The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-03-03
ADMIRAL BROWN HOME
HE WAS CALLED TO WASHINGTON TO
GIVE a DEPOSITION.
The Recent Utternnces OF Admiral
Sampson GreatI DepIored
by Admiral Brown.

Admiral George Brown returned from
Washington at noon yesterday. He went
to the national capital to give his deposit
ton before the United States and Chilean
claim commission in the case of the Chilean
steamer Itata. which during the revolution
In Chile. I'm 1891. ran away from the harbor
of Santiago, while in the custody of a
United States court. During his visit in
Washington the admiral naturally dropped
in at the Navy Department and mingled
with his old friends. In a talk last night
at his home in Woodruff Place he threw
n great deal of light on the letter written
by Admiral Sampson a few days ago con-
corning which so much has been printed.
The letter turns out TO have been in real
ity some Endorsements made by Admiral
Sampson upon a letter from Gunner Nor
gar transmitted to the Navy Department.
During my stay i'm Washington said
Admiral Brown, II met many nava ofh-
GERS, and every one with whom L talked
letter of the gunner was addressed to Adj
miral Sampson i'm the matter Of his indorse-
ments on the letter Of Gunner Morgan. The
letter of the gunner was addressed TO Adj
miral Sampson and merely asked his aid
i'm the event OF the naval appropriation bill,
when IL became a law, authorizing a GER
tain number of gunners commissioned as
ensigns.
'Morgan's letter was not an application
for advancement. and why Admiral Samp-
/ son referred il to the Navy Department L
am at "a loss TO understand. IL Is, however,
more strange 10 mS that Admiral Sampson
should have gone out of his way 10 write
the Endorsements. as he must have known
that the Navy Department and both naval
committees approved of the proposition to
promote "a limited number of warrant Of
ficers TO ensigns. The Endorsements of Ad-
miral Sampson can only be construed as
an uncalled-for criticism on the action of
the department and of Congress.
THE WRONG HYPOTHESIS.
Had Admiral Sampson referred only TO
the want of technical education OF the war
rant officers as uniting them for commits
sions he would have been right SO far as
the majority of warrant officers Is con-
cerned. These officers are very important
and valuable men I'm the organization Of
the personnel OF the navy and must be men
who are specially educated and trained I'm
the practical part OF their profession. They
are not supposed TO know much OF the the
orotical part as taught at the Naval Acad-
envy. There may be in a few cases some
who know something OF practical naviga-
ton. but there Is not one who can pass the
examination required for cnsigns.
Admiral ampSOn made the mistake OF
objecting 20 warrant officers being commits.
stoned as ensigns on the ground OF their
social qualities and standing, for IL Is well
known that some OF our ablCst and most
efficient officers We're poor boys, with no
landing socially among the four hundred
when they were appointed cadets 10 the
Naval Academy. The education given these
boys Is not In any way calculated TO make
snobs OF them. and Ii does not do 80.
admiral sampson has been regarded as
the best equipped officer In the service and
one who has made very few mistakes. but
4 don't think there is one officer I'm the
service who can or will support him In his
lfViews as expressed In the Endorsements to
which 4 have referred. OF my own knowl-
edge l can say that Admiral Sampson has
been I'm very poor health for some years
and that he IS now a very sick man, and.
considering this fact. /. for one, feel that
he Is entitled TO sympathy and that his re-
cent writings have emanated from a mind
diseased.
II have said this much about this lament
able affair," added Admiral Brown, ''be-
cause II was the principal subject OF dis
cussiOn in Washington. particularly in the
Senate and House OF Representatives, and
In my opinion has done the navy much in
jury in the estimation OF our national legis-
latOrs."