The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-06-02
A Somewhat Premature AcQuittal Of
Gen. Wood.

Our esteemed contemporary H"P'
Weekly, usually so careful in shading 1t;
assertions of fact, makes the following
statement regarding the attack on Major
Gen. BROOKE by Gen. LEONARD WOODS
friend and legal adviser, Major JAMES
4. RUNCIE, in the North American nc
riep of February 1900:
Tho Post. which accused WOOD OF inspiring ar
article in the North American RtHc~ in which Gen
BROOKE was criticised. has found Itself mistaken
In that charge and has withdrawn IT, Any othei
charge OF improper conduct that may be brough'
against him now is to be critically considered
as coming from source OF demonstrated hostility
The second sentence quoted above
contains nothing but truth. Any charge
OF improper conduct against an officer
of Gen. WOODS rank and record ought
to be considered critically and believed by
nobody until it is established beyond
reasonable doubt; and this whether the
charge proceeds from source of demon
strated hostility or 'unquestloned i'm
partiality. Such ought to be the public
attitude especially in regard to an accu-
sation so grave that our neighbor, the
Tribune, justly said of it the other day:
II this charge Is true Gen. WOOD ought to be
court .martiallcd II he made public attack upon
Gen. BROOKE, his superior ofiicer, through the
agency Of a subordinate. he committed serious
military offence, II he concealed his part In such
a transaction and punished his partner In H. he
was guilty of an act OF base cowardicc and false
hood.
That a Brigadicr General in the Regular army
and a strict d!sclplinarian. such as Gen. Woop Is
known TO be. would stoop to such things overtaxes
credul!ty. In the last few weeks owing to the
exposure Of BELLAIRs, the newspaper correspondent
who had written so enthusiastically about Gen.
Woop, there has been seen in some quarters crti-
cal disposition iowa rd Cen. WOOD himself. but this
is tho frs, fiat footed accusation o! a DEFINITE and
serious offence that anybody has had the tcmcrtty
10 make Iit is true 1t calls for action by the War
Department to yndIcate not only the discipline
but the honor OF the army, II 1t is false. the in
vcntor OF /; should be hunted down and severely
punished"
1t is only the first part Of the para
graph copied above from last week 8
Harper's Weekly that requires correction
taken in the charge that Gen. WooD in
spired Major RUNC1E's article attacking
Gen. BROOKE. What the Post discovered
was that it had been mistaken in sup
posing that evidence of Gen. WOODS
participation in the attack existed in the
form of interlineations in his handwrit-
ing upon the manuscript of the article.
On making that discovery the Post
promptly and honorably Withdrew the
specific statement as to the interlinea-
tions, and all differences based thereon.
1t apologized to Gen. WOOD.
This correction Of misstatement as
TO single physical fact, the supposed
existence of Gen. WOODS handwriting
on the Runcie manuscript, has been
hastily assumed by many people and
some newspapers as ailordng a complete
viudication of Gen. WOoD and conclusive
evidence that he did not inspire the ar
tcle. that he was not u party to the
publication intended to discredit Gen.
BROOKE and to procure his removal from
command at Havana. Yet there has
been no such disproof. All that is dis
proven il that certain pages of manu-
script show nothing connecting Maj
RUNCIE's friend, Gen. LEONARD WooD.
with the physical texture of the North
American Reriew article
1t is proper TO say that The Sun has
not at any time supposed that the Runcie
manuscript afforded proof Of Gen.
Wo0D s completely in the attack on Gen.
WOODS military superior. Our UNDER
standing of the charge which now re-
Quires investigation, for the reasons so
strongly and clearly stated by the Trib-
and responsible authority. namely, that
of Major JAMES +. RUNCTE himself, the
author of the article.
The substance OF statements which
we have reason to believe have been
made by Major RUNCIE to various per-
sons at different times, all of them earlier
in date than the so-called withdrawal
of the charge by the Erening Post last
month. is that he, Major RUNCIE, then
Gen. WOODS closest friend and unofficial
counsellor and legal steerer at Santiago
prepared the article attacking Gen.
BROOKE at Gen. WOODS request; that
WooD had told RUNCIE il was highly
desirable to get BROOKE out of the island
as soon as possible; that RrNcIE, like
wise in good faith believing that BROOKE
ought to be ousted, wrote the attack at
the special suggestion of WooD and
intrusted the manuscript to a person
whom RUNcIE had never seen before
and never saw thereafter, this person
being &C rnar time and for that purpose
brought to him and introduced by Woop
that kUNCIE's understanding was that
his name was not to appear in connection
with the matter he had prepared at
WOODS request; that when the article
was published with his name and Gen.
BROOKE Indignantly demanded that
RUNCIE be court-martialled, the demand
was by President McKlNLEY's direction
referred to WOOD at Havana, who re-
ported back to Washington that his
understanding was that while RUNCIE
had written the attack the author had
not intended it to be published as an arti-
Gle but had given it to a friend Of his
[RUNcIE'sl to be used as the basis OF
oJ;tor;a1 ;n aavoa