The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-07-15
Spaniards. A turn to port would have
brought her nearer, since her course at that


time inclined toward the opposite Of theirs.
This revelation OF ScHIEY's baseness OF
personal character was met by newspapers
too deeply committed to his interestto bow
to the truth chiefly with abuse Of HoDGsON
and OF THE Sun And another class OF
critics, who should have known better,
replied to The SUNS logical deductions
with What Is it all about. anyway? What
difference does it mako whether SCHLEY
said starboard' or 'larboardT Why the
elaboration OF this scandal? Tho battle was
won. Let it alone"
This is not the view either OF public
or OF private justice. The conflict origi-
mated with the Schley party. From no
quarter where the truth was known was
there voice OF remonstrance against the
Administrations inclusion OF SCHLEY in tho
regular order Of promotion. But the cpl
sode has assumed political phase which ac-
cuses the Administration OF "persecuting
SCHLEY, and which threatens the Repub-
lican party, on the authority OF that high
principled statesman, Senator WELLINGTON,
with the loss Of the State which SCHLEY
halls from, Maryland. 1t charges the
Navy Department with malice, and with
sharp practice. From the other naval
men it has. as we have often said, held back
all the honors OF war. 1t has insulted q
most sterling officer and honest man,
SAMPSON, with charges of positive dishon-
esty; and, beyond that, it has sought to
deprive him OF the credit due him as tho
splendidly successful commander Of VIC
torious navy.
In the view Of straightforward partisans
in politics, and, most OF all, of all lovers OF
fair play, the Schley case, as the medium OF
scarcely paraleled injustice to SAMPSON
and others, demands the fullest examIna-
ton and exposure. There must be many
men whose fairness OF mind has not been
destroyed by the hysteria OF Schley-
ism, who will conscientiously review
the Navy Departments report upon
ScHLEY's conduct in the light OF the re-
voting episode laid before the public by
the Hodgson report to Capt. CHADWICK.
We defy any honest minded man to go over
Secretary LONGS statement of facts and
conclusions, and SCHLEY's reply, delivered
to the Senate, without seeing the hollow
ness and the sham OF the reply and realiz-
ing the wrong done to SAMPSON and to the
other men of the navy.
Let us begin, then, with the first count
against SCHLEY, his inaction at Cienfuegos
when under orders to see if the Spaniards
were there, and, if not, to start at onco for
Santiago. where he was told the Spanards
probably We're. To quote Secretary Lone,
"SCHLEY, after receipt OF these orders, had
been at Cienfuegos for thirty hours without
having taken any initiative to procure this
information" knowledge that the Span
iards We're elsewhere was got by Com
mander McCALLA, who, upon his arrival in
the Marblehead, said that he knew of
insurgents being in the neighborhood and
would land and speak with them.
SCHLEY said to the Senate that even II
he had known Of the insurgents the surf
would have prevented communication"
Thirty pressing hours were let pass, during
which the sea permitted the coaing of his
ships, and no landing party was called for !
What psyChical transformation came over
tho fleet which later, at Santiago, voun-
teered almost in a body to go to the almost
certain death awaiting HoBsoN? Had the
men who CALAMITY responded to SAMPSON
been all chicken hearts when under SCHLEY?
We will quote SCHLEY:
II Immediately sent Commander MCCALL to
make such communication the result OF which was
made to at $40 p. NJ. of May "a and by which
learned definitely that the spanish fleet not at
Clcnfnogos within two hours. at I:l5, started my
feet for Santiago de Cuba.
what possible ground FOR criticism adverse to
me there can be i'll all this do not see. I was on
the spot acting under orders which gave me entire
discretion. and yet clothed me with the RESPONSE
biity OF going TO Santiago only after was satisfied
that the Spanish feet wa. not at Cienfuegos."
An officers discretion" then, as to the
methods OF executing an order, practically
absolvcs him from performance Of it.
SCHLEY lay idle for thirty hours under ur-
gent orders to search Ci"nfuego5 harbor,
and for excuse he puts forward his dis.
cretion.' llumbuE appears in the very
first of his arguments before the Senate
Then follows the tanglo OF spacious
reasoning. amounting, in the eyes of com
mon sense, to downright dishonesty, con-
corning a semi-privats letter OF SANIP-
SONS which SAMPSON found no occa-
sion to include in his official report. On
the morning of May % SCHLEY received,
by the Hawk, u bundle containing three
communications of various dates. Tie
use he made of them to explain his
thirty hours of delay to the Senate, any
honest mind must call akin to his use Of
HoDGSoN's correspondence, that is to
say, crooked. The first of these was from
SAMPSON under date Of May 10, telling
him, among other things, Of rumor that
the Spaniards were at Santiago. The second
was a personal letter beginning Dear
SCHLEY," dated May 20, discussing the wis
dom Of his remaining at Cienfuegos And
the third, dated May 81, was an Order that,
if the Spaniarls were not at Cienfuegos,
SCHLFY was 10 proceed to Santiago with
all dispatch, and If the enemy was there,
to blockade him in port. We give here
IA passage from SCHLEY's defence Of almost
unbelievable chcanery:
"In addition to this desire to call special atten-
ton to a letter no. of Rear Admiral SIMPSONS to
under date of May 20 in which he incloses tele-
gram of 18TH page - Executive Document lat tup)
fromhe department. ana says: After duly consider
ing this telegram have decided 10 make no change
in the present plan. that is. that you should hold