The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-12-21

evidence morning and afternoon after November ', that it was their sworn duty to consider and weigh that evidence and the applicant and his counsel have no right to say that they have disregard ed it."
 As to the particular objection that tes- timony of the applicant himself has oeen ignored, the report says: we contend that the testimony of the applicant alone establishes the facts generally Of dilato- riness, vaccilation and want of energy at Cienfuegos. and through the entire cam paiRn from Key West to Santiago. the particulars of the retrograde movement, the disobedience of orders, of the insc- curate and misleading official reports; neglect and failure to destroy the Colon, iniustice to Lieutenant-Comma Hodgson and some minor matters. But the court has a perfect right, after weighing it. to ignore any testimony.
 Tt happened in the present inquiry that the applicant. while on the stand, contradicted in whole or in part. directiy or indirectly. the testimony given py majority of the witnesses. Commodore Schley gave testimony at variance oh the following witnesses:
 Rear Admirals Cotton, Evans and Taylor; Captains Sigsbee, McCaiia, COOK Folger and Chadwick; Commanders Rodgers, Wainwright. Schroeder ana Heilner; Lieutenant Commanders Hodg- son, Southerland. Sharp, Marsh and Wood: Major Wood. U. s. M. C.; Ldeu- tenants Hood. Keys and others.
 ''In most cases these witnesses swore affirmatively to incidents of which Com modore Schley had no recollection.
 Some of the minor misstatements of facts above referred to as appearing In the paper under consideration are the statements in paragraph 1, that there was no specifications covering the voy- age from Key West to Cienfuegos, when this point is covered by the first and in part by the second clause of the precept; the complaint in paragraph or the paper that there was no place mentioned in the McCalla memorandum at which a camp of insurgents was located, when the fact is that the court does not say there was such a place. but correctly paraphrases in the memorandum the statement that the MoCalla memorandum was sent to Commodore Schley only foi use in connection with the matter oi batteries at Cienfuegos; and the state ments in paragraphs and elsewhere that the judge advocate had substantially made no admissions respecting matters under inquiry excepting that the flying squadron did not withdraw at night from the entrance kO 00HNtdSO bo & ~~ sea- and that no personal cowaroice or the part of the applicant had been estab' lished.'
 As to the objection that the court fail ed to determine who was in command ol the American naval forces in the battle of Santiago. the report says that
 If it Is true that a finding upon this question was absolutely necessary ir order to determine properly the nrs' specification of the precept, then it must be stated that counsel for the applicant failed of their duty during the inquiry several times in the course of the pro- ceedings they brought this question into court and took it out again, without giving the court opportunity to rule upon 1t To request that the court now rule upon it is to ask that another ofi1cer in terested be passed upon, to his possible prejudice. in his absence and without heartng--a thing intolerable. who evel nsa Do concerned.
 IM conclusion the report says: We ars satisfied that no good purpose would bs served by remittinE the proceedings ol AhT of the features of this inquiry to thu court. A more patient exhaustive, anC painstaking hearing was never given greater confederation was never extended to any officer before court of inquiry No expense was spared. no convenience or facility denied, no courtesy denied The applicant has had his day in court and the judgment is against him. It i: accordingly recommended the proceeding: be not returned, but that the matter con- cluded by the departments approval oi the finding. We have the honor to be . Samuel c. Lemly,
 Judge Advocate Court of Inquiry, "E. P. Hanna,
 Assistant to Judge Advocate. ''Ths Secretary of the Navy"
 1t was intimated today that Admira Sampson's appeal, Admiral Schley's re- quest to be allowed to be heard by argu. ment on this appeal and the finding oi the court of inquiry itself would be finally disposed of tomorrow as far as the Navy Department is concerned.