The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1901-08-06

Aside from iut idNt thdt 'h' man
euvor Of the Brooklyn at Santiago has
been technically criticised there is no
respectable charge IN any quarter
that Admiral schley failed in that
memorable engagement 20 DO all that
was expected Of him. He was at the
post Of duty when the emergency pre-
sonted itself. he and his ship were In
the thickest Of the fight from the be-
ginning to the end, and so sweeping
wac the Victory that not a ship and (
not man Of the enemy escaped.
This is the officer who, to defend
himself from the ISLANDERS Of the de.
partment. has been compelled to de-
mand an inquiry in which he is prac-
tcally placed on the defensive as
cuiprit might be. This Is. the result
also Of a sea fight more glorious in its
fruits to the victor than any other
recorded in history, excepting only
that Of Manila bay. and a fight too,
in which the man now accused was
admittedly the ranking officer on the
victorious side throughout
There are so many things in connec-
tlon with the American naval opera
tions in the West indies which cali
more urgently for explanations than
anything relating to Admiral schley
that il congress shall permit this scan
dal to go on without ordering a sweep
) ing inquiry into the conduct Of Sec
: retary Long and Admiral Sampson
there viii be excellent reasons for the
belief that in spite of the apps 9nt
public sympathy for he victor Of
Santiago the official representatives
Of the American people are and have
been engaged in a conspiracy against
a gallant sailor as contemplate as it
is unprecedented.
o Concerning their conduct before and
after the battle OF Santiago there are
many more reasons why Secretary
Long and Admiral Sampson should be
i. on trial than that Admiral schley
should be He did the business. What
did they do?
Under ordinary circums .ances q
l. commander in chief who absents bim
L self at the time of great and critical
. engagement is called to account
It Where was Admiral Sampson aat
S what was he doing when the battle o.
n Santiago was fought? Was he making
r. excuses to General shafter for his fail
A. ure TO cooperate with the land forces
y q the United States?
Al Under ordinary circumstances
IS commanding officer VINO wealeas hii
e force needlessly in the press'r' @
D. the enemy is Justly placed under sus
n plcion. Where was the swift cruise
r. New York and whore was the powe-
ful battleship Massachusetts a tn
battle Of Santiago?
Spanish reports show tha. Admira
Cervera took advantage Of iho at
sense Of these ships and hat his piai
~ Of campaign was to conee1j.,.e t.
fire upol ue Brooklyn, dist's i o
sink !, All then escape. II ,hs dies
y perate scheme had ouc~,ota
Is schley and his crew had foui water
gluyes Il 80 Spanish sq"'':ap -
( appeared on he Atlantic var' rrh,
" forty eight ours, what woul5 bay
- been oght and said OF the aAsemc
' a'm'rol VINO removed the Brooklyn
ie sister ship from the scene of duty?
' These questions concern only th
w battle itself There are many othe.
relating to the inaction of the squat
b, ron under Admiral Sampson for
,o month or more preceding the engag
~, ment which he and no one else in h
an service should be compelled TO answe
One OF these questions is his: WI
did he not enter the harbor of SAINT
ago as Farragut entered Mobile bo
\, and as Dewey entered Manila bay