The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-06-04
Not an irresponsible Accuscr.


Major-Gen. JOHN R. BROOKE had the
right to be indignant when bitter at
tack upon his military administration
in Cuba. and upon his personal compe-
tency to command there. appeared in
one of the foremost Of American periodi-
Gals over the signature OF Gen. LEONARD
WOODS closest friend and confidential
adviser at Santiago
The name attached to the article was
that Of retired officer of the United
States Army. a person subject To military
regulations and amenable to the War
Department discipline. The offence
was undeniable Gen. BROOKE therefore
called the matter to the attention Of the
Department and demanded an investi-
cation with view to the proper punish
ment of the offender.
No satisfaction to Gen. BROOKE re-
suited His demand that Major RUN'IE
be court martialled was referred from
Washington to Gen. WooD himself at Ha-
vana. Gen. WooD returned an e1psana-
ton Of some sort or other and the mat
ter was dropped. The exact nature Of
Gen. WooD's explanation is. or ought to
be. of record in the Department. Judg-
ing from consequences, it was OF char
acter that disguised Major RuNC1E with
Gen. LEONARD WOOD and terminated
a friendship and personal association
from which WOOD, not RUNCIE, had de-
rived the greater advantage.
1t ia not now question of Gen. JOHN r.
BRooKEs grievance over the failure Of
military justice; we do not even know
that he nurses any. The case soon
assumed another aspect. Of undoubted
contemporaneous interest and impor-
lance to the honor OF the service.
Major JAMES E. RUScIEs account OF
the genesis Of the article for which Gen.
BROOKE wanted him court-martialled
has been communicated by him repeat
eddy and freely to various respmsi BILE
persons during many months past. The
substance Of his statements is this:
That when the article was written Gen. woop
had Impressed upon him the desirability. In the
interests Of settlement OF the Cuban question OF
getting BRooKv on, OF the island soon possible
That he, RrNc1s. shared that opinion. and the
article WAS written for tina, purpose.
That he. Major RuSctE. wrote the attack on
BROOKE a, Gen. WOODS request. and gave the
manuscri pt to a gentleman whom WOOD brought
TO him for that purpose. and whom he RuNCIE, has
never seen since.
That when Gen. BRookEs demand that the au.
thor be cour, martislled referred 10 Gen. Woop
at Havana. by President MckISLEYs direction.
WOOD informed the Department that hi, under.
standing was that while RrScIR had written the
article he had not Intended It 70 be published as an
article bu, had given Il to friend Of his tRuScIR ~
to be used as the basis OF editorial comment IL come
newspaper
II Major RrNcIE's statement is true
concerning Gen. WOODS initiative. COM
plicity and subsequent evasion of re-
sponsiblity, the situation would seem
to coincide very nearly with that which
the Neu York Tribune described when
it said, on May 6, 1908:
II this charge Is true Gen. woop ought to be
court-martialled. II he made public attack upon
Gen BROOKE. his superior ofNcer. through the
military offence. II he concealed his part In such
,ransac,,on and punished his partner In 1t, he
guilty Of an act Of base cowardee and ialsehood."
And on May 8, 1908:
An that we care for Is to nnd somebody RESPONSE
bic for the charge It's OF nature far too serious
TO be left TO circulate as public property and be
passed on from mouth to mouth now not to be be-
ncved without proof but gradually gaining ere
dence as all neglected SANDERS do. til II becomes
practically impossible OF diSproof to many minds
The growth OF such scandal would lnnict the great.
est wrong on brave oflccr and reflect on the whole
army. The man who would do the thing charged
Is unnt 10 be an ofAcer OF the United States Army
1, Gen. woop anonymously attacked Gen. BROOKE.
avoided responsibility for IT, and punished his tool
for the offence. he ought, as we have already said
70 be cour-msrialled."
On the other hand military punish
ment cannot visit Major RUNCIE too
swiftly and severely, if, in the repeated
statements already referred to, he has
without warrant OF truth attempted to
implicate his former friend and ben
eficiary, Gen. LEONARD WOOD, in an
offence in which he, RUNcIE, was alone
the guilty party,
When we speak Of Gen. WooD as Major
RUNcIE's beneficiary, we do not reverse
the balance Of obligation that existed
at Santiago and at Havana. Everybody
who knows the history Of the Govern
ment OF Intervention knows this, and
it is this that gives such importance to
RUNcIE's testimony. He was no BEL
LARS in his relation to the Military Gov
ernor. He went to Cuba at WOODS
personal request, at sacrifice of his own
personal interests and for tho purpose
Of giving his friend personal support, as
sistance and the advice OF a trained legal