Evening star., 1901-12-19
SCHLEYSOBJECTIONS
Exceptions to Findings of Court of
Inquiry.
CLAIMED TO BE AGAINST EVIDENCE
Says testimony of the Applicant
Was Ignored,
THE SECRETARY'S ATTITUDE

the findings of the court of inquiry, and
also letter asking to be allowed to be
heard in connection with the objections to
be filed by attorneys for Admiral Sampson
to the individual opinion of Admiral Dewey.
This action was taken after Mr.. Rayner.
Mr.. league and Capt. Parker of counsel
had held a consultation with their client.
Secretary Long, almost Immediately after
the receipt of the communications called
Judge Advocate Lemly and the solicitor for
the department, Mr.. Hanna, into confer
ence- At its conclusion the Secretary said
that he had no statement to make regard
ing any action that he might take in the
premises. He, however, indicated to Mr..
league through the judge advocate, that
he would not hear an oral argument by Mr..
Rayner regarding Admiral SIMPSONS pro-
test. but that he would receive a written
statement.
The text of the bill of exceptions is as
follows:
WASHINGTON, D. c.. December 1s, 1901.
To the Honorable the Secretary of the
Navy:
Winfield Scott Schley, rear admiral L. S.
N. (retired), the applicant before the court
of inquiry of which Admiral George Dewey,
u. s. N. is president. and Rear Admirals
Andrew E. K Benham and Francis NJ.
Ramsay, L. S. N, members, and Capt.
Samuel C. Lemly, U. S. N, judge advocate
general, judge advocate, objects to the ap-
pTONdl Oh I0e IlnalHSS OF me court upon tnS
ground that the opinion rendered and the
report of facts made by the majority of the
court in conflict with the overwhelm-
ing weight of evidence. and that the ma
tOrity of the court in their said opinion
have ignored the testimony of the appli-
cant, and of the whole of the applicants
witnesses, and all that portion of the evil
dence given by witnesses for the govern
ment which was favorable to the applicant,
and have thus deprived him of rights guar
anteed to him by the laws of the land and
the Constitution OF the United States, and
the applicant now assigns the following
grounds in support of his said objection:
1. The majority of the court have given
their opinion that Commodore Schley
dispatch off Cienfuegos when there was no
specification covering this subject, and
when the applicant did not have sufficient
opportunity to bring in proper and convinc-
Ing evidence in reference thereto. and when
the only evidence taken by the court on
this subject was directly contrary to the
e1inien rendered.
Conduct Of Santiago.
2. The majority of the court have held
that the applicant should have endeavored
to open communication with the insurgents
at the place designated in the memoran-
dunn by Commander McCalla, delivered to
him on the morning of the 23d of May, 1898,
when, IN fact. there was no place men
toned in said memorandum as being a
pAdCr a. d CdAup VI SSAlS was
located.
8. The majority of the court have arrived
at the opinion stated in the foregoing par
agraph without regard to the fact, which
was proven by an overwhelming weight
of testimony, that the said McCalla mem
orandum was sent to Commodore Schley
only for use in connection with the infor-
nation IL contained relative to certain bat
teries at. or being constructed in the vicin-
fty of the entrance to the harbor of, Cien-
fuegos. as is attested by the order No. g.
dated May 10. 1898. and sent to Commodore
Schley by Admiral Sampson.
4. The majority of the court in the opin-
Ion rendered, hold that Commodore Schley
should have maintained close blockade
of CienfuegoS, when by overwhelming teS-
timony it was proven that a close and ef-
fective blockade of that port was main
tained, the Judge advocate having substan-
tally abandoned any charge to the con-
trary.
5. The majority of the court in the opin-
ion rendered, have entirely ignored the un-
contradicted testimony proving that the
British steamer Adula was permitted to go
into the harbor of Cienfuegos in order that
Information might be obtained through her
as to whether the Spanish fleet was then
In that port. 1t having been clearly estab-
lished that the captain of the said British
steamer Adula promised and agreed before
permission was given him to enter the port
that he would bring his ship out In fewer
than twenty-fOur hours and furnish the in
formation desired.
g. The majority of the court In the opfn-
ion rendered, have entirely failed to refer
to dispatch No T. admitted to have been
sent by Admiral Sampson to Commodore
Schley. the construction of which was
agreed upon in the argument of the case,
TO wit: That It was an imperative order for
Commodore Schley to hold his squadron off
Cienfuegos whether the Spanish fleet was
or was not in that port
.. The majority of the court in the
opinion rendered have entirely ignored the
admitted fact that the commander of the
Eagle failed communicates ba
at Cienfuegos to Commodore Schley
s. The majority of the court, in the opin-
Ion rendered. have entirely ignored the un-
contradicted evidence in the case that Capt
Robley D. Evans, knowing the meaning of
the signal lights on shore at Cienfuegos,
Tailed to communicate his information con-
cerning them to Commodore Schley
D. The majority of the court in the report
or Facts submitted, declare that the signal
lights on shore near Cienfuesos were seen
by Commodore Schley on the night Of May
22. 1898, when, In fact, the overwhelming
weight of both oral and documentary eyi.
dence proved that Commodore Schley saw
and had knowledge of these lights only on
the night OF May 23. and at no other time
10 The majority of the court In the opin-
Ion rendered are silent on the subject OF
the following charge preferred by the Judge
advocate against Commodore Schley dur.
ing the progress Of the investigation name
~, that he did not mask his movements In
departing from In front OF the port of Glen
1uegos, but by using Ardois signals he re.
Nealeu the destination of his squadron Ia
the enemy on shore; despite the fact that
py overwhelming weight of testimony this
charge was entirely disproved.
The Retroerade Movement.
IL. The majority OF the court have based
their opinion in reference to the retrogradt
movement upon statement made In thei,
report of facts. that Commodore Schley
before sailing from Cienfuegos, received re
liable information that ships could b,
coaled in the vicinity of Cape Cruz and Go
naives channel, and it Is now respectful,
denied that there was any such positiv,
testimony in this case; every witness will
one exception who was examined on tn
subject disavowed all knowledge In refer
ence thereto. and the uncontradicted testi
mony Of Capt. F. E. Cook ksestablishes tn
fact that the official charts with which tn
nagship Brooklyn was supplied, and upol
which Commodore Schley was compelled t
rely for information, showed coaling a
Cape Cruz to be neither feasible nor prac
ucable. and the records clearly show tha
not until the 9th Of May three days afte
leaving Cienfuegos, when Capt. Charles s
Cotton visited the flagship Brooklyn. di