The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1901-03-12
Barker's heory of sampson

Admiral Barker, at present COM
mandant Of the Brooklyn Navy yard,
has expressed some of his views touch
ing the remarkable utterance of Ad-
miral Sampson in the case OF Gunner
Morgan, proposed for promotion to the
rank of ensign in the navy. We find
in the New York u of the 9th the
following statement credited 10 him:
Sampson is one o the
kindeSt of men. He wouldn't wiz. ng-
ly hurt the feelings of the least i'm Dr-
tant For a long time he has been III,
and my own opinion of how he came
to forward those Endorsements is that
he gave a s~tenographer or clerk
eral Instructions as to what he waited
written on Gunner Morgan's comfnuni-
cation. When the Endorsements were
completed it is possible hat Admiral
Sampson, i'll and worried, signed the
paper without reading it carefully. In
deed. from what L know of Admiral
Sampson, / can hardly believe that he
wrote it at all.
For myself / believe that ability
and integrity should be the only stand
ards in judging men for promotion In
the navy. OF course, L do not want to
be drawn into any controversy. The
navy, in my estimation, exists for BUS
mess. not for social ends, and capable
men should get promotion. In the
marine corps non-commissioned OFF,
GERS have been commissioned since the
war and harmonious relations exist
between them and the other officers.
1t is the man, not his social qualiffea-
tons. that counts in this republic, and
all men in the service should be eligf-
BILE for promotion, provided their abil-
ity is satisfactory"
A very interesting suggestion is here
made by Admiral Barker. He cannot
bring himself to believe that Sampson
really wrote that Endorsement on the
Morgan application, but prefers the
alternative assumption hat he turned
the matter over to some s~tenographer
or clerk, with general directions as to
lie wanted to say. and then sign
ed the statement afterward without
carefully examining its language or
fully gathering It's purport. The Adj
miral (Sampson) was I'll and worried"
Ii appears, and therefore, in Admiral
Bankers indulgent opinion, left IL to
some understrapper to upon
the destiny Of Gunner Morgan. The
theory Is not complimentary to Samp-
son. Perhaps. on second thought, Bar
ker would have hesitated to put him
In the position Of an incompetent and
irresponsible person. But, for all We
know. ii may be a perfectly correct
and abundantly warranted theory IN
h light of certain SampscnIan per-
formances in the past.
We C the astounding dispatch
from Santiago. July 4, 1898. In which
Sampson announced a present" 70
the people-or was IL only the navy
department?-by "the feet under my
command" No more churlish and
ungracious bulletin was ever issued
by a high Official in proclaiming a VIC
tory for his flag. It was destitute of
chivalry. generosity. " common fafs-
ness. Does Admiral ark think that
1t also was prepared by some funky
Sampson was I'll n worrfedp
and dispatched without his UNDER
standing? Then. too. the later an6
more extended official report. In which
Sampson did not mention by name u
single n of the gallant captains and
commanding Officers who fought and
won the battle while he and his flag
ship. the New York. were hull down
in the eastern d~istance-are we to as
sumo that this precious utterance was
the work of some OF SIMPSONS suboE-
dinates n hat the Commander OF
the feet" was really too iii and wor-
ried TO look over tt?
We are indebted to Admiral Barker.
we've for a very valuable and inter-
esting hint--Washington Post