and within a year hat
been reprimanded for similar misconduc
in putting yourself and the welfare O.
the service to the same risk, with tn
same result. You have thus again an'
further impaired the confidence of tn
department in your discretion.
ut is true your case differs from SOM
recent cases of offence on the part o
other Officers, in that Objectionable re
marks made by them were made on. oc
casions and under circumstances which
they knew assured publicity In you
| case the department unreServedly accept
your statement that your remarks wer
in no sense and in no part intended TO
publication, nor considered as an inter
view 1t is for this reason that it take
no other action than this emphatic repri
mand. the receipt of which you will &C
knowledge. Very respectfully,
'JOHN D.. LONG, Secretary"