The sun., 1901-07-25
The schley Case Now.


= based upon expressions in MACLArs
higtory Of the navy. amounting. a. ScHLEf
ssys In his letter to Secretary LoNo. to
spsrversion OF fact. misconstruction OF In
tention, Incorporate abuse and defa-
nation" The history - just published.
Ths case will now be investigated by .
naval court, 20 It has already been In
vsstigstsd to Q certain extent by the Sem
sts Committee on Naval Affairs. 1t y
proper. therefore. to recite the preceding
facts which are pertinent so that the pub
10 may understand clearly what the situa-
ton about to be developed actually H.
After tho Spanish war the President
recommended for promoti ton the COM
mander Of the Atlantic feet and certain
Of his subordinate officers. To ScHIEY
Wero awarded the second honors. and there
upon the Sohley party. Jealous Of SAMPSON.
nut forth Q claim for fret honors. and the
controversy was begun. The Senate Com
mittss on Naval Ana irs called upon the
Navy Department for an explanation Of
it, action. We will present briefly the
criticisms Of scHLEY and the circumstances
affecting his reputation as an officer and
q gentleman, which he has suffered to
pass without calling for court Of inquiry.
Rear Admiral SIMPSONS charartert-
sation Of him a. guilty Of reprehensible
conduct was dated July 10. 1893.
Secretary LoNo's letter to the Senate
Naval COMMITTEES. describing him as guilty
Of unsteadiness In purpose and In push
and failure to obey ORDERS was dated
Feb. II. 1904
Capt. SIosBKK's letter squarely contra
dieting ScHLxY a. to an important state
ment Of fact u dated Feb. "a. 1899.
Secretary LoN0s second letter. contro-
verting the points SoHLEr raised In reply to
his first, was dated March =. 1890.
Lieutenant Commander HoDosoN's 10
port showing that scHLKY. to affect public
opinion Of himself. had used certain letter
Of Hoposoxs when he had In his posses
sion another letter showing that the first
letter. II taken by itself. would give an i'm
preston directly opposite to the truth. was
dated June II. 1890. This put upon SCHISY
the stamp Of fraud.
Tho report Of the meeting Of the Santiago
Captains with the President. 10 the eject
that there was general unanimity Of
opinion that where charges Of repre-
hsnsible conduct stood on the record
against an oficer. there should be no such
reward tpromotion) for him until he should
have asked for an inquiry or until they
were explained. as this would be injurious
20 the service. was dated Jan. s. 1900.
During this period also The Sun has
pointed out tho facts. founded on the Off
cial records, that scHLRY's use Of a private
note from SAMSON before the Senate
committee. dated May 20. 1898. bore the
ClarinR color Of intention TO mislead. and
that, In excusing himself for his inaction
toward the Colon. his quotation Of cer-
tain order Of Secretary LoNa's was Writ
ually q garbnng Of the Appendix.
In the face Of al this disgracing record
II d impossible TO understand this passage
Of 6cKLEYs letter TO Secretary LoNo: Il
have refrained heretofore from all comment
upon the innusndoes Of enemies muttered or
murmured In secret. and therefore with
safety to themselves.' In the face Of II
6cHlKY has been inert except on the Occas-
ion Of his appeal to HoDosoS. and Sohley
partisanship has ragged. as bitter as 1t was
blind. At last II seems to have been
startled. by Mr.. MAc1Ars publication. into
some consciousness OF Its own character.
A naval investigation is promised. As
from the first. The SUN has dealt. without
prejudice. solely with the facts and their
inevitable Indications. we hope now for
q fair field and no favor at the trial.
The members Of the board Of inquiry
should have but one purpose. and that Is
TO guard the name. the character and the
quality Of the United States Navy.