The daily morning journal and courier., 1901-11-28
THE NAVAL INVESTIGATION
t4T1yk ALI THE TROUBLE CAUS- ' ED BY AN
Author's Bungling, tho Officers Are
 still Men to Be Proud Of


 * decision, was caused by the appearance K last summer of the third volume of MT Edgar s. Maclay's History of the Navy" wherein Rear Admiral Schley
 was denounced for cowardice and pre- g yarication. The reason why this attack
 was regarded of importance was that
 MT. Maclay gave "commandi g office! S
 of the navy as authority for his asper-
 siorls. This he started in his preface ir < the following words:
 As further safeguard, nearly every
 commanding officer concerned has read
 and corrected proof sheets dealing with
 actions in which each figured"
 Inasmuch as the names of the com
 rnanding officers serving with Rear Ad-
 miral Sch,ey in the various actions were readily ascertainable, MT. Maclay's al-
 legation amounted not only to a rect X Resignation of persons, but of persons
 whose distinguished position and known 7 public records gave to the charges a weight which they could equally have
 derived from no other source.
 The evidence taken before the court s of inquiry does not deal with MT. Mac
 1ny's accusations, nor was any officer
 questioned concerning them. This, de- {, apite the fact that several of the com 2 manding officers implicated by MT.
 Maclay appeared as witnesses. In con-
 sequence, there has been much public
 crtticism of the officers of the navy for S omission to repeat these charges when
 under oath for descending to calumny
 and islander, and for entering into a
 substantial conspiracy to crush a $ brother officer. Hence, "dry rot' and
 :sa distinctly lowered morale" in the
 naval personnel has been argued, and a
 Congressional investigation aiming at
 s'drastic reforms" has been advocated. & My present purpose Is to show that for such contentious there is not now,
 md never has been any foundation
 Whatever; that the officers of the navy have not resorted to slander or calumny LOT conspired against any one, either
 through MT. Maclay or anybody else;
 that specifically the commanding of & f3cers,' and Rear Admiral Sampson in
 particular, never directly or indirectly
 rave MT. Maclay any justification for
 his charges. and that the whole present Ssffrouble, so far as it has been occasioned by MT. Maclay's book, rests on nothing 4but an innocent blunder, pure and sim x pie, made in the use of the English lan- xtage by MT. Maclay himself.
 MI proceed to tell how this has been demonstrated. The accepted meaning S0f MT, Maclay's statement is that near ' 1y all the commanding officers concern Sed in any action in which each figured read and corrected his proof sheets. This would duplicate most of the cap stains present, at the battle of Santiago 8or with Schley in his earlier operations. Yet no one who knew these gentlemen could read their collected names with sOt1t wholly disbelieving that they could Re0 act.
 N It was decided to investigate. Through personal letters and other means the direct denial of nearly every officer in- 1yoived, including the great majority of those of high rank, has now been ob- tained. Rear Admiral Sampson had al- ready repudiated responsibility. He 2iB now followed by Rear Admirals Hig- 6anson, Cotton and Taylor, Captains Eigsbee, Chadwick McCalla, Jewell, Wise, Clark. Cook and Lyon and Lieu tenant Commander Southerland. The assertion that nearly "every command Eing officer concerned" had read and cor srected Maclay's proof sheets has thus been utterly demolished.
 The question at once arises why MT. Maclay should ever have cited such au- thority. No motive for deceptive intent on his part is discernible. He could xnin nothing, and he risked the preju- dice of the very men who could give Ills work the most powerful support The presumption is that he had no such intent. The alternative of error is at once suggested.
 Now, what is the fact to which his statement refers? This is answered by his own pages. All through them are quotations from letters sent him by of ficers. each identified by a footnote showing the source, as Captain Sigs- bee to the author" Admiral Sampson to the author" and so on. There are such ascriptions. In sev- enteen instances the person quoted was | a commanding officer-in all of them he | took part in the action described. Thus Captain Sigsbee tells of the destruction | 0f the Maine, Naval Constructor Hob- | 6on relates the Merrimac exploit, and | 70 on-each writer confining himself to | a particular incident in which he fig | nred. In no case do nearly all the off, ficers co-acting in any one event unite | In describing it. Add to this the fact l that in every instance where an officer has Informed us that he did read and correct Maclays proof he has expressly declared that he neither saw nor knew anything of any other proof sheets than those wherein his own doings were ehronicled (the pages relating to Schley were never among these), and the prob lem at once unravels itself!
 MT. Maclay obviously endeavored to state the nature of his first hand sources of information-and this in &C., cordance with what the pages of his book actually showed to be the fact. he missed his aim He said:
 < Nearly every commanding officer has read and corrected proof 5feets dealing with actions in which each figured" when what he meant to say was:
 "The proof sheets dealing with the several actions have been read and cor rected in nearly every instance by officer who figured in the act'on described"
 And what a world of trouble, what 1Ost of recriminations, animosities, re- .,1,, Ia l