The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1917-07-06

U-B0AT AMBUSH.
LAID TOCREEL
Facts Show Imagination
Didn't Hurt" Tale of At
tack on Transports.
SPY SCARE NOW WAVES
Gleaves's Report Says Only
Two or Three Subma-
rines Were Sighted.
SINKING IS NOT CERTAIN
No SubstantiatiOn for Flat
Statement That Undersea
Craft Was Destroyed.
SPY SCARE NOW WAVES
SINKING IS NOT CERTAIN

WASHINGTON, July 5.-The announce
ment by Secretary Daniels Tuesday
night concerning the battles between
American warshps conveying the Per-
shing transports and German U-boats
was not, strictly speaking, 1t now de-
Velops, an accurate Interpretation OF the
actual facts Of that encounter. 1t was
an elaboration" of dispatches reaching
the Navy Department from Admiral
Gleaves in command of the conveys.
This elaboration or expansion of cable
dispatches was the work, not Of Secre-
tary Daniels whose name appeared over
the statement but OF George Creel. The
impression was plainly conveyed to
many that the transports were attacked
by a feet of U-boats.
Apparently the sensational wording Of
the announcement has been flashed to
London. Paris and elsewhere in such
form that Admiral w. s. Sims COM
manding the American destroyer forces.
and other American naval offiosrs were
not only surprised but have thought it
necessary to correct the exaggerated i'm
pTcSSlOI IL gave. secretary lJdnlelS WAS
informed to-day that the version of what
happened as given by some of the Of
ficers who participated does not bear out
the more or less glowing account which
was given to the American reading pub
lie yesterday morning.
The "AttacI< In Force
The reports from abroad, and presum-
ably from eye witnesses. are understood
4 Ar 1aSa ha hat
there was any battle with U-boats of
the magnitude which the Washington
statement sought TO convey. The at
tacks in force" by the German U-boats
described in Mr. Daniels's statement to
tho American people consisted in the en-
counter Of one or two U-boats on tho
first occasion and possibly two on the
second. Whether this could properly be
defined as constituting IAN attack in
force" on the huge American transport
armada would seem to be open to Sc
rious question
Furthermore. there is no substantial
ton for the fiat statement that 'at least
one Of the submarines was sunk" The
American naval officers believe one sub
marine may have been sunk, from the
fact that they believe they saw some oil
and debris on the water. Secretary
Danelss statement asserted that "one
was certainly sunk and there was rea-
son to believe that the accurate fire OF
our gunners sent others to the bottom"
Judging from reports which reached
naval circles to-day, the actual facts
in the case seem to he that the pro-
tectng convoy first met at least one
submarine on June % and drove il
away from the transports lane, and
two days later It met one and pos ,
sihly two and likewise drove them TO
cover. The submarines, however, did
l,.t-
first discharging torpedoes at the
transports, and one Of the torpedoes
came perilously near hitting it's mark
Daniels Elated, of Course.
This version is understood to be an
accurate account of what the official
reports from Admiral Gleaves to the
Navy Department communicated II
was upon these reports that the glow
ing statement issued under Secretary
Daniels's name appeared, Admiral
Gleaves did not report IAN attack in
force"
The variance OF the official reports
with the somewhat coloTed account given
to the public may have been due to the
elation OF Mr.. Daniels over the safe ar
rival of the American transports i'm
France. The fact that these ships carry
ing thousands upon thousands of tons
OF war materials besides thousands OF
Americas finest troops, had reached
their goal without the slightest mishap
is admittedly something of which Sec
retary Daniels and the whole nation
were justly proud.
1t turned out to-day that Mr.. Daniels
sent for George Creel chairman of the
committee on public information, and
turned the reports from Admiral Gleaves
over to Mr. Creel TO write the story.
Mr.. Creel wrote it in the form of an in
terview with Secretary Daniels, putting
what had seemed to some to be pretty
vivid description into the mouth Of the
Secretary of the Navy.
When the report from tho American
officers abroad was circulated this after
noon through the Navy Department IL
caused some commotion. When APP
preached regarding ii Secretary Daniels
appeared to be quite disturbed and said
he did not want to be interviewed on
the subject. Later, in discussing the
spy question, he inadvertently said that
! "only few submarines had been seen
I by the expedition, His attention was
/ Immediately directed to his statement
of the attack being "in force" but he
only smiled at this. "If you had to cx-
plain everything you write, you would
/ find II hard" he said good naturedly
/ He hatly refused. however, to give out
any part of Admiral GleaVes's report.
Creel Explains.
! Mr. Creel when asked II he had writ
| ten the Daniels statement, admitted that
] he was the author of It. He explained
! that navy dispatches like any other
cable dispatches were somewhat "cryp-
! tic" and that he had elaborated" them.
1t was pointed out to Mr., Creel that
the question had apparently been raised
OF the authenticity of the version OF this
naval battle given to the public and that
II could be cleared up instantly by giving
out even a part OF the official despatches.
But Mr., Creel insisted this would not
be good policy and that his advice to
Secretary Daniels would be ''to stand
pat" Heretofore the general practice