Evening star., 1899-03-07
REPLY I'd ADMIRAL scHLEY
Denies That theSampson Letter Of May 40
Was Suppressed
Five Days Spent in Going From Glen
fuegOs to santiagO-Capt. Sigs-
bee Makes a Statement.

has made publit Secfetary Longs reply to
the statements in Admiral Schley's recent
letter. The Secretary takes up Admiral
Schley's mention of Admiral Simpsons let
ter of May 20, which, the Secretary says,
seems to have given certain senator's the
impression that the department has with
held that letter. On this point he says:
Letter Not Suppressed.
list. That this letter was not in the
possession of the department on February
6, nor was its existence known to the de-
partment at that time.
ed That it was in the possession of Ad-
miral Schiey until the 9th of February,
when it was sent to the department, upon
its request to be furnished with all official
records relating to his duty as commander
in-chief of the flying squadron, and as
flag officer in the North Atlantic fleet.
I'D. That in its instructions with regard
to maintaining the blockade of CienfuegoS
it was not more explicit tnan the letter OF
Admiral Sampson of May 10, which accom-
panied the communication of the depart
ment of February q, and which is published
in the appendix to the report of the Bureau
of Navigation, on page 464
'4th. That on May II, the day after 1t
was written, Admiral Sampson sent orders
to Commodore Schley, in duplicate, by the
Hawk and Marblehead which orders were
received by Commodore Schley during the
early forenoon of the 23d and 24th respec
lively, directing Commodore Schley to pro-
ceed with all dispatch but cautiously, to
Santiago, if satisfied that the Spanish
squadron was not at Cienfuegos. The set
of these orders sent by the Hawk was
ceived on the same day as the letter of the
10th, and, bearing the later date, May 81,
of course revoked the instructions to block
ade Cienfuegos, contained in the letters of
the 18th and Goth.
18th. That in obedience to these instruc-
tions the flying squadron left Cienfuegos
on the afternoon of the 24th but did not
reach the immediate vicinity of the port of
Santiago until the morning of the 29th of
May"
Schley's Departure From Santiago. .
The Secretary quotes the admirals refer
ence to the departments order received by
him on the 2Ith of May directing him to
positively ascertain if Cerveras fleet was in
Santiago harbor and not to allow him to
leave Santiago, if found certainly to be
there without decisive action" gives
the admiral's reply in full and says:
1t VIII be seen that Rear Admiral
Schleys statement to the Senate does not
show that he started to return to Key West
and signaed to the squadron to that effect
and so informed the department, and it
might be inferred that he Immediately
obeyed that order, and ascertained the
presence of the enemy at Santiago. On the
contrary, his telegram above. dated May
%, and written May 81, shows that though
having just received the telegram of the
department. and jl1a wing on hand a sufficient
supply Oh coal no return to Key West, he
reported that he could not obey the order
and continued to proceed toward Kew West
However, it later became evident to him
that this was UNNECESSARY. and he resumed
the movement toward Santiago. .,'i...
Sigsbee Contradicts Schley.
Annexed to the letter from the Secretary
is one from Captain Sigsbee in reply to
Admiral Schley's reference to himself as
commando of the scout steamer Sit. Paul.
quoting him as auth thority for the opinion
that Cervera's fleet was not in San.tiapo
harbor. On this point Sigsbee says:
What [ actually said to the admiral was
that Pilot NuneE had first expressed a be-
llef that such large vessels as Cervera s
cruisers could not get into Santiago be
cause OF their length, but hei afterwards
admitted that they might get in with the
aid of tugs. Every officer on board the
ST Paul knew that / believed Cervera to
be at Santiago: nevertheless, / considered
Nunezs opinion"
He says that he first saw the fleet in
the harbor May %, and signaled Admiral
SChley, and adds:
While | had not known, from previous
observations that Cervcra's feet was in
Santiago, / believed that ii was there he
cause L had been so informed bv the Navv
Department and during the eight days the
st. Paul remained off Santiago the differ
ent vessels touching there and commune
eating with me had brought no counter
T.. 'ti' ANhVy department. ..--
With reference to the statement that he
had confirmed the difficulty of coalins
off Santiago. Captain Sigsbee says:
There had been weather unfavorable
Tor coaling. but 1 remember no statement
OF mine, relative to coalng, made TO the
acmiral. excepting on the morning when
we Jointly discovered the Spanish vessels
me commanding officers We're assembled
On board the Brooklyn. On that occasion
L Twice informed the admiral that the
weather then prevailing was unusually
favorable for coaling at sea, and | recon-
mehded that advantage be taken of it on
the ground that so good an opportunity
could not be expected often. At the same
lline expressed the belief that Guanta-
namo bay would be seized as base. not
necessarily by Admiral Schley, but as soon
as troops were available TO hold the
place.