The Washington times., 1901-12-19

| to give an opinion as to the character
4 of the blockade at Santiago, although
under the eighth specification the court
was obliged TO give an opinion thercupon.
That the majority opinion of the court
that Schley should have endeavored TO
capture or destroy the Colol on May %
ana 80 Is wholly at variance with the de-
partment's orders, and is also at variance
with the clearly established fact that the
AFFAIR Of May 81 was executed as recon
noitre ard not as a formal attack upon
the Spanish vessel.
The Brooisiyn's Loop.
That the majority opinion OF the court
is ambiguous and indoterminate in that
the court holds that the turn OF the
Brooklyn to starboard was made TO avoid
getting her into dangerous proximity to
the Spanish vessels. without stating
whether evasion Of such dangerous proN-
unity was due to ihe personal fears Of
Commodore Schley. or to a desire on his
part TO preserve the ship intact and ready
for further work in the effort to win a
victory from the enemy.
That the majority of the court entirely
ignored, in declaring that Schicy erred in
commencing the battle July 3 with the
port battery, the overwhelming Testimony
that in the execution of the standing
order to close in and attack in harbor
entrance" IL was impossible for the
Brooklyn. without turning from the
enemy. to open the engagement except
with her port battery; and also ignored
the evidence. already clearly established,
that the Brooklyn's turn did not
lose either distance or position with the
I III, ,.-r-
opinion upon this subject being arrived
at only by disregard.ng all of the evil
dence in behalf Of Commodore Schley.
Stopping of the Texas.
That the majority opinion of the court
is ambiguous in not stating whether the
stopping of the Texas TO avoid possible
collision was due to real or imaginary
danger of collision" whereas the testi-
mony clearly showed that there was no
danger OF collision between the Brooklyn
and the Texas. and that the court also
wholly ignored the testimony OF Captain
Cook upon this point.
That the minority OF the court have as
sumed that the testimony or Lieutenant
Commander HodgsCn. despite its repeated
contradictions in reference TO the alleged
the Texas at the time OF the Brooklyn's
turning. is true. and have entirely ignored
the testimony of Commodore Schlcy and
Captain Cook 10 the contrary.
That the majority opinion of the court
that Schley's conduct was Characterized
by vacillation dilatorinoss. and lack Of
enterprise is IN no wise justified by the
evidence.
Declares Report Inconciusivc.
That the majority opinion OF The court
is inconclusive. in that it does not cover
the judge advocates charge that schley
was derelict in not promulgating anticipa-
tory orders Of battle.
That the majority CT the court have en-
tircly :ailed to determine who was in
command or the American naval forces in
the battle of Santiago.
That the majority Of the court have re-
jected the whole Of the testimony offered
on behalf OF the applicant have not ad-
vertei TO such testimony, and have entire
ly ignored the testimony OF the applicant
himself.
That il this testimony was all false
they should have so announced aud IL all
or any part of it is true. he was entitled
TO the benefit of it. BY declining to con-
slider il they have deprived him OF his
common law and constitutional rights.
That the majority or the court have
found the applicant guilty upon spcciica-
iions which were substantially abandoned
by the judge advocate.
That the whole proceedings show that
the majority OF the court, In the opinion
and report of facts rendered, have select
ed the testimony Of few hostile wit
nesses. and have based upon il the said
opinion and report as facts.
Says Grave Injustice IN Done.
The hill concludes as follows:
The applicant is prepared to show that
the whole proceedings upon the part CT
the majority OF the court have been en-
tirely irregular; that his rights have been
grejudiced and ignored; that his tes:i-
rnony in many more particulars than have
herein been cited has not been considered.
and that the evidence is absolutely in
sufficient TO sustain the opinion which
has been rendered by the majority Of the
court; that a grave injustice has bcel
committed. which would become irrepa-
rable and be perpetusted unless this opin-
ion CT the majority Of the court should be
dlsapproved.
wherefore, the said applicant most
res pectfully prays that approval of the
opinion of the majority Of the said court
OF enquiry be withheld. and that said
opinion be disapproved. that he may be
afforded the opportunity to have the tes-
timony of record OF himself and his wit
nesses properly considered and passed
upon. and that the said proceedings be
remitted 10 the court for that purpose.
and that he be given such other and fur
ther relief as he is entitled to in the
premises"
The hill is signed:
w. s. schley. Rear tdmiral L 5. y.
(retiredJ-
''Isidor Rayner, counsel for the appii-
can't