The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-12-01
THE NAVAL INVESTIGATION.
Despite MacIay, the officers Are Still
Men TO BE Proud of.


Park Benjamin, in The Independent.
TIL revival Of the so-calley Sampson
Schley controversy, eliminating in the
court Of inquiry, now considering its de-
cision. was caused by the appearance last
summer Of the third volume Of Mr.. Edgar
S. Maclay's History of the Navy" where
in Rear Admiral Schley was denounced
for cowardice and preyarication. The rea-
son why this attack was regarded of impor-
lance was that Mr.. Maclay gave com
manding officers Of the navy as authority
for his aspersions. This he stated in his
preface in the following words:
a further safeguard, nearly every
commanding officer concerned has read and
corrected proof sheets dealing with actions
IL which each figured"
lnasmuch as the names Of the command
ing athcers serving with Rear Admiral
Gscertainable, Mr.. Maclay's allegation
amounted not only to a direct designation
OF persons, but of persons whose distin-
guished position and known public records
gave TO the charges a weight which they
could equally have derived from no other
source.
The evidence taken before the court Of
inquiry does not deal with Mr.. Maclay's
accusations, nor was any officer questioned
concerning them. This. despite the fact
that several of the commanding officers
implicated by Mr.. Maclay appeared as
witnesses. In consequence, there has been
much public criticism of the officers of the
navy y OMISSION 10 repeat InHSG charges
when under oath, for descending to cal
jimmy and SANDER, and for entering into q
substantial conspiracy to crush a brother
officer. Hence, dry rot" and "a distinctly
lowered morale" in the naval personnel has
been argued, and a Congressional investi-
cation aiming at drastic reforms has
been advocated.
My present purpose is to show that for
such contentious there is not now, ana
never has been, any foundation whatever;
that the officers of the navy nave not re-
sorted IN Gl9n6QF or nQlunuTU nr RnnGnfraH
against any one, either through Mr.. Maclay
or anybody else; that specifically the com
manding officers, and Rear Admiral Samp-
son in particular, never directly or indi-
rectly gave Mr.. Maclay any justification
for his charges, and that the whole present
trouble, so far as il has been occasioned
by Mr.. Maclay'S book, rests on nothing but
an innocent blunder, pure and simple, made
in the use of the English language by Mr.
Maclay himself.
L proceed to tell how this has been dem
onstrated. The accepted meaning OF Mr..
Maclay's statement is that nearly all the
commanding officers concerned In any &C
ton in which each figured read and cor
rected his proof sheets. This would impli-
cate most of the captains present at the
battle of Santiago or with Schley In his
earlier operations. Yet no one who knew
these gentlemen could read their collected
names without wholly disbeleving that
they could so act.
personal letters and other means the direct
denial of nearly every officer involved, in
Guiding the great majority of those of high
rank, has now been obtained. Rear Admiral
Sampson had already repudiated response
bility. He is now followed by Rear Admirals
Higginson, Cotton and Taylor, Captains
Sigsbee, Chadwick, McCalla, Jewell, Wise,
Clark, Cook and Lyon and Lieutenant Com
m.ander Switzerland. The assertion That
nearly every commanding officer con
proof sheets has thus been utterly de-
The question at once arises why Mr..
a2I hnn1d nxrAV hnU~a ito CrrnI f1nr-
ity. No motive for deceptive intent on his
part is discernihle. He could gain nothing,
and he risked the prejudice of the very men
who could give his work the most power
full support. The presumption is that he
had no such intent. The alternative CT
error is at once suggested.
Now, what is the fact to which his state
ment refers? This is answered by his own
pages. All through them are quotations
from letters sent him by offsers. each iden-
titled by a footnote showing the source; as
Captain Sigsbee to the author" and so
on. There are twenty-Seven such aScrip-
tions. In seventeen instances the person
quoted was a commanding ohcerIln all
of them he took part IN the action de-
scribed. Thus Captain Sigsbee tells of the
destruction of the Maine, Naval Construc-
tor Hobson relates the Merrimac exploit,
and so on-each writer combining himself
to a particular incident in which he figured.
In no case do nearly all the officers CO.
acting in any one event unite in describing
il. Add to this the fact that in every in
stance where an officer has Informed us
that he did read and correct Maclay's proof
he has expressly declared that he neither
saw nor knew anything of any other proof
sheets than those wherein his own doings
were chronicled (the pages relating TO
Schley were never among these), and the
problem at once unraVelS itself.
Mr.. Maclay obviously endeavored to state
the nature of his first hand sources of in
formation-and this in accordance with
what the pages of his book actually showed
to be the fact. Unfortunately he missed
his aim. He said:
Nearly every commanding officer con-
cerned has read and corrected proof sheets
dealing with actions in which they figured"
when what he meant TO say was:
The proof sheets dealing with the sew
eral actions have been read and corrected
in nearly every instance by a commanding
officer who figured In the action described
And what a world Of trouble, what a
host of recriminations, animosities, refiec-
tons, slurs and accusations would have
been saved If only he had done sol
The allegations against Admiral Sampson,
therefore, stand contradicted. The accusa-
tons against Admiral Schley made by Mr..
Maclay rest ON that authors own personal
opinion and not on the authority OF the
cOmmander-in-chief of the American fleet
or that of any of his captains.
This has nothing TO do with the issues
now before the court OF inquiry. 1t does
not relieve Mr.. Maclay from blame for his
unguarded expressions, although IL does eX-
onerate him from apparent misrepresenta-
ton. 1t should end finally the charge of
conspiracy. 1t certainly goes to show that
the O1nCSrS OF the navy are, dS llSy al
WAYS have been, loyal, honest and truthful
gentlemen, and not slanderers or calumni-
ators, as their enemies have sought to es-
tablish: that there is no impairment in
their morale" or degradation of the high
sense OF honor which has always charac-
terized them.
A great deal of trouble has followed MIR.
Maciay's misuse of his mother tongue, but
perhaps il has not been without its value.
We were very proud of our navy. IL was
worth something to learn that. despite
ax,arvthfnO that has hcpn said Our nridp in
il need have no fall.