The San Francisco call., 1901-12-21

lis General Miles has been requested
~ by Secretary Root to explain his
interview in which he accused
the Navy Department Of being in con-
spiracy 10 destroy Admiral Schley. Sec
retary Long brought this interview to the
attention OF the President when it was
published, The President directed Sec
retary Root 10 call the attention OF Miles
to the published report OF his utterances
and also TO the improperly Of his crIu-
cism Of a coordinate branch of the serV-
ice regarding a matter still pending be-
fore that department. Root sent his let
ter to Miles last night, and is awaiting a
reply. The General has not yet made q
reply and the whole affair is kept secret
IN the War Department
u Miles Acknowledges the correctness
Of the report OF his interview, the PreSl-
oent will reprimand him for lndiscretIcn
and an example OF INSTRUMENTATION Inere
Is still some question as TO Miles purpose
IN jumping into this controversy over the
Schley case. he has been in continual M
subOrdinauon ever since the war WIN
SPAN, and has lost no opportunity TO enl-
bsrrsss the Administrations OF Doth Mc-
lAlnIey and Roosevelt he has sought 10
be regarded martyr TO the War DE
partment, ana having tailed ne has taken
sides in The naval controversy IL ne Is
reprImanoec he may demand court OF
INQUIRY and embarrass the War Depart
ment 10 md oncers Of equal rank to try
nm Miles would, however, be a martyr
10 the Democratic party looking Tor
martyr candidate for President.
Judge Advocate Reports
Judge Advocate Lenly and Solicitor
Hanna this afternoon submitted 10 Secre-
tary Long their report OF the Dill OF op-
jecIions MED by Admiral Schley through
mis- counsel TO the hnd1ng OF the Schiey
court of inquiry In substance this re
port Is an argument supplementary to tue
argument MADE by the writers petoIe IN
court OF inquiry. The principal points are
an insistence upon their contention tnat
The irsr report is the unanimous report
Of the court of inquiry; that the court
was justified in rejecting Admlral
Schley's evidence by the number OF VII
ness who took issue with him, ana tnat
there is no sufficient reason for reopen.
ing of the case, as requested by Admiral
Schley-
The report begins:
communication dated the 18th instant,
eiened bv Rear Admiral W s. Schley and by
Isldor ksynor and James Parker, his coun-
sci, objecrng to the approVa! OF rhe nn5ngs
q the coLt o. s --Su--s s,; - ne 1srtic1iarIv that
what the signers are pleased TO term the opln-
ion Of the majority Of the court be remllled
to The court for further consideration, mas
been received by this department for refer
ence, and is returned with the following state
II is somewhat difficult to deal with this pa
Der on account Of its general and non-speclhc
character and sweeping though unsuppolteY
assertion of opinion by the applicant and
by his counsel that. in their judgment, the ao-
verse finding Of the court is not Justlhed Ds
the evidence The paper might De olsnnsSeu
as simply a not unexpected expression OF DIS
satisfaction with an adverse judgment, but
for the fact that il contains number OF mis-
statements, and particularly has woven
throughout the entire structure an inaccurate
and misleading" use Of the words majority OF
The findings Of fact and the opinion Of the
court of inquiry in the case of Admiral SchleY
on the more important and material points
before it were not reached by a majority OF
the members only, but by the entire court
The points of the precept upon which all the
members of the court unite appear 10 De IN
controvertibly established by the evidence II
could have been reached upon them, and they
constitute the essential features OF the entire
matter under inquiry.
Justifes the Findings.
Lemly and Hanna reviewed at length
the conclusions of the court as to the first
tels charges Of the precept. justifying the
findings and declaring that in the lace OF
tie facts the court could not have found
otEelWise- The report continues:
Upon the points above set forth, which ap-
pear to embrace substantially the important
matters covered by the inquiry. the court Is
united and its findings are unanimous. They are
able testimony Of Commodore Schley's brother
officers, who served with and under him, BY
official telegrams letters and reports and b.
the logs of the several vessels Of his squadron,
and ii would accordingly be idle TO remit these
matters TO the same bocy for reconsideration
II is not by any means intended here to say
that the foregoing principal points covered ny
the inquiry are the only points upon Whlch
the findings Of the court are in all respects or
substantially unanimous; because the truth is
that the court is unit upon al points, except
those as which the admiral expresses indi-
vidual but not in all cases contradictory views
It does not appear that any good purpose
would be served by asking the court TO recon
sider these
The judge advocate and his assistant
deny that the court failed TO consider eVl-
deuce. 1T was their sworn duty, says
the report, ''tO consider and weigh that
evidence and the applicant and his coun-
SCI have no right to say that they nave
disIegarded it The court had perfect
right, after weighing it, TO ignore any tes-
tiIacny-
As to Who Was in Command.
Relative TO the contention as to who
commanded the naval forces in the battle
Of Santiago, the report says:
II the applicant and his counsel seriously
believe, as they now state TO be the case, that
the matter of command on July 3 was essen
ual to the applicants interests it was their
plan & S1 & not ONLY my 70 P5Hg gss tne 16o6 9ueSbea D
heard To Teo7test fhat the court now rule
upon it is to ask that another officers inter
ests be passed upon, to his possible prejudice,
in his absence. and without a hearing-a thing
intolerable, whomsoever may be concerned
In conclusion we are satisfied that no good
purpose would be served by remitting the
proceedings or any of the features of this in
Quiry TO the court. A more patient exhaustive
and painstaking hearing was never given;
greater consideration was never extended to
any officer before a military court Of inquiry.
No expense was spared no convenience or IA
ciIity denied no courtesy refused The appli-
cant has had his day in court and the Judg-
ment is against him. 1t is accordingly recon-
mended that the proceedings be not returned,
but that the matter be concluded by the de-
partments approval of the unanimous finding.
We have the honor TO be-
SAMUEL c LEA1LY.
Judge Advocate Court of Inquiry.
z. p HANNA
Associate to Judge Advocate.
The Secretary OF the Navy.
The report as appears from its text is
solely that Of Judge-AdvOcate General
LeTnly and Solicitor Hanna, and as such
ii was laid before Secretary Long. The
Secretary said this afternoon that he
would not act upon the report to-day. He
adGad that be would also withhold antinn