Evening star., 1901-12-21

the categorical denial thus obtained. but
did not publish an accompanying explana-
tory and qualifying letter, and that, sub
sequently. although repeatedly appealed te
| by Mr.. Hodgson, Admiral Schley failed to
do justice In the matter.
All members of the court agree In finding
| that Admiral Schley "did injustice to Lieu
tenant Commander A. c. Hodgson in pub
| fishing only portion of the correspondence
| which passed between them. The mere
| perusal Of the correspondence In this case
| is sufficient to show the correctness of this
| finding, and-to convince any impartial
| reader that II could not be, and ought not
| to be, modified.
Upon the points above set forth, which
appear to embrace substantially the Inn
| portant matters covered by the inquiry, the
court is united. and its findings are unani-
unimpeached and unimpeachable tes-
| timony of Commodore Schley's brother
| officers. who served with and under
| him; by official kilograms, letters and re-
| ports, and by the logs of the several ves-
| sells OF his squadron. and 1t would. accord
ingiy. be Idle to remit these matters to the
| same body for reconsideration upon the
| same evidence.
1t Is not by any means intended here to
say that the foregoing principal points COW
| cred by the inquiry are the only points
upon which the findings of the court are in
| all respects or substantially unanimous; be-
| cause the truth is that the court Is unit
upon all points. except those as to which
! all cases contradictory views. 1t does not
| appear that any good purpose would be
served by asking the court to reconsider
| these.
Aside from the inaccurate and mislead-
| ing use of the term, ''the majority of the
| court the next prominent feature of the
| paper before US Is the broad and sweeping
| fashion IN which the applicant and his
| counsel declare that the court has zig
| nored' or mot considered" evidence. A
| sample sentence is the following from para
| graph q, although the paper Is largely
| made up of such remarkable statements:
THE majority OF the court have rejected
| the whole Of the testimony offered on be-
| half Of the applicant, and have not ad-
| verted to such testimony, and have entire
| ly ignored the testimony Of the applicant
| himself
| The court adjourned on the 7th of No
| yember last Since that date its members
nave been, with rare exceptions, in daily
| session, morning and afternoon, examining
| the evidence before them. 1t was their
sworn duty to consider and weigh that evi-
dence. and the applicant and his counsel
nave no right to say that they have disre-
| garded 1t.
| But 1t is particularly urged in paragraphs
\ "A to q, and elsewhere In the objection, that
| the testimony Of the applicant himself has
Deen Ignored. This is merely stated, not
SHOWN We contend that the testimony of
| the applicant alone, upon direct and cross
examination, establishes the important
1acts OF general dilatoriness. vacillation,
d
throughout the entire campaign from Kew
west to Santiago; the particulars of the
reLrograde movement, the disobedience Of
orders, or the Inaccurate and misleading
oHclal reports; neglect and failure to de-
| Stroy the Colon; injustice to Lieut. Cemdr
Hodsson, and some minor matters The
| 1acts or these points were all substantially
connrmed by the applicants own testimo-
| ny; so that. far from ignoring such testi-
| mony, the court may have based its most
important findings thereon. .f[.s7-
But the court has perfect right, after
Weighing 1t. to ignore any testimony
Neither the applicant, his counsel nor the
Judge advocate is to say what testimony II
shall accept and what 1t shall reject. These
matters may be argued, but their final de-
'eItiiinaaron IT, ha Is the province Of the court.
IL happened In the present inquiry that
the applicant while on the stand contra
olcted In whole or in part, directly or indi-
rectiy: testimony given by a majority of
the witnesses. By way of particular illus
tratfon Commodore Schley gave testImonv
at variance with that of the following wit.
nesses: Rear Admirals Cotton. Evans ana
Iayior: Capts sigsbee. McCalla, Cook Fol-
ger and Chadwick; Commanders Rodgers
anWr1ght, Schroeder and Heilner: Lieut
Comdrs.. Hodgson, Switzerland Sharn
MARSH and Wood; Major Wood, u s. M. q:
Lieut. HOOD, Roys and others. In most
cases these witnesses swore affirmattveIv to
incidents OF which Commodore Schlev had
no recollection Where the matter thus in
dispute were Of importance-and thew gen-
e eLaiy "ere-lt was not only the right, but
the outy, or the court to accept the one and
reject the other. and to report In harmonv
with such decision Every court must do
tnls When occasion arises, and such action
constitutes ground for remapdinu tba a
case for reconsideration
some OF the minor misstatements Of fact
ABOVE rererred to as appearing in the ma
per under consideration are statements in
paragraph one that there was no ssnecif
cation" covering the voyage from Kew West
10 Cienfuegos. when this point is In fact
covered by the first and in part by the sec,
ono clause OF the precept; the complaint
III paragraph two OF the paper that tbera
was no place mentioned in the McS,aTs
memorandum at which camp of insur-
gents was located. when the fact is that
the court does not say that there was snch
orandum; the statement that the MoI1ema
memorandum was sent to Comnoodor.
| Schiey only for use In connection with tbe
matter OF batteries at Cienfuegos, and the
where that the Judge advocate had s,,hstan- se-
.iaiiy made certain admissions. whereas fha
ract Is that the Judge advocate made no Cd
MISSIONS respecting matters under INQUIRY.
excepting the feature under the first no NJ
of clause eight Of the precent that tb. a.,
ing squadron did not withdraw at night
lrom the entrance to Santiago to q distanca
at sea. and that no personal cowardice on
lished. A es'@o
Paragraph twenty-six of the paper under
consideration reads:
The majority Of the court have entirelv
| failed to determine as to who was in con-.
mand OF the American naval forces engaged
In the battle of Santiago, the findInr Of
which fact was absolutely necessary in or-
uer 10 determine properly the first specif1ca-
Con OF tne preeent as to the conduct OF
Commodore Schley in connection with the
events OF the Santiago campaign"
Ii IL Is true that finding by the court
~ pon nrd tn,s question was absolutely necessary
m order to determine properly the first
speciilcation of the precept. then 1t must be
stated that counsel for the applicant failed
OF their duty during the inquiry; several
times In the course Of the proceedings thew
brought this question into court and tool
1t out again without giving the court on
portunity to rule upon It, once even with.
drawing it so hastily as to interrupt the
president OF the court in a sentence that
promised to be an adverse ruling. If thew
seriously believed, as they now state to be
the case. that the matter Of command on
July was essential to the applicant's IN
terest, 1t was their plain duty not only to
oring the question before the court, but to
insist upon hearing there, and others In