The Indianapolis journal., 1902-05-26
The Major Should Have Consulted
General Smith Before Ordering
Execution of the Guides.
DAY SHOULD HAVE DIS0BEYED
DUTY TO THE NATION HIGHER THAN
DUTY TO WALLER.
Honor of His Country and of the Army
Urged Against His COurse-The
Findings in Detail.

MANILA, May 25.-The official findings
of the court-martial which tried Major l..
w. T. Waller and Lieutenant John A. Day,
of the marine corps. for executing natives
on the Island of Samar without trial. have
been made public. The reviewing author
ity of the court, Maj Gen. Adna R. Chaffee,
commander-in-chief of the American forces
in the Philippines, has expressed disap-
proval of the courts findings in both cases.
Referring to the case of Major Waller,
the reviewing authority says: THE sending
of the natives in question to their death
partook more of unlawful retaliation than
a justifable act of war. In justice to the
American military service the findings of
acquittal demand that they shall not meet
with unqualified approval
THE marines in Samar underwent great
suffering before their rescue, and their Of
fcers, from their sick beds. voiced the re-
vengeful anger of the men, who telephoned
to Major Waller advising that the steve
dores be killed. Major Waller received the
message while he was sick, PROSTATE from
a fever, suffering acute pain of body due
to exposure and his exertions in behalf of
his men, and mental anguish concerning
their fate, which had long been in doubt
Major Waller at the time in telephone
communication with General Smith, who
commanded the American forces in Samar
but he deliberately chose not to consult
General Smith regarding his contemplated
action. and rather than foreeo the execu-
tion of his unrestrained will, he assumed
the power the laws of war and the customs
of the service confer upon commanding
officers only in time of war.
Giving heed to the mental attitude OF
Major Waller, as much of the findings OF
the court as are to the effect that Major
Waller is not guilty of murder, are ap-
proved. But the reviewing authority is al
a loss to understand why the court did not
find against Major Waller in the minor
offcnse. With the exception noted, the
acquittal, it appears in the record OF
the proceedings, is disapproved.'
Referring to the case of Lieutenant Day
the reviewing authority says: 1.-THE ac-
cused knew that for three weeks MAJOR
Waller had undergone test of his mental
and physical endurance such as few mer
are called upon to suffer. While fully con-
ceding the grave responsibility assumed by
subordinate officer in willfully disobey-
ing an order of his commanding officer
still, the weighty reasons related with
which Lieutenant Day was acquainted, sc
tainted Major Walters order that Lieuten-
ant Day should have been prompted tc
positive disobedience.
AN officer must be conscientiously re-
gardful Of the unqueStioned legality of his
agency in taking the lives of his fellow.
men. Above and beyond all personal con.
siderations, officers must guard the name
and honor Of the country. Had Lieutenant
Day been actuated by such considera tions
he probably would have prevented one OF
the most regrettable incidents in the an
nails of the military service OF the United
States