The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-12-21
END NOT IN SIGHT.

selves that Rear Admiral 5cnle5 Obtained
junior officer who had served under him,
A categorical statement that a certain col
loquy reported In the public press 10 have
taken place on the bridge Of the Brooklyn
July 3 between himself and Commodore
Schley never occurred although Mr..
HOdgson had assured the admiral that the
facts as published were substantially cor
tcatiOn the categorical denial thus OBJ
tained, but did not publish an accompany
Ing explanatory and qualifying letter. and
that subsequently,. although repeatedly ap-
pealed 10 by Mr.. HOdgson. Admiral Schley
failed 10 do justice in the matter. All
members OF the court agree in hndlng that
Admiral Schley did injustice 10 Lieutenant
Commander A. &. HOdgson in publishing
only a portion OF the correspondence which
passed between them.' The mere perusal
OF the correspondence In this case Is SUI
hcient to show the correctness Of this find
Ing and to convince any impartial reader
that II could not be and ought not 10 be
ION all the points above set forth. which
appear 10 embrace substantially the i'm
portant matters covered BY the inquiry.
the court Is united, and its findings are
unanimous. They are sustained by the
unimpeached and unimpeaChable testimony
OF Commodore Schley's brother officers
who served with and under him, by Of
fetal kilograms, letters and reports. and
by the logs of the several vessels Of his
squadron, and it would accordingly be idle
10 remit these matters 20 the same body for
reconsideration upon the same evidence.
A UNIT ON NEARLY ALL POINTS.
1T is not by any means intended here
to say that the foregoing principal points
covered by the inquiry are the only points
upon which the findings Of the court are In
all respects or substantially unanimous;
because the truth is that the court is a unit
upon all points except those as to which
the admiral expresses individual, but not
In all cases contradictory. views. 1t does
not appear that any good purpose would
De served by asking the court 10 recon-
slider these.
Aside from the inaccurate and mislead-
ing use Of the term the majority OF the
court the next prominent feature Of the
paper before US is the broad and sweeping
fashion In which the applicant and his
counsel declare that the court has ignored
or not considered evidence. A sample
sentence is the following from Paragraph
q, although the paper is largely made up
OF such remarkable Lie ma
jority OF the court have rejected theSvhole
of the testimony offered on behalf of the
applicant. and have not adverte0 TO such
testimony, and have entirely ignored the
testimony of the applicant himself
The court adjourned on the 7th Of No
vember last. Since that date it's members
have been, with rare exceptions, in daily
session. morning and afternoon, examining
the evidence between them. 1t was their
sworn duty TO consider and weigh that evil
dence. and the applicant and his counsel
garded ii.
But it is particularly urged in Para
graphs "A TO q. and elsewhere in the OBJ
lection. the testimony of the applicant
himself, has been ignored. This is merely
stated, not shown. We contend that the
testimony of the applicant alone, upon di-
rect and cross-examination establishes the
important facts generally of dilatOriness,
Vaccillation and want OF energy at Ctenfue-
gOs and throughout the entire campaign
from Key West TO Santiago; the particu-
lars OF the retrOgrade movement, the dis
obedience Of orders; Of the inaccurate and
misleading official reports. and failure TO
destroy the Colon; injustice to Lieutenant
Commander HOdgson, and some minor
matters. The facts of these points were
all substantially confirmed by the appli-
cants own testimony; so tnat, TAR from
ignoring such testimony, they may have
based its more important findings there
upon.
EVIDENCE AGAINST SCHLEY.
"But the court has a perfect right, after
weighing 1t. to ignore any testimony.
Neither the applicant. his counsel, nor the
judge advocate, is to say what testimony
it shall accept. and what it shall reject.
These matters may be argued, but their
final determination is the province of the
court. 1t happened in the present inquiry
that the applicant, while on the stand,
contradicted in whole or in part, directly
or indirectly, testimony given by a major
ity of the witnesses. By way of particular
illustration, Commodore Schley gave testi-
money at variance with that OF the follow
ing witnesses: Rear Admirals Cotton,
Evans and Taylor; Captains Sigsbee, Nc
Gala, Cook, Folger and Chadwick; Com
manders Rodgers, Wainwright, Schroeder
and Heilner; Lieutenant Commanders
Hodgson, Switzerland, Sharp, Marsh and
Wood; Major Wood, u. s. NJ. c.; Lieuten-
ants Hood, Reys and others. In most cases
these witnesses swOre afirmatively to in
cfdents of which Commodore SchleY had
no recollection. Where the matters thus
in dispute were of importance--and they
generally were-it was not only the right,
but the duty OF the court to accept the one
and reject the other and TO report in har-
mOny with such decision. Every court
must do this when occasion arises and
such action constitutes no ground for re-
manding the case for reconsideration.
Some OF the minor misstatement Of
facts above referred to as appearing in
the paper under consideration are the
statements in Paragraph l, that there was
Key West To Cienfuegos, which point is i'm
fact covered by the first, and I'm part by
the second clause of the precept; the com
plant i'm Paragraph 2 OF the paper, that
there was no place mentioned in the Nc
Gala memorandum at which a camp of in
surgents was located, when the fact is that
the court does not say that there was such
a place, but correctly paraphrases the
memorandum: me statement that the Nc
Gala memorandum was sent TO COmmo-
dore Schley only for use in connection with
NlG iAalAtI VI DullGllE6 VI 1ACAAutSUEr A4U
the statements in Paragraphs 4 and else
where that the judge advocate had sub
stantially made certain admissions, where
as the fact is that the judge advocate
made no admissions respecting matters
under inquiry excepting the feature under
the first part OF Clause 5 OF the precept
that the flying squadron did not withdraw
at night from the entrance TO Santiago TO
a distance at sea, and that no personal
cowardice on the part OF the applicant had
been established.
COUNSEL AT FAULT.
Paragraph % OF the paper under con-
sIderation reads: The majority of the
court have entirely failed 10 determine as
TO who was in command of the American
naval forces engaged in the battle of san
tiagO, the finding OF which fact was abso-
lutely necessary in order 10 determine prop
erly the first specification of the precept
as 10 the conduct of Commodore Schley in
connection with the events OF the Santiago
campaign II 1t is true tina, a finding by
the court upon this question was absolutely
necessary in order to determine properly
the first specification of the precept then II
must be stated that counsel for the appli-
cant failed OF their duty during the inquiry.
Several times In the course of the proceed
ings they brought this question into court
and took II out again without giving the
court opportunity TO file upon II. once even
withdrawing IL so hastily as TO interrupt
the president OF the court in a sentence
that promised to be an adverse ruling. III
they seriously believed. as they now state