U.S.S. Barnett Report to Commander, Western Sea Frontier, re Decoding of May 31 Midway Message, June 8, 1942

Source: U.S.S. Barnett Report to Commander, Western Sea Frontier, re Decoding of May 31 Midway Message, June 8, 1942 Date: Jun 8, 1942 Archive: NARA, RG-60, Case File 146-7-23-25, box 1, folder: “Serial 5, June 24-June 30, 1942.” Collection: Secrecy And Leaks: When The U.S. Government Prosecuted The Chicago Tribune Oct 25, 2017

Editorial Analysis

Original analysis by the DriftSeas editorial desk. The complete primary-source document, transcribed from the National Security Archive scan, appears in full below.

Decoding a Secret Dispatch: The USS Barnett’s Role in the Midway Leak

The memorandum dated 8 June 1942 is a routine‑looking after‑action report from the destroyer USS Barnett to the commander of the Western Sea Frontier. Its purpose was to document how a classified CINCPAC dispatch—later identified as the May 31 Midway message—was decoded aboard the carrier USS Lexington and shown to civilian reporter Stanley Johnston of the Chicago Tribune. The report was generated in the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Midway, when the U.S. Navy was still scrambling to understand how the Japanese plan had been foiled and how sensitive operational details were reaching the press.

The document belongs to the broader episode of wartime press‑military relations that erupted after the Tribune published a front‑page story on 5 June 1942 describing the Japanese attack on Midway before the Navy had officially released any account. The story, based on Johnston’s observations while embedded on the Lexington, contained details that the Navy considered “secret” because they revealed the timing and disposition of forces. The Navy’s response was swift: a series of investigations, court‑martial proceedings, and a high‑profile trial that ended with Johnston’s conviction for violating the Espionage Act. The Barnett report is a small but crucial piece of that investigative puzzle, showing how the Navy internally justified the exposure of a classified dispatch to a civilian journalist.

Key actors emerge clearly. Commander M.T. Seligman, the Lexington’s executive officer, is portrayed as the catalyst who “authorized” the showing of the secret dispatch to Johnston, a claim that the report attempts to couch in procedural language (“it was generally known to be the practice on vessels during the time important operations affecting the whole fleet”). Lieutenant‑junior grade D. Bontecou, the ship’s communications officer, records Seligman’s statement verbatim, underscoring the chain of consent that the Navy later used to argue that the leak was not a rogue act but an authorized briefing. The report also lists the Lexington officers who actually performed the decoding—Lt (jg) F.C. Brewer, Ens J.B. Johnson, Ens G.Y. McKinnon, and Ens R.E. Hebbler—providing a paper trail that could be used to attribute responsibility.

Reading between the lines, the memorandum reveals a tension between operational security and the Navy’s desire to keep its officers occupied during a period of intense media scrutiny. Paragraph 4 notes that Seligman’s proposal to let Lexington communications officers handle the decoding “would keep the passenger officers busy,” suggesting a pragmatic, perhaps careless, attitude toward secrecy. Moreover, the report’s emphasis on the commanding officer’s “consent” and the claim that the practice was “generally known” hints at an attempt to retroactively legitimize a breach that, in hindsight, proved costly.

The significance of the Barnett report extends beyond the immediate scandal. It illustrates how wartime information control relied on informal understandings among senior officers, a system vulnerable to individual judgment calls. The document also foreshadows the post‑war legal battles over press freedom and national security that would shape the First Amendment jurisprudence of the Cold War era. By documenting the chain of authorization, the Navy created a paper record that would be cited in the prosecution’s case against Johnston, reinforcing the narrative that the leak was not a spontaneous act of a rogue journalist but the result of an authorized, albeit poorly managed, briefing.

Legacy-wise, the Barnett memorandum is a reminder that the line between transparent reporting and operational compromise is often drawn in the sand of internal memos and after‑action reports. Its declassification allows historians to trace the procedural logic that underpinned the Navy’s response to the Tribune leak, offering insight into how military institutions balance the demands of the press with the imperatives of secrecy—a balance still contested in today’s digital age.