Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1901-08-02
Washin9tun STANDARD
OLYMPIA. WASH.
FRIDAY EVENING, AUGUST 2. 1901.
Viewed by an Eye Witness.

Maclay against Admiral Schley, we
publish elsewhere extracts from his
chapter on the engagement at Santi.
ago, as \ basis :Or the statements and
arguments soon to follow in the
searching investigation demanded by
Mr.. Schley.
The well-known pariialty Of the
Naval Department for Sampson, will
make any verdict favorable to a rival
absolute vindication. and the facts
seem 50 fully to accord with and
justify the impartial finding of the
general public, that we have a strong
hope the result will be to establish be-
You'd further controversy, title to
honors for the glorious victory which
ended our war with Spain.
AS the first witness against the tool
OF the patrician clique in the naval
department, the Cincinnati Enquirer
introduces George f. Graham, who
stood on the Brooklyn bridge, beside
Capt. Cook and Admiral Schley, and
was an eyewitness to everything that
occurred. This gentleman left the
New York, Simpsons ship. for the
Brooklyn, when the former left the
squadron. Mr.. Graham was the as
ISOLATED press correspondent, a man OF
eminent ability and calm judgment.
His account OF the engagement and
attending events, before and after the
battle, were sent all over the country
and never questioned. His statement
comedies in every important particu-
lar with the reports OF special CORE
spondents who impartially viewed the
fight from dispatch boats.
Mr.. Graham says that it is difficult
for him to believe that Historian
Maclay wrote his attack upon Rear.
Admiral Schley except by instigation
and at the urging of the Navy Depart
ment clique. He is in close touch
with those who have provided the
press and the civilian head of the
department with the material that has
been intended, dire failure as it has
been, to change the public view of
Admiral Schley's character as an Of
ficer and man.
At least Maclay is honest in one
thing. He has dared to do openly
what these sneaks of the naval clique
have not had the moral courage to do.
When has Captain Chadwick, Samp-
sons flag officer, dared to assert that
Schley was coward? When has he
dared to do otherwise than convey the
material to New York journal for
publication ? Did Robley Evans. he
of the fighting cognomen, first person
OF the autobiography he wrote? Did
Sigsbee dare to do it except to stultify
himself by denying conditions which
he had previously detailed in his re-
ports to the department?
These vigorous sentences are fol.
lowed by brief reference to the
charges made in the persistent war
fare against Schley.
Maclay, it is asserted, (says Mr.. Ora
bam) based his criticism upon naval
reports. What naval reports? The
expurgated things that have been
foisted upon the public, or the real re-
ports Of commanding officers? have
in my possession the report of the
battle of Santiago written by two Of
ficers of the converted yacht called
the Vixen. 1t is signed by Lieutenant
Alexander Sharpe and it was his ac-
count of the fight as he saw it at short
range, the only naval eyewitness not
engaged in fighting. I placed it
aiongside the Navy Departments
book purporting to print it, and find
It has been expurgated so as to give
but little credit to the Brooklyn, and
SO Ms not to disclose the real position
OF Simpsons ship, the New York. Is
that the way history is made, and is
Maclay to be blamed for boldly follow
ing the examples set him? Let me be
as bold as Maclay; if coward" is to be
the word, let us draw the line sharply.
l have supreme confidence in our
Navy. I don't believe coward would
stay in it year. There are none in
it now. There are men with unearned
fighting sobriquets. There was one
with us. His nome was Evans. His
ship was never closer to the enemy
than one mile. It was not hit, but
" Fighting Bob" crawled into the
conning-tower and watched the fight
from o six-inch by one-inch slit. Mr..
G. then goes on to say:
Schley was on the deck of the BROOKLYN,
Captain Cook was near. A mans life
blood splaShed their clothes. The shin
qnivered under fire. Still they stood
there, Captain Clark, on the Oregon, was
on his bridge. Captain Phillips, of the
Texas, stayed on his bridge until part of
It was shot away. And when it was over
Evans had the largest story to tell: a
story he would not like to see now be-
cause Of its gross inaccuracy. And pray
who was the coward?
The history of the battle of Santiago.
told exactly as it occurred, it seems to
me. is an absolute condemnation of Ad.
mral Sampson's Wanted ability and a
tribute to Schley and his officers. The
happenings of the "a hours preceding the
battle will go far, think, to demonstrate
that Sampson was reprehensible for de-
hDerately weakening the line of battle
and deserving the line himself when he
knew that for the first time in several
weeks or since the establishments of the
blockade, extremely suspicious move.
ments were going on in the harbor.
On the afternoon of July it was no
ticed from all the ships that movements
were occurring in the harbor, there being
visible distinct columns of smoke, con.
ceded by practical men to be from war
ships.
That Sampson himself recognized this
u evident from tho tact that he sent the
vixen around to the different ships of