The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-04-26
FISkE LETTER IS
SOURCE OF MIRTH
MIssive Seems to Indicate Presunp'
ton by Subordinate In Criticizing
Supcrior's Order.

Washington, d. c., April 25.--The
wet advocates throughout the coun-
try and especially in Washington, are
ton of letter written last year by
Rear Admiral Bradley A. Fiske. which
letter was sent to the House naval
affairs committee and lie now Just
made public. This letter by Rear Ad-
miral F1ske was q criticism of the
so-called wine mess order of Secre-
tary of the Navy Daniels. The part of
this letter which is causing the vets
and their friends 30 much gratifca-
ton is that which pretends to show
that there has been as much drunken
ness in the navy and the marine corps
since this order was issued as there
was before.
Representative Fred A. Britten, in
commenting upon this letter. said:
The record of the Navy Depart
ment show that during the year OF
1919 (prior to Daniels order) there
were twelve convictions of officers in
the navy and marine corps for
drunkenness, and that during the year
1915 following the Daniels order)
victions for the same offense."
But there are two sides apparent
ly to this story as to all other stories.
First the higher officers of the navy
are wont to talk long and loud about
the disciplin which IL supposed to
prevail within their ranks, and which
is supposed to result in their accept
ance without a murmur of orders from
their superiors. even If they know
that the carrying out OF such orders
would mean certain death. Therefore,
IT would seem far from fitting that one
occupying the position of Rear Ad-
ciral F1ske. and who is supposed to
typify the spirit OF the navy, should
presume TO write a letter critictzing
an order of his superior.
shows Several Things.
The statement Of Representative
Britten, based on the Fiske letter,
shows several things. First, that diff
ferent officers of the Navy and Ma
rine corps. inspired by the lack of
discipline shown by the admiral, felt
free to indulge In the use OF intoxi-
cants forbidden by the secretary. and
many OF them were convicted for this
offense.
1t Is equally reasonable also to
assume that II this order had not been
issued by Secretary Daniels the num-
Der OF those who INDUCED too freely
in intoxicants would have been greater,
and their case not brought to the
attention OF the commanding officers.
thus creating the condition in the
navy which no one can argue with
any degree of consistency would have
been an improvement upon the pre-
sent conditions.
High officers OF the army also have
criticized the order OF Secretary DAN
iels applying to their fellow officers
of the navy. and have insisted that
there Is no drinking to excess in the
army. In the face of these assertions
it would be interesting to hear from
them an explanation OF the recent
case Of Captain James F. Fulton. and
doubtless other similar cases which
could be suggested. The following
newspaper article referring to the
case of Captain Fulton speaks for
itself:
Captain James NJ. Fulton. coast
artillery corps. recently was tried by
general courtmartiel at Fort Grant,
Canal Zone. on the charge OF conduct
unbeeoming an officer and a gentle
man. with four specifications alleging
the violation of pledge given
March 10, 1918. to abstain from the
use OF alcoholic liquor.
Not Now an OfffceT.
Captain Fulton was found guilty
by the court and sentenced to be
dismissed from the service of the
United States. The sentence of dis
missal has been approved by the presi-
dent, and Captain Fulton ceased to be
an officer of the army today.
Captain Fulton was born in viz
ginia, and was appointed second
lieutenant in the artillery corps jan
uary "a, 1902, He was promoted to
be first lieutenant January rs, 1907.
and captain March II, 1911"