The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-11-08

tify that when they came up with the flying squadron the retrograde movement was already begun, and Sigsbee has testiA fled that the questions principally dis cussed on board the flagship were not of the whereabouts of the Spanish feet but the question of coaling. The dispatch sent on the morning of May N confirms this witness. With a purpose so fixed in the Commodores mind, it Is likely that advice on the part of Sigsbee and Wise to remain at Santiago would now be con- strued by counsel in the same manner in which they appear to have regarded Hodgson's caution to Commodore Schiey as to the proximity of the Texas; in otn- CT words, it might now be constiue as an unseemly protest.
 Disobedience of Orders.
 "As to the question of disobedience of orders" said Captain Lemly. counsel has properly stated that report that orders would be disobeyed does not con- stitute disobedience. Commodore Schley conduct Is being scrutinized in the light of the facts, and not alone in the ngnt of the statements which he made con corning his intentions. Counsel has clteo the disobedience of Nelson; but at Copen- hagen Nelson disobeyed orders and went for the enemy. The applicants disobe- dience If proved will be shown to be In delaying in bringing himself into the presence of the enemy"
 Captain Lemly earnestly defended the witnesses that Admiral Schley's counsel had discredited. Speaking of the alleged colloquy on the Brooklyn during the pat tie, Captain Lemly said: "As to testi- mony upon the point whether this sub- stantial exchange of remarks really oc- cured, we have Hqdgson's sworn state ment before this court, his statement in the investigation before Captain Chad wick, and his several letters to the appli- cant in which he adheres to the substan- tial accuracy of the newspaper report as printed" N
 Affair of May 31.
 Tt has been claimed that the object of this affair of May 3l was to develop the enemy's batteries and that this was accomplished There is, however, great deal of doubt, in view of the vary ing signals and statements made by the Commodore both before and arter the action as to what was the real object, whether d reconnaissance or an attempt to destroy the Colon.
 Regarding it as reconEoisSance,c could the strength ot the cnemy's fire and the calibre of his guns have been successfully discerned by such distant firing. Had the enemy heavy guns unknown to the attacking force he should not have been attempted to show the fact in view of the range employed. His game would have been to deceive his assailants in coming closer, either then or on another occasion. But the weight of evidence is that even as reconnolssance, the aHdir was futile.
 '.The defense to the failure to go in closer on May 31 by pleading at this time the cautionary order of April 9th does not appear to be sufficient even if the Com modore was acquainted with it's contents. The order modifies itself, and from first to last clearly indicates that our fleet was to be kept for the Spanish ships and that the destruction Of the latter was US paramount mission"
 Coming to the battle of July 3, Captain I.emly said: T have never doubted. and the evidence adduced confirms my view in this respect that the Brooklyn, as a ship, did conspicuous duty in this battle On the other hand. l submit that the evidence shows that 1t was captains fight, and, without disparagement of Commodore Schley's personal conduct on | that occasion, that there was no such con- certed action of the vessels engaged as to indicate their control by any one per- son.
 All evidently strove to do their utmost, and thus was accomplished one of the grandest naval victories ever won. or course the vessels stood in towards the
  that the enemys vessels were making sortie, Such was not only their prescrib- ed duty, but their natural and proper course in such circumstances. In like manner when the Spanish fleet stood to the westward it was the duty of our vessels to follow, whether or not the signal follow flag was made" The Brooklyn's Loop.
 Discussing the Brooklyn's loop. Captain Lemly expressed the opinion. based upon evidence, that in turning to starboard when all the other American vessels turned to port, the Brooklyn endangered not only the Texas, but other vessels as well.
 After discussing briefly the Hodgson in- cident and Commodore Schleys alleged remark, Damn the Texas which he said he did not consider a very grave matter, Captain Lemly closed his speech and the entire argument of the case with the following words:
 From my knowledge or the man, hay ing served under his command on two cruises, I have never believed, nor do 1 claim from the evidence that personal misconduct-or. to call a spade a spade, cowardice-was exhibited by Commodore Schley in any part of his career as com mander- r-in-chief of the flying squadron. But l submit with regret that in the passage from Key West to Cienfuegos, while at the latter port. en route to the southward of Santiago without settled destination. in the retrograde movement, in the return to the vicinity of Santiago and in the affair of May 31. the Com modore exhibited unsteadiness in purpose and in push and failure to obey orders. The characterization of this conduct is. however, for the court l trust that may be pardoned if l remind you gentle men that the first importance of the mat ters before you Is not as they relate to any individual, but as they concern the naval service. It Is for you to lay down a standard of conduct. to be followed in future similar cases-a standard such as that set by our great naval commanders like John Paul Jones. Decatur. Perry. Farragut, the Porters and others. 4 senes of propriety forbids my mentioning the living"
 At 3:32 p. m. Captain Lemly concluded his speech. A number of charts were introduced as evidence. and the public sessions of the court came to an end. SIMPSONS REQUEST GRANTED. Certain Illusions Will Be Stricken
 from the Record
 Washington, Nov. 1.-The Schley court of inquiry has decided to grant the re-