Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1902-01-24
SAY, WOULDN'T THAT JAR your
What?

in a history of the battle OF Manila,
had censured Admiral Dewey, what
would have been the result? An in
vestigation. Of course, for no one wants
to be misrepresented. But what would
have been the inevitable verdict?
Guilty of contempt of military juris-
prudence?" Why? Because Dewey
cut the cable to prevent interference
with his plans by the authorities at
Washington and acted on his own
judgment. Not only that, but when
reminded that the channel was full of
torpedoes, he said, "D-n the torpe.
does" Guilty of profanity and i'm.
prudence. His stopping in the midst
OF the fight to get breakfast hasn't a
parallel in history, and yet not word
OF censure for Dewey. Nothing but
praise and the honors of his country
men. He was successful and There
is nothing succeeds like success" and
no one made q" kick" If he had
failed he would have been the deadest
duck you ever saw; that he didn't fail
was because of the pluck, self.reliance
and bulldog tenacity of Dewey, and
not to anything emanating from
Washington.
Is it not as reasonable to ascribe the
success of Dewey at Manila to the
Secretary OF War as to credit Sampson
with the victory at Santiago? "Samp"
had no more to do with the battle Of
Santiago than Long had with the bat.
tie of Manila, and yet "Samp" gets
the honors and Schley gets "wind
pudding" and censure. Dewey de.
stroyed Spanish feet at Manila and
Schley destroyed one at Santiago, and
did it just as effectually. Why should
one secure praise and the other blame?
To my mind, it is a clear case of
partisan prejudice. It was lucky for
Dewey that no Rsmseys or Benhams
or Lemley's had the privilege of ana
Lying the naval etiquette OF the Ma.
nila campaign, and it's lucky for
Schley that the American people, d.
most to man, denounce the decision
of a majority Of the court as the most
atrocious act Of injustice ever perpe-
trated to destroy the reputation of one
of the greatest naval heroes of modern
times. I am proud of the fact that
I am simply an humble American citi-
zen, and not Lieutenant General, be.
cause I can express my honest opinion
without danger OF being insulted.
look upon the treatment of General
Miles, by the President, as the act of a
despot, il the facts are correctly repre-.
sented. It reminds one OF the time
when Roman pontiff could, with
impunity, kick the hat off the head OF
q king and keep him waiting outside
in the cold till nearly frozen before
giving him an audience.
l despise bigotry and intolerance.
! have no use for one who is afraid to
express his honest opinion and have
no use for government that inter.
feres to prohibit that opinion. In the
language Of Ingersoll. "I'd rather be
= peasant, and wear wooden shoes !;
I'd rather live in hut, with . vine
growing over the door and the grapes
growing purple in the kiases Of the
autumn sun; I'd rather be that poor
peasant, with my loving wife by my
side knitting as the day died out OF
the sky, with my children upon my
knees and their arms about me; l
would rather be that man and 20 down
to the tongueless silence Of the dream.
less DUST" than be gilded with ell the
honors Of Lieutenant General and
not allowed to express my honest
opinion. &c. Cos.