The sun., 1903-12-17
THE TESTIMONY IN THE WOOD
CASE.

the evidence against him. Enort is mace
not only to deny the testimony given under
oath before the committee, but also to dis
credit the witnesses. Evidently for the
purpose of influencing public sentiment
in favor of DR.. Wood. a leading New YORK
paper Nhe Tribune of Dec. 15) states that
members OF the committee generally have
come to feel that they are being imposed
upon, that their line has been wasted listen
ing to a mass of evidence that has been in
every instance refuted by more trust
worthy witnesses than those called by the
prosecution &c.
Such a statement as this reveals a curious
condition of affairs 1t may be assumed
that 30 definite a 1T atement of the opinions
of members OF the Committee on Military
Affairs is not made without due authority.
Upon such an assumption one OF two things
appears inevitable. Either the committee
has decided to override and disregard the
sworn testimony OF witnesses OF sufficient
repute and respectability to justify their
appearance before so august body or the
news accounts of their testimony as pre-
sented by the daily papers are inaccurate,
if not altogether false.
According to letter published over the
signature of the Secretary Of War, the latter
is the case. He says that some person is
undertaking to convey to the press repre-
sentatives" false information "for the pur-
pose of injuring Gen, Wood in the public
estimation" The ground upon which the
Secretary rests his assertion that all of the
Washington correspondents are drawing
upon single source for their information
and the authority upon which he declares
that information to be false ia not dis
closed. The assertion Of falsity certainly
implies that Mr.. Root has been able to COM
pare the recorded testimony as given in
presumably secret hearing with the ac-
counts of that testimony as furnished by
the press.
While this testimony is given in so-called
executive session and is presumably secret,
there is actually no legal restraint upon
witnesses regarding the substance OF their
testimony, nor is any limitation imposed
upon their entire freedom to furnish any
one who may call upon them with an ex-
preston OF their opinions or statement OF
their information. II is doubtful IL single
witness has appeared before the committee
and escaped the rigid examination and
cross examination Of those alert news seek
ers whose business il is to supply the public
with the facts regarding all matters OF pub
lie interest. The witnesses have not been
sworn to secrecy regarding their testimony
and the greater portion of that which has
been made public has been obtained from
them rather than from vague and in
definite -some person who is giving false
information" with the deliberate intention
of misleading the public and injuring Gen
Leonard Wood
This point having been raised by so high
an authority, it is quite in order to ask who
is responsible for the possibility of go gross
and grievous wrong to the fried Of the
President. If DR.. Woods record and char
acter were as far beyond impeachment as
they should be to make him eligible for the
post to which he has been appointed, no
testimony of "men with a grievance" no
evidence given by personal enemies. no
assaults of evil minded persons, could have
prevailed against him. 1t is the friends OF
Dr. Wood who are responsible for the hear
ing of his case behind closed doors. through
whose crevices only fragmentary evidence
leaks out, in such a manner that doubt can
be cast upon it's accuracy.
AS for the statement that the evidence
given by these witnesses "has been in every
instance refuted by more trustworthy
witnesses than those called by the prose-
ecution," people will ask, Who are these
witnesses? So far as is known, Mr. Ray
Stannard Baker is the only witness who
has yet been called in Dr. Wood defence. and
it is far from certain that his testimony in
any way contradicted that of Major Runcie.
Aside from Mr. Bakers testimony, there is
nothing, so far as the public is aware. but
the unsworn statements of DR.. Wood HIM
al tn hot tect mn triyor ,,nlor
oath by officers of the army and by civilians
Of standing in the community.
The charges preferred against DR.. Wood
are of so serious nature that it has been
asserted that no other officer of the United
States Army would rest under them with
out an immediate demand for court Of
inquiry. The assertion OF unfarness in
bringing charges against DR.. Wood during his
absence in the East is without Justification
Charges, made under oath, were preferred
against him before he left the country.
Long before that, it was known that
charges would he brought; and Gen. Wood
left behind him, officially filed nearly $50
pages of typewriter matter constituting a
presumed reply to the expected charges
Those charges were brought, and that
which is now being submitted is the evil
dence in support Of them.
As this matter now stands, only one proper
course seems open. Whether the published
accounts of the testimony are true or false,
their publication will leave upon the mind
of the public an ineffaceable doubt, and that
doubt will not be "whitewashed' away by
any action of either committee or Senate.
Justice o Dr. Wood as well as to the public
demands full presentation Of the testi-
mony. Let those who put the cover on,
presumably in the interest of Gen. Wood,
now take it off for his justification in the
eyes of the country. Should it then appear
that the charges have found reasonable
subst antiation, let Gen. Wood be recalled
at once and have an opportunity to disprove
and demosh them.
The Spanish Canal Project.