The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1901-12-24
Lemly and Hanna, Say That All
Agreed to Facts In the Maj
ority Report.
UNITED ON ESSENTIAL FACTS.
Bome Of the Points That Are Made
In Reply to the Schley Protest.
sampson's Attorneys Filed objec.
tions to the Minority Findings.

test for him, TO the minority report oi
the Schley court of inquiry, by Ad
miral Dewey.
Admiral Schley became aware OF
the fact that the protest uf Stayton
& Campbell on behalf OF Admiral
Sampson, had reached Secretary
Long and he made a request of the
secretary to be furnished with an Of
fetal copy OF the protest, but was in
formed that as the protests of both
the admirals at tnat time were being
considered by the judge advocate gen.
eral. the secretary could not take i'm.
mediate action on the request Sec
retary Long went over to the White
House some time before the cabinet
meeting and. 1t Is understood, took
with him the two documents.
In the event that Secretary Long
approves the recommendation of Cap
tain i.emly and Mr. Hanna. 1t Is stat
ed upon reliable authority that the
suggestion will be made to the presi-
dent oy Admiral Schley's counsel
that he appoint "A board of three emf
nent lawyers. one to be selected BY
himself and one each to be selected
by Admiral Schley and Admiral
Sampst n, this board to weigh the
evidence and report to the president.
1t Is said there are number OF pre-
cedents for sach action.
The statement oil i.einiy ana Hanna
was da:ed Washington, Dec. 20, and
Said IN part:
Some Points of the Statement.
Sir--A communicatiou. dated the
in Il. IL A
s. Schiey. and by isidor Rayner and
James Parker, his counsel, objecting z
to the approval OF the findings of the
court OF inquiry ia the case of Rear
Admiral SCn.ey. aud asking particu.
larB That what the signers are pleas.
ed To term the opinion OF the ma
'ority ~ the coLrL," be RENTED to
the court for further consideration,
has been received by the depart
menLs reference, and is returned with
the following statement:
1t is somewhat difficnlt to deal with
this paper on account of its general
ana unspecific character, and sweep.
ing though unsupported assertion OF
opinion by the applicant ana his coun.
sci, that, in their judgment, the ad-
verse Ending of the court is not JUS.
tined by the evidence. The papar
might be dismissed as simply not
Unexpected expression of dissatisfac.
tion with an adverse Judgment nut
Tor the fact that it contains a number
OF misSLatenents, and, particularly.
has woven throughout its entire
structure an Inaccurate and mislead
ing use Of the words majority of
the court"
The findings of fact and the opin.
Ion OF the court of inquiry in the case
of Admiral Schley upon the more i'm.
portant ahd material points before il
were not reached by a majority of
the members only, bat by the entire
court Tne points Uf the precept
upon which al the members of the
court Unite appear to be ipcontro-
vertlbly established by the. evidence;
IL is not understood how any other
conclusions could have been reached
upon them; and they constitute the
essential features of the entire mat
Ter under inquiry.
The statement says, in part. that
he evidence adduced before the court
,onclusively shows certain things.
Among them are the following, In
part:
Under the fourth clause of the pre-
,ept: That on the 26th of MAY. 1898
when within a few miles of Santiago.
% winch point he was under orders
% proceed with the utmost dispatch
and where he was advised that the
snemys 1eet was reported to be, AMI
where. in fact, it actually was, Com
nodore Schley turned about with the
ieet under his command and headed
or a home port, more than 700 miles
iistant, without sufficient reason or
excuse for such action, taking with
llm at the same time the scouting
'essels the department had sent there
o watch the entrance, and leaving
ne port OF Santiago with the enemy's
leet inside, unguarded Upon this
Dolnt the court says in its opinion:
He should not have made the retro.
srade turn westward with his squad.
on"
Failed to Obey Order.
Under the fifth clause of the pre.
,ept; That while thus abandoning
he field Of action with his feet Com.
nodore Schley was overtaken by a
'''P-eN" '"ooCi ptdIluB I'LL uTkenL Or
Ter, dated May 25, from the depart-
nent, In substance directing him to
proceed to Santiago, ascertain facts.
'eport, and not suffer the enemy to
escape; that nevertheless he contin-
led TO retreat with his squadron, tele-
graphing to the secretary OF the navy:
1T 10 to be regretted that the depart.
nents orders cannot be obeyed." The
court found that "he should haye
promptly obeyed the navy depart.
nent's t'der Of May 25."
Under the sixth clause OF the pre.
,ept; Commodore Schley's explana-
Ion OF the retrograde movement and
of his disobedience of orders. as
made at the time in full telegram
. the department on thes ubject. was,
n substance, shortage Of coal and in.
ability to coal the ships Of his squad.
rop from the collier. Evidence devel.
'ped before the court shows that the
!quadron was at the time well
v~vkkA -