The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

s THE-MARINE RECORD. OctoBER 17, 1901. ” NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS. The Schley Court. of Enquiry, now on its murky progress through Washington, would have made Pilate ask again, “What is,truth?’ ‘Whatever is to be accomplished by the washing of naval linen—and the laudresses seem to make it only, dirtier as their dreary scrub goes on—one end is cer- tain; the reputation for veracity of the present body of registered naval officers has received a dark smirch. They are often the next door neighbors of merchant-men in light- house, hydrographic, convoy, consular, and other duties. It is not unimportant to know, therefore, how they secretly regard truth-telling.. Pleasant it is, therefore, to point to the mute testimony of an old court-martial record incident to a pending case in the Court of Claims, which shows that naval officers will tell the truth when doing so means self- sacrifice, and without hope of present reward. That record is a-story of trial in 1886 on the hot west coast of Central America and in the fogs of Peru. One torrid day in Guatemala, in January, 1886, the execu- tive officer of the U.S. S. Adams, Lieut. Comdr. N., went ashore ‘‘on leave’? and returned apparently too Grune to perform duty. This was partly if not wholly due to sun- stroke, a statement that may provoke the usual incredulous smile... Belief in. it, however, gained him the sympathy of Ensign E., who saw him, as a consequence, ‘‘put under sus- pension,” made a ship prisoner thereafter until May, anxiously awaiting a trial that might result in his dismissal]. N. asked BE. to be his counsel, told E, about the ‘‘family and aged father dependant on ‘him for support’, and who was also worrying,’ As the Adams reached Panama on her southward voyage the two, determined to end the suspense. If atrial must be waited for until they met the flagship, which was then in Chili, months more might pass with N. a prisoner in the hold of a ship inthe hot tropics. The court-martial could be ordered, however, by the Secretary of the Navy (Art. 38 sec. 1624 R. S.) such had been eonvened by. him in Panama not long before, under similar circumstan- ces, and in the same Pacific fleet of which the 4dams was a ‘member. (Mullan v. U. S.) Capt. K. however, was so ig- norant of law (this, G. C. M. O. 37 of 1886 statute, ) as to say that the ‘‘holding of a court in any other manner’’ than by the chief of the Pacific{flzet “was impossible,’’ and did noten- courage a suggestion made to him by Ensign H. that K. ask the interposition of Rear-Adm. J., chief of the Atlantic fleet, then at Aspinwall just across the isthmus from Panama. J. wanted some vessel to remain at Panama and would have gone to the expense of sending a cablegram to Washington to. effect that. For this is what he did: ; At 6 o’clock one morning, Feb. 6, 1886, E. was sent ashore to buy coal forthe ddams. At Panama he learned that Rear-Adm. J. was to arrive that forenoon from Aspinwallon a visit to Capt. K. Officers of the ee are not required to be dumb in each other’ s presence, and at the Grand Hotel, Panama, where J. subsequently, came, H. addressed J. in behalf of N., request- ing J. to take such measures as might lay within Pe province to give N. a speedy trial. The request was put in writing, so that it might be referred to Captain K., who just then was five miles away at the man-of-war anchorage in Panama Bay, but who was coming ashore to meet the Admiral. The captain and the ensign did not meet until the next morning, after both, at different times, (K. in the night) had returned to the 4dams. What happened was thus.tes- tified to’ by K. in the subsequent court-martial : ‘‘Between half past seven'and eight o’clock, on the morning of the 7th, I went out of the cabin and saw Mr. G., who was on deck. I told ‘him to send for Mr. E. and to be present. Mr. G: was doing duty as executive officer. I wished him to'hear. Mr. E. came up on the starboard side of the quarter-deck from below, ‘‘and there K charged him with ' ‘disrespect’ in appealing to J. and ‘told him that he should consider himself under suspension for disrespect to his su- perior ‘officer. I then directed Mr. G. to see the fact prop- etly entered in the ship’s log.” (This is ruled by the Navy Department to be the evidence of the infliction of a punish- ment, the log book entries being precisely similar to those in-G. C. M: O. 18 of 1897. (See MARINE RECoRD of Sept. 19, 1991, Pp. 8) Naval general court-martial orders state again and again that the publication of a charge and asen- terice constitutes a ‘‘public reprimand,” as it is unquestion- ably the announcement of an express or implied rebuke. Article 24; sec: 1624, R. S., makes unlawful the infliction of a public reprimand by a captain on a commissioned cfficer, and Artielé 8, cl: 17, sec. 1624 R. S. makes it the duty of | every ‘fficer to report infractions of naval law. Ensign E., therefore, in the conscientious ‘performance of his duty; re- ported K to Rear-Admiral M., commanding the Pacific sta- tion, for ‘‘inflicting an illegal punishment. is On May 24, 1886, E. was brought before a court- aria charged vaguely with ‘‘conduct to the prejudice of good’ order and discipline,’’ a charge so hazy, broad and indefi- nite that Congress has not deemed it politic to make it jus- ticiable by naval tars, who might punish‘the innocent under ~ it, The only ‘“‘conduct”’? made punishable by the’ statute governing the navy is more narrowly described as ‘‘scan- dalous conduct tending to the destruction of good morals’’ (Art. 8, sec, 1624 R.S). Under the charge of conduct pre- judicial to discipline was specified ‘‘making a report” that was ‘‘anfounded.’”? No falsehood was charged. And here first is seen the gravity with which naval officers view an accusation of falsehood. It is notto be lightly made. Even where, as in this case, the anger of a captain who (wrong- fully) felt himself outwitted by a subordinate (for the Adams was detained in Panama) incited the charges, naval instincts compelled even prejudice to distinguish batween a willful misstatement of facts and'an erroneous conclusion of law based on those facts. With the latter, with careless judgment, E. was only intended to be charged. It was also alleged that communicating with J. was ‘‘con- duct to the prejudice,”’ etc. was specified. On scrutinizing this regulation and compar- ing it with others, it will be discovered to require letters from a naval subordinate to any superior to pass through his ship’s captain’s hands only when they are written toa com- mon superior. (Navy Reg. of 1876, p. 128, par. 8; p. 129, par. 15.) It was plain, too, that the circumstances of the emergency under which it was sent prevented other than the subsequent observation by K., and that he saw it so imme- diately after its reception by J. that it was not of the slight- est use to notify him before. Nothing was or could have been effected one way or another by it. It was K.’s duty to forward official letters whether he liked to or not. The reg- ulations specified, moreover, stated that the only conse- quence of not sending a letter through intervening channels where required was that such letter would not be considered © “official”? and would lose some force accordingly. The facts as to this letter, therefore, E. promptly admitted, coupling this with, ‘“‘No letter was ‘written by him to Admiral J. which : was improper in itself or under the circumstances.”’ From the foregoing it will be seen that it was incumbent upon E. to prove not only that. what was in the eye of the law a “‘public reprimand” was administered, but that it was accompanied by circumstances of scolding that would im- press the not too independent navaljury. Capt. K. having denied doing anything unlawful, he was asked on cross-ex- amination, ‘‘Pleese define a reprimand.’’ Immediately fol- lowing this the record reads: ‘‘A member of the court ob- jected to the question as irrelevant.’’ est chance for argument.] ‘'The court decides that the question shall not be put.. The accused made the following statement, ‘Capt. K. has testified that he did. not inflict a reprimand, and we desire to know what he meant by the word.’ The court did not wish to reconsider its decision.’’ Washington, D. C. GEORGE F. ORMSBY. (20 BE CONCLUDED NEXT ISSUE. ) —$—$——————————— i oa oo EASTERN FREIGHTS. Messrs. Funch, Edye & Co., New York; furnish the RECORD with the following eastern freight report: ‘Continued dullness still characterizes our freight market, as is shown by the fixtures of one steamer hence to Hong Kong with case oil at 22 cents per case, and another from Norfolk to Manila with coal at $5.75 per ton, a reduction of 1% cents per case and 25 cents per ton respectively from previous charters in that direction. The demand for grain tonnage is practically nil, and there is no indication of any revival within the near future. Some little activity has been manifested in chartering from: the | Atlantic cotton ports as the annexed figures will show; but : the rates accepted mark a further ‘decline. The ‘supply of tonnage from the Gulf continues in excess of the demand, § and several vessels are lying idle unable to find employment. ‘Business in sail tonnage continues to ¢xhibit a- declining | tendency in the absence of sufficient inquiry ‘to ‘sustain ‘the | market. The decline in case oil rates to the far-East of 2% resents the shippers’ ideas for prompt or nearby tonnage, freights: In other branches we have ale ohh of interest ‘to: mention. g 477 tons, as compared with that of 1899, but an increase of * . 6,586,310 tons in 1899, and 5,605,421 tons in 1990. In support of this a’regulation ' [ Without the slight-- ‘ ' 41; founderings and abandoments, 2; strandings (including cents per case for vessels for distant loading’ ‘also fully rep-. ee : P > (ineludin ' total losses); 19; and other casualties; 74—- which is attributed to the’ general depression’ in~steam: ' ee gle ie SUEZ CANAL TRAFFIC. “The British Suez canal directors have reported the naviga- tion through the Suez canal for 1900, as compared with that of the two previous years. The following is a summary of ~ the report: “p The net tonnage for the past year shows a decrease of 157,- % ic nae sth ya aa 499,549 tons as compared with that of 1898. te The transit receipts, which in 1899 amounted to 91,318,772 francs ($17,624,230) and were higher than any previous year.” since the opening of the canal, fell to 90,623 608 francs bees: s 490,356) in 1900, being a decrease of 695,164 francs. i The number of vessels which passed through the canal was # 3,503 in 1898, 3,607 in 1899, and 3,441 in tgoo, of ‘which > 2,295 in, 1898, 2,310.in 1899, and 1,935 in 1900 carried the British flag. ; There has consequently been a falling off in the tonnage | of British vessels, which amounted to 6,297,743 tons in 1898, During the same period the tonnage from German vessels has-in- creased from 969,597 tons in 1898 to 1,070,767 tons in 1899 and 1,466,391 tons in 1900, ; Of 2,407 merchant vessels and vessels in batlest, of a inet tonnage of 6,612,316 tons, passing through the canal, 1,661 - ships, of a net tonnage of 4,705,634 tons, were British, being }) fully 69 per cent. of the number and fully 71 per cent. of the tonnage; 291 or 12 per cent. were German vessels, whose ») tonnage was II.1 per cent. of the whole; France, Holland, ‘and Austria-Hungary combined furnishing a total of 11.8. ‘per cent. of the vessels and 9.6 per cent. of the tonnage of the carrying trade to the East through the Suez canal. . In the ten years 1889-1899, the annual net tonnage ranged from 6,783,187 tons to 9,238 603 tons, and the transit receipts from 66,167,579 francs to 85,294,769 francs ($12,770,343 to's ° $16,461,899). The average of the net tonnage was 7,992,897 : tons, and the transit receipts 75,126,933 francs ($14,489,498), while in 1900 the net tonnage was 9,738,152 tons and the - transit receipts amounted to 90,623,608 francs ($17,490,356). The mean net tonnage per vessel also rose from 1,951 tons in. 1889 to 2,743 tons in 1899, as against 2,830 tons in 1900. The mean duration of passage for all vessels navigating the canal amounted to eighteen hours and thirty-two : minutes in 1900, as compared with eighteen hours and thirty-- , eight minutes in 1899. In 1900, the percentage of vessels navigating by night was 91.2 per cent. as against 90.7 per cent. in 1899. The percentage of vessels drawing less than 23 feet was » 58.9 in 1899, as against 62.4 in 1900; while that of vessels drawing more than 23 feet was 41.1.in 1899, as compared. with 37.6in 1900. The maximum draft allowed for vessels passing through the canal is 25 feet 7 inches, 302 vessels, drawing »more than - 24 feet 7 inches used the canal, as compared. with. 386 in 1899 and 374 in 1898, representing a percentage of 10.7 im 1898, I0.7'in 1899, and 8.8 in 1900. It is hoped) that before = long the maximum draft allowed will be raised to 26 feet, 3 inches. : It may be of interest to remark that in 1890 only 13 vessels. passed through the canal with a beam of 49 feet 2 inches.ori» more. Since 1895, the number has increased as follows: Forty-two in 1895, 68 in 1896, 92 in 1897, 123, in 1898, 159 in 1899, and 212 in Igoo, The number of troops carried through the canal in 1900 amounted to 154,249, as against 108,552 in 1899, being.an in- crease of 29,711 Russian, 28,770 French, 22,634.German, 634’ Italian, 587 Japanese, 319 Dutch, and 297 Portuguese, against,, a decrease of 13,238 British, 8,543 Turkish, 7,891 Spanish,:, and 7,583 American troops, as compared with 1899. . The, number of civilian passengers amounted to 102,415 in 1900,,° as against 88,616 in the preceding year; while the number, * of pilgrims, emigrants, and convicts was 25,530 in 1900, as compared with 25,179 in 1899. ee In the year 1870, 26,758 civil and military passengers were- were’carried through the canal; in 1880 the number rose to, 98,900, in 1890, to 282,203, as against 221,348 in 1899, DO OOS ‘ACCORDING to the Liverpool Underwriters’ Association returns the casualties to vessels of 500 tons gross register and upwards reported last month were: From weather damage, I@ total losses); 121; collisions, 114; fires and explosions- making for September, 37: casualties (of which 15 were total losses), against.345 in September last year including 35. tote: - losses). :