The St. Louis Republic., 1900-05-04
REFUSED TO REWRiTE THEM.
Butler Stood hy His Dispatches Il
Lord Roberts

London. May i.-7he telegrapHic CORE
| spondencc relating 20 the Sp!on Kop Gis-
| patches was issued To Parliament just be
| fore midnight Thursday.
| Lord I.ansdowne Secretary Of State for
War. wired March Is. asking the advice of
Lord Roberts about publishing the dis
patches. saying:
We cannot publish all the documents
| inclosed with your dispatch of February
rs and suggesting certain dispatches
which. in Lord LansIowne's opinion. might
be published. Lord Eansdowne added:
But would not fee! justified in thus ed
iting the papers unless you concur; and you
may, perhaps think il well 10 refer to
Ruller I suggest, as an alternative. that
We should treat your dispatch OF February
13. and all its Enclosures. as confidential,
and that Butler should send through you 2
full narrative II the operations. This you
could forward to me- with any observa-
tions you desired to make. for publication -
Lord Roberts replied TO Lore; I.anri9wne
IN dispatch dated Bloen,fontein. March
81. that he had suggested TO Sir Reivers-
Butler to prepare a full narrative. but that
slr Redyers had answered follows:
II do not at all Ike the iiea OF rewriting
n disnatch 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
oT a paper eiited as Lord Lansdowne had
suggested, but that it might. perhaps, be
hotter to overrula General Buffers obIec-
ton and adopt the alternate course sug-
pestea by Lord Lansdowne He asked
Lord Lansdowne TO wire reply. This re-
ply from LORD Iansdowne. dated April 2.
said:
I'm view of Bullers objection. I abandon
the proposal that the dispatch should be
rewritten. and | propose to publish the Sc
! lection described in my dispatch Of March
Is"
Lord Roberts answered. under date Of
April 6:
Il agree to ms dispatch OF February l3
being published
matches referred 10 in Lord l.ansI"Nne's
dispatch of March ~. The frst - ir-ha
Lard I.ansdowne 10 General Builer. dated
January ;. representing she impOssibility OF
publishing his dispatches. which contain
views of the situation and forecasts OF his
intentions" and emphasizing the advisH-
biiity Of sending dispatches descriptive of
the operations for presentation 10 Parlla-
gnent. Ih second IS from l.Dfd No.SeicE 10
Lord Roberts. dated February 6, and say
ing:
'You will feel sure. agree with me that
Me,huen's dispatch regarding NaEe!s:on-
,c!n could not be published sent. There
are passages in ii inappropriate to such
documents and it also gives news of i'm
portance to the enemy. II he likes hc viii
revise the dispatch but | prefer not to IN
dertake this responsibility. | suggest that
you should ask him to cancel this dispatch
ana TO write another"
The correspondence does not indicate
whether Lord M.thuen rewrote the dis
patch as suggested.
The Spion kcp dispatches. as published
were exactly the selections suggested In
Lord Lausdownc's dispatch OF March 2s.
SAYS HtLLER DID RIGHT.
London. My i.--The Times. referring to
the correspondence. says:
Lord Lansdowne's dispatch IS a singular
Invitation To Lord Roberts to cook his
opinions for the benefit OF the unfortunate
British House. Comment upon This cor
resp ndencc IS almost superfluous. There Is
nothing 40 crelitabie to Sir EedVars Butler
as his refusal to rewrite dispatch for pub
lratipp.