Evening journal., 1901-03-25

VERDICT AGAINST
GENRRAL SMITH
Case in the Hands Of An
thODy Higgins
Letter From Wilmington Mar Outlines
Fact OIL Which Gen. Smiths
Claim Is BaS d

OHlCtISt dppOlHlcu W otNAtNiA9 AecSN
to decide the long-standing controversy
as to whether General William f.
Smith. known as "Baldy' Smith, or
General Rosecrans was entitled to the
credit for originating the plan by
which the Army of the Cumberland
was relieved in 1868. and which was
decided adversely to General Smith, Is
of particular interest to Philadelphia
veterans, as many OF them maintain
that General Smith. who is one OF
Philadelphia best-known citizens, IS
well fortified by facts in his conten-
tion.
General Smith was seen yesterday
at his home, 1910 Clinton street, by
a reporter for The Press, and when
asked what further steps would be
taken in the matter he said that he
had himself nothing to say and that
the case was now in the hands OF his
counsel, Senator Anthony Higgins, OF
Delaware. A letter from the latter TO
the general outlines the facts on which
the claim is based. Referring to the
report the latter says
Law has been said to have been the
conclusion Of the man who had the
last guess, and this report is a decision
and also an opinion. l have always
felt that this controversy constituted a
case, 1t being understood that It takes
two sides to make a case. 1t was not
disputed General ROsecrans contem-
plated to move on Bridgeport through
the RaccOon Passes to Lookout Valley
and connect with Chattanooga. It is
not denied that he personally made a
reconnaissance en- the Tennessee river
on the 18th Cg October Your own re-
port states that the reconnaissance,
made the same day by you, was made
by the order of Rosecrans It IS true
also that Thomas at IL p. m, of OctO-
Der 49, dispatched Hooker as follows:
You will use all possible dispatch
In connecting your command and pre-
pare to move in accordance with in
structions of General ROsecrans
1T is also true that Thomas in his
testimony before the Committee on the
War says: THAT these instructions to
Hooker were for the purpose Of OPEN
ing communication with Chattanooga
by river and rail, and in the same tes-
timOny Thomas says that Rosecrans
and General Smith had consulted TO-
gether before Rosecrans was relieved
as to the means of relieving the army
at Chattanooga from its periious con-
dition and had partially planned the
movement which was left to me to be
completed when / assumed command.
namely,tO open a short route uf sup
plies from Bridgeport There Is also
Hooker's dispatch to Granger OF the
18th: Have just received orders from
department headquarters to hold my
command in readiness 10 march al
short notice Thomas also in hIs re-
port Of November says:--
Preliminary steps had already
been taken to execute this vitally i'm
portant movement before the command
OF the department devolved upon me.
The bridge which it was necessary to
throw at Browns Ferry was nearly
completed
Now, all these extracts from the
record tend TO show what the board
have ccme to as q conclusion, that on
the evening Of the 18th Rosecrans in
turning over the command OF the army
TO Thomas gave to Thomas facts, or
ders, plans and conclusions entertained
by him, which may have included and
which the board have found did in.
clude a cooperative movement with
Hooker, including the throwing OF the
bridge at Browns Ferry. I however
consider that any such conclusion is
not supported by the evidence and 1.
contrary both to the evidence and rr
the fact. No record was made Ly Ger.
eral Rosecrans Of any communication
by him to Thomas after he received
the orders relieving him OF the com.
mand. The dispatch of Thomas t.
Hooker Of th 18th does not state tn.
terms OF - Instructions to Rosecrans
OF whic' e speaks, beyond concen
trating ; command in order to move
Hooke dispatch OF the 18th to Gran
ger dtscloses no terms Of the oide
spoken OF except to hold his comman,
IN readiness to march at short aotice
Nevertheless. were the evidence il
the case to stop there, OF at this point
the trend made against you, both b
your own report and by Thomas
might lead to a preponderance of evi
dence in favor of General RosecIans
contention. But, to my mind, all Ioub
on the subject is swept away by tn
reply Of Rosecrans to Halleck Of o.
tober 10, to Halleck's dispatch Of tn
day before. This dispatch is utterl
inconsistent with the mere theor
found by the board. At every pom
It encounters and explodes the ide,
1t establishes beyond question or cor
lecture that General Rosecrans ma
not, as a result of his reconnaissance
OF that day, come to the same conclI
sion as you did from your reconnai.
sance on the same day, that he did nc
convey any such conclusion to -Gener,
Thomas, that Thomas dispatch
Hooker at II O'Clock that night. had n
reference TO a communication Of an
such character from Rosecrans to mir
1T is, however, to be specially note
that the board in its decision, do N,
assume in any way to deal with Il
dispatch Of Rosecrans to Halleek. al
that, too. despite the fact that in bot
my papers. ! not only specially dea
with this dispatch, but virtually rests
the case upon 1t. II was the open e.
planation by Rosecrans Of the state
his mind at the time. The board h
undertaken to come to a different co