The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1901-08-08
The "DisObed ience" of SchIey.

On May 2S, 1898, Admiral Schley, in
a telegram to the secretary OF the navy,
specified his coaling difficulties off San
tiago, and said: ''Much to be regret
ted, can not obey order of department.
Have striYen earnestly; forced to pro-
coed for coal to Key West. Can not
ascertain anything respecting enemy
positive" The navy department says
that in this telegram Schley probably
refers to orders sent him on May. 20.
What were these orders? Simply that
the department looks to you to ascer-
tain facts, and that the enemy, if
therein, does not leave without o de-
cisiye action. AS soon as ascertained
notify the department whether enemy
is there" On the strength of this the
department declines to modify its ac-
cusation of disobedience. Now, the
truth of the matter is that Schley did
not disobey the orders of the depart
ment. The sea having subsidized some
what, he managed to coal from a
broken collier. He did not go to Key
West. On May 20, at 10 o'clock in the
morning, Schley telegraphed the sec
rotary of the navy that the enemy was
in port, and that he had recognized
the Colon, the Infanta Maria Teresa
and two torpedo boat destroyers. On
May 81 he reported that he had seen
one more vessel of the Viscaya class.
Now, though Schley said he could not
obey orders, he did obey orders. He
ascertained the facts, notified the de-
pmtment promptly of the presence of
the Spanish fleet, and subsequently, on
July 3, he saw to it that the enemy did
not "leave without o decisive action. F"
Now the question is whether q mere
statement that he would not be able to
obey orders is disobedience, in the face
of the actual fact that he did obey or
ders. If a man should say 1T can not
go to New York" but did actually go,
would anybody but a pettifogger say
that he didn't make the trip, because
he said he couldn't? If Secretary Long
should order his son to climb tree
and the boy said he couldn't do, but as
matter of fact did actually climb the
tree before the secretarv's eyes, would
he ignore the actual fact and assert
that the boy had disobeyed his order?
He has published the evidence in his
report, showing that Schley did what
he was told to do. Because Schley
thought and said at one time that he
could not obey orders does not consti-
tute disobedience. He did obey or
ders, and no one knows this better
than the secretary of the navy.
Moreover, on the subject of ODE.
dience Admiral Sampson is shown by
the records to have ignored the in
structions of the navy department. On
May 10 Long telegraphed Sampson
that the Spanish fleet was reported to
be at Santiago, and he strongly ad-
vised" that he "send word immedi.
ately by the Iowa to Schley to proceed
at once off Santiago with his whole
command" Though Mr.. Long used
the words Strongly advised, he cyl
IDENTIFY regarded them as an order, for
in telegram to the Minneapolis of the
same date he wrote 'Schley ordered"
off Santiago, and on May 90, in a dis
patch to the Yale, he said that "orders
have been sent the flying squadron to
proceed with all possible dispatch off
Santiago" In other words, Sampson
was ordered to order Schley to go to
Santiago; and Long even went so far