Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1901-12-19
A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.
PREPARED BY MR.. ISIDOR
RAYNER.
Filed In Protest Of The Findings By The
Schley Court Of Inquiry How Sec
retary Of The Navy Long
Stands In The
Matter


Late yesterday afternoon Secretar,
Long was handed the bill OF exception.
prepared by Mr.. Isidor Rayner, counse
tor Rear-Admiral Winfield Scott Schley
in which objections are made to certain
findings IN the recent report from the
Court of Inquiry.
The brief was taken under advisement
by the Secretary, who will probably reach
some conclusion on the whole question
involved before the close Of the week.
With the brief Was letter from Admiral
Schley asking that il Admiral William L.
Sampson, as reported, had filed object.
ions to that portion OF Admiral Dewey s
minority opinion concerning the question
Of command, MIR. Rayner be allowed to
present oral argument against the ad.
mission OF the protest.
While Secretary Long has made no
ruling on the advisability of permitting
oral arguments BY either counsel for Ad-
miral Sampson or Admiral Schley, he
will probably deny such requests. The
Secretary will hold that oral arguments
are not admissible and that he intends
closing the case with every possible ex-
pedition, and appreh hends that if counsel
tor both sides were allowed to present
arguments decisions on the Courts re-
port might be prolonged indefinitely.
While counsel for Admiral Schley had
until today to lay their arguments before
the Navy Department. Mr.. Rayner COM
pleted the case yesterday morning, after
short conference with Captain James
5. Parker and Admiral Schley. and at 4
clock yeiterday afternoon the brief was
presented to Secretary Long. Admir- al
SIMPSONS counsel are expected to file
their statement today, in which objection
is to be raised against Admiral Dewey S
declaration that Admiral Schley was in
command of the American feet at the
time OF the battle OF Santiago.
The bill recites that Admiral Schley
"objects to the approval OF the findings
of the Court, upon the ground that the
opinion rendered and the report OF facts
made by the majority of the Court are in
conflict with the overwhelming weight OF
evidence. and that the majority of the
Court, in their said opinion, have ignored
the testimony OF the applicant, and OF
the whole of the applicants S witnesses,
and all that portion of the evidence given
by witnesses for the Government which
was favorable TO the applicant. and have
thus deprived him of rights guaranteed
to him by the laws of the land and the
Constitution of the United States.'
The bill further contends that over
whelming evidence was presented to the
Court to show that a close blockade OF
erfuegos was maintained; that the ma
jority OF the Court entirely ignored the
unconuadicted testimony proving that
the British steamer Adula was allowed to
enter Cieniuegos to obtain information
regarding the Spanish feet. The bill
concludes with the statement that the
proceedings OF the majority of the Court
were irregular :. that Admiral Schley S
rights have been prejudiced and his testi-
mony in many particulars non considered
and that the evidence is absolutely insult
6cient to sustain the opinion which has
been rendered, and that, therefore, a
grave and irreparable injustice has been
done Rear-Admiral Schley.