Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1901-12-19

WASf11NG1ONs Lee. 4o.-<Ao1IllrdA
Schley, late this afternoon. through hts
counsel, presented to the secretary of the
navy his bill of exceptions to the findings
of the majority of the court of inquiry.
The bill claims that the majority of the
court gave their opinion that Commodore
Schley should have proceeded with the
utmost dispatch off Cienfuegos, when
there was no specifications covering this
point and without giving the applicant a
chance to furnish evidence on it.
The fact that no place was mentioned in
what is known as the McCalla memoran-
dunn for meeting the insurgents is re-
garded as a paramount reason why COM
munication was not held with the insur-
gents, and further that the said memoir
andum was sent to Commodore Schley
only for use in connection with the infor-
nation which it contained relative to Ger
tain batteries at or being constructed in
the vicinity Of Cienfuegos.
The bill further contends that over
whelming evidence was presented to the
court to show that Nose blockade Of
Cienfuegos was maintained: that the ma
jority of the court entirely ignored the
uncontradicted testimony proving that the
British steamer Adula was allowed to en-
ter Cienfuegos to obtain information re-
garding the Spanish fleet; that the order
of Admiral Sampson known as mo. T.
was an imperative order for Commodore
Schley to hold his squadron off Cienfue-
COS whether the Spanish fleet was in that
harbor. or not; that the majority of the
court have ignored the adj
mitted fact that the COM
mander of the Eagle did not communicate
the situation at Cienfuegos to Commodore
Schley; that they ignored the fact that
Admiral Evans failed to notify Admiral
Schley of the signal lights on shore at
Cienfuegos; that Commodore Schley, as
proven by the evidence, had no knowl-
edge of these lights until the night of
May %, 1898; that the majority of the court
silent in their reference to masking the
movements of the flying squadron In front
of Cienfuegos; that the majority based
their opinion as to the retrograde move
ment upon a statement that Commodore
Schley, before sailing from Cienfuegos.
had reliable information that ships
could be coaled in the vicinity
of Cape Cruz and Gonaives
channel, whereas, II is denied that there
was any such positive information and
that the records show that not until three
days after leaving Cienfuegos did Com
modore Schley receive definite informa-
ton concerning the feasibility or practica-
bility OF coaling ships from collier In
Gonaives channel; that the majority erred
In stating that Commodore Schley re-
ceived no positive information from the
scout ships as to the enemy's province in
Santiago harbor and Captain Sigsbee had
reported to Commodore schley, that the
Spanish fleet was not In that harbor.
The bill denies that the conditions OF
the wind, sea and weather from May rs
to June was favorable for taking coal
from a collier off Santiago; it also claims
that the coal charts submitted In evidence
showing the coaling capacity of the fly
ing squadron have been ignored; that
H.
secretary of the navy forbidding hazard
ing of American ships against shore bat
teries; that the majority opinion failed to
contain any reference to the
character of the blockade Of San
tiago, although covered In the
specifications and that the demonstration
made by Commodore Schley before San
tiago on May 20 and 80 was predetermined
and executed solely as a reconnaissance
and not as a formal attack on the Colon
or other vessels in the harbor; that the
majority opinion OF the court is aInbigu-
Gus with respect to the loop of the Brook
lyn in that 1t holds that said loop was
made to avoid getting into dangerous
proximity to the Spanish vessels. without
stating whether such act was due to per-
sonal fears of Commodore Schley
or to his desire to preserve
the ship intact and ready for furth-
er work The court ignores the fact that
the Brooklyn did not lose either distance
or position with the Spanish ships in max
ing the turn that the majority opinion is
ambiguous upon the subject OF backing
of the Texas in that 1t does not state
whether the danger of collision was real
or imaginary; that Captain Cooks testi-
mony on this point was entirely ignored;
that the finding of w. T. Hodgson con-
troversy has been repeatedly contradicted
in the testimony that the majority opin-
ion that Commodore Schley's conduct
was characterized by Vaccillation, dilatc-
riness and lack of enterprise is not justi-
fed by the evidence submitted; that the
majority opinion is entirely silent upon a
charge by the judge advocate, coming
within the purview of the first specihca-
ton, that Commodore Schley was derelict
in the discharge of his duty.
That the majority Of the court entirely
failed TO determine who was commander
in chief in the battle of Santiago which
finding was necessary to determine the
first specification of the precept as to the
conduct of Commodore Schley; that the
majority of the court have rejected the
whole of the testimony on behalf of the
applicant and the testimony of the appli-
cant himself and that by so doing, has
perverted the ends of justice and deprived
him of his common laww and constitution
A.