The Washington times., 1901-10-27
Schley's Vindicntion Snmp
Doom,
SnnfpsOn's

Belshazzar, we believe, sat in an open
court when he saw the handwriting on
the wall The architecture of his day
and country and the conventional pic
lures on the subject give one that i'm
preston. The prosecutors of the man
who fought and won the Battle of San
tiago for his country also have been
sitting in an open court for several
weeks. If public opinion and signifi-
cant circumstances be criteria, they.
too. have seen the handwriting, or it
may be that in their case it was type
writing. The difference is unimpor-
tant
The country is ringing today with en-
thusiastic appreciation of the testimony
gixen by Admiral Schley on Thursday
and Friday last Nowhere is there
doubt entertained that it not only vindi-
Gates him in the fullest sense, but un-
covers the aninaus and destroys the
case of the persecution as completely as
he destroyed Cervera's squadron on
July 3, 1898. His enemies went hunt
ing for a hare and came upon an old
lion They charged "reprehensible con-
u.
They declared that in no way was Com
modore Schley in command of anything
in the battle, that he gave no signals,
followed no plan, started to run away,
and generally acted the part Of an in
efficient and "caitiff officer.
From the mouths of other witnesses.
but most convincingly from his own
modest narrative. the country and the
world know that he planned exactly
such a battle as he fought. weeks in
advance Of the fact: that when il be-
gan, Admiral SIMPSONS flagship was
behind the horizon, although Sampson
had been warned the night before that
a sortie from the harbor was in prepa-
ration: that Commodore Schley signal
ed the orders governing the formation
ami movements of the fleet during the
engagement, and that they were obey
ed, and. finally. that the victory was
his. and his alone, for Sampson did not
appear on the scene until more than an
hour after the victory was complete,
ard the victor had received the sur
render of the last Spanish ship.
Admiral Sampson is again in his GUS
ton.ary attitude of absenteeism. Every
care has been taken to avoid involving
him in the enquiry. But, constructive
ly, he has been before the Court, in
company with the navy ringsters gen
orally who have maligned and bounded
Admiral Schley for three years. Much
as they may attempt to evade the
truth, it is they. and not their intended
victim, who have been on trial The
vindication OF Admiral SchIey is their
condemnation. That is the verdict of
the country, no matter what may be
the findings of the Court. The positive
proof that Schley commanded in the
battle is a burning commentary on
SIMPSONS claim that the victory was
gained by the feet under my com
mand' Cumulative and irrefutable
evidence shows that Schley did all he
could TO caution the "commander-in-
chief that the Spaniards were likely
10 come out. and that Sampson there
upon ordered the feet to close inshore.
But on the morning Of the battle he
withdrew. and disappeared from view.
only reappearing long after the last
gun had been fired. What a fine speci-
fication this would furnish for pre-
cept,''
It is Sampson and the navy ring who
are defendants at the bar of national
opinion, and. in effect, they have been
fully and unanimously convicted.