The daily journal. (Salem, Or.) 1899-1903, 1901-11-12
AAAAAAAAAAAAA a
Z EDITORIAL
~WYYXYYYYYYY&
COLLAPSE OF tue CASE AGAINST
SCHLEY.

Captain Lemley's closing argument in
the Schley case is chiefly interesting al
an illustration Of the complete collapse
Of the charges against the Admiral, il the
miserable ISLANDERS directed against him
can be dign'fied by that term.
The Judge. Advocate perhaps made the
best Of a very lame case on the part oi
what has virtually been the prosecu-
tion," as the course Of the Navy De-
partment, which he represented, has
been comparable to that Of a District
Attorney in a criminal proceeding.
Lemly in closing was compelled by a
senee of decency TO admit that he did
not pelieve schley ever exhipited cow
ardice, either at Santiago or elsewhere.
Yet cowardice was the fault OF which
the Admiral had been bitterly accused
by the Sampson clicque, as positively
charged in MaClay's "History" OF the
Navy. In that writer's account OF the
destruction Of Cervera's fleet IL is de-
clared that the Brooklyn, under Schley's
direction, actually ran away from the
enemy, TO the shame and Disgrace Of
the American Flag.
With Schley tbus expressly exonera.-
ed by the spokesman Of the prosecution,
the whole fabric Of falsehood and de-
traction erected against the fair fame OF
the Admiral tumbled TO the ground,
never to rise again.
In his closing argument. Lemly com
plains OF nothing worse than what he
claims were errors OF judgment, Of "un-
steadiness in purpose and in push, and
in failure TO obey ORDERS" as alleged to
be shown by naval movements proceed
ing the date Of the great sea fight. The
testimony, we believe, fully explains and
justides the course pursued by schley
with regard 10 ali these matters. What
ever technical disregard Of orders there
may have been, il will probably be found |
by the court that the Admiral acted |
within the discretion OF commanding |
officer under the circumstances.
With regard to the loop described by
the Brooklyn, when she made a turn TO
follow and prevent the escape Of the
Spanish vessels, Lemly insisted that it |
was grave error, because, as he claimed, |
IL endangered the other ships OF the
American feet. But the testimony
given by schley himself, and by the Off
GERS Of the Brooklyn, fully explained |
and justified the course pursued. The
Brooklyn was never for moment out |
Of the fight, and neither the Texas nor
any other American vessel was en-
dangered by the turn, which was made
necessary to prevent the use oil tor
pedoea or ramming by the leading Span.
fish ship.
A curious Inconsistency was exhibit
cd by the Judge Advocate in bis criti.
cisms Of this loop. When speaking OF
the great victory he had insisted that it
was "a captains fight" &C as to detract
as much rs possible from the glory due
TO SCbley, But toward the close Of his
argument he insisted that the response
bility for the loop made by the Brooklyn |
rested entirely upon schley, although |
Captain Cook, the commander of that
ship, personally gave the order for the
loop. Yet because OF that order from
Cook, without instruction from schley,
the Judge. Advocate again insisted that
II was "a Captains fight"
One OF the fine qualities in the make
up Of Admiral Schley is his disposition
TO give full credit 10 all who served
under him. His frat thought after the
victory was 10 congratulate the ships
nearest his own. And throughout his
testimony he praised impartially all the
Captains and the men engaged In the
battle. This was in shining contrast
to the envious conduct of Admiral |
sampson, and to his contemplate |
course In claiming, at least by in.