The sun., 1901-12-21

Ui Ui on and Derhaps other OF the enemy 8
vessels as they ay al anchor; that no eho,. nr
whatever vas msde M 70 n% nG thai " the he attempt
made on the sist was brief ana hooIuNS.
IL Il complained IN paragraph 10 OF tne paper
orders issued by the Department. were 10.
-in the slightest degree" referred 70 py me
court. These cautionary orders s.nd Mers sl' in
eTs,Iment We contended that. quite OBJ
yiously. thev had no application 70 Ihe con .oth
sbst 'Conmodore Schiey should have en-
deavored TO capture or DESTROY the Snaim,gn nsiasn
rcse eIs AZ or near the entrance OF SantaHo
Hsybor on May 70 and 30" and that he did
not do his utmost with the force nndet M M
commsnd to capture or Or der,r1y rny ,n Which % he
attn oked on Nav a." show that the court
reached such conclusion, 49,
II may very properly 6e nse, ouosa, ,hat he
aSTaIr Of Nav ri was intended merely as a
reconnaissance is not borne our py eosd me en,
dence, for while testimony was introduced n
10 show that II was 40 des sgnated ny Com,
modore Schlev in conversation with hava, .,
cadet and with a newsnaper con, ", IT, cnm.
handing off'cers Of the vessels engaged was
40 advi sed. and no instructions were g1van
relative S ,ns nSomramKnndnr no ocers on
Inc contrary, Informed in effect that the pur-
pose 70 destroy the COLON ana tne chr oIl,Shrs
.atts we're instructed accordingly by the
Commodore in person
Under the ninth 6fars 6a%Ss o tbe ne COURT from
the bridge and from the engine room show
ing thai the Texas was stopped ana % naCSrrd p.or
lyn is indisputatl That danger and d,iny
10 the Texas and loss Of distance md position
by the Brooklyn wers The h imneas ibs Iater yesse
is too clearly shown to admit Of doubt; and
The finding Of the court. upon this point ia
~ ~ Az tho tanfh clause Of the precept II
was cstablishedby the introduction before the
court of original le,tHrs themselveS thai Rear
Admiral Schley obtained from Iieutenant
Commander Hodeson. a junior officer who had
served under him, categorIcai S'aiefheho en-
that certain IN paGe on the brdss
ar and '"S commodore % scRley never occurred.
Aabtal A.anbstaniaiy ihH 'SS oorrect that the Admiral
o9 for bS1 did ise nSs pubsh
letter: and that, subseqacn,,ye althouSh antssnh
rePeaiedy hs,ppeaaIeiid aniid 70 20 Justice IN the
Xii members Of the court agree in finding that
Admiral Schley did injustice TO Lieutenant
Comma ndcr 4 c Hodgson In publishing only
a portion Of the correspondence which passed
be, ween them The mere PerHssl .oient S the ne
show the correctness OF this finding and 70
con vince any imparttal reader that i could
not be and ought not to be st m9d1hSd SdrfS which
a ppaar to embrace substantially the ,impor-
,ant matters covered sby the inquiry, the
nous. they are sustained by the unimpeached
and nimpeach bic testimony OF Commouore
Schlpy'- brother officers. who served with ana
under him by oft1cial telegramS Letters ana
reporta, and by the logs OF the seyeral YES
sells of his SQUADRON, and II would accofa.
ingly be idle to remit these matters 70 tne
same body for reconsideration upon the same
evidence
Ii is not by any means intended here TO
say that the foregoing phncIs' p,nt pT,n.S nnon Eov
which the findings of the court are IN all
respects or substantially unanimous; because
materiu points. with respect to which the
Admiral expresses indiv dual but not IN All
rases contradictory. views does @ no. ,
,erved by asking the court tn reconsider
.hesP
isa of the term. "the majority oi the court,
he next prominent feature OF the paper
Sefore us is the broad and sweeping fashion
which The apple,ant snd vnnrsS ns sp"ns ns not not
evd nee sampl. sentence
$ the following fron paragraph ~ although
he paper is largely made up oi snch re-
narkable statements:
THE ma iority Of the court have rejected the
whole Of the testimony offered on behalf OF
he applicant and have not diverted 70 'nch
estim0ny. and have entirely ignored the
estimOny of the applicant himself
The opurt adj ourned on the Ith of Noyem-
Der last Since that dat" ts members nave
,een, with rare exceptions IN daily session
morning and afternoon, examining the "vl-
ience before them II WAS their sworn duty
. consider and weigh that eyidenGe' Hgd ,G, IT,"
'ay that they have diSregard"d u
But IL J., particularly urged ~ paragraphs
q 10 ~. and elsewhere in the objection. that
he testimony of the applicant himself has
leen ignored This il merely stated. not
.hown We contend that the testimony
Il the applicant alone. upon direct snd c,o,.-
establishes the uupprtHut facts
Of -dilatoTiness, vacillauun and
sani of energy ~ tienfurgo-. ana through
,ut the entire mpn.gn from Key West :"
movements. the disuhedieuCe - order. OF
he Inaccurate aud misleading "nichl re-
'olon. Injustice 90 Iiruttnant-' omndndrr
fodgsOu. and some mihof mhtt"I> u"
acts "i lh"-" points we're an s"pH''nt'an' ,o',,,'
~ thar. far from Ignoring such Testimony.
he oourt may have bus scd il most important
B,t The cluft ha- u-rf-,f right ,rsr
W. CHING u Go lgrpr" any i~-ihupng NrHh~f
he applicant. HE c"uu-rl. I"f 'h" 'niR'
Icoept and vhat u .hsll rri-'f IhS'' INST
.Ts may - argued hu' l!"H hn,l d'''i
uluatiau h. ~" pfoNiuu" ~ ~" t"u'
n iapp.nsd b. thr I'-rni udurN lha'
"A" ,piIrsrt ruilr on ih' -tsud contra
iid~d ,u wh1l" "t iu per dl'''n " "i'
eflh. tH-tlu.uuN sl',n l. H llni.i" "l W.
iouIu.,dnr. ~,hIr, rass -tIu.pr, t Nafi-
.nor sth u.lt - tn' i"l"SiHs .N1'..,',
e"ar Adwf'I- ,dl", ,a's 20 la'l"i,
= risit srhru.drf HHd n, Il.rf lA.u''Iar'.
a,aga"ai'v ,,.e !.i I'D "S'yi" n a, v.'a ''s W,
A"ats iin"d Rose cod ".h''s ln ."-'
rasss tlsss siHrs-.. -s"f' lnnWs'lttn
,ss 10 f.ssli.,tlsr Nhsf. H. rIHt'srs tiIua
d dlsruts vsfr ~ uuu"ftar,' "a NO.