New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-12-03
To the Editor Of The Tribune.

To the Editor OF The Tribune
Sir: The statement given out at the Office
of Secretary Of the Navy Daniels on the
finding of the court martial that tried Rear
Admiral William n. Little, U. S. N. (retired),
on the charge Of neglect In connection with
the inspection Of the battery Of the subma-
rine K-2, was not published In your paper.
However, as the matter Is one In which the
discipline Of the navy is at stake, II would
seem that this statement should be given the
widest publicity and deserves editorial COM
ment.
The first statement worthy Of comment
made by Secretary Daniels is: "The depart
ment has at no time charged Admiral Little
with passing material which he knew TO be
defective"
The first specification Of the first charge on
which Admiral Little was court martialled
contains the following: "That William N.
Little, rear admiral In the United States
Navy, having on January /, 1914, reason
to believe, from the facts IN his possession,
that the storage battery was defective In
workmanship, did, nevertheless, recommend
that test Of said battery be accepted"
That Secretary Daniels tries to gloss over
this on the ground that Rear Admiral Little
was not charged with passing material which
he knew to be defective" shows that from the
start the Secretary Of the Navy is merely
juggling with words.
The statement continues: HE (Little)
was charged with neglect OF duty in recon-
mending the acceptance of the battery OF
submarine K-2 after his attention had been
called by tho prospective commanding officer
TO the probability Of defective workmanship
therein without notifying the Bureau OF
Steam Engineering thereof" II ovory inspec-
tor sent to the Department OF Steam En-
gineering notification OF all complaints made
to him by all subordinates the bureau would
SEQ 70 Il that these inspectors were replaced
bv others who would not attempt TO I'LL the
latter files with worthless matter. Each
inspector must act on his own responsibility
in fact, Is required 70 do so by the bureau.
The report Of Admiral Little with regard
70 the three-hour test Of the battery was
characterized by Captain McElroy as being
full and complete. Captain McElroy sue
ceeded Admiral Little as chief inspector OF
machinery at the plant OF the Fore River
Ship Building Corporation, and testified to
the above at the court martial. The particu-
lar recommendation referred TO By Secretary
Daniels, made by the prospective commanding
officer of the submarine K-2, was proved
on the stand to be worthless, as will be shown.
Lieutenant Moses had notified Rear Ad
mlral Little, after the battery had been
tested and had performed satisfactory ser
vice. and after the submarine K-2 had been
recommended for preliminary acceptance,
that there might be trouble due to lead
drops in the battery. He was asked, "The
fear that you had at that time and that you
informed the accused of was really a phan-
tom fear, as later events provedT' He an
swered, Later vents proved that II did not
turn out as expected"
And now Secretary Daniels would have
such phantom recommendations placed In the
reports of the inspectors
To return to the statement, the roxt charge
Ia that Rear Admiral Little exceeded "his
authority in accepting guarantee from the
company covering this alleged defective
examine and rectify the same, and, further
more, of neglect Of duty in that, having ac-
cepted this guarantee, he never informed the
department thereof"
This guarantee was simply an extra pro-
cautionary measure on the part of Little
and was distinct advantage to the govern
mcnt. II was given voluntarily by the Elec-
trio Boat Company to the chief inspector
simply to cover the possibility Of trouble