The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-06-17
The va, 10 Nindirate Gen. Wood.

Major JAMES T.. RUSCIE has declared
on various occasions to several persons
of rcputc TIA; he wrote the North Ameri-
cun Rcrism article attacking Gen. BROOKE
nj the request Of Gen. LEONARD WOOD
himself,
In personal correspondence not by him
intended for publication, Major RUNcIE
has made the same statement about Gen.
WOODS initiative.
At the call OF the Ncr York Tribune,
journal which has justly characterized
the alleged offence Of Gen. Woop HIS one
which deserves court-martial, TIE Sun
has published it's reasons for attributing
this statement to Major RUNcIE, formerly
Gen. WOODS closest friend and adviser
al Santiago.
One of our reasons for attributing the
statement aforesaid to Major RuNcIE is
that we have the signed declaration Of
more than one responsible witness to
whom he has stated at various times
within the past two years that he wrote
the article al WOODS request and that
Woop knew it's contents.
Another and certainly not a weaker
reason or attributing the statement to
Major RUNCIE is that we have seen 1t in
his own handwriting. The truth Of the
statement is matter for determination;
but the fact Of the statement having
been made by Major RUNcIE in writing
is matter within our knowledge.
What Major RUNCIE has alleged in his
own handwriting, to our knowledge, is
this: That he, RuNCIE. wrote the article
at WOODS request, for a man whom
RUNcIE never saw till WOOD brought
him to him for the purpose, and has
never seen since; and that when Gen.
BRooKE's demand for court-martial Of
the author was referred, at President
McKINLEYs direction to Gen. WOOD at
Havana, WOOD thereupon stated to
Washington that his understanding was
that while RUNCIE had written the attack
he had not intended it to be published
as an article, but had given it TO friend
of his, to be used as the basis Of editorial
comment in some newspaper.
Major RUNC1E is not an eager witness
in any formal process against his former
friend and bene icary, Brig. Gen. WooD.
He is not volunteering testimony, or
counting official inquiry, or bringing
charges now for newspaper publication.
The statements referred to by US as hav-
ing been made positively by him, in
speech and in writing, we're made prior,
and in some instances long prior, TO the
Erening Posts withdrawal Of the charge
OF WOODS completely In the attack on
his superior. BRooKE-a charge partly
| based on tho erroneous belief that the
Runcia manuscript showed interlinea-
tione in WOODS hand. Wat RUNcIE has
done during me past TWO years has been
/ to toll Ia, story Of WOODS participation
freely and somewhat frequently in pri-
/ vate conversation and private epistles,
! and to express with indignant frankness
his opinion, rs IN officer md gentle
man, OF Gen. LEONARD WOODS behavior
in the matter.
. Yet for these private expressions
! ior RUNCIE is morally and technically
respoh'b,c lie is a retired officer OF
the Regular army, subject to military
discipline and military punishment if
he SANDER, 5ro,her officer.
The situation disguised b. tho ncws-
pcr,7s n .k..g tn, co nn,nS, Of WHICH
w rri:,o f.poc.;acns this morning, is no;
N III complicated, Ii is Simple.
/ If Goa. "oon lii il fact instig1te
the memorable attack ipoa his superior,
Gen. BROOKE and afterward cvadc re-
sponsibility for his part in the attack in
the manner alleged by Major RUNclE,
the Tribune description Of the offence
! is none too severe.
If he maNe pub ic attack, said that
journal last month, upon Gen. BROOKE,
his superior officer, through the agency
of a subordinate, he committed a serious
| military offence If he concealed his
| part in such transaction. and punished