The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1901-12-21
| EMILY MAKES REPLY.
Continued from First Page

! the Colon; injustice to Lieutenant Com
/ mander Hodgson, and some minor mat
ters. The facts of these points We're
all substantially confirmed by the APP
-Plicant.s- own testimony; SO rnat, far
from ignoring such testimony, the court
may nave based its most important
findings thereon.
But the court has a perfect right,
after weighing it, to ignore any testi-
mony. Neither the applicant, his coun-
sci nor the judge advocate, is to say
what testimony it shall accept and
what it shall reject. These matters may
be argued, but their final determination
is the province of the court
COntradicted Many witnesses.
1T happened in the present inquiry
that the applicant, while on the stand
| contradicted, in whole or in part, di-
rectly or indirectly, testimony given by
majority of witnesses. BY way of
| particular illustration Commodore
| Schley gave testimony at variance with
that of the following witnesses: Rear
! Admirals Cotton, Evans and Taylor;
/ Capts. Sigsbee, McCalla, Cook,
Folger and Chadwick; Command
ers Rodgers, Wainwright, Schroeder
and Heilner; Lieut. Commanders
| Hodgson Switzerland, Sharp, Marsh
and Wood Maj. Wood, U. S. NJ. c.,
Lieuts. Hood, Roys and others. In
! most cases these witnesses swore at
tirmatively to incidents of which Com
modore Schley had no recollection.
Where the matters thus in dispute were
OF importance-and they generally
were--it was not only the right but
the duty of the court to accept the
one and reject the other, an to report
in harmony with such decision. Every
court must do this when occasion
arises, and such action constitutes no
grounds for remanding the case for
reconsideration.
Some of the minor misstatementS
of fact above referred to as appearing
in the paper under consideration, are
the statement in paragraph /, that
there was no specification covering
the voyage from Key West to Cienfue-
| gos, when this point is in fact covered
| by the first, and in part by the sec
ond clause of the precept; the COM
plant in paragraph of the paper,
that there was no place mentioned in
the McCalla memorandum at which
camp of insurgents was located,
when the fact is that the
court does not say that there
was such a place, but correctly para
phrases the memorandum; the state
ment that the McCalla memorandum
was sent to Commodore Schley only for
use in connection with the matter of
batteries at Cienfuegos. and the state
| ments in paragraphs 4 and elsewhere
| that the judge advocate had substan-
TALLY made certain admissions, where
as the fact is that the judge advocate
made no admissions respecting mat
ters under murray excepting the fea-
ture under the first part of clause of
the precept that the Flying Squadron
did not withdraw at night from the
entrance to Santiago to a distance at
| sea, and that no personal cowardice
on the part of the applicant had been
! esta blished
Paragraph 26 of the paper under
| consideration reads:
THE majority of the court have en-
tirely failed to determine as to who
was in command of the American naval
| 'orce ged in the battle of Santi-
ago. the finding of which fact was abb
! solutely necessary in order to deter
mine properly the first specification of
the precept as to the conduct of Com
modore Schley in connection with the
events of the Santiago campaign
Comes Back at Counsel.
IF it is true that a finding by the
court upon this question was absolute
ly necessary in order to determine prop
erly the first specification of the pre-
cept, then it must be stated that coun-
sci for the applicant failed of
! their duty during the inquiry;
| several times in the course OF
| the proceedings they brought this ques-
| ton into court and took it out again,
| without giving the court opportunity
| to rule upon it; once even Withdrawing
| II so hastily as to interrupt the presI-
| dent of the court in sentence that
| to no an udUprQp Vl1IfnO If
! they seriously believed. as they now
| state to be the case. that the matter
| of command on July 3 was essential
to the applicants interest, 1t was their
| plain duty not only to bring the ques-
! ton before the court, but to insist
| upon a hearing there. and others In
| terested should have been heard. To
| request that the court now rule upon
| It is to ask that another officers In
| terests be passed upon, to his possible
| prejudice. in his absence, and without
a hearings thing intolerable, whom
! soever may be concerned.
should Not Grant Request.
in conclusion. we are satisfied that
no good purpose would be served by
RENTING the proceedings or any OF
the features Of this inquiry to the
court. A more patient, exhaustive and
painstaking hearing was never given;
| greater consideration was never ex-
! tended to any officer before a military
! court of inquiry. No expense was
/ spared, no inconvenience or facility de-
! MED. no courtesy refused. The appl,-
cant has had his day in court, and the
| Judgment Is against him. 1t is ac-
| cordingly recommended that the pro-
ceedings be not returned. but that the
matter be concluded by the depart
ments approval Of the unanimous find
| lngs of the court. We have the honor
! to be.
sam C. Lemly Judge Advocate,
/ Court Of Inquiry: T.. p. Hanna, as
eistant to Judge Advocate.
! t.,-- a.. eso..,..t O. 80 90 tho NAVY ="