The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-11-02
THE sCHLEY COURT OF INQUIRY.

THE sCHLEY COURT OF INQUIRY.
1t is probable there is d good deal Of pop
ular misconception regarding the outcome
of the schley court Of inquiry. which is
now drawing to a close. In the first place.
the court is not authorized TO impose a
penalty. even If one were found to be de-
served. 1t can only report facts. The naval
regulations say that courts of inquiry may
summon and examine witnesses, but they
shall only state facts and shall not give
their opinion unless expressly required 80
TO do in the order for converting" In the
present case the order converting the court
does not call for any expression Of opinion.
The public, therefore, will not learn from
the report of the court the opinion Of its
members on the facts as found. The court
j., however. instructed to make its conclu-
sions as explicit as possible on ten different
points named i'm the precept. so that its re-
port ought to settle all of the mooted ques-
tions regarding which charges and cOun-
ter-charges have been made. In view Of
unquestioned reputation of its members its
report should be accepted as conclusive re-
gardins the facts and as absolutely fair
and impartial.
Meanwhile the public will be forming
some conclusions of its own. one of which
is that the charge made by the so-called
historian Maclay. upon which Admiral
Schley based his demand for court OF in
quiTy, has not been sustained by particle
of evidence. This charge was that SchIey
had acted like a "caitiff and q coward, ;"
and had turned tail in open fight and run
away from the enemy" The charge was
incredible on it's face, and all Americans
should rejoice that it has been shown TO re
absolutely false While this particular
charge is not before the court. it is in
yOlved in those specifications of the precept
which direct the court to report upon ''the
circumstances attending the arrival of the
flying squadron off Santiago, the reasons
for its retrograde turn west and departure
from off Santiago and the propriety there
Of and also TO report upon ''the circum-
stances attending, the reasons for and the
incidents resulting from the turning of the
turned at or about the beginning of the ac-
ton with said Spanish vessels" Whatever
the report of the court may show as to the
circumstances attending these Incidents it
cannot fail TO show that Admiral Schley' S
motives were above suspicion and that his
conduct at these times and at all times was
that of brave and gallant officer per-
fectly self-possessed in times of danger
and master of the situation at all times.
The course pursued by the judge advo-
cate in his questioning of witnesses has
shown an evident desire TO sustain the at
titude and contention of the Navy Depart
ment towards Admiral Schley. In response
to request from the Senate Secretary
Long submitted to that body in February.
1899. a statement regarding the pending
promotions OF Sampson and Schley, in
which he said:
The advancement of Commodore Schley
was proposed in recognition of his services
as next in rank at the victory of Santiago.
Where so much was achieved in this cul-
mlnattng battle, and where his ship was
such conspicuous force in the fight, his
conduct while in independent command
prior TO June l, which, by reason of its I'M
orders. aid not meet with the approval OF
the President. the department has not per-
mitted 10 stand i'm the way of his nominal
ton for promotion To a higher grade for
the part ne took in the final triumph. In
this connection a pertinent fact Is the let
ter of Admiral Sampson. i'm which, while
hensible conduct as above referred to- he
asks that ample justice be done him for bis
part in the action of July J.
This places the Navy Department on rec
ord as censuring Commodore Schey fol
reprehensible conduct while in independent
command prior To June l. The ''reprehon-
sible conduct referred to- which the secre-
tary says included "uusteadiness of pur-
pose and failure to obey orders" was
Schley's alleged delay off Cienfuegos from
May "a to May %. and his retrograde move
ments of May 20 and q, when he started
for Key West to coal, temporarily raising
the blockade of Santiago harbor. The judge
advocate has shown an earnest desire to
sustain this charge of the Navy Depart
ment. The report of the court ought tC
show whether the facts sustain the
charges. though as the court will not ex,
press any opinion the facts il may still
De ulHlcull LOT ldymeh 10 ueclue whether
the charges were justified not. If so
they will he very apt TO conclude that il
was a mere error of Judgment on the par
of an officer who had TO exercise large dis
erection. and that il was fully atoned for by
his gallant and effective service i'm the fina
victory at Santiago. The department coulC
well have afforded to overlook technica
violation of orders that did not have any
bad consequences. in view Of Schley'.
| service in the eliminating battle. where
his ship was such a conspicuous force il
the fight" The report OF the court ought
to show whether there was even a tech
meal violation of orders
x,u ..pxEctt,.S IxrEsT cIEr