The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-10-13
NZZZzZZzZIzz3ss';SZgzzg9zSS|gtzzZ
4 N0oNhzhY28,->-S
| SAM.hf e8f SAtlhw27 eR"ANFesl
| 6Hm.MAY 21+<-s51Nlw
lsSsMyse1 00NNaYa6 A00SMa7s7

SS1.hdAi a9E-AE5zz
b1S1aYse 700SHaYao ~0's"aVs7
An aimless wandering that suggests
| nothing rational, except that ScHLEY actu-
| ally could not then summon up the heart to
go within sight of Santiago. ScHLEY got to
| Santiago from Cienfuegos, distance that
should have been covered in two days, In
| five. And this Is q part Of an official COM
munlcaton to the Senate from the Sec
rotary Of the Navy.
Recently SCHLEY, eager OF course to
| obtain another command, told his friends
| who complained that the South Atlantic
| station was not good enough for him that
| az u sailor he was bound to obey ORDERS"
| however they might smart, and his adj
mirers threw up their hats for his bluff.
| unshakable faithfulness; but when ScHLEY
| for the second time got positive order to
| stop dawdling on the road to Santiago, and
| to go there "dt all hazards, he answered.:
Sorry cannot obey the Departments
| order; have striven earnestly" &C., and he
| turned back. And his excuse, the lack Of
| coal, was proven to be utterly without
| foundation by the report OF every Captain
in his squadron. All OF which is recorded
in damnng simplicity in an Executive
| Document"
SCHLEY is lauded as great fighter; yet
| the ship which he commanded at Santiago,
the Brooklyn, was the only one to show her
stern to the Spaniards for the reason, in
| ScHLEY's own words, on the authority Of
his Navigating Officer, that she was too
| near the Spaniards. The Brooklyn was
struck frequently by the concentrated fire
of the Spaniards, and in return her gun
merry is believed to have been splendid, but
SCHLEY is the only ship commander criti-
cised by the Navy Department.
The Schley press has frantically ascribed
| its favorite's failure to be officially recog-
nized as the victor OF Santiago to jealousy
on the part Of SAMPSON and prejudice on
the part of Secretary LoNG. We will give
a few quotations from the "Story Of the
Captains" published in the Century Of last
May, commenting ON the Santiago battle:
IL declined Capt EuL.rE's sword. but cepted the
surrender of hmsrlf. officers and prisoners
| OF Admiral SAMPSON. in command Of the American
feet. RoBLEY d. EVANS,
| "lCaptain Of the Iowa.
Under Admiral sAMPsoS's wise and vigilant di.
trance and had grown day by day eager and
alert until GU the Sd day of July condition had
come to be that of complete and continuous rcadi.
| ness by day and by night.
| Until then (when the battle was we'll under way)
all thoughts had been absorbed in carrying out ths
rigid instructions with which Admiral SAMPSON had
prepared our minds and energies for such possible
occasion. and which can be expressed in the two
| words. Close In. HENRY c. TAYLOR
| Captain Of the Indiana"
Under the orders of Admiral SAMPSON the block
| ads was conducted with the success exemplhed by
| the result. JOHN W. PHILIP.
| Captain of the Texas"
"Our victory due. frat. to the care and pre-
| cision with which the blockade directed by
Admiral s.Mpsos and his staff. and. secondly. to the
loyal and intelligent support given by every ofcer
| and man. RICHARD wAISwRIGHT.
| Captain of the Gloucester)."
Capt. CLARK Of the Oregon, in his story,
makes no mention of either flag officer as a
factor in the victory; but Lieut.. EDWARD W.
EBERLE in command Of the forward turret
holding the Oregons great guns, thus de-
scribes Capt. CLARK as the battle opened:
For minutes Capt CLARK stood the
bridge giving orders and studying the situation
and the thought that was then uppermost in his
mind is clearly expressed in the words of his ocia
| report TO Admiral SAMPSON; AS soon As II was EVIL
dent that the enemy's ships were trying to break
through and escape to the westward. we went ahead
at full speed with determination of carrying out to
| the utmost your orders"
| The official records tell on their face also
that before SIMPSONS arrival at Santiago
SCHLEY kept his ships SO far from the
harbor that one OF his Captains asked him
II it was his intention to attack the
| rfla In tbpv m ont md bat
SAMPSON made blockade wholly different
and, under his orders, instantaneously
deadly when called into action: hence the
argument that 1t was SAMPsoN's victory,
and that it was distinctly not SCHLEY's.
SCHLEY was no greater part OF it as fleet
commander than was his commission.
Capt. MAHAN, a dispassionate historian,
has told the readers of THE SUN how indis-
putable it is that so far as the honors OF
victory go to a commander instead of
to the men behind the guns the laurcls Of
Santiago are SIMPSONS.
For upright officers way is provided and
prescribed by the regulations and customs
OF the Navy for dealing with a situation
like that confronting SCHLEY. A man con-
WINGED that the record was wrong and
I conscious OF being slandered before his
brothers-in-arms would make his superiors
, ears burn with the intensity of his demand
| that he be brought before Court OF Inquiry.
He would go resolutely into it's presence To
, make the officer who, like Admiral SAMPSON.
, charged him with "reprehensible conduct
eat his own singing words. He would bring
) before this tribunal the men of the entire
squadron with which he had had to do, in
order that misrepresentation OF himself
might be exposed. and his traducers con.
, founded before jury OF his peers. He
would show that the chapter Of official
communications convicting him of per.
r sonal dishonesty was vile and baseless
, SANDER. And incidental to this proceeding
) would inevitably come the final demonstra
r ton OF himself as the victor OF Santiago, II
| l. Id H.,