Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-10-13
The Admiral Criticised.

One of Paymaster Biscoes friends, who
is especially indignant at the action of Ad-
miral Evans in this case, calls attention TO
the comments in several newspapers to
show its demoraliZing effect on the navy
He instanced in particular the attitude of
the New York Independent, the Baltimore
Sun and the Army and Navy Journal.
The New York Independent asserts that
1.-The demoraliZing effect upon the service OF
Admiral Evans unrestrained and undgni-
fed abuse is too obvious for discussion 1t
further suggests that his Incorporate IAN
guage'' raises the question whether we
have made the best choice of commanders
for the difficult and delicate post which Ad-
miral Evans occupies.
In a subsequent edition the Independent
said: "Out of the Navy Department comes
q feeble effort to excuse the action of Sec
rotary Moody in the Workman case, and
Rear Admiral Evans swashbuckling as
sault on the Nicholson court-martial, by
vaguely asserting that naval tribunals are
becoming too lax in convicting for errors
of Judgment People who do not err in
Judgment possess infallibility; and while
that quality may exist in the Navy De-
partment and the Vatican. it is not gener-
ally supposed to prevail elsewhere. Mean
while it has been pointed out that Admiral
Evans attack is illegal, since it is public
reprimand which is a punishment to be in
f1icted only by sentence of court martial:
and. besides unfair, because the members
of the court are sworn not to divulge the
proceedings. and therefore cannot appeal
to them in their own defense"
The Baltimore Sun says that the admirars
charges have placed the Navy Department
in an embarrassing position. "If Fighting
BobS reflections upon the service have
any foundation in fact" says the Sun
naval officers in the ASiatic squadron can
not be relied upon to do their duty when
serving on cOurt-martial. and consequently
the discipline of the squadron cannot be
maintained unless there is a change in the
14l &c = I,
the admfrafs structures upon his brother
officers are unwarranted. 1t would seem
that his usefulness and efficiency as a COM
mander would be impaired by his unjust at
tack upon the officers who serve under his
command If the navy of the United States
were differed by such men as Admiral
Evans refers to Americans would have good
cause to be ashamed of the service. Proba-
bly,. If the truth were known. it would be
found that Admiral Evans has permitted
his temper to get the better of his judg-
ment. All of the seven members of the
court. with one exception. are graduates of
the Naval Academy. 1t is incredible that
men who have been trained in an institu-
ton in which the dignity and honor of the
service are held In the highest regard would
deliberately bring the honor of a court
martial into disrepute. For the good of the
service it is to be hoped that court-martials
in the navy do not deserve the censure
which Admiral Evans pronounced upon the
body that tried Assistant Paymaster Mich
olson"
Prerogatives Of Reviewing Officer.
The Army and Navy Journal has devoted
considerable space to arguments to show
that Admiral Evans exceeded his preroga-
tives as a reviewing authority, and it calls
on the President to improve the opportunity
to define the functions of reviewing officer
as well as the limitations of his authority
The views of the Journal are frankly set
forth in the following extracts from it's col
umns:
1T seems to us that in the case before
us Admiral Evans has gone beyond even
the most extreme claim for liberty of ac-
ton in reviewing the proceedings and
hndings of courtmartial. Under the
regulations OF the navy, approved by the
Secretary no officer can be reprimanded
by his superior except by sentence of
public reprimand noted far exceeded the
authority of any COMMUNICATIVE chief.
Even If 1t be true that the members OF
the Nicholson court martial showed par
TALLY In dealing with an offender they
were under oath to try impartially, this
does not confer upon the reviewing au-
thority the right to bring them into dis
repute as officers, nor does 1t make the
reprimand of Rear Admiral Evans any
the less unbecomng.
Whatever may be thought of the JUS
tice of Admiral Evans structures upon the
accused in this case, his comments upon
the court should not be permitted to
stand as precedent. It has always been
found possible heretofore suitably to re-