The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1901-02-13
Wants the Heroes Rewarded.


been going the rounds of the papers,
dated from Washington, to the effect
that Secretary Long had addressed a
letter to Senator Morgan, in reply to a
letter pertaining to the failure of the
government to recognize the services
of Captain Clark, Lieutenant Hobson
and others, In this letter the Secre
tary says:
at is more than two years now since
the President sent in nominations for
promotion, and these nominations have
never been acted upon by the Senate.
Ateach session of Congress have pre-
pared and submitted bills, asking for
rewards for these officers; no action
has been taken upon them. In each OF
my annual reports l have urged the
matter with all the force possible, but
it attracts no attention.
In letter to the editor of the DAILY
JOURNAL March 20, 1900 Secretary
Long wrote:
CATER the battle of Santiago, l
recommended to the President that
Captain Clark be advanced six num-
bers, that being more than the recon-
mendation of any other of the Captains
of that battle, in view of Captain
Clark's having brought the Oregon
around from the Pacific. The Presi-
dent acted upon my Recommendation
and gave this deserved promotion to
Captain Clark. A number of other de-
served promotions were made at the
same time of officers who participated
in the battle of Santiago. AS these
promotions were all made during the
recess of Congress, they lasted only
until the next session Of Congress,
when they were referred to the Senate.
To the great regret of the President and
myself the Senate failed to confirm any
of these nominations. The result is
that neither Captain Clark nor the
other of the above named officers have
received any reward
Secretary Long called attention to
his further efforts to secure justice for
Captain Clark and other officers direct
ing attention to his annual report of 1899
in which Captain Clark's case was not
specifically newfoundland to COM
munication, January 6, 1900, to the ma
val committees of the Senate and House,
on the same subject, in which he
says:
"An illustration of the Objectionable
operation Of the present method OF re-
ward is afforded by the case of Captain
Charles E. Clark, U. s. N, who COM
manded the Oregon during the mem
orable run of that vessel from Pacific
to Atlantic waters, and at the battle OF
Santiago; and yet, owing to the pro-
motion over him of Captains Gridley,
Coghlan and Dyer, for their eminent
and conspicuous conduct in the battle
OF Manila Bay, he is today two numbers,
and if Captain Gridley had survived
would be three numbers, lower on the
list than if the war had never occur
red"
What was the "promotion" recon-
mended for Captain Clark for services
that were hardly second, and for the
exhibition of capacity to command that
clearly was not second, to that displayed
by any other naval officer in the war
with Spain? That Captain Clark "be
advanced six numbers" Secretary
Long complains that the Senate did not
act on this recommendation, and lays
the blame for the scandalous neglect of
Captain Clark on that body. 1t is re-
spectfully submitted that the Secre-
tary's recommendation was entirely
inadequate. In this connection it is
remembered that Captain Phillip Of
the Texas was recommended for pro-
motion to the rank of rear admiral.
He was one of the Captains actually
engaged in the battle of Santiago, a
chivalrous and intrepid officer. 1t is
further remembered that Captain Hig-
ginson of Massachusetts, who COM
manded the battleship Massachusetts
in the operations in Cuban waters, but
who was away with his ship at Guar
tanamo, some forty miles distant, coal
ing, when the battle was fought, was
also recommended for promotion to the
grade Of rear admirsl-and Captain
his death and Higginson enjoys the
honor and its emoluments today. And
Captain Clark, the hero of the world
famous voyage, aud the officer whose
foresight, courage and supreme capac-
ity to command in a great crisis gave
to the action off Santiago de Cuba its
grim and awful decisiveness, was rec
commended to be advanced six numbers
and was really set back three
1t wonld be interC sting to know why
Captain Clark was not recommended
for promotion to the rank of rear adj
miral instead Of, for example, Captain
Higginson, if both could not be recon-
mended for the promotion. Captain
Clark's case is in a class by itself. 1t is
as distinctive as that of Dewey's. II
has nothing to do with the so-called
SchleV-Samp sOn imbroplio The ex.