The Penn's Grove record., 1901-12-20
TscHLEYs PROTEST FILED
Declares the Majority of the Court
Considered Only One Side.
In Thirty-one Objections to Verdict Nv
Contends That All Testimony ravor.
able to Him Wa Ignored.

Washington, d. C.-Rear-Admiral
schley's bill OF exceptions to the ma.
jority report Of the Court Of Inquiry
was handed to Secretary Long by
NJ. A. league. The bill, which was
drawn by Mr.. Rayner, contains thir-
ty-one exceptions. The ground of the
objection is that the majority Of the
Court in preparing its opinion aud
finding considered only the testimony
of the witnesses against Admiral
Schley; that it ignored the testimony
of his witnesses altogether, and that
even in considering the testimony Of
the witnesses against him 1t ignored
those portions of their testimony which
We're favorable to him.
The prayer is that the majority re-
port be disapproved, and that Secre-
tary Long remit the proceedings to
the Court, with instructions to them
to take into consideration the testi-
nony favorable to Schley and prepare
a new report. The thirty-one para
graphs point out the cases in which
the Court is alleged to have ignored
the testimony in favor Of Scliley. 1t is
charged in plain terms in the twenty
ninth paragraph that the majority se-
lected the testimony of a few hostile
witnesses and based their opinion and
finding on that, ~discarding all the other
testimony.
1t is further charged that the ma
jority found Schley guilty even on the
specifications which the Judge Advo.
cate abandoned as incapable of proof
The bill asserts that the majority have
not only ignored all the testimony for
the defense, but have not even ad
verified to it in their findings, end that
'by so doing they have perverted the
ends of justice"
AS an example of this, it Is charged
that the majority accepted the Damn
the Texas" colloquy as proved, al
through the only witness who testified
that it occurred was Commander
Hodgson, while Schley and Cook de-
MED it, and the other officers present
said they heard no such conversation.
Many similar instances are given in
the bill. The bill also demands that
the Court pass upon the question of
the efficacy of the blockade.
The pfecept, it is claimed, ordered
the Court to pass upon this, but the
majority did not express any opinion
about it. 1t also demands that the
Court shall express an opinion about
Captain Lemly's charge that Schley
did moi prescribe any orders Of battle,
and insists that the Court shall state
whether the danger which caused the
Texas to back her engines was real or
imaginary, and whether the loop which
was alleged to have been made be-
cause of the dangerous proximity of
the Spaniards was undertaken from
fear or wise %precaution.
The bill insists particularly that the
Court should take into consideration
the testimony of Captain Cook, and
also the evidence of the witnesses who
swore that Sigsbee told Schley that
the Spaniards were not In Santiago.
The exceptions are only to those CON
illusions and findings in which tue ma
jority is charged with having ignored
the testimony of Schley's witnesses.
In cases where Admiral Schley be-
lieves that the Court took the testi-
mony of both sides into consideration
he files no exception, even though the
decision is against him. For exam
pie, he files no exception to the charge
that he made slow progress toward
Santiago. He and s friends believe
that the charge was d%isapproved, and
Admiral Dewey sa-fe,n7not IN his aHiihsc-
ity report; but Schley believes that in
finding against him in this point the
majority did consider all the testimony
and SO files no exception. There are
several other instances of the same