The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-12-17
SAY FIREMAN SMITH =.
DESERVED SENTENCE
Naval Men Laugh at Stories of I'm
fairness in the Navy. : Up.

Recent comparisons between the SEN
tence given to Midshipman Merriweath-
er who killed Midshipman Branch in
fist fight at the naval academy at An
napolis and to Fireman John Smith,
who refused duty while serving on the
Yorktown in 1899, called forth some
caustic comments at the naval recruit
ing station in the federal building yes
teAday. The comparisons in question
have suggested that considerable leni-
ency was shown Merriweath in con-.
sideration Of the fact that Smith was
sentenced to dismissal and one years
imprisonment. This has been used as
illustrating the point that enlisted men
did not receive the same degree Of JUS
tice as their officers n..@s... -
In the opinion. of the naval men the
writers are either ignorant or careless
in regard to facts, or both.
Chief Yeoman Frank E. Herbert, who
has just signed for his second four
up a paper the other morning and saw
that some chump had been writing lot
Of rot about the treatment of enlisted
men in the navy. The writer seemed
to think that Smith was soaked for
trivial offense. If he, did as the writer
said he did he got only what was COM
ing to him.
1'Refusing duty is the most serious
offense a man in the navy can com
nit. Civilians cannot understand what
it means. If you had ever been at sea
in storm and seen how the safety of
the ship and every one on it depended
upon every man obeying orders just as
they were given you would know what
it means to refuse duty. If a man were
not punished for refusing duty disci-
pline would be destroyed. The safety
of the whole ship depends on the alb
solute obedience of the crew and no
man will get the sympathy Of his ship
mates if he refuses duty under any
circumstances. ."
! "There is whole lot of talk about
the treatment Of enlisted mel in til,
navy whichis untrue. No self respect
ing enlisted man ever has any trouble
with his officers or feels Inundated at
taking orders from them. In four years
in the navy I always got full recogni-
tion for everything did we'll. 1 was
never ILL., treated but. once and then
the officer was insane.'
Lieut.. Ivan G. Wettengel, the officer
in charge, said: ~ Uja.I
81 do not think that. the writer's ap-
preciate how serious an offense it is. to
the most serious offense known to naval
law. AS to the John Smith case cited,
I have never heard of 1T, but, if it is
true, I dognote think sit illustrates any
inequality Of treatment: Were r. to
commit the same offense I. should expect
the ;: same, OF hearvHier, punishment. 7
think that the comparison is very mis-
leading. - 4 -- -.
DR.. Robt. H. Bachn,ann, the examin:
ing surgeon, said, 'sIt cannot, be true
that John Smith of the Yorktown-of
whom have never heard-was ordered
to duty when he was unfit. All he had
to do was to ask to see the doctor IT he
felt ill or exhausted, Such cases have
come up many times on ships I have
been assigned to- Of course we have
to keep sharp lookout for malin1gerers
but we always give the men the benefit
of the doubt. ,s.....,.
t. Refusing duty is. a serious offense
and I should not expect to get off with
less than dismissal from the service
were I to be guilty Of it: The thing te
do is to obey orders and protest after
| wards - e ~. ...