The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-11-14
The Case Of Captain NJ. B. Stewart.

The Case OF Captain VI. ID
In a statement relating to the order
detaching Captain MERcH B. STEWART
from his duties as assistant instructor Of
tactics at West Point and ordering him
to the Philippines Acting Secretary Of
War OLIVER AYERS that Captain STEWART
was guilty Of "a serious breach of disci-
pline" in saying in a letter TO The SUN
upon the Dick-Capron pay bill: .
The possible defeat Of the measure is a bugsboo
with which the infantry has no concern and which
is to be accounted for only on the superstition that
overconccn,ration and apprehensveness on the part
ofits adhereuts have caused q mild hystcria.H
BY -adherents" Captain STEWART OBJ
viously did not mean, as General OLIVER
seems to imply, the Secretaries Of War,
the Navy and the Treasury, and the
President, all Of whom have Endorsed
the bill. II Captain STEWART was re-
moved from the field Of his usefulness at
West Point because OF a reflection upon
his superiors il is not to be found in the
passage lifted out of his letter by General
OLIVER, as will appear from refer
enCes in other passages to h adherents
of the bill. They we're officers who
deprecated agitation against the bill for
personal ~ well as service reasons. The
presumption is that il Captain STEWART
had urged the passage of the bill the
War Department would have taken no
notice of his letter and he would have
been allowed TO complete his term as
instructor in tactics at the Military
Academy. Few officers in the army are
better qualified for the posit bn, as Lieu
tenant-Genera ADNA r. CAAFFEE, re-
tired, could testify.
ID was General CHAFFEE, we believe,
who complimented Captain STEWART at
one of the military tournaments in Madi-
son Square Garden for the fine appear
ance and perfectly executed %evolutiOns
of a company Of the Eighth Infantry
which the young officer commanded. A
man who could produce such results de-
served the West Point assignment, and
we have not heard his usefulness and zeal
questioned OF that his influence vas pre-
judicial 10 the discipline of the corps OF
cadets. Yet he is stigmatized al utterly
unfit for such duty" and punished by
exile TO the Philippines because a passage
in a letter which he wrote upon a service
matter offended illogically and unac-
countably somebody in authority to
whose attention il was brought.
General OLIVER himself says that the
officer was disciplined because he took
up the question Of the pay Of the infantry
and was punished therefor is entirely
incorrect" What seems to be correct is
that ON body high up" pounced
u on a entence in Captain STEWARDS
letter. which n wrOt I'VE his own
sign ture for the coed I the service,
and made Il a Lretext for finding him
guilty without benefit Of court-martial
for insubord, nation. That sentence IL
r ad dispass ionat ly in the light Of the
context does not reflect at all upon Cap
tain STEWARDS faith in the necessity of
an increase in the Fay scale OF the en-
listed men if the integrity of the army
is to be preserved; and he makes it very
clear in his temp rate discussion of the
general question that he feels it to be
h s duty to advocate am ndment of the
Dick-Capron bill for no other reason
than that, as things are gong now. the
efficiency of the infantry is steadily de-
teriorat ng, to the unfeigned regret Of
every thoughtful officer in that branch
of the service. The Department ought to
be proud of an officer who could write
such a letter in a spirit so true to the
best interests Of the a my. Ruthlessly
TO make an example of him does not tend
to improve its morale.