The National tribune., 1909-01-21

was to be made. If we had been placed
parallel to the railroad facing the enc.
my there would have been no such wild
rout. I. seemed to me that the Second
Division did most of the fighting.
I see you give I4ieut.-Col. Brady
great praise fof his gallantry in that
fight. He and the e1st were on my
right, and if there was any fighting
| there 1 failed to see it. / make no in
sinuation as to the bravery of Broadly
or the 61st. They were splendid fight
ers. There was no braver man in the
army than their former commander,
Gen. Francis A. Barlow; but as to the
were away down on our right, and had
no chance to fight. You saw nothing
in the 5th N. H. to praise, and you
never did to my recollection.
| You say Gen. Hancock witnessed the
action. and repeatedly complimented
you for this counter assault, which
stopped the advance of the enemy and
turned the tide of that battle. Gen.
Hancock never said anything of the
kind. and you nor the list had no part
in It, Talk of turning the tide of bat
tie: the battle was over when they
swept you and your division out, and
were in full retreat when we retook
those guns without firing. What you
say son 7ds nice on paper, but it is not
you.
You close by saying: "For anyone
to say now that the countercharge was
not made is wholly unwarranted, and
an unjust reflection on the heroic dead
as well as the living" I agree with
you perfectly. 1 never intimated that
a countercharge was not made, but 1
do say most emphatically that you nor
the 61st N. Y. did not make 1t and had
no part in it, all of which / am pre-
pared to prove by living unimpeachable
witnesses on oath, officers and men who
participated in it, In such claim you
wrong the memory of Lieut. MCGEE, of
the S1st Pa, who gave his young life
while standing by the guns he had
helped to recapture.
You told me that you did not dictate
that article to Gen. Walker. Gen.
Walker could not have been an eye
witness, for he was a prisoner at the
time.
You recount the efforts made by Gen.
Hancock to check the rout. of his horse
being shot and bride rein cut, head
quarters flag riddled with bullets, fierce
fighting, etc. This was all before. and
not at the recapture of those guns.
You said Capt. Gove's letter confirms
what you claim. I quote from Capt.
Gove's letter of Aug. 81 last, to me. of
which 1 sent you a copy: you were
first rout Of our men; your small force
was the only one I saw facing the
enemy, and I fully believe that the
credit for the saving of those guns be-
longs to you and the men, mostly of
the 5th N. H, that you had rallied and
refor,ned." And yet you have (what
SHAY call it?) the gan to say his let
ter lroves your claim.
Cupt. Cove is not the only officer who
will hear testimony TO what claim 7
Can produce many others-Capt. Hoytt,
Pension Agent, who will make oath to
what I have said.
You admitted to me that we may
have taken the guns off the field after
you had recaptured them. Do you
think any old soldier would believe or
admit that after they had recaptured
guns by such fierce fighting as you
claim they would have left them on
the field for the enemy or other troops
to take away? It's stigma on your
command.
Nat, General, 1t will not add laureIs
to ycur name to insist on and claim
honors( that belong to others. Make a
clean breast of 1t, and own that you
were mistaken.
Why not claim that Miles with the
61st n. Y. turned the tide at Gettys-
burg, thus saving the Nation? II you
can appropriate honors that belong tc
others, why not take them all? II
would be just as true as the claim you
rsilske for Ream's Station.
1 give you fair warning that such
claim as you make shall not go down
In history uncontradicted, notwith-
sanding the years that have passed
|since.-Jas E. Larkin, Major COM
manding the 5th N. II. at the battle of
Ream's Station, 164 Linden street, Ev-
erett, Mass.