Washington.
Correspondence oi the Herald.
{"character_count": 1652, "word_count": 296, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9876000285148621], "ccnet_perplexity": [1106.800048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}



WASHINGTON, d. c., Dec. 2, 1874.
Apology for Captain Netcton--Mighty Difference


be,ceen Negligence and Neglect of Duty.
take the liberty to address you for the purpose
and with the hope Of correcting an erroneous i'm
preston which a remark made by your corres-
pondent of Nov 29.h is calculated to produce. In
letter oi that date he says, with reference to the
the case of Captain Newton, cit is perhaps not
known to these writers that the Court Martial found
him guilty ol all the charges alleged against him,
and still the sentence was suspension but for two
years ony;" and he further goes on to say that
there "was sad neglect of duty made fully evident
in this investigation" Now, sir, whatever may
have been the object of the writer the effect OF his
letter is really injurious, and TO whose conduct
the occasion alluded to, so far as the world
have judged, was and is without reproach. Capt.
Newton had but one charge preferred against him,
and that charge was negligence. A term as CON-
prehenslve as the element upon which his vessel
floated. 1t might mean any thing, every thing, or
nothing.


On this charge he was found guilty, and that the
charge Of itself was Of light and tnflng charac-
ter is appare Mt from its very wording Had it been
a charge. for ''neglect Of duty" the case would
at once have been so serious as to lead the public
10 the conclusion that he had greatly erred. But
such charge, nor one OF a strictly military
character was preferred at all, beg leave TO ask
you, in common justice, to give this statement an
insertion, that the wrong already inflicted may be
as partial as possible in its effects.


CINCrNNATUs