THE REMINISCENCES OF CARL SCHURZ
of his fight, because he was not let go by General Hooker himself until hours after Geary's fight had ended, and so on; in other words, that General Hooker's report was nothing but a muddled jumble of untruths.
General Hooker, when examined as a witness, had substantially nothing to say except that he must stand by his report. But having the privilege of summing up the case in my own behalf, I availed myself of the opportunity to give General Hooker a piece of my mind. I did this to my heart's content in a written statement which I read to the court, and which went on record. I reviewed the testimony with great care, exposing every fact in the case with the utmost clearness, and then paid General Hooker my compliments—in this style:
“Before closing, I deem it my duty to call your attention to one feature of this business which has an important bearing, not only upon my interests but upon yours and upon those of every subordinate commander in the army. We are bound by the iron chains of military discipline. The superior has it in his power to do all manner of things which may work serious injury to the honor and reputation of the subordinate, which the latter is but seldom at liberty to disprove and almost never able to resent. The greater, in this respect, the power of the superior, the more is he in honor and conscience bound to use his power with the utmost carefulness and discrimination, for the honor and reputation of every subordinate officer is a sacred trust in the hands of the superior commander. The most formidable weapon in the hands of the latter is his official report of campaigns and actions. It is universally received as documentary history, as the purest fountain from which the future historian can take his most reliable information. Praise and censure conveyed in such a report is generally looked upon as based upon irrefutable evidence. And it ought
[ 88 ]
