Evening star., 1901-12-19

Commodore schley receive any definite in
formation concerning the feasibility or
practicability of coaling his ships from
collier in Gonaives channel all Of which
facts have been wholly ignored by the ma
jority of the court in formulating their said
report of facts.
L. The majority Of the court in stating
in it's report of facts that Commodore
Schley received no positive information
from the scoutships as to the presence OF
the enemy's fleet in the harbor of Santiago
utterly ignores the overwhelming testimony
in proof of the fact that Capt. c. D. Sigsbee
did actually report to Commodore Schley,
and to others, that the Spanish fleet was
not in the harbor of Santiago.
13 The opinion of the majority of the
court and the report Of facts is entirely
silent on the subject of the proven and adj
mitted failure of Capts. Wise and Jewell
| to communicate the information they had
received In reference to the presence of the
Spanish fleet in the harbor of Santiago to
Commodore Schley.
The Coal Supply.
IA. That the report of facts submitted by
the court states that the conditions of
wind, sea and weather from noon on May
26 to June 1 were favorable for taking coal
from collier at sea off Santiago, when
this statement has been directly contro-
verted by the evidence of the witnesses for
the government
| experts and admitted in evidence before
| the court, showing the coal supply of the
vessels of the flying squadron, with refer
| ence to their chasing capacity proceeding
| at full speed with forced draught, have not
| even been adverted to in the report of
facts.
Attempt to Destroy the Colon.
IT, There has not been the slightest ref
erence made by the majority of the court
| to the orders of the honorable Secretary
| of the Navy, offered and proved in evil
dence, forbiddng the hazarding of Ameri-
can ships against shore batteries, and the
| court has decided against the applicant
upon the seventh specification of the pre-
cept without, in the slightest degree, refer
ring to this important evidence.
IL. The majority Of the court have en-
tirely failed to give an opinion as to the
character Of the blockade of Santiago, al
though the same was included in the
eighth specification of the precept and by
specific direction the court was obligated
| to give an opinion thereupon
IS. The ma ajorty opinion of the court that
Commodore Schley should have endeavored
| to capture or destroy the Spanish vessels
| at anchor. near the entrance of Santiago
| harbor, on May 20 and 30, and that he did
| command to capture or destroy the Colon
| and other vessels of the enemy on May 81,
| is wholly at variance with the orders under
| which Commodore Schley was acting be-
| fore Santiago, said orders. as is attested
| by No 8, dated May 81, 1898, and sent by
| Admiral Sampson to Commodore Schley,
restricting his operation to the establish
| ment and maintenance of a blockade of
the port of Santiago, If the enemy should
| be found therein; and also said opn-
ion is utterly and absolutely at var
| lance with the Overwhelming weight of
| testimony, which clearly established the
| fact that the affair of May 81 was prede-
termfned upon and executed as a recon-
noisance and not as formal attack upon
20 n Ch = l,.Dl L., I.&
| teries at the entrance to the harbor of
Santiago.
The BrOOk1yn's Loop.
10. The majority opinion of the court is
| ambiguous and indeterminate, In that the
| court holds the turn of the Brooklyn to
| starboard was made to avoid getting her
i into dangerous proximity to the Spanish
| vessels. without stating whether evasion
! of such dangerous proximity was due to
the personal fears of Commodore Schley
| or to desire on his part to preserve the
| ship intact and ready for further work in
| the effort to win a victory from the enemy.
20. The majority of the court have en-
t1rely ignored the overwhelming testimony
submitted in the case in arriving at the
I opinion that Commodore Schley erred in
commencing the engagement on July with
| the port battery, the evidence in the case
clearly establishing the fact that in the
| execution of the standing order to ''Close
| in and attack in harbor entrance" it was
| impossible for the Brooklyn without turn
| ing away from the enemy, to open the en-
| gagement except with her port battery
| and the evidence also clearly establishes
| the fact that the turning of the BROOKLYN
| in the manner and direction in which she
! did turn did not cause her to lose either
| distance or position with the Spanish YES
vels, the contrary opinion of the court upon
| this subject being arrived at only by dis
| regarding all of the evidence offered in be-
| half of Commodore Schlcy.
/ no "a inrit tU nNi,1i of h.
| ambiguous and indeterminate in that While
| stating that the Brookyn's turning caused
! the Texas to stop and Ito back her engines
| to avoid possible collision said opinion
does not state whether the danger of such
| collision as comprehended by the ninth
| specification of the precept was real OF i'm
aginary, whereas the overwhelming weight
| OF testimony clearly established the fact
| that at no time was there danger Of col
| i1sion between the Brooklyn and the Texas
| ". The testimony of Captain f. E. Cook
a witness called by the judge advocate, in
| reference to the proximity of the Brooklyn
to the Texas at the time of the Brooklyn's 8
, turn, has been ignored and not even ad-
| verted to in the statement of pertinent
| facts.
The Hodgson ColIOquy.
o. The majority of the court have as
sumed that the testimony Of Lieutenant
Commander A. C. Hodgson, notwithstand-
| ing its repeated contradiction, in reference
| to the alleged conversation regarding the
proximity Of the Texas at the time Of the
| Brooklyn's turning, is true, and have en-
! tirely ignored the testimony Of Commodore
| Schley and Captain f. E. Cook to the con-
| trary, without even referring to 1t in their
statement of pertinent facts.
"a The majority opinion of the court
| that Commodore Schley's conduct in con-
nection with the events of the Santiago
| campaign, prior to June l, 1885, was char
| acterized by vacillation, dilatorineSS and
lack Of enterprise is in no wise justified by
the evidence submitted in the case, and
could only have been arrived at by the
action OF the court In wholly ignoring all
OF the evidence of Commodore SchIey all
of the evidence of witnesses summoned in
his behalf, and all that portion of the evil
dence Of witnesses called by the judge ad-
vocate which was favorable to the said
Commodore Schley.
%. The majority opinion of the court is
inconclustve in that 1t Is entirely silent
upon charge preferred by the judge ad-
| during ha Of %ha II