New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-12-03
SECRETARY DANIELS AND THE LITTLE COURT
MARTIAL'S VERDICT
Curious Sraddle by the acknowledgements of the Admiral
Acquita But Fails to Order Rerial Of the Charges-Ihe
Discipline Of the Navy Involved

caused by lead drops that Lieutenant Moses
feared might occur. Although Rear Admiral
Little knew that the fears were groundless,
as was afterward proved, he accepted the
guarantee as an extra precaution. This guar
antee could not prove 10 be anything but
advantageous to the government, but was not
necessary, as when it was discovered that the
battery was defective the Department Of
Steam Engineering required the contractors
to make good all defects, and they agreed 10
do this on August 2s, 1918, without regard
to this promise made to Little
That the department was not notified Of
this extra guarantee may have been an over
sight on the part Of the chief inspector, but
as it was an extra forethought 1t hardly
seemed necessary.
In simplifying his statement Secretary
Daniels says: at further appears that about
two months subsequent TO the final trials,
after which the government had no legal
claim against the contractors for defective
workmanship, the aforementioned storage
battery failed completely, and, upon exam
nation, it was found that about 80 per cent
of the cells contained lead drops" He does
not say that other batteries Of the same make
had also failed completely, and that this had
I
ment had discontinued the use Of this make
Of battery even before the specifications for
the court martial were written. Secretary
Daniels also did not state that this failure
was by no means due entirely 70 the presence
Of lead drops. 1t was brought out IN the
testimony Of Chief Electrician CRUDE that
only some of the cells in which there were
lead drops were "shorted"
The actual failure of this make of battery
is due to an entirely different cause-not
lead drops-as the record of tests, placed
before the court, showed. In this respect
the inference expressed by Secretary Daniels
is entirely misleading.
The Secretary of the Navy next mentions
IN his official statement "an important side
light upon the attitude Of Rear Admiral
Little" As matter Of law, common Jus
ticc or even common sense tho matter Of side
lights brought out In court martial, and
which have nothing TO do with the specific
charges, should not be placed In the state
ment Of the Secretary Of the Navy
Granting, however, that this side light Is
material, it deals with the testimony Of Lieu
tenant Moses to the effect that Rear Admiral
Little was not easily approachable The Sec
rotary states, "the department deplores this
attitude" but does not say that Mr.. Moses in
his testimony stated that he had talked freely
with Little and, In fact, contradicted the i'm
preston that the latter was hard TO approach
Later Secretary Daniels says that the de-
partment requires of all officers careful,
thorough and serious consideration Of the re-
ports and representations of their subord-
mates" Does he not see that he himself
might be required By the public to give care
full, thorough and serious consideration TO
the finding Of a court composed of seven Of
the highest officers In the navy? That when
the court latter mature deliberation most
fully and honorably acquitted Rear Admiral
Little of the charges disapproval of this
acquittal by him, based on sections Of testi-
mony that were refuted at the court martial
and upon important sidelights,' will hardly
be acceptable to the people Of the countlyt
In conclusion Secretary Daniels says: AIN
view, however, o. the impracticabilty and sx-
pense attending the reconvening Of the court,
and the fact that Rear Admiral Little is now
no longer on inspection duty, and OF the i'm
probability of his methods being followed By
other officers on inspection duty, and in view
Of his admitted personal and official integ-
rity. the department has dsapprovsd the
findings and acquittal without reconvening
the court for further consideration thereof
In other words, Little is guilty, but he Is not
guilty. II this is satisfactory manner In
which to leave the question, only Secretary
Daniels believes so. II Re@i Admiral Little
is not TO be acquitted, then a new court mar
tial should so decide. II he is to be acquitted.
tfen why does not Secretary Daniels say so?
d. c. POND.
Instructor Of Architectural Engineering.
New York, Nov. q, 1915.