The age-herald., 1901-12-21
HENLEY AND HANNA
 TAKE ISSUE WITH RAINIER
Say the Bill of Exceptions Contains Sweeping Statements, Many ot Which Do Not Agree With
 Facts Before the Court.


 afternoon submitted to Secretary Long their report upon the bill of objections filed by Admiral Schley, through his counsel. to the finding of the Schley court of inquiry. In substance the report is an argument supplementary to the argu- ment made by the writers before the court of inquiry.
 The principal points are an insistence upon their contention that the first re- port is the unanimous report of the court of inquiry; that the court was justi- fled in rejecting Admiral Schley's testi- mony by the number of witnesses who took issue with him, and that there is not sufficient reason for a reopening of the case as requested by Admiral Schey. Secretary Long has not yet acted upon the report but Is expected to do so to- morrow. If adopted the report will be forwarded to Admiral Schley.
 The report says:
 Difficult to Deal With.
 "It was somewhat difficult to deal with Admiral Schley's bill of objections on ac- count of its general and non-specific char acter and sweeping though unsupported assertion of opinion by the applicant and his counsel that, in their judgement, the adverse finding of the court is not justi- fled by the evidence The paper might be dismissed as simply not unexpected ex- pression of dissatisfaction with an ad- verse judgment but for the fact that it contains number of misstatements, and particularly has woven through it's en- tire structure an inaccurate and mis- leading use of the words majority of the courL' ,rT s
 '"The findings of fact and the opinion miral Schley upon the more important and material points before it were not reached by a majority of the members only. put by the entire court
 "The evidence adduced before the court exclusively shows:
 Under the fourth clause of the precept: That on the 18th of May, 1898. when within a few miles of Santiago, to which point he was under orders to proceed with the utmost dispatch and where he was ad- vised that the enemys fleet was report ed to be, and where in fact it actually was, Commodore Schley turned about with the fleet under his command, con sisting of some of the best vessels of the American navy, and headed for a home port more than FOO miles distant, without sufficient reason or excuse for such ac- tion, 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 en- emy's fleet inside. unguarded. Upon this point the court says in its opinion:
 He should not have made the retro grade turn westward with his squadron In the face of the facts the court could not have done otherwise.
 Should Have obeyed.
 Under the fifth clause of the precept: That while thus abandoning the field of action with his fleet, Commodore Schley was overtaken by dispatch vessel bear ing an urgent order, dated May 25, from the department In substance directing him to proceed to Santiago, ascertain facts, report and not suffer the enemy to escape; that. nevertheless, he contin- ued to retreat with his squadron. tele- graphing to the secretary or the navy: It 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 May 25.' Disobedience of an important or- der in time of war having been thus vir- tually confessed. no other finding of the court was possible.
 Under the sixth clause of the precept Commodore Schley's explanation of the rafrnQra6a fence of orders was. in substance, short age of coal and inability to coal the ships of his squadron from the collier. Evidence developed before the court shows that the squadron was at the time well equip ped with coal and that coal had been and could be readily taken from the col Her. There was nothing for Gie court to do, but to find, as 1t did that Com modore Schley's official reports regard ing the coal supply and coaling facilities of the flying squadron, were inaccurate and misleading
 No Effort to Destroy Colon.
 The report says the evidence showed no effort was made to destroy the Cristo- bal Colon and other Spanish vessels on the 29th or on the 30th of May; and that the attempt made on the 3lst was brief and abortive. As to the claim that cer tain cautinary orders issued by the de- pertinent were not Tn the slightest de- gree referred to by the Court" the re- port says they had no application to the conditions existing at Santiago on the 29th, 30th and 31st of May, and the find ing of the Court show that the Court reached such conclusion.
 As to the claim that the affair of May 31st was intended merely as a reconnois- sance, the report says: 'aThe command ing officers were informed in effect that the purpose was to destroy the Colon and the officers in charge of the turrets of the were instructed according ly by Commodore schley in person.
 The report declares the finding of the Court as to the stopping and backing of the Texas to avoid possible collision with
 (Continued on Second Page)