The Worcester spy., 1901-12-22
THE LOOP A BLUNDER.

OHutI lilG llllltl tlduSG Ol lIlt pre-
cept The evidence adduced before the
court showing that the Texas was
stopped and backed, ito avoid possible
collision" with the Brooklyn" Is in
disputable, that danger and delay tC
the Texas" and loss of distance anC
position by the Brooklyn" were the
immediate results of the loop executed
by the latter vessel, is too clearly
shown to admit of doubt; and the find
ing of the court upon this point is
fully sustained by the evidence.
Under the tenth clause of the pre-
cept: 1t was established by the intro
duction before the court of the original
letters themselves that Rear-Admiral
Schley obtained from Lieutenant Com
mander Hodgson, a junior officer who
had served under him, categorical
statement that a certain "colloquy, y
reported in the public press to have
taken place on the bridge of the
Brooklyn" July 3rd, between himself
Cured" although Mr.. Hodgson assured
the admiral that the facts as published
were substantially correct" that the
admiral gave out for publication the
categorical denial thus obtained, bwt
did not publish an accompanying eX-
planatory and qualifying letter; and
that subsequently, although repeatedly
appealed to by Mr. Hodgson, ADMIR-
AL SCHLEY FAILED TO DO JUS
TICE in the matter
All members of the court agree in
finding that Admiral Schley did injus-
tice to Lieutenant Commander A c.
Hodgson in publishing only a portion
of the correspondence which passed
between them"
The mere perusal of the correspon-
dence in this case is sufficient to show
the correctness of this finding, and to
convince any impartial reader that it
could not be and ought not to be mod
flied.
Upon the points above set forth
which appear to embrace the impor-
tant matters, the court is united and
its findings are unanimous; they are
sustained by the unimpeached and un-
| impeachable testimony of Commodore
Schley's brother officers who served
with and under him; by official let
ters and reports and by the logs of the
several vessels of his squadron, and ii
would, accordingly, be idle to remit
these matters to the same body fol
! reconsideration under the same evi.
dence.
1t is not by any means intended here
to say that the foregoing principa
points covered by the inquiry are the
only points upon which the findings OF
| the court are in all respects or sub.
stantially unanimous; because the
| truth is that the court is A UNIT on
! ALL POINTS, except those as tC
/ which the admiral expresses individual
| but not in all cases contradictory
| views. 1t does not appear that any
| good purpose would be served by ask.
/ ing the court to reconsider these. Asid,
/ from the inaccurate and misleading
1 use of the term THE majority of the
/ court" the next prominent feature Of
! the case is brought up in sweeping
fashion in which the applicant and hi!
| counsel declare that the court ha.
/ ignored or mot considered" evidence
| A sample sentence is the followins
| from paragraph q. although the papei
/ is largely made up of such remarkabl,
| statements:
The majority of the court have re-
/ jected the whole of the testimony Of
| fered on behalf Of the applicant, ant
| have not adverted to such testimony
| and have entirely ignored the testimony
/ Of the applicant himself" The cour
( adjourned on the 17th of November
| last. Since that date its members have
| been. with rare exceptions. in daily
/ session, morning and afternoon, exam.
ming the evidence before them. Il
was their sworn duty to consider anC
weigh that evidence, and the applicant
and his counsel have no right TO say
that they have disregarded il.
But it is particularly urged in para
graphs "a to q, and elsewhere in the
objection, that the testimony Of the