The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-01-04
WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR
MACLAY?

The Washington Post calls attention to
the fact that the Department claims to
have been dissatisfied with Admiral Schley
before the 1st of June, 1885, This was
we'll known to the Washington repre-
sentatives of the larger newspapers dur
ing those days who, though in touch with
this information through the Bureau of
Navigation, were yet pledged to secrecy
by their informants. There were smoth-
cred whispers then of a court martial and
charges were formulated. These charges
as indicated by the Post, were fit
companion pieces to the dellverance Of
the recent court of inquiry.
As an aftermath to all this matter, it
has not yet developed why Admiral
Schley's request for an inquiry into al
legged "cowardice" should have been sat
isfed practically only by list of charges
not germane to this, but which really
had been Sin soak through all these
years. Thus there was greedy avail of
the opportunity which seemed to the De-
partment to nave been offered by Admiral
Schley's question only as to whether or
not he was coward.
The Post pertinently says:
I'VE are putting a hypothetical case.
We consider and have always considered,
the Department s course in this matter
as course Of SANDER, persecution, mean
ness, and mendacity. But we now take
the Department at it's own valuation
for sake of argument, of course-and,
taking it So accepting all its statements
and conclusions and making them the
basis of our nterrogatory, we ask wheth-
er. during the month of June, 1888, the
Navy Department was false to its duty,
false to the service and the country
false to every patriotic and honorable
ohligation?'
With this knowledge what right had
Mr. Long, believing what he says he be-
lieved, convinced that Schley YVES incom-
petent and untrustworthy-wh right had
he to keep him in such a position for a
whole month during the most. critical pc
riod of the war;
What Mr.. Long dared not face at that
time seemed easy now under cover of
Admiral Schley's request for an inquiry.
Instead of an inquiry there was prose-
cution which in a night had blossomed
forth poison red from the roots which
had struck as deeply back as June, 1898.
man Maclay had been tacitly approved
not only by the Sampson coterie but
also by the corridors of the Department.
And Maelay continued to reap reward and
approval in his continued service. If the
passing word of the Commander of the
L. S. Army had subjected him to censure
Maclay was held harmless-his final exit
having taken place without comment. VINO
was responsible for this wretched crea-
turc all this time-who should be al
lowed to pass now as Internationally as
Czolgosz except iii SO far as he may ex-
plot an acquiescepce in his views by
the Department..
We. therefore recommend to Mr.. Long
to take UP at the same time with the
question put by the Post the other ques-
ton also of who was responsible for
Maclay9 Who was tolerant of his charge
OF cowardice only into which was an IN
ouiry asked, and Why should he have been
permitted to go his way unreouked, ano
the general of the U. S. Army left stand
iag-a man who can count his battles by
the score-while the American people
we're shocked with the spectacle OF the
finger in his face from one whose wal
renown IS based solely on two hours
reconnaissance without orders, the silli-
ness and fatal results of which were
averted only by the timely appearance OF
his negro rescuers of the Ninth and
Tenth cavalry?