The Washington times., 1901-09-14

tent of his disqualification when first
assigned to the duty, and ask to be ex-
cused from service.
If Admiral Howison's early express
sions concerning the matters to be in
vestigated had slipped his memory,
they should have been recalled by the
published statements of those who
heard them. Even if he did not remem-
ber any specific language he had used,
he must at least have understood the
state of his own mind, and he would
have saved himself very uncomforta-
BILE sitting if he had never donned the
uniform of his rank as a member of the
Court. The statements of those who
testified to his utterances against Ad-
miral Schley were as clear and con-
vincing as sworn testimony could pos
sibly be. and Admiral Howison made
no denial that went to the substance
of what the witnesses against him said.
He merely pleaded forgetfulness, and
urged, rather plaintively, that he was
there simply in obedience TO orders.
We must conclude from this that he
really did not desire to act as men,
ber of the Court, and that he was there
because Mr.. Hackett. the Acting Secre-
tary of the Navy, for some reason, de-
sired him to serve. This presents sit
uation which ii is to be hoped is abso-
lutely unique in the history of the
American Navy.
Admiral Schley, an officer of long and
illustricus experience, who had been
highly honored both by the President
and Congress for his services in the
Spanish war, had been subjected to an
endless stream of abuse and misrepre-
sentation which finally eliminated in a
base and criminal libel printed in an
alleged history written by an employe
of the Navy Department, the libel hav-
ing been read and approved by a
fore it was published. Admiral Schley
finally requested the creation of a court
of enquiry to investigate his actions in
all the matters covered by the abuse
and the libel. Instantly the Navy De-
partment put itself in the position of
prosecutor, and we find the person who
is temporarily at the head of the de-
partment selecting as member of the
Court an officer who had expressed
himself against Schley in the most pos
tive and, as the evidence shows, vehe-
ment way.
Mr.. Hackett was fully apprised of the
supposed attitude of Admiral Howison.
Admiral Schley's letter upon the sub
ject made such a prima facie showing
that an Acting Secretary desiring to
preserve even a sembiance of fairness
would at once have made another selec-
ton, but instead of doing so he simply
turned the letter over to the Court The
mons,-ous unfairness of the act will
the n ore clearly appear when II is re-
memt ered that in order to disqualify
Admiral Howison the other two mem
bers had to agree. Had they been di-
vided in their judgment the officer OBJ
jected to would have held his seat, and
1t is easy to imagine the sort of chance
Admiral Schley would have had with a
Dewey and Rear Admiral Benham were
equal 10 the requirements of the case at
this stage of the proceedings, and in
just twelve minutes from the conclu-
sion of the argument Rear Admiral
Howison was relieved (greatly relieved,
Court We have no doubt that he is
happy enough over the outcome, but we
have no suggestion to offer as to how
Mr.. Hackett and the rest of the ring
sters feel.