The Kinsley graphic. [volume] (Kinsley, Kan.) 1890-1940, 1901-12-20
The schley Case.


The majority opinion finds in brief
that Admiral Schley should have pro-
ceded with the utmost dispatch to
Cienfugoes and maintained Il close
that he should have en-
deavO to have obtained informa-
tion of the Spanish squadron there;
that he should have proceeded to San
tiago with dispatch: that he should
not have made the retrograde move
ment; that he should have obeyed the
orders; that he should
have endeav Ored to capture the Span
ish vessels in Santiago; that he did
not do his utmost to destroy the Col
on; that he caused the squadron to
lose distance in the loop ofthe Brook
lyn: that he thereby caused the Texas
to back; that he did injustice TO H odg-
son; that his conduct in the campaign
was characterized by vacillation. di-
latoriness and lack of enterprise; that
his official reports on the coal supply
were misleading and inaccurate; that
his conduct during the battle was self
possessed and that he encouraged in
his own person his subordinate Off
GERS.
Admiral Dewey in his report says
the passage to Cienfugos was made
with all dispatch; that in view of his
coal supply the blockade of Cienfngos
was effective; that he allowed the Adu-
la to enter CienfugOs to get informa-
tiOn: that his assage to Santiago
was with as much dispatch as possi-
bic, keeping the squadron together,
that the blockade. of Santiago was eff
fective. and, finally, that he was the
senior officer off Santiago, in absolute
command. and entitled to the credit
due for the glorious victory which re-
suited in the total destruction of the
Spanish ships.
The finding of the court in this case
has been Il distinct disappointment. as
it seemed impossible in view of the
testimony that there should he any
verdict except the one rendered by
Dewey. 1t is curious fact that the
country at large seem TO accept his
verdict and ignore that of the major
ity of the board. Dewey il the only
man in the world, with the exception
of Schley, who has fought Il great
naval battle under modern conditions,
and his unqualified Endorsement of
Schley carries great weight on that
account From the beginning of this
controversy it has seemed that an Or
ganized effort of the bureau officers
was being made to belittle Schley be-
cause of two facts, namely: 1t was the
misfortune of the commander of the
Santiago feet that he was absent with
his ship the day this great battle was
fought-he was the pet of the bureau
ring. 1t was the good fortune of
Schley to be in command in this bat
tie because of the absence of his Su-
perior officer, and he conducted q
great battle to a successful issue, an
objectionable offence In one not Il fa-
vorite of the bureau ring. This line
of reasoning is generally accepted in
the United States, and while not borne
out by direct tes imony still, as straws
show the direction of the wind, SO
there are incidents connected with this
case that indicate the attitude OF the
bureau to be that of II prosecutor. The
most tremarkable of these is that the
man Maclay, whose history of the
recent war WAS approved by the high
est officers of the navy department, is
still holding his position in the Brook
lyn navy yard, notwithstanding the
fact that in his history he called
Schley coward. and notwithstanding
the further fact that the full court of
inquiry commends his bravery. Pow
erful influences must certainly protect
nj aclay. One thing is certain. and
that is that is that the righteous wrath
of the American people will sInite his
protectors sooner or later.