Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1900-05-03
CHADWICK Is R[BDI[D
Secretary Long Emphatically Rspri-
mands Captain Chadwick Of Ad-
mtral Simpsons Fleet.
Recent Interview in Which He Com.
mented Adversely on schley
the Cause.

the Cause.
Second "Call Down. Within a
Year For a High Naval
Officer.
Washington. May 3.--Secretary Long
has made public the correspondence
which has taken place between the
navy department. ard Capt. Chadwick
respecting the published Interview in
which the captain is reported as severe
~ rejecting upon Rear Admiral Schley.
The secretary letter was written yes
terday and was forwarded only after
the secretary had had conference on
the subject with the president at noon.
The departments action in tn case is
a severe reprimand, and 1t is note
worthy 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 Capt. Chadwick and
the other from Secretary Long. In his
letter OF Secretary Long, which is dated
New York, April 20. Capt. Chadwick
after detailing his meeting with Mr..
Atkins, OF the Brooklyn Eagle, and of
discussing an editorial in that paper re-
gardins the. controversy concerning
Admiral Schley With that gentleman,
says:
II said the question upon which the
navy stood was not the advancement
of any particular man. but one of hon-
or. added that the whole difficulty
in the matter was with the press In
general. which had failed to put before
thu. country the facts. based upon Rear
Admiral Schley's own signals and dis
patches. stated in the letter of the sec
rotary of the navy to the senate of the
eth of February, 1899; that the people
in general were thus ignorant OF the
tary's letter, which, of course, was as
severe an arraignment as it was posi-
| BILE TO make regarding an officer and
accused him OF conduct such that no
officer should remain silent under the
accusations. That evsry sentiment of
military honor demanded that Admiral
Schley should ask for a court TO clear
himself of such charges. and that be-
lievcd every officer of the navy would
be most pleased to see him cleared for
the honor of the service, and that / could
certainly say so for myself. That so
long as he remained silent under these,
I L would rot take his hand or meet him
socially, That it was Impossible to ad-
vance Admiral Schley Gas the editorial
kproposed) so long as he rested under
these charges without destroying the
whole standard of kOnor and duty In
the navy That the whole navy. so far
as | knew it. was of this opinion. and
ls.hat its attitude was a matter OF self
preservation.
The foregoing gives my remarks in
\ substance and purport as far as my
recollection serves me; the CONVERSE
ltion was entirely private; so regarded
by HE. and also. i supposed by Mr.. At
kins. 1t was in no sense and in no part
INTENDED for publication, nor consid-
cred an interview
Secretary Long in his letter says:
The department regrets that 1t has
Occasion to reprimand an officer of Your
rank and experience for inexcusable
indiscretion end offense against the
4 navy regulations.
1t appears from your letter that in
Your Interview with Mr.. Atkins, whom
you knew TO be a newspaper CORE
IspoEdent. you spoke OF a fellow officer
Your senior in rank, in a way calcu-
lated to bring him into contempt. You
knew this to be II violation of the ma
Val regulations which forbid the com.
4 mnnication by interviews of such com
ment and criticism. You knew i to be
against the good order and discipline
4 of the service because it is the example
of one officer in high rank refiecting
ll@upon the honor and character Of an.
/ sother-an example which, unrebukeG
and followed. tends OF bring the whole
service into contention and scandal
4 You knew that the professional bust.
A ness Of your interviewer was to collecl
4 material for publication. While he
4 may not have justification in publish.
4 Ing what You understood and re.
Egarded as understood by him to be pri.
yate conversation, you knew the risl
you ran and within year had beer
4 reprimanded for similar misconduct II
4 putting yourself and the welfare OF the
service to the same risk with the same
result. Yoli have thus again and fur.
Their impaired the confidence of the de
A partment in your discretion.
4 1T is true that Your case differs from
some recent cases of offense on thu
4 part of other officers in that objection
able remarks made by them were mad,
on occasions and under circumstance.
(which they knew assured their public
8 its. In Your cage, tile department. un
reservedly accepts your statement tina
Your remarks We're in no sense and ii
no part intended for publication. no
considered as an Interview. 1t is TO
this reason that 1t takes no other action
than this emphatic reprimand, the re
fceipt OF which you will acknowledge"
1TIlr lnlIiA nrllnnnRnlI