The Iola register., 1901-12-27
"War Department,
washington, Dec. 81, 1901.

Washington, Dec. 2l, 1901.
"Sir:-By direction OF the president
1 communicate to you his conclusions
upon your course in the interview to
which your attention was called by my
letter of the 10Th inst.
"Your explanation of the public
statement made by you is not satis-
factory. You are in error if you sup
pose that you have the same right as
any other citizen to express publicly
an opinion regarding official ques-
tion's pending in the court of military
discipline. Theestablished invariable
rules of official propriety necessary to
the effective discipline of the service
impose limitations upon the public ex-
pressions Of military officers, with
your long experience should have
made you familiar. Your duty is to
express your opinion on official mat
ters when called upon by your official
superiors or in the due course of your
official respect and recommendations,
and not otherwise,
'The first article of the regulations
governing the army of the United
States provides:
4" Deliberations or discussions
among military men conveying praise
or censure, or any mark of approba-
tion toward others in the military SER
vice, are prohibited
"This provision has been a part of
the army regulations for at least halt
a century and the highest obligations
to lobserve it rests upon the officers
whose high rank should make them
examples to their subordinate. Any
other rule of action in the military
service would be subversive of disci-
pline. 1t 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 sew
eral years there has been an unfor-
tunate and bitter controversy in the
navy departments controversy gen
orally deplored even by the partici
pants, as to tending to bring the SER
vice into disesteem at home and
abroad and to destroy those relations
of mutual confidence and friendship
between naval officers which the inter-
ests of effective service require. In
this controversy the army has not
been involved and no bar had been
raised to that good feeling and
friendly relation between all the Of
ficers of the navy and all the officers
of the army which is essential to the
successful and harmonious co-opera-
tion of the two services in preparation
and in action. A court of inquiry
has been held on the matters in con-
troversy and a report had been made
in which one member of the had dis
sented in some particulars from the
majority and the report was pending
before the reviewing authority.
'At this point the lieutenant gen.
eral of the army saw tit TO make a
public expression of your opinion as
between the majority and the minority
of the court, accompanied by a criti-
cism of most severe character, which
could not fail to be applied by the
generality of readers to the navkl
officers against whose view your op
ion was expressed
'IT is OF NO CONSEQUENCE ON
WHOSE SIDE YOUR OPINION WAS, OR
WHAT 1T WAS. You HAD NO BUSI'
NESS IN THE CONTROVERSY, AND NC
RIGHT, HOLDING THE OFFICE WHICH
YOU DID, TO EXPRESS ANY OPINION.
"Your conduct was in violation o.
the regulation above cited and the
rules of official propriety and you are
Justly liable to censure, which | now
express. Very respectfully,
ELIHU Roof,
Secretary of War"
Lieutenant General Nelson A. Miles
Headquarters of the Army.
"P. S.-Your second letter of ex
PLANTATION, dated today, and received
since the above was written, does no