The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-09-01
4 RIGHTFUL CH4LLENGE.

Il EIGHTFUL CHdLLENGE.
A careful reading of the communication
of Admiral Howison seems to sustain the
decision of the counsel of Admiral Schley
in regarding it as unsatisfactory. The
letter bears the imprint of a mind which
is not used to avoidance or prevarica-
ton. 1t is impossible for the writer evil
IDENTIFY to disavow the expression of opin-
ions on the subject-natter of the contro-
versy which were unfavorabie to Schley.
In fact, after going into tedious detail,
he concludes without giving such a de-
NAL, and leaves the impression clearly
on the mind of the reader that he did, in,
perhaps. the semi-confidential relations
existing between himself and the report
ers who were in the habit of visiting him,
express an opinion more than once to the
effect at least that as between the Two
officers, the senior in command was en-
titled to ali the credit.
1t would be hard 10 insist that the ex-
preston of such an opinion should operate
to disqualify Admiral Howison. There
can be no doubt that he could not con-
sciously do an injustice to Schley in such
an inquiry. But the bent of his mind,
he has made clear, is plainly toward the
Sampson side of the controversy and the
accused officer would be very unwise in
deed II, having negative on the sub
ject, he should not exercise it in favor
OF some other naval officer who had
never expressed an opinion, and was free
from all mental or moral bias in the
case.
1t is in this case as If man were on
trial for criminal offense. His counsel
would be guilty of criminal negligence
were they not to challenge peremptorily,
if necessary. any juror called to pass
upon the case who had shown so clear
. vein of bias in favor CT the prosecution,
if not against the criminal, as Admiral
Howison shows in this case.
1t has been made plain in a variety of
directions that the dominating naval
clique win ruin schley if they can. 1t has
PASSED beyond serious denial that they
have STRAINED every effort thus far in
order 10 place the accused officer at a
disadvantage in the makeup of the
court. Under such circumstances the De-
gree Of circumspection necessary on the
part of SchIey and his representatives
before the court cannot be easily over
estimated
The controversy is one which reflects
most discredftably upon naval admins
tration. 1t ought never to have arisen.
1t never would have arisen, evidently,
We're not Admiral Sampson a. man of
marked personal peculiarfties and of a
highly irascible nature Tt possesses the
singular characteristic that it can prac-
ticaily only be settled one way. No
court can co1iyict Admiral SchIey of
cowardice, and survive for an hour in the
public estimation. If this court is found
to have been organized against schley,
or, indeed, if, on what the American PEG.
pie know of the evidence, they are not
convinced beyond all possibility of ques-
ton that the charge of cowardice is sus-
tanned, a verdict to that effect will in
evitably result in clarifying the accused
officer.
While the currents of public sentiment
are running hard against the chief officer
of the navy it is but just to say of him
that nothing short of strong conviction
of the rightfulness of his view would
permit any man who was not insane
from insisting on such charges as he is
morally responsible for having made
against his fellow officer He has moth
ing whatever to gain from the outcome
of the investigation whatever it may be.
And he is certain to suffer in the public
estimation, as well as in the estimation
of the men of his profession as the re-
suit of the investigation whatever may
be its result While under these cir
cumstances it is quite easy to absolve
him from any conscious sense of injus-
tice, it remains none the less true that
Admiral Sampson, not Admiral Schley, it
is who is chargeable with crime in this
case.