The Washington times., 1901-11-03

ure to SubStanti8tc Leading Ac-
cusatiOns-Wiat Has Heca Proven.
Practically all of the evidence in Rear
Admiral Schley's case is now before the
Court OF Enquiry. What little testimony
is adducod tomorrow from Lieutenant
Strauss will probably have no material
eject upon the findings of the Court Ad-
miral schley will then make such correc-
tions in his statement as he desires, and
such additions as he deems necessary.
The argument will then begin. Under the
agreement arrived at, Mr.. Hanna will
have the first say. lie viii be followed
by Captain Parker for the applicant
Mr.. Rayner will then make his argument,
and the judge advocate viii conclude.
These arguments will doubtless carry
the case wed on toward the close Of the
week As the testimony is very volunli-
nous, thirty-six DAYS having been occu-
pied in hearing it, considerable time must
elspse before the Court reports its find
ings to the Secretary Of the Navy. The
members will go over the evidence care
fully, and it is not probable that there
will be any wide difference of opinion
Should there be, the decision of the ma
jority will be the decision of the Court,
as no minority or dissenting opinion will
be rendered.
Apparent as have been the efforts of
some of the witnesses to injure Schley,
there has not been such conflict in the
statement of matters Of fact rs to cause
the members of the Court any trouble
in arriving at their decison. The Navy
Department. while it has been the ag-
Gressor in the case. has proven nothing
to the detriment of the applicant; it has
only shown a string of circumstances and
conditions Admiral Schley and the wit
nesses who have been called In his behalf.
as well as many who were summoned on
the other side, have explained these cir
cumstances ana conditions, and assigned
the reasons for Schleys actions under
them.
Absolutely nothing indicating cowardice
or incompetenCy has been shown by the
evidence, and in view of the fact that
these two things were exactly what the
navy ring sought to establish. the fail
ure of the prosecution has been most
pronounced. The statement of the OBJ
scure Potts stands entirely alone in the
attempt to show that Schley acted the
part of a coward. On the other hand, it
has been proven by a preponderance of
evidence that the exact opposite was
true. Every officer and man who had
ing the campaign. or saw him under fire.
has stated that his conduct and bearing
were brave and fearless; that he was self
possessed, and that his attitude was that
of a commander-in-chief. The result OF
the campaign has established beyond
doubt the question Of his competency as
a commander.
Witnesses have not agreed in their
statements as TO the distances of the ships
from the shore on the blockades Of Glen
feugos and Santiago, and Will have no
material bearing upon the findings Of the
Court. The fact that no ships either en-
tered these harbors without the permis-
sion of Admiral Schley or left without
a decisive engagement" has proven that
the blockades were effective.
The greatest conflict of evidence has
been upon the subject Of coalinG. This is
a technical question, which the experience
of the members of the Court will enable
them to decide. Consequently there is lit
tie left for the Court to pass upon except
the propriety of Admiral Schleys conduct
in the premises. He was practically with
out Geographic advices, and such de-
spatches as he received were ambiguous
in their terms and those from Sampson
were all qualified and misleading. He,
therefore as he stated, had to act upon
his own responsibility and to exercise his
own judgment. having in mind the well
fare OF his feet and the success Of his un-
dertaking to destroy the Spanish
squadron.
4 summary Of the evidence shows these
facts. Under the first point in the pre-
cept. which relates to Schley's conduct in
general. the Department has failed to
show that Admiral Schley acted in any
other way than his high position. stahG-
ing and responsibility required OF him.
BY practically all the evidence adduced he
has shown that his conduct was all that
it should have been.
Under the second point. which relates
TO the blockade off Cienfuegos, it has been
shown that 1t was effective. that .chley
had good reason to believe that the SIAN
ish feet was there; that Sampson believed
they were going there; that he told Schley
TO remain there until he was satisfied that
Ceryera was not there, and that n left
as soon as he ascertailed that be was rot
in the harbor. 1t has been concIusively
proven that Admiral Schley was not ad-
vised Of the McCalla code Of Signals for
communicating with the insurgents.
The third point relates to the voyage
from CienfuCgos to Santiago. The De
partment has failed 10 show that there
was an unnecessary delay. Schley has
shown that he departed as soon as Nc
Gala returned and reported that the
Spaniards were not in the harbor If
Cienfuegos. and that the rough weather
prevented the smaller VeSsf Is from max
ing greater progress on the trip. as well