The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-12-19
Continued from First Page)

Santiago when this statement has been
directly controversial by the evidence OF
the witnesses Tor the Government.
rs. The tables prepared by Govern
ment experts and admitted in evidence
before the court showing the coal supply
of the vessels OF the riyinS Squadron,
with reference to their chasing capacity,
proceeding at full speed With forced
draught, have not even been acverted to
IN the report of facts.
'.16. There has not been the Slightest
reference made by the majority OF the
court to The orders OIL the Honoran ole
Secretary of the Navy, offered and
proved in evidence, forbidding the ha@-
ardins of American ships against shore
batteries and the court has deciGeu
against the applicant upon the seventh
specification Of lie precept without III the
Sill ghtest degree, referring to this import
ant evidence.
1T. The majority of the court nave
entirely failed to give any opinion as 10
the character of the blockade OF san
tiago, although the same was included
in the eighth specification of the precept
and by specific direction the court was
obligated to give an opinion thereupon.
CONTRARY TO ORDERS.
rs. The majority opinion Of the court
that Commodore Schley should have en-
deaVOred to capture or destroy u SPAN
isl, vessels at anchor near the entrance
OF Santiago harbor on May Goth and 3oth,
and that he did not do his utmost WITH -ie
force under his command to capture or
destroy the Colon and other vessels o.
tho enemy on May 31st, is wholly at va :
rance with the orders under which Colt.-
modore Schley was acting before SANTA
go, said orders, as is attested by dispatch
No s. dated May II, 1883, ana sent pS
Admiral Sampson to Commodore Schley'
restricting his operation to the establish
ment and maintenance of Il blockade OF
the port Of Santiago, il the enemy snodio
be found therein, and also said opinion
i; utterly and absolutely at variance
with the Overwhelming weight Of testl-
n,cnv which clearly established the fact
that the affair of May 3lst was predeter-
mined upon and executed as a reconnotS-
sance and not a formal attack upon
the Spanish vessels nor upon the lana
batteries at the entrance to the harhor
of Santiago.
$50. The majority opinion of the court
is ambiguous and indeterminate, in that
the court holds the turn OF the Brooklyn
to starboard was made to avoid getting
her into dangerous proximity to the Span
ish vessels without stating whether eVaS-
ion Of such dangerous proximity was due
to the personal fears Of Commodore
Schley. or to desire on his part to pre-
serve the ship intact, and ready Tor fur
Their work in the effort to win victory
from the enemy.
THE ONLY WAY POSSIBLE.
900 The majority OF the court have
entirely ignored the Overwhelming testi-
mony submitted III the case in arriving
at the opinion that Commodore Schley
erred in commencing the engagement on
July with the port battery, the evidence
in the case clearly establishing the fact
that in the execution Of the standing or
der to "close in and attack in harbor en-
trance" it was Impossible for the Brook
Ign, without turning away from the enc
my, to open the engagement except with
her port battery; and the evidence also
clearly establishes the fact that the ttirn-
ing of the Brooklyn in the manner anu
direction in which she did turn Old not
cause her to lose either distance or posi-
ton with the Spanish vessels the con-
trary opinion of the court upon TINS SUD
iect being arrived at only by disregard
ing all of the evidence offered III oellall
of Commodore Schley.
'.21. The majority opinion of the court
is ambiguous and indeterminablc in stat
ing that while the Brooklyns turning
caused the Texas to stop and back ner
engines to avoid possible collision, said
opinion does not state whether the dan
ger of such collision as comprehended py
the ninth specification of the precept was
real or imaginary, whereas the over
whelming weight of testimony clearly cs-
tablished the fact that at no time was
there Danger of collision between the
Brooklyn and the Texas.
..22 The testimony of Captain r r.
Cook, a witness called by the Judge-ad-
yocate in reference to the proximity OF
the Brooklyn to the Texas at the time
Of the Brooklyn's turning, has been lg-
nored and not even adverted to III the
statement of pertinent facts.
'.23 The ma joritE Of the court nave
assumed that the testimony Of Lleuten-
ant-Commander a. C. Hodgson. knowing
its repeatcd contradiction in reference 10
the alleged conversation regarding the
proximity of the Texas at the time OF
the Brookiyn's turning, is true, and have
entirely ignored the testimony Of COM
modore Schley and Captain f. e, Cook
to the contrary, without even referring
to it in their statement of pertinent facts.
WAS NOT vACILLATINC-
''24. The majority opinion of the court
that Commodore Sclleys conduct in con-
nection with the facts OF the Santiago
campaign prior to June l. 1898. was char
acterized by vaclliation. di.itoriness and
lack of enterprise, is in nowise justified
in the evidence submitted in the case,
and could only have been arrived at by
the action OF the court in wholly ignoring
all of the evidence OF Commodore Schley.
all of the evidence Of witnesses sum-