The Kalispell bee. [volume] (Kalispell, Mont.) 1900-192?, 1901-12-28
had no such reference. Very respectful
ly, NELSON A. MILES.

Headquarters of the Army, Washing
ton, Dec. 2l.-The Honorable, the Secre
tary Of War-Sir: Referring to my note
of yesterday, and in order that there
may be no misunderstanding, desire to
say that for several years distinguished
and gallant officer has been assailed by
parties who have endeavored to write
him and other high officials down, until
finally he appealed against such assaults
to coordinate branch of the govern
ment. The coordinate branch of the
government granted him court of in
quiry, and, as I understood it, they
unanimously exonerated him from such
epithets as coward, poltroon, ETC., and
their opinions were given to the public
for the information of all citizens. When
| said that l had no sympathy with
those who had endeavored to destroy
the reputation of that high officer who,
like all other officers, regards his honor
more sacred than life, had in mind and
referred to those assaults against which
the admiral appealed for protection and
justification, and certainly not to CO.
ordidate branch Of the government.
II request that this be laid before the
president and have no objection to it be-
ing made public. Very respectfully,
NELSON A. MILES,
"Lieutenant General"
The reprimand is contained in the fol-
lowing letter of Secretary Root to Gener-
al Miles: ..-
War Department, Washington, Dec.
y, 19O1.-Sir: BY direction of the presi-
dent I communicate to you his conclu-
sions upon your course in the interview
to which your attention was called by
my letter of the 10Th.
Your explanation Of the public state
ment made by you is not satisfactory.
You are in error when you say that you
have the same right as any other citizen
to express publicly an opinion regarding
the questions pending in the course of
military discipline. The established, in
variable rules of official propriety neces-
sary to the effective discipline of service
impose limitations upon the public ex-
preston of military officers with which
your long experience should have made
you familiar. Your duty is to express
your opinion on official matters when call
ed upon by your official superiors or in
the due course of your official reports
and recommendations, and not otherwise.
THE first article Of the regulations
governing the army of the United States
provides: Deliberations or discussions
among military men conveying praise or
censure or any mark of appreciation to-
wards others in the military service are
prohibited
This provision has been part of
army regulations for at least half CEN
fury, and the highest obligation to OBJ
serve it rests upon the officers whose
high rank should make them examples
to their subordinates. Any other rule
of action in the military service would
be subversive of discipline. 1t would
not be tolerated in subaltern and it
will not be tolerated in any officer of
whatsoever rank.
THE present facts are that for several
years there has been an unfortunate and
bitter controversy in the navy depart
ment-a controversy generally deplored
even by the participants as tending to
bring the service into disesteem at home
and abroad and to destroy those relations
of mutual confidence and friendship be-
of effective service require. In this con.
troversy the army has not been involved,
and no bar has been raised to that good
feeling and friendly relation between all
the officers of the army which is essen
to the successful and harmonious coop
Grafton Of the two services in prepare
ton for and in action.
"A court of inquiry has been held on
the matters of controversy and report
had been made in which one member of
the court had dissented in some partic-
ulars from the majority, and the report
was pending before the reviewing au-
thority. At this point the lieutenant
general of the army saw tit to make /,
public expression of his opinion as be-
tween the majority and the minority of
the court, accompanied by IA criticism of
a most severe character, which could not
fail to be applied by the generality of
readers to the naval officers against
whose view your opinion was eN-
pressed.
1T is of no consequence ON whose
side your opinion was, or what it was.
You had no business in the controversy
and no right, holding the office which
you did, to express any opinion. Your
conduct was in violation of the regula-
ton above cited and the rules of official
propriety: and you are Justly liable to