The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1899-01-14
NAV1t PERSONNEL BILL
An Amendment Will Be Offered to
Abolish Prize Money.
WHO Is THE HERO OF sANTIAGO2

Congressman Berry, of Kentucky,
Evokcs Enthusiasm in Claiming tho
Honor For Admiral Schley, to Whom
He Pays Poetic Tribute.
Washington, Jan. H--The house yes
terday entered upon the consideration
of the naval personnel bill. 1t develop
ed much less opposition than was an
ticipated. and the indications are that
It will have large majority when 1t Is
placed upon its passage. The last ves-
tige of opposition to the measure from
the line officers of the navy was remov-
ed when an amendment was adopted
designed TO prohibit staff officers, upon
whom the bill confers positive rank.
from exercising command save in their
own corps. The committee also assert
ed their purpose to offer an amendment
to repeal the law giving prize money
to the navy, and this announcement
met with warm approval. The speeches
on the bill yesterday were filled with
glowing illusions to the glories of our
naval victories in the late war, and
Mr.. Berry of Kentucky, created great
deal of enthusiasm by his eulogy of
Schley as the hero of Santiago. Mr..
Berry made the first allusion on the
floor of the house to the mooted ques-
tion as to who was responsible for the
victory over Cervera's fleet. He sald
II believe the bill will remove con-
flict, and if there is any country where
there is necessity for the removal of
conflict in the army or the navy 1t Is
the United States. I think we had
magnificent phase of the conflict in the
army service of the United States pre-
sented In the papers today. and whether
1t will end in a duel or not l do not
know, but it shows there Is very con-
siderable amount of friction In the
army Of the United States. There was
some conflict among the officers in the
navy in the greatest battle Of the war;
the greatest battle of modern times,
because 1t demonstrates the character
Of the men and the vessels that were
engaged in it, and there is no doubt in
the mind of the American people who
Is entitled to the credit of that victory.
But there are people who are trying
to steal away from Schley the credit
of the glorious triumph he won on the
Sd day of July. 1885,"
In this connection Mr.. Berry read
the following poem, amid a whirlwind
of laughter and applause:
When the Spanish fleet, with full head
way,
Dashed out of Santiago bay.
Taking the chances of death and wreck,
Who stood OH a Yankee quarterback
And marked the game with eagle eye;
Say, was it Sampson, or was 1t Schley?
Who was it, when shot and screaming
Turned Sabbath calm into echoing hell.
Steamed into the thickest of the fray,
His good ship Leading all the way
While the roar Of his guns shook the
earth and sky;
Say, was It Sampson or was 1t Schleyss
In American hearts who holds first place
OF those who claim part in that glorious
chase?
Whose name stood out on that proud day.
As the hero of Santiago bay?
In letters of gold, write that name on
high;
Shall we write it Sampson, or write 1T
Schley?
"I say it would be written Schley."
continued Mr.. Berry. "and then l say
there should be provision Of law that
whether 1t goes to Schley or Sampson.
no prize money should be paid to the
men who have won that glorious
achievement but that the provision for
prize money ought to be wiped off the
statute books. say that the men who
made that magnificent charge at San
Juan hill in all aspects of this case are
as much entitled to take Santiago as
a reward for their services as the men
who sank Cervera's ships"
In the senate Mr.. McLaurin, of South
Carolina, took strong ground in a care
fully prepared speech against policy
Of expansion by this country. He cited
as one Of the principal reasons why
the United States should not assume
dominion over peoples who are widely
dissimilar to the people Of this country
the experience Of the south with the
negro race. He advocated the adop-
tion of the Vest resolution. declaring
that this country could not maintain
permanently as colonies such territory
as the Philippines, and held that it
would be in opposition to the spirit of
American institutions to do SO.