Evening star., 1901-12-28

ton was based on the assumption that this
third volume was an adopted text book of
the academy. Commander Wainwright re-
piled. however, under date Of July 20 last.
There has been no proposition to adopt
this third volume as text book or refer
ence book There is no intention
here of requiring the cadets to study the
history of such recent events as in the
Spanish-American war. 1 do not
Naval Academy
Secretary Long not only repudiated the
offensive epithets by his action, but he
talked freely to newspaper men along this
line. The Baltimore American, for in
stance. whose testimony on this subject
the Post will undoubtedly accep, and which
1t must have read printed an interview had
with Secretary Long on July 10. over which
II places these headings:
'Maciay's scurrilous history prohibited at
Annapolis. the author called to account
and Schley relieved of opprobrfous charges.
Secretary Long prompt in his disavowal.
Tells an American correspondent that
Schley is not a coward.
In the body of the article summarizing
the Interview the American says these
three points were positively established:
l. The Navy Department does not believe
that Admiral Schley is a coward"
In the course OF the interview Secretary
Long is quoted as saying: 81 do not think
for moment that 1t was attributable to
any lack OF courage" and again: mo man
who knows Schley thinks him a coward
After 1t had been developed that Maclay's
third volume had not been adopted as
text book at the Academy. that there was
no proposition to adopt or intention OF
adopting 1t, that there was not even a copy
OF it at the Academy. and after Secretary
Long had prohibited its use at Annapolis and
repudiated the obnoxious epithets contained
in 1t. Admiral Schiey. Influenced by unwise
advisers, applied for a court OF inquiry.
Not content with the general and enthu-
siastic acquittal by the public and the Navy
Department of the charge OF cowardice and
the honor bestowed upon him by the people
for the important part played by him and
the Brooklyn in the Santiago battle, he was
misled Into opening up naval inquiry into
his relations to the department and his
acts or omissions prior to the battle while
he was in command of the flying squadron.
The public cared little or nothing for these
things. The Navy Department had already
treated it's complaints against him for his
conduct during this period as swept away
DS the SlOk1OuS events OF Santiago.
If Schley had proceeded against Maclay
for criminal libel and applied pressure to
the Navy Department for the latter's dis
faissal his position would have been Inn
pregnable and his attack Irresistible. The
very fact Of asking an inquiry furnished
an excuse for not dealing with Maclay
until the Inquiry had ended.
The poor advisers who brought about the
naval inquiry, putting Schley on the de-
fensive when he should have been attack
ing Maclay and those who could be shown
to be associated with him, have also forced
the rear admiral into the position of first
enthusiastically praising Benham and Ram
say as just and impartial judges and then
when their finding was unfaverable OF
abusing them, and are now lauding
Deweys decision at the expense Of Ben
hams and Ramsay's, when 1t is evident to
all the world that Dewey's decision on
nearly all of the issues considered by the
court was distinctly hostile to Schley. Log
Dewey.
The Star hopes that the whole scandal
may cease. Praise and blame have been
apportioned by the tribunal of Admiral
Schley's choice. The verdict of the people
on all the issues is also fixed. There is
nothing to be gained by persistent con-
tinuance of a campaign Of bitter agitation,
based on misunderstanding and misrepre-
sentatfons