The Washington times., 1901-10-22
Congress Must Investigate.

Last Fridays developments in tht
SchIey case were of so extraordinary q
character as TO render a Congressional
investigation of the Navy Department
impera lively necessary No one doubts
for moment that Admirals Dewey,
Benham, and Ramsay. constituting the
Court Of Enquiry, will do absolute JUS
tice TO Admiral Schley. but the case has
gone away beyond Schley. The Navy
Department has become involved deep
ly and darkly, and if at the outset there
we've any doubt of a Department con
sEiracy to disgrace and ruin the man
who actually won the battle of Santi-
ago. the testimony of last Friday should
remove that doubt.
From the first it has been clear that
both representatives, of the Department
have regarded themselves as prosecut-
ing officers. Repeatedly the admiral
g at whose request the Court was con-
vened has been spoken of by them as
the defendant or the accused"
When corrected by the Court, or other
wise, they have apologized and plead
ed inadvertent slips of the tongue. But
if their minds had not been full of the
idea that they We're prosecuting Ad-
miral Schley. In fact, so far as their
abilities have permitted, they have done
everything that the most unrelenting
of prosecutors could have done. Ii is
not permissible 10 think that Captain
Lemly and Nj. Hanna would have pur-
sued such a course without the full
sanction Of the Department in which
they are subordinate officers, and this
brings the matter squarely up to Secre-
tary Long, for we cannot with propriety
stop anywhere short of him.
On Friday last, the examination of
two Witnesses brought out two very
startling facts. DR.. Charles NJ. De
Nalin, of the Brooklyn, was called, and
gave testimony as TO the gallant bear
ing and conduct of Admiral Schley dur
ing the battle Then Captain LemIy
took-hirn in hand for. the purpose of dis
crediting him as witness. By a series
Of general questions. which were wholly
inadmissible for the purpose. Captain
LeIIly sought to lay foundation for
the contradiction of the witness py
showing that he had previously repeat
ed a conversation between the Ad-
mlral and Lieutenant Commander
H0dgson, claimed to have been over
heard by the doctor. The captain was
brought up by the Court on a round
turn, and required to make his uues-
tons explicit. showing the time and
place OF the alleged statement Then it
trahspi-ed that Lieutenant Ward. who
Is assisting the prosecution. had been
sent as an emissary of the Department
10 interview the doctor and learn
whether he could testify to anything in /
the conversation between Schley and
Hodgson that would be TO the disad- /
vantage Of the admiral Finding that
the doctors testimony would not be
satisfactory, he was left off the De-
partmenrs list of witnesses. This was
bad enough, hut it was not by any
means the worst exposure of the day.
The other witness referred to was j.
Il. Hunley. the chief machinist, who
testified that he stood at the throttle
of the port engine of the Texas during
the whole Of the battle, and that at no
time was the engine stopped, although
ii was once slowed down. Alfred b.
Claxton. another chief machinist. had
previously testified that he was at the
same engine, and that it was complete
" stopped-the testimony being intend
ed TO support the prosecutions theory
that the engine had to be stopped to
avoid collision with the Brooklyn. !
We have here a fiat contradiction Of T,
the Departments witness. but that is /
not the point. Both Hunley and Clax- |
ton We're summoned by the Navy De |
rartment II was found that Claxton's |
testimony would tend to injure Schley, |
while Hunley's would be to his advan- I
tage. What did the Department # /
ficials do? Did they place both men IN /
the witness stand, as common fairness |
required? Certainly not, They used /
only the one whose testimony they be- |
lieyed would hurt schley The other |
was excused. and never would have |
been permitted to testify at all if the |
admifai's counsel had not learned Of his |
presence in the city, and called him TO |
the stand.
II is impossible fittingly to character
prosecutors without transcending the
limits of journalistic propriety in the
use of language. The incident proves
more than that the Department has
been acting as prosecutor in a case
where there is no accused; il proves
what The Times has charged from the
first, a conspiracy to destroy the fair
fame Of q brave and generous officer
who, after devoting all the years of his
manhood's life 70 the service of his
country, has now reached the age OF
honorable retirement. A more infa-
nous thing never took place in the his
tory Of a civilized nation. Perhaps
the Dreyfus case surpassed It In fiend-
ish cruelty, but in principle it was no
worse. The conspiracy against the
humble French captain draggled the
lilies Of France In the ml-e Of indeli-
BILE disgrace. The honor Of the Court
over which Admiral Dewey presides
win prevent the conspiracy against
Schley from succeeding, and. in a meas
ure save the good name of the Ameri-
can Republic. But that detracts moth
ing from the iugl'ained vieiousness Of
the conspiracy Those engaged in il
should be urmasked and held UP to the
sc0rn and contempt OF an outraged ma