Evening star., 1901-12-23

IT think Dewey has summed up the mat
ter in clear and concise manner, and
believe his conclusions will be indorsed by
the patriotic people of the United States.
] have no sympathy with the efforts which
have been made to destroy the honor of an
officer under such circumstances"
1t was generally supposed that the state
ment had been ignored by the authorities.
and the incident had well-nigh been forgot
ten, when it developed Saturday that 1t had
been made the subject of vigorous corre-
spondence between Secretary Root as the
representative Of President Roosevelt and
Gen. Miles. By direction Of the President
Secretary Root made the correspondence
public late Saturday afternoon. Gen. Miles
not aware that the letters had been given
out until he saw them in the newspapers
the next morning.
The Correspondence.
The correspondence opened with a letter
from Secretary Root to Gen. Miles. dated
December 49, in which he said:
"Sir: am instructed by the President to
call your attention to the fnclosed report
Of an interview with you appearing in the
Associated Press newspapers of Tuesday.
December II, and to inquire whether the
observations upon the action Of a co-ordi-
nate branch of the service in matter now
pending in the Navy Department were
made as reported. and, if so, to afford you
such opportunity for explanation in writing
as you may desire. Very respectfully, ETC."
To this note General Miles replied to Sec
retary Root. December 90 as follows:
Sir: Replying to your note of the 10th
instant, have the honor to state that my
observations, as substantially reported, had
no reference to the action, pending or other
wise of a coordinate branch of the serv-
ice; they were merely my personal views
based upon matters set forth in various
publications which have been given to the
world, and concerning which conceive
there was no improperly in expressing an
a matter of such public interest.
MY observations were in no sense in
tended as criticism Of any action taken
by coordinate branch Of the service and
the statement that had no sympathy with
any efforts tending to disparage a dfstin-
guished and gallant officer likewise had no
such reference. Very respectfully. etc.
The next day General Miles sent Secre-
tary Root the following supplementary let
ter, in further explanation of the matter:
Headquarters Of the Army.
"WAsHINGToN.D D. c.. Dec. q. 1901
1.-THE Honorable, the Secretary Of War.
Dear Sir: Referring to my note Of yes
terday, and in order that there may be no
misunderstanding. desire TO say that for
officer has been assafled by parties who
have endeavored to write him and other
high officials down. until. finally he appeal
60 against such assaults to coordinate
nate branch of the government granted
him a court OF inquiry, and, as l understand
it. they unanimously exonerated him from
such epithets as coward. poltroon. ETC., and
the information of all citizens. When 1
sad that had no sympathy with those
who had endeavored to destroy the reputa-
ton Of high officer. who like all other
officers regards his honor more sacred than
life, I had In mind and referred to those as
saults against which the admiral had ap-
pealed for protection and justification. and
certainly not to q coordinate branch Of
II request that this note be laid before
the President. and have no objection to it
being made public Very respectfully,
NELSON A. MILES,
Lieutenant General"
The Letter of Censure.
Secretary Root submitted these letters to
President Roosevelt, and after full confer.
ence wrote General Miles as follows:
War Department,
Washington, December q. 1901.
Sir: By direction Of the President. I
communicate to you his conclusions upon
your course in the interview to which your
attention was called by my letter of the
10Th instant.
Your explanation Of the public state
ment made by you Is not satisfactory. You
the same right as any other citizen to ex-
press publicly an opinion regarding official
questions pending the course Of military
discipline. The established and invariable
effective discipline OF the service impose
limitations upon the public expressions OF
military officers. with which your long ex-
perience should have made you familiar.
Your duty fs to express your opinion on
official matters when called upon by your
official superiors, or In the due course OF
your official reports and recommendations,
and not otherwise. The first article Of the
regulations governing the army of the
United States provides:
deliberations or discussions among mil
itary men conveying praise or censure, or
any mark Of appreciation, toward others
In the military service are prohfb-
tied"
This provision has been a part OF the
army regulations for at least half a CEN
tury, and the highest obligation to observe
1t rests upon the officers whose rank should
make them examples to their subordinates.
Any other rule OF action in the military
service would be subversive of discipline.
It would not be tolerated in a subaltern,
and it will not be tolerated in any officer
Of whatever rank The present facts are,
that for several years there has been an
unfortunate and bitter controversy in the
Navy Departments controversy generally
deplored even by the participants as tends
Ing to bring the service into disesteem at
home and abroad, and to destroy those re-
lations Of mutual confidence and friend
ship between naval officers which the In
terests Of effective service require In this
controversy the army had not been in
volved. and no bar had been raised to that
good feeling and friendly relation between
all the officers of the navy and all the Of
fcers of the army which is essential to the
successful and harmonious cooperation OF
the two services In preparation and In ac-
tion. A court OF inquiry had been held on
the matters In controversy and q report
had been made. In which one member OF
the court had dissented in some particu-.
lars from the majority, and the report was
pending before the reviewing authority. AT
this point you the lieutenant general .of
the army. saw at to make public express
sion Of your opinion as between the ma
jority and the minority Of the court, ac-
companied by criticism of the most Sc
we're character, which could not fail to be
applied by the. generality OF readers to
the naval officers against whose view your
opinion was expressed. It IN of no conse-
quence on whose side your opinion was,
or what It was You had no business In
the controversy. and no right. holding the