The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1900-05-07
CHADWICK GETS A
SEVERE CALL down
Secretary Long Sends the
New York's Captain a
Reprimand
USES PLAIN LANGUAGE
The Talking officer Says He Was
Speaking in Confidence to The
Brooklyn Eagle Reporter
and Was Surprised at
the Result.
USES PLAIN LANGUAGE

Washington. May 2.-Secretary Long to-
day after conference with the president
made public the correspondence which
has taken place between navy depart
ment and Captain Chadwick respecting
the published interview in which the cap
tain is reported as severely rejecting
upon Rear Admiral Schley.
The departments action In the case is
a severe reprimand. and 1t is noteworthy
that its letter has been made public; a
fact which, IN itself, adds to the weight
of the punishment administered. The
correspondence consists of two letters.
one from Captain Chadwick and the other
from Secretary Long.
1t his letter to Secretary Long, dated
New York, April 9th, Captain Chad
wick says he was in no ways privy to
the publication OF the article. On the
10th or 18th of this month he said he
met The Brooklyn Eagle correspondent
whom he had known for some years and
always favorably. The latter had pre-
viously called his attention to an Eagle
editorial discussing the controversy over
Rear Admiral Schley and proposing a
remedy, viz the promotion of both Rear
Admirals Schley and Sampson TO be vice
admirals.
What Chadwick Said.
At the casual meeting mentioned. he
conversed with Mr. Atkins. the CORE
spondent, regarding the editorial and said
in speaking of Schley:
THAT very sentiment of military hon
or demanded that Admiral Schley should
ask for a court to clear himself of the
charges against him. and that l 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
1t was impossible to advance Admiral
Schley (as the editorial proposed so long
as he rested under these charges without
destroying the whole standard of honor
and duty in the navy. That the whole
navy so far as | knew II was of this opin-
ion, and that Its attitude was a matter
of Self-preServation.
1.-THE conversation was entirely private.
and so regarded, supposed. by Mr.. At
kins.
Longs Severe "Call Down"
Secretary Long in his letter says:
1.-The department regrets that 1t has
provocation to reprimand an ofHcer
of your rank and experience for mex
cusable indiscretion and offense
against the navy regulations
at appears from your letter that IN
Your Interview with Mr. Atkins. whom
you knew to be newspaper cores
pendent. you spoke of fellow ofhcer'
your senior In rank, in way caiculat-
ed to bring him In contempt You
knew this to be a violation OF the
naval regulations which forbid the
communication by interviews OF such
comment and criticism. You knew IL
to be against the good order and
liSciDliQp of the service because II Is
the example Of one ofncer In hlSn
rank rejecting upon the honor ana
character of another-an example
which, unrebuked and followed. TENDS
to bring the whole service into con-
tention and scandal. You know that
the professional business OF your IN
terviewer is To collect material LOT
publication. While he may not nave
had justification in publishing what
you understood and regarded as I'M
derstood by him, to be private CONVEX
sation, you knew the fisk you ran anu
within year had been reprlmdhueu
for similar misconduct in putting your
self and the welfare of the service
to the same risk with the same result
You have thus again and further I'M
paired the confidence or the depart
ment in your direction ,,es
at Is true that your case oilers
from some recent cases or orehSe on
the part Of other officers IN that oD-
tectionable remarks made py them
were made on occasions and under
circumstances which they knew aSsur-
ed their publicity. In your case inc
department unreservedly accepts your
statement that your remarks were
lin no sense and in no part interview
for publication nor considered as an
interview II is for this reason tIat
n takes no action than this emphatic
reprimand the receipt of when you
JOHN ID. LONG. .,
Secretary.