The Minneapolis journal., 1901-12-14
"ALL Is LOST SAVE HONOR"

quiry may be summed up as follows:
AS a squadron commander Admiral
Schley was failure. His personal cour-
age, as demonstrated in the battle of San
tiago, is above reproach,
1t was the baseless charge Of cowardice
made by one Maclay and his statement
that the proofs of his book had been read
and approved by Admiral Sampson and
other officers Of the navy that led Ad-
miral Schley to ask for court of inquiry.
All the questions as to his management OF
the campaign and leadership of his squad
ron I'D to the time of the battle had been
previously threshed over and over, in the
senate and elsewhere. They were largely
matters of opinion, of differing judgment,
and must ever remain so.
The finding of the majority Of the court
of inquiry that as a commander Schley
was dilatory, vacillating and unenterpris-
ing is a hard. and, In our opinion, unde-
served blow to an efficient and gallant
officer. 1t is destructive of his reputation
as a great sea commander, for history
will probably accept the conclusions OF
the court It robs him of credit for the
victory Of Santiago. We do not purpose
TO fly into a rage and abuse Admirals
Benham and Ramsey. Doubtless they de-
cided according to the dictates Of their
honest judgment in the light of the testi-
mony as 1t appeared to them. On some
Of the points Of the precept T h Q ] ur =
has always feared that Schley would
be censured for what may be called errors
of judgment Our complaint against the
court is that it finds against him on all
these questions of judgment and brands
him, without qualification, as vacillating,
dilatory and unenterprising.
That the question of the correctness OF
the acts that draw down such sweeping
censure is, after all, matter of opinion,
is shown by Admiral Dewey's dissenting
opinion in which he holds that Admiral
Schley did we'll throughout the campaign
1t must be sweet consolation to Schley
to know that the admiral of the navy, the
most brilliant and daring and decisive
naval commander of the age, does not
hold that he is vacillating. unenterprising
or dilatory.
In the eyes Of the people Admiral
Dewey's concise declaration that Admiral
SchIey was in absolute command at the
battle of Santiago and that "he is en-
titled to the credit due to such com
manding officer for the glorious victory
which resulted in the total destruction
of the Spanish fleet" indorses their stand
on Schley's side.
With all due respect for the other mem
bers of the court, we prefer to support
our previous opinion regarding Admiral
Schley with Admiral Dewey's straight
forward, sailor-like statement rather than
change it on the basis of their "he
should's." 1t is an easy matter to look
back over any course of action and say
+ that it should have been different. A
court of inquiry looking for ''shoulds'
would have had no difficulty in finding
Trafalgar, at Marengo, at Waterloo, al
Gettysburg at Vicksburg, at Winchester
But 1t was never made necessary fol
Dewey, for Nelson, for Napoleon, fol
Wellington, for Grant, for Sheridan to ap-
pear in court after their victories ant
have their laurels tarnished by supposi-
tious "shoulds."
But at least, Admiral Schley's honor
is saved The court should have credi
for saving that. The admirals enemies
would have wrenched even that from
him
The whole cabal against Schley, with its
partial official victory, has done much in
jury to the navy. The people will bt
inclined to look upon the officers as snob!
and petty minded, as divided into cliques
as more jealous in behalf of favOrite:
| than anxious to give honor where honor
is due.