West Virginia daily oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1894-1902, 1902-05-26
WALLER CONDEMNED
Reviewing Authority Disap-
proves of Findings of
Court Martial.
RETALIATION, NOT ACT OF WAR,
Was His Action In Sending Natives
to Their Death-couId Have Tele-
phoned Gen. Smith Before Giving
ordeT-Day Should Have DSobeyed

ings of the court martial which tried
Major L. w. T. Waller and Lieuten-
ant John H. A. Day, of the marine
corps, for executing natives of the
island of Samar without trial, have
been made public. The reviewing au-
thority of the court has expressed its
disapproval of the courts findings in
both cases.
Referring to the case Of Major Wal
Ter, the reviewing authority says:
More of Unlawful Retaliation.
"The sending of the natives in
question to their death partook more
Of unlawful retaliation than a justi-
fable act Of war. In justice to the
American military service, the find
ings of acquittal demand that they
shall not meet with unqualified APP
prevail The marines in Samar un-
derwent great suffering before their
rescue, and their officers, from their
sick beds, voiced the reyengeful an.
ger of the men who telephoned to
Major Waller advising that the steve
dores be killed. Major Waller re-
ceived this message while he was
sick, PROSTATE from fever, suffering
acute pain Of body due to exposure
in behalf of his men and mental an
guish concerning their fate, which
had long been In doubt. Major Wal
Ter was at the time in telephone COM
munication with General Smith, who
commanded the African forces in
Samar, but he deliberately chose not
to consult General Smith regarding
his contemplated action, and, rather
than forego the execution of his un-
restrained 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 find
ings Of the court as are to the effect
that Major Waller is not guilty Of
murder are approved. But the re-
viewing authority is at loss to un
derstand why the court did not find
against Major Waller In the minor
offense. With the exception noted
the acquittal. as It appears in the
record Of the proceedings, is disap-
proved"
Referring to the case of Lieutenant
Day. the reviewing authority says:
Day Should Have Disobeyed.
"The accused knew that for three
weeks Major Waller had undergone
test Of his mental and physical en-
durance such as few men are called
upon to suffer. While fully conceding
the grave responsibility assumed by
a subordinate officer in wilfully dis
obeying an order Of his commanding
officer, still the weighty reasons re-
lated, with which Lieutenant Day was
acquainted, SO tainted Major Walters
order that Lieutenant Day should
have been prompted to positive dis
obedience. An officer must be con-
scientiously regardful Of the unques-
toned legality Of his agency in TAX
ing lives Of his fellow men. Above
and beyond all personal considera
tons officers must guard the name
and honor Of the country. Had Lieu.
tenant Day been actuated by such
considerations he would probably
have prevented one Of the most re-
gretable incidents in the annals of
the military service of the United
States"