The Washington times., 1901-10-07
CHARGES NOT YET PROVED
Weak Points in the ase Presented
Against schiey.
Majority Of Specifications in the Pre-
cepf Not { ph efsf-R ctroI=radc Move
ment Alone Regarded serious
Satisfactory ExrIunntiou ProbntIe

Santiago WI. te again placed upon tnl
stand to continue his testimony. Wha
has teen termed the departments test-
mony'' is NOW nearly all in. and any other
witnesses who are sworn by that side
can DO Ittlr r-ore than reiterate the
stories shat have already been told before
- the Court
T-ncrc are Il number OF officers whose
nar77rz were upon the list prepared and
made -ltf-c by the department. but it i5
proRoN-s that not all Of them viii be
sur7r7cF's.f chief among these is Ad-
mfrai Sar7ns "a, and it is certain that he
VIII not be called by the department un-
less there is a formal request by Ae-
miraf SchIcy for his attendance, or it is
made necessary TO put him upon the
stand in rshuttal It is said that Ad-
Iniral Schley VIII. if permitted, in telling
his story. make some statements which
viii E@cc-=1ri'y involve Sampson. and
this may force Sampson to take the stand
if he is mentally and physically able 70
do so. Schley's defence will probably b.
gin early in the week unless it should
happen that some fitness is called whose
testimony is long drawn out.
The witnesses brought by the depart
ment have in many important respects
not only conuradicted each other as to
opinions. but have widely differed as to
facts.
The star witness for the department,
the man who showed the most vindietive
spirit against the victor Of Santiago, has
been Rear Admiral Evans. and it is i'm
possible to make many of his statements
coincide with those of his brother officers
All of the other witnesses have shown "A
lesser degree of enmity toward Schley,
and it is worthy of note that many OF
them have evinced marked fairness and
Efforts to be impartial Much Of the tesJi-
mony in behalf Of the Government" has
unquestorabiy been a disappointment 70
the opponents of Admiral Schley. and
some Of the charges against Schley have
been directly disDroved by the depart
menIs witnesses. while the cause for his
conduct relative TO other charges has
been fully explained by the evidence they
have given
AS regards the first specification. his
conduct in connection with the events OF
the Santiago campaign much which has
been sald on TINS point covers large
field, embracing in general terms all the
acts of Schley from the time he was
placed in command of the Flying Squad
ron until Cervera fleet was destroyed.
Whether a charge Of improper conduct in
the campaign is sustained depends upon
what is determined in regard TO the other
specifications.
The second specification refers 10 the
reasons controlling and the propriety OF
the moveTne ntS Of the Flying SQUADRON
of Cienfucsos Here it has been proven
that SCilley under orders went to Glen
fuegos, arriving there May p and leaving
for Santiago May q. He was not adj
vfsed, Il has been shown. of the cs-1e Of
signals established with the insurgents on
shore, which would have informed him
that CerEera was not there. He block
AIDED the port He was told by Sampson
that. Notwithstanding the orders ef the
department he tSampsOn) had decided not
to change his plans, and to continue TO
hold Cienfuegos. Failure has marked the
effort to prove the impropriery Of his
conduct off Cienfusgos. The reasons for
hfs remaining there have been given by
the department own witnesses.
The third specification seeks to enquire
into the delay in proceeding from Glen
fuegos 10 Santiago. This is closely allied
sons for his remaining off Cienfuegos un-
til May p have been stated. II has been
shown tfl.t the Eagle and the Vixen. both
small vessels. delayed the feet ir its Voy
a ge to Santiago. Here no improperly on
the part of Schley has been shown.
The fourth specification deals with the
so-cailed retrograde movement ana the
prcprlety there of-Schley withdrawal
from Santiago and start for Key West on
May =. the morning after H. arrived of
Santiago. This is the basis OF SIMPSONS
charge Of '-reprt hensibie conduct. IL is
the most serious accusation against
Schley He has not yet had an opportun-
ity to give his reasons for his action.
although the cross sXaTniuati8u Of wit
nesses has shown that it was because Of
his shortage Of coal The department
has simply proven that the rgtrCSratis
moyement was made II has not eEdsav-
Ored To ascertain its cause So far
showa Schley acted upon his own resp0n-
sibiiity. being IN comma nd. and asked n.
oFe's advice upon d. although nc did en-
qui-e as TO the condition Of the coal on
board al the vessels.
The nth specification in the precept re-
lates TO the alleged disObediencr Of or
dCrS. making direct charge 10 THIS effect.
Ii has been shown that he did send let
ter stating thar he regretted that he could
not obey the orders of the department, but
II has also been prove that the despatch
as printed in the naval appendix and
upon which the charge was based was
not a true copy Of the despatch sent by
SclIley- This charge stands or falls with
the foregoing one regarding the retro
grade movement. II the retrograde move
onec Of orders WIS not csnsurabie-
The sixth point in the precept takes up
the question of coal, the squadrons ceal-
ing facilities, the adVisa bility Of returning
TO Key West for coal and the accuracy
and propriety of Schley's reports to the
department regarding coaling. Here the
evidence has shown that he had great
difficulty in cOaiins: that the ships were
Obliged 10 coaf FROM GOLFERS and that on
certain days it was practically impossible
owing 10 the condition Of weather and sea
10 take on coal. ODil2lDNS nave ulHGTt1
somewhat upon this point as to the eX-
tent to which coaling might have been
ca rried.
A fair summary Of opinion upon this
point was Contained in the testimony Of
Captain S.i:lcr, commanding the collier
Merrimac. who stated that he disliked to
coal a battleship at sea in any condition
of sea and weather, but that he could
coal at any time That the feet did Goa
on some days and did not on others has
been shown. The department has shown
that SChley had coal enough to remain
many days, in fact weeks on blockade off
the same witness who gave this expert
testimony il was shown that wish his SUP
ply Of coal in "A chase at maximum speed,
which was what Schley had every reason
to expect. his supply would have been
exha upon his best equipped ship in
a little over two days chase, and then he
would have been left At the mercy oc his
enemy without fuel to get away or con
tinue pursuit.
Specification seven treats of the attack
on the Colon she lay at the mouth Of
Santiago Harbor on May p and the en-
gagernent Of the Spanish land batteries.
Upon this matter it has been shown that
Schley with the Massachusetts Iowa, and
the New Orleans went in and fired at the
Colon All the shots fell short The dis
tahce to which the ships went in has
varied according 10 the witness No ryyo
have agreed The attack drew the fire of
the shore batteries, but the sirius we're
not injured. Effort has been mace to
show that Schley did not do his fuU ,iutv
because he did not go in closer and re-
main longer. Against this cross-eNa NINA
tion has developed the fact thai he had
been advised By the Navy Department
not TO unnecessarily expose his ships 10
the fire of the land batteries as tht. Dc
strucron Of Cerveras S feet was desired
The eighth specification has the with
drawal TO distance at sea- and th,
effectiveness Of the blockade FOR its sub
1ects- This charge WAS based upon a
statement made by Sampson in a cen