The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1901-12-27


first specification; to viz: That the
aaid Commodore Sohloy was derolios in
tho discharge Of his duty and unmind-
full Of the rclsgstions for tho govorn.
ment Of tho navy Of the Unitod States
in that he did not pfesoribo and pro.
mulgako ansieipatory orders Of battle.
rs, Tho ejority OF the oourt have
entirely failed to determine as to who
WaH ia command Of the American naval
foroea on8agad ia the battle OF San
tisso, tho fading Of Whioa fac! wss ab,
solutely necessary in ordor 10 aotesmins
properly the 6IBs specification Of tho
preoept as 60 the conduct OF Copino
dore Sohley in connection vita tho
svahts Of tho Santiago oampsign.
~. Tho raajo,ity OF tho epust havo
rajectod tho wnolc Of tho testimony Of
fsrsd on bohalf Of the appliosnt, aud
have Nos aavertOd to such testimony
and hsve ontirely ignored ihe testimony
OF tho spplicAns 'imsost, WHO was oa
tho stand Tor many houss aud puhj otea
10 tho moet aearohing cxsmiDAslvs; and
by 80 doing they hsvo perverted the
| ondu Of JUSTICE That If this testimony
wab all fsise they should havo 30 sn:
nouncod, aud il oil or any part Of Ii
was truo tho snid applicant Was ontiiled
to tho bonoft OF it ana by dtoliaing 10
| consldor or pas. upon il thoy have ds.
pfjvod HIM Of his oommon law asd con.
ssi,utioEai riglts.
%. That tho majority Of tho oours
found tho sptlioans guilty upon npsei.
| toationa Whioh were SUBSTANTIALLY
sbSnoonsd By tho judge aavocass, "a
will sppsar from argument in tho oaec
20. That ths whole proceedings ahoT
that the msj jority Of tho oourt, in the
opinion and rspoYs Of fso.a rendsrod,
havo aclootsd tho testimony of fea
hoatllo witnssSos and upon chat tessi-
mony have based the said opinion ard
report Of faots, dlsoarding Ill the other
testimony ia tho oaso without making
sho Biightoat Yofotenee to it, as they
were dirGotcd by tho prooept SO do. #
80. The apIlicaRt, beaidss tho fes-
soma horein giyon, hopes to be sble dur
ing the further investigation Of the in
quiry to addocs other aerionu end i'm
porsant reasona why tho ma jority opin.
ION Ok the court ehould not be sp-
! proved.
81. The applicant ia prepared TO
chow that the whole. proceedings upon
tho pers Of tho mejolity 81 tho court
have boon cntiroly isresulsr; that his
rights havo been prtjudiosd and ig,
acred; thai his soss;Siony Ii many riof5
particulars than havo been hcroin otcd
has not been considered, and that the
evidence is absolutely insuiiioien. TO
sustain tho opinion which has boon
rendered by the msj jorily OF tho court,
that 8 grave injustioo haa been obmmit.
ted, which would become irreparablo
aud become porpotnated unless thip
opinion Of the ma joritytof tho court
should bo divapprovod.
| Wherefore tho said applioaut most
respectfully preya that, approval OF tho
opinion Of tho majoyity of ssld court Of
inquiry be Hithhold and thai aaid opin-
ion beidisspproyodS S@nd that ho may bo
tfora that 81 act Cd liays "a is
testimony OF tecold OF 5hS GS. "a
witneesos properly 6 cohsidefed aud
| passed. upon, and that he lbo given ptleh
othor and further relief rs he is ontitled
to In the premiBos.
w. 8. Schloy,
Rear Admiral y. s. n, ,(Rstired.)
Isidor Rsynor,
JamsB Parker,
Counsel for tho Applicant.