The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-10-17

that we give SoHe further EVIL
n dcnce in support of our unwill-
ingncss to Join in adulation of
Admiral Schley is meant to imply that
the evidence already on file is insuifici-
ent to justify our opinion of him, then
we give up. If it means that our cor
respondent has not seen the evidence
or has not given careful heed to it,
then we can do no more than to ad-
wise him, as we advised Colonel Hitch~
cock, to send to the navy department
for copies of all the documents bear
ing on the case, to study them care
fully and to form his own opinion from
them.
Those records show that Schley,
from the moment of his assignment
to the command Of the Flying squad
ron, down to and including the naval
battle off Santiago, was an uncertain
and disquieting element to the navy
department; that he not only disobeyed
its orders but so acted. in the conduct
of the blockade, as to indicate irresolu-
tion, want of steady policy and, we
assume fear. These facts are all clear
ly presented in the official records Of
the government over the signatures of
the cOmmander-in- OF the North
Atlantic fleet, Pear Admiral W. r..
Sampson. and of the secretary of the
navy, Hon. John d. Long. Other Facts
also official. tend to corroborate them.
The way in which Rear Admiral Schley
trapped Lieutenant Commander Hodg-
son into signing a lying letter is known
to all who have followed his case close
ly, and it indicates, put very plainly,
that Schley is not honest. For our cor
respondents sake we will review the
circumstances of that episode briefly.
In the presence of a reporter for
the New York sun Lieutenant Com
mander Hodgson. executive officer of
the Brooklyn, had said that when at
Santiago the Brooklyn, under Schley S
orders, executed its famous loop" he
(Hodgson) had warned Schley there
was danger of running down the Tex
as; to which Schley had replied;
Damn the Texas. Let the Texas take
care of herself" On Ftodgson's auth
ority the Sun printed the collOquy
Schley then wrote to Hcdgson asking
him to deny it. HodgsOn replied af-
tirmng its substantial but not it's verb
al accuracy. Schley then wrote an in.
sinuating letter holding over Hodgson's
head an adroit threat and asking him
TO deny in brief the quotation OF Ian
Guage printed in the Sur and this de
nial Schley caused 10 he published
putting both Hodgson and the sun il
false light and deliberately suppress
ing the essential part of HodgsOn's cor
respondence, wherein Hodgson had af
trmed that the substance of the Suns
colloquy was true All this is a mat
ter of official record and can be exam
ined at first hand by any who may b.
skeptical of our version of it, The in
cident reveals Schley as a man Of sub
terfuge and trickery and, in our judg'
ment, dishonest.
Yet other facts bear out this char
acter for Schley. To a man, the cap
tains at Santiago give to Sampson tn,
credit for devising the plans of block
ade and of action in attack which re
suited in the destruction of Ceryera'
squadron III is on record that whel
Sampson arrived off Santiago and tool
personal command, the blockade ha,
been conducted by Schley at distanc
from the mouth Of the harbor so far a
to be in effect no blockade at all; an,
that Sampson Immediately ordered tn
ships to close in and that from tina
date, June l to July 3, more than
month, by day and by night, the ship
Of war watched the narrow entranc
as the cat watches the mouse an
never gave to the imprisoned enemy
minutes change for a successful es
cape. Yet because Sampson in perso
was absent on other duty on that fam
pus morning Of July 3, and Schley wa
present land incidentally came nea
FGmming the Texas in his haste l