The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-05-03
In EMPHATIC REPRIMAND
Chadwick Rebuked for Criticising
Rear Admiral Schley.
The Correspondence Made Public by
the Secretary of the Maya For
mer Similar Breach of the ReguIn-
tions Referred To-The ExpIapa-
tion offered by the Captain.

manded by the Secretary of the Navy 70
mis- criticism of Rear Admiral Schley
Captain Chadwick's explanation of his re
marks and Secretary Longs reprimant
were made public yesterday The secre
tary had conference at noon with thu
President during which the case wa.
thoroughly gone over and decision t.
administer rebuke to Captain Chadwick
was reached.
Accompanying Secretary Longs repri
mand is statement of Captain Chad
wick's side Of the case as presented BY
him in letter to the Secretary The cor
respondence follows:
New York, April %. 1900.
Sir: / have the honor to acknowledge
the reception Of the Departments letter OF
the 18th instant, enclosing a clipping from
the New York Sum- and desiring state
ment from me in regard to its contents
z. 1 have in no way been privy 10 the
publication of said article. The circum-
stances on which it is based are as fol-
lows:
''on the 10th or 18th of this month. in
passing down Fourteenth Street, in Wash
angton, | was saluted by Mr.. atkins, cor
respondent of the Brooklyn Eagle
gentleman whom l have known in Wash
ington a number of years, and always
farorably. Mr.. Atkins had called my at
tention, January 2 last, to an editorial
in the 'Brocslyn Eagle Of l think De-
cember 81 1899, expressing an extreme de-
sire for me to read Ii, and asking if he
could see me. l declined to see him as
i knew that he probably wished to dis
cuss a confidential subject. l later OBJ
tanned copy of the paper referred to and
read the editorial mentioned. 1t was a
discussion of the controversy regarding
Fear Admiral Schley, and proposed a
remedy. viz, the promotion of both Rear
Admiral Schley and Rear Admiral Samp-
Bon to vice admiral.
%. At the casual meeting mentioned
On the 18th or nth inst, / entered into
conversation with Mr. Atkins regarding the
editorial. l asked il he had received a
note which / had sent him on reading it,
in which l said the writer was evidently
not aware of the facts in the case and
that he entirely mistook the principle in
volved- This was the extent of the note
SO far as | remember. Mr. Atkins said
yes, he had received the note and had not
used it in any way. I replied. es course,
not; that it was entirely private. I re-
peated what / had said in the note and
said the question upon which the Navy
stood was not the advancement of any par
hcuiar man, but one. Of honor. l 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 of the Navy to the Senate of |
the 9Th of February. 1899; that the people |
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
as severe an arraignment as il
was possible TO make regarding an
officer, and accused him OF con-
duct such that no officer should
remain silent under the accusations. That
very sentiment OF military honor demand
I'd that Admiral Schley should ask for a
,ourt to clear himself of such charges, and
hat | believed every officer of the Navy
would be most pleased to see him cleared
or the honor of the service, and that
'ould certainly say so for myself That
70 long as he remained silent under these
would not take his hand or meet him So
tally. That is was impossible TO advance
admiral Schley las the editorial proposed) |
70 long as he rested under these charges
Without destroying the whole standard of
,onor and duty in the Navy. That the
Whole Navy, so far as / knew it, was OF
his opinion and that its attitude was a
natter of self-preservation.
"a. The foregoing gives my remarks in
substance and purport as far as my recol-
ection serves me; the conversation was
.ntirely private, so regarded by me, and
ilso. ! supposed. by Mr.. Atkins, as evil
ieBee Of which latter is the fact that he
NEW that my note which consisted Of as
ar rs / remember, but this one short
,hraee mentioned, was private; and also
hat nearly or quite a week passed before
.s<r, tfar,, l
I was in no sense and in no part intended
or publication, nor considered an inter
rev. Very respectfully,
IF. E. CHADWICK,
Captain, U. S. n.
To the Secretary of the Navy
Navy Department,
Washington, May 2, 1900.
Sir: The Department is in receipt OF {
1o,r letter of the 9th ultimo in reply TO
he Departments letter of the 25th, en- {
losing a clipping from the New York !
Sum- and desiring q statement from you in
egard TO its contents. The Department c
egrets that it has occasion 10 fepriGand /
n officer OF your rank and experience for f
nexcusable indiscretion and offence against L
he Navy regulations.
1T appears from your letter that In your
terview with Mr.. Atkins, whom you Il
new 10 be newspaper correspondent, I
GU spoke OF fellow officer your senior p
q rank, in q way calculated to bring him a
nto contempt. You knew this to be a vio- Il
alton OF the naval regulations which for c
Id the communication by interviews of II
UGH comment and criticism You knew il
o be against the good order and discipline {:
4 ne service, because it is the example v
4 one Officer in high rank rejecting upon d
he honor aii9 character of another-an Il
xample which, unrebuked and followed. "
ends TO bring the whole service into con- ~
ention and scandal. You knew that the CT
business of your interviewer W
to collect material for publication i'd
While he may not have had justification in
what you understood and re-
arded as understood by him to be private
you knew the risk you rtn | a,
nd within year had been reprimanded Al
,r similar misconduct in putting yourself G
nd the welfare OF the service to the same =,
sk with the same result. You have thus =
gain and further impaired the confidence .
the Department in your discretion. =
II is true that your case differs from
'me recent cases of offence on the part Of -
Their officers. in that Objectionable re- y
iarks made by them were made on occa- II
ons and under circumstances which they
new assured their publicity. In your II
use the Department unreservcdly accepts LEI
~~~~x~~-e~1o1rwNN~U,
THE BEST NATURAL
!; nm ad