The National tribune., 1901-10-24
THE sCHLEY COURT.

To the absolutely impartial man, who
cares neither for Sampson, Schley, or the
cliques that are behind them, it looks as If
the inquiry is ''petering out" very rapidly.
There have been absolutely none Of the
sensational developments on either side
that were promised at the beginning.
At most, it has been established that
Schley did not show extraordinary dill
gence in finding his enemy, nor much ear
nestness in attacking him. He was like
a number of Generals during the rebellion,
whose curiosity as to the enemy's where
abOuts was always moderate, and their
desire to whip him not consuming pas
sion. Schley spent seven days in doing
what more earnest commander would
have done in one or two, and, like the
aforementioned Generals he seemed
rather favorable to reasons which would
take him away from the fight. His short
ness of coal reminds one of the COM
plants Of lack of COmmisSary and Quar-
termaster supplies that We're so convenient
to some men during the rebellion. Gems.
Grant. Sherman, Thomas. and Sheridan
generally had supplies enough TO fight Il
battle on, and probably n man of the
temper of Admirals Farragut and Porter
would have had sufficient coal when he
came up with the enemy. Schley's block
AIDE OF Santiago does not seem to have
been what it should have been, and it
does not appear that he exercised the
stimulating leadership over his SubOrdi-
mates that has always characterized the
great commanders of the American army
and navy. These are matters of tempera-
ment, however, more than aught else.
Schley seems to be rather negative, and
to have none of that fine positive agrees
iveness that distinguished Perry, the Por-
tiers. Decatur, Bainbridgc, Hull, Farra-
gut, and Dewey at sea, and Washington,
Greene, Wayne, Jackson, Brown, Scott,
Taylor. Lyon, Grant, Sherman. Sheridan,
Thomas, Hancock, Logan, and Shafter on
land.
He cxcrted 10 PERSONAL influence on the
battle The Captains fought their ships,
ard the men behaved as they would if he
had been back in Washington. He gave
no orders of consequence before or after
the battle that had any bearing upon it.
On the other hand, the attempt to prove
that he lacked physical courage was a
dismal failure, as was that to show that
he attempted to bring about the failure of
the Departments campaign His bear
ing in the battle was all that it should
be, and he obeyed his orders-not so
keenly and zealously as some men would
have done, but still obcycd them. His or
dcrs were not so clear and effective as one
wishes they could have been.
The much discussed loop" seems rather
vindicated, on the whole as good tao
teal manuver. Schley did not order it,
but the Captain of the ship. with his en-
tire concurrence. so that it becomes to
that extent his act. 1t seems a very dan
gerous performance, but the officers of the
Brooklyn thought otherwise. and claim
that it was a brilliant stroke. in which
they have the support of the Spaniards,
which is pretty conclusive.
Admiral Dewey has borne himself well
throughout, and showed most praise
worthy effort to get at the absolute facts,
without fear. favor, or affection.
The result will not materially change
Schley's standing before the country. 1t
simply shows that he was neither a great
commander, nor Il decidedly inferior one,
both of which have been earnestly, even
angrily claimed.
1t puts him in the class of many Gen
erals of the war of the rebellion, who were
excellent in lower grades, but attained to
commands which were too big for them.
We had many excellent Colonies who did
not succeed as Brigadiers many good
Brigadiers who failed as Corps Com
mandcrs, and some excellent Corps Com
manders who fell down when given indie
pendent commands. Schley would seem
to be Il fine Captain for a single ship, but
not equal to the management Of squad
ron.