Evening star., 1901-12-21
Report of Judge Advocate Lemly and
Solicitor Hanna.
REPLY 10 ADMIRAL SCHLEY'S BILL
Argument in Support of the
Courts Findings.
NO REASON TO REOP N

Judge Advocate Lemly and Solicitor
Hanna have submitted to Secretary Long
their report upon the bill of objections filed
by Admiral Schley. through his counsel.
to the findings of the Schley court of In
uuiry. In substance this report is an argu-
ment supplementary to the argument made
by the writer's before the court OF inquiry
The principal points are an insistence upon
their contention that the first report is the
unanimous report of the court of inquiry;
that the court was justified in rejecting
Admiral Schleys evidence by the number
of witnesses who took issue with him, and
that there is no sufficient reason for a re-
opening of the case as requested by Ad-
miral Schley.
December 20, 1901.
The report Is as follows:
Sir: A communication, dated the 18th in
etant signed by Rear Admiral W. 8. Schley
and by Isidor Rayner and James Parker,
his counsel, objecting to the approval Of
che findings of the court OF inquiry In the
case of Rear Admiral Schley, and asking
particularly that what the signers are
pleased to term THE opinion of the ma
tority of the court be remitted to the court
fo- further consideration, has been received
by the departments reference. and is re-
turned with the following statement:
1t is somewhat difficult to deal with this
paper account OF its general and nom
spt cific character and sweeping, though
unsupported, assertion OF OPINION Dy the ap-
plcant and his counsel that, in their judg-
ment. the adverse finding of the court Is not
Justified by the evidence The paper might
be dismissed simply a not unexpected
expression of dissatisfaction with an ad-
verse judgment, but for the fact that 1t
contains a number of misstatements, and,
particularly, has woven throughout its en-
tire structure inaccurate and mislead-
ing use Of the words majority of the
court"
The findings of fact and the opinion Of the
court Of inquiry in the case of Admiral
Schley, upon the more important and ma
terial points before 1t, were not reached by
a majority OF the members only, but by
the entire court. The points Of the precept
upon which all the members of the court
unite appear to be incontrovertibly estab-
liShed by the evidence; 1t Is not understood
how any other conclusions could have been
reached upon them. and they constitute the
eSSe nti2l features of the entire matter un-
der inquiry.
The evidence adduced before the court
conclusively shows:
Under the fourth clause of the preoept:
That on the 26th of May, 1898, when within
q few miles of Santiago, to which point he
was under orders to proceed with the ut
most dispatch. and where he was advised
that the enemyS fleet was reported to be,
and where. in fact, 1t actually was, Com
mcdnre Schley turned about with the feet
under his command. consisting of some Of
thu best vessels of the American navy. and
headed for a home port, more than IUO
miles distant without sufficient reason or
excuse for such action. taking with him
at the same time the scouting vessels the
department had sent there to watch the
entrance, and leaving the port Of Santiago.
with the enemy's ships inside. unguarded-
Upon this point the court says in its opin-
ion: He should not have made the retro
grade turn westward with his squadron"
In the face of the facts. the court could
not have found otherwise.
Under the fifth clause of the precept:
That while thus abandoning the field of
Nr-fNh n hT Hat r1rT1aT ~ ri
wa Oyertaken by dispatch vessel bearing
an urgent order. dated May %. from the
department. in substance directing him to
proceed to Santiago, ascertain facts, report,
and not suffer the enemy to escape; that,
nevertheless, he continued to retreat with
his squadron, telegraphing to the Secretary
of the Navy: TT is to be regretted that the
departments orders cannot be obeyed." The
court found that he should have promptly
obeyed the Navy Departments order of
s. May % Disobedience OF an important
order in time If war having been thus yir-
tIally confessed, no other finding by the
court was possible.
Under the sixth clause Of the precept:
Commodore Schleys explanation Of the
dience Of orders as made at the time in a
full telegram to the department on the
subject was, In substance shortage of coal
and Inability to coal the ships of his squad
ron from the collier. Evidence developed
before the court shows that the squadron
was at the time well equipped with coal
and that coal had been and could be read
ily taken from the collier There was
nothing for the court but to find as 1t did,
that Commodore Schley's official reports
regarding the coal supply and the coaling
facilities of the flying squadron were ''in-
accurate and misleading" An attempt to
Justify by inaccurate and misleading off,
cial reports the turning homeward OF q
powerful squadron at critical period Of
war in dfsobedience Of orders is a very
serious matter.
Under the seventh clause of the precept:
The evidence adduced before the court
shows that during the whole Of the 29th
and 3Oth Of May the Cristobal Colon and
other vessels OF the Spanish squadron
'lay in the entrance to Santiago harbor
the Colon moored in plain sight, broadside
to the entrance; that this harbor was de-
Tended by weak batteries. and that there
was nothing to prevent the flying squadron
from destroying the Colon, and perhaps
other Of the enemy's vessels, as they lay
at anchor; that no effort whatever was
of May, and that the attempt made on the
Slst was brief and abortive 1t Is COM
planned IN paragraph 16 Of the paper above
mentioned that certain cautionary orders
issued by the department were not "in the
slightest degree referred to BY the court
These cautionary orders were introduced
In evidence and fully discussed In argu-
inent- We contend that, quite obviously
they had no application 20 the conditions
existing at Santiago on the 10Th. 30th and
81st OF May, and the finding of the court
tHdt NOlAHlOdOTc SCNIeg SnOulO nave en-
deavored to capture or destroy the Spanish
vessels at anchor near the entrance of
Santiago harbor on May % and 30" and
that he did not do his utmost with the
force under his command to capture or de-
stroy the Colon and other vessels OF tne
enemy, which he attacked on My 81"
show that the court reached such conclu-
sion
II may very properly be added that the
claim OF the applicant and counsel that
the affair OF May 81 was intended merely
as reconnaissance Is not borne out by
the evidence. for while testimony was In
Produced to show that 1t was so DESIGNATED
by Commodore Schley in conversation with
naval cadet and with a newspaper cor
respondent prior to entering upon it. none
OF the commanding officers of the vessels
engaged was so advised, and no instruc-
fions We're given relative to the taking of
notes Of the engagement The commanding
of1cers were, on the contrary, informed
In enect, that the purpose was to destroy
the Colon, and the officers in charge of the
turrets of the Massachusetts were instruct
ed accordingly by the commodore in per-
son.
Under the ninth clause of the precept.
The evidence adduced before the court