The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-12-21
ltMLEY AND HANNA
SUBMIT A REPORT
Continued from First Page.)

jected the. whole OF the testimony Offered
Don behalf of the applicant, and have moi
adyerted to such testimony, and have en-
tirely ignored the testimony of the op-
plicant himself"
The court adjourned on the eth 81
November last. Since that date it's mem
bers have been, with rare exceptions, in
daily session. morning and afternoon ex-
aiming the evidence before them. II
was their sworn duty to consider, and
weigh that evidence, and the applicant
and his counsel have no right to say
that they have disregarded it,
But it is particularly urged in para
graphs "a to 81 and elsewhere in t,e
objection, that the testimony of the appli-
cant himself has been ignored. We con
tend that the testimony of the applicant
alone establishes the important fecrs
generally of dilatoriness, vacillation ard
want of energy at Cienfuegos, ard
throughout the entire campaign; the par
ticulars of the retrograde movements
the disobedience OF orders; of the inaccu-
rate and misleading official reports; neg
lect and failure to destroy the Colon;
injustice to Lieutenant Commander Hodg7
son; and some minor matters. The facts
CT these points were all substantially
confirmed by the applicants own testi-
mony; so that, far from ignoring sucn
testimony the court may have based its
most important finding thereon.
But the court has perfect right, after
weighing it, to ignore any testimony.
Neither the, applicant, his counsel. nor
the Judge Advocate is to say what teS-
timony it shall accept, and what it shall
reject. These matters may be argued,
but their final determination is the prov
Ince of the court.
1t happened in the present inquiry that
the applicant while on the sand contra
dicted in whole or in part, directly or IN
directly, testimony given my majority Of
the witnesses. BY way of particular IL
lpstration, Commodore Schley gave tes-
timony at variance with that of the fol-
lowing Witnesses:
Rear Admirals Cotton, Evans and Tay
Tor; Captains Sigsbee, McCalla, Cook,
Folger and Chadwick; Commanders ROD
gers, Wainwright, Schroeder and Heilnef,
Lieutenant Commanders Hodgson, South
erland, Sharp, Marsh and Wood; Major
Wood, T. S. M. C. Lieutenants Hood, Roys
and others. In most cases these witnesses
swore affirmatively to incidents of which
Commodore Schley had no recollection.
Where the matters thus in dispute We're
of importance-and they generally were
lit was not only the right, but the duty
of the court to accept the one and reject
the other, and to report in harmony with
such decision.
Some of the minor Measurements of
fact above referred to as appear in the
paper under consideration are sdhe state
ment in paragraph one that there was no
specification covering the voyage from
Key West to Cienfuegos when this poi.
is in fact covered by the first, ana III
part By the second clause of the precept;
the complaint in paragraph of the paper,
that there was no place mentioned ~ the
McCalla memorandum at which 3 camp
of insurgents was located, when the fact
is that the court does not say that tiserc
was sucn place, but correctly pala~
phrases the memorandum; the statement
that the McCalla memorandum was sent
TO Commodore Schley only for use in
connection with the matter 1of batteries
at Cienfuegos.
Paragraph 26 of the paper under coasd-
Grafton reads:
."Ghe majority of the court have en-
TREY failed to determine as to who was
in command of the American naval forces
engaged in the battle of Santiago, the
finding of which face was absolutely he-
cessary in order TO determine property
the first specification of the precept a., tc
the conduct Of Commodore Schley in
connection with the events Of the San
tiago campaign