New-York tribune., 1901-07-20
IN THE NATTER OF A TEXTBOOK

1t is obvious that "Maclay's History of the
Navy in its present form is not suitable for
use as a textbook at the Naval Academy, mas
much as the third volume. recently published.
, contains n savage denunciaticD of Admiral
Schleys conduct before and during the battle
OF Santiago. That is Secretary Longs view of
the matter AS 1t must be the prevailing view,
! and he has promptly made 1t known to Super
intendent Wainwright. He has also taken oc
casion 10 affirm that he never approved those
parts of the history which attack Admiral
Schley did not know it contained them, and
Furthermore was not aware that il was used It
Annapolis. An officer of the government says
in addition that the history was accepted as a
textbook before the publication of the third
volume. in which the obnoxious passages ap-
pear. If true. this statement is an explanation
rather than justification.
1t is possible that some persons may derive an
unworthy satisfaction from the knowledge that
young men in training for the naval service OF
the country have been encouraged to accept Mr..
Maclays estimate of Admiral Schley's profes-
sional character and competency; but we hope
there are not many OF them. The fact that the
opinions which the historian has formed have
been repeatedly proclaimed within the last three
years perhaps in even more extreme language,
has nothing to do with the case Admiral
Schley's official standing as an officer OF the
navy has not been impaired by the vigorous
criticism TO which he has been subjected and
it Is grossly improper that book holding him
up to contempt should be used for purposes OF
instruction at the Naval Academy. 1t is not
creditable TO the department that the adoption
of such book was sanctioned. whether mad
vertenty or with the connvance OF one or more
subordinates. and Secretary Long while he has
lost time In stopping the wrong, has perhaps
not yet done all that it is necessary TO do In the
case. A mistake seriously prejudical TO naval
discipline should have been prevented and
seems TO call for some further investigation
It is not surprising to learn that General Felix
Agnus has addressed President Mckinley on
the subject but the impetuosity of his letter TO
the President is somewhat greater than Secre-
tary Longs subsequent statement would appear
TO Justify Yet It is not unnatural, for II due
| to a report of an interview with the historian
in 1.-The Baltimore American which clearly
needs to be completely withdrawn for revision.
and which in fact he did to some extent revise
in "The Brooklyn Eagle" last evening. Mr.
Maclay's original account Of the matter was
that the proofs OF his third volume had been
submitted to and approved by Secretary Long
in advance of publication, and that his own ap-
pointment to place in the Navy Department
followed; whereas the Secretary explicitly says
that he did not know the book contained an at
tack on Admiral Schey that 1t was used at
| Annapolis. If there was, General Agnus af
firms "a conspiracy to traduce the hero Of
Santiago in this manner, Secretary Long
! plainly had no part in the "diabolical work"
TO the credit Of his heart rather than his judg
ment General Agnus is given to seeing red
whenever Admiral Schley's supreme title to
the honors of Santiago is called in question and
we trust it will be found in this instance that
/ his wrath is out Of proportion to the magnitude
! Of the offence.