The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-11-06
Endeavors to Show from the Testf-
mOny that the Admiral Did Not
Follow Instructions.
PARKER'S OPENING ADDRESS
JUNIOR COUNSEL FOR sCHLEY PRE-
SENTs HIS SIDE OF THE CASE.
Defends the Conduct of His Client
and Attacks the Evidence of
SIMPSONS Friends.

Il
voted to-day to hearing argument in the
case of Admiral Schley. Mr.. Hanna fin
ished his argument in behalf of the de-
| partment. which had been begun yester-
! day, and Capt. James Parker began, but
| did not conclude his presentation of the
| case for Admiral Schley. Mr.. Hanna to-
| day considered the retrograde movement
the bombardment of the Colon, and the
/ charge made against Admiral Schley of
| disobedience of orders. Captain Parker
! had only reached the coaling question
| when the court adjourned. He defended
| the conduct of his client at all stages OF
| the campaign far as he went. 1t is ex-
| pected that Captain Parker will conclude
| his speech tomorrow, when Mr. Rayner
| will begin.
| In resuming his address this morning Mr..
! Hanna briefly reverted to the cruise Of the
| flying squadron from Cienfuegos to Santi-
| ago for the purpose of showing that neither
| the Vixen nor the Merrimac had been the
| cause of delay on the voyage. Continuing,
he contended that while Commodore Schley
| was acting under the orders contained in
| dispatch No. 8, when the retrograde move
| ment began May &C. that order was super
| seeded by the dispatches delivered on the
| Brooklyn May "a by Captain Cotton, in
| command of the Harvard, and in one of
| which 1t was said that 'all the depart
| ments information indicated the Spanish
| division is still at Santiago de Cuba" and
| to which the order was added: The de-
| partment looks to you to ascertain facts,
| ana that the enemy, II therein, does not
! leave without decisive action" Mr.. Hanna
| took issue with Admiral Schley that this
was suggestion and not mandatory or
| der.
BLOCKADE OF SANTIAGO.
Mr.. Hanna then went over the coal sup
| ply question and the reconnaissance of May
81. Taking up the blockade of Santiago,
Mr.. Hanna said he did not feel competent
to discuss it, and, therefore, would content
himself with outlining its character Mr..
Hanna said that beyond the Brooklyns
turn the battle of Santiago was not in
volved in the inquiry He said that,
cording TO the weight of the testimony no
disposition was manifested by the Spanish
ships to ram the Brooklyn. With refer
ence to the testimony concerning the pos
sibility of collision with the Texas Mr.
| Hanna called attention to the fact that
the TWO vessels, in closing in, moved on
converging lines. He said that Captain
Cook and Navigator HOdgson evidently had
observed Commodore Schley's movements
on the day of the battle from different
standpoints. Mr.. Hanna said that beyond
peradventure the progress of the Texas
was seriously interfered with He quoted
Captain Evans, of the Iowa, and Lieuten-
ant Nicholson, of the Oregon, TO sustain
d
stop. Thus, he argued, battleship not
only was imperied, but delayed by the
danger of collision at this critical time
The loop of the Brooklyn was, he cOnclud-
ed, the only movement OF that day that
had called for any explanation.
Mr.. Hanna also discussed the reported
colloquy between Commodore Schley and
Lieutenant HOdgson, which forms the tenth
count in the precept, in which Schley was
reported to have said during the turn,
Hanna said, showed a lack of interest in
| another ship of the fleet. He expressed
the opinion that there was much TO sustain
Mr.. Hodgson's recollection of this inciden t..
| He also discussed the question of the cor
respondence between Admiral Schley and
Lieutenant Commander HOdgson on this
subject The correspondence had been mi
tiated by the admiral said Mr.. Hanna, and
he made the point that in his letters Mr..
| HOdgson had maintained the correctness
of his original position With his remarks
upon this correspondence Mr.. Hanna con-
cluded his speech, at 2:35 p. m, having
spoken about four and half hours.
PARKER'S ARGUMENT.
Captain James Parker, junior counsel for
Admiral schley, then began his address in
support of the admiral He stood at coun-
sells table and spoke in clear and distinct
tones. Il doubt" said Captain Parker, IF
the naval history of the world presents or
ever has presented case of the importance
and character of that in which we have
more exalted in the character of the per-
sons who compose il has ever sat in judg-
ment upon a brother officer. 1 doubt if an
officer with the lifelong character and
standing and conduct that Admiral Schley
, has always displayed, was ever called upon
before 10 ask an investigation of his con-
duct as victorious commander of a fleet -
, | Continuing Captain Parker compared
this case with the charges made after the
battle Of Lake Erie. In that case there
!, mic "a frr1n do fOr lar1F ~
: this there was no foundation whatever. He
! said that the court had in its wisdom pre-
sented comparisons with other officers en-
gagged In the Santiago campaign. There Is
no accuser here" he said, nobody is or
trial, and yet the case has been conducted
as though Commodore Schley were on trial
We get il" he went on, lin the order Of the
t argument now being made here. So thai
We are compelled to consider the inquiry as
| a trial"
Taking I'D the events of the campaign in
l their sequence Captain Parker spoke of the
2 interviews between Admiral Sampson anC
Commodore Schley at Key West, saying
that he would not give Admiral Schley's
| testimony on this point. He pointed out
2 | however that Schley was not then in
e formed that the Spanish fleet had left Cura
z Gao, Notwithstanding Sampson had been il
, | possession of this information for three
5 or four days. He then quoted Sampson:
and there establish a blockade, and quoted
5 Schley's testimony to the effect that Samp
]. | son told him he had at that time no advice
| as 10 the NneTtdDOulS OF lnC OpdllldIuS-
CRUISE TO CIENFUEGOS.
Speaking of the cruise TO Cienfuegos Cap
tain Parker said it was inconsistent to criti
else Admiral Schley for stopping to TAX
Captain Chester on while al the same tim
criticising him for not calling Captain Nc
n Gala on board. I'VE can't" he said, "blov
hot and cold in the same breath. The trutl
. is there was no real delay in the voyage
q Captain Parker said that anyone who con
: demned Admiral Schley for this voyag
\ from Key West to Cienfuegos must be pref
u ty hard UP for an issue. Ii was a charg
I unworthy of anybody's considera ton. Aft
: er reviewing the Cienfuegos blockade, III
o speaker read the Dear Schley' letter o
k May %, in which Admiral Sampson said n
" had decided not to change his plans TO hoI
j. CienfuegOs. as he felt that even if CerVer
5 had taken refuge at Santiago he must in
4 evitably still go TO Cienfuegos. and com
o mented upon II at some length. He con
/, tended that both this dispatch and No
n had been sent at later time than ha
been suggested by the naval officials Samp
son had. ne said, instructed Schey 10 re
main at Cienfuegos, Notwithstanding IN
departments advice 10 proceed 20 Santiago
n and in No. : discretion had plainly bee
= had gone of and il had been found tina
I, been condemned. and justly. and in case q
: a court-martial learned friends here woul
= have Numbered against him. l say tha
| Is