The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1901-12-25

him to come within the pur7ieH Of tho
first specification; to wit: That ths
said Commodore Schley Was deTelics il
tie discharge Of MS duty and unnind-
full OF the ralegsc.ons for the govern
ment Of the navy Of the Uaited States
in that he did noe pEeae-loe ard pro-
nulsste &n,:cipacors orders of bsstle.
26. TIE msjority o. ths court ha7o
entirely failed to determine az to who
wss in command Of the American naval
forces engaged in the battle Of Sal
tiagc, the finding Of which Iact Vas ah-
so!uGely nec:asar2 in or5eT to determine
prop.riy the i1ss specification cf Ehe
Drecept as 80 the conducs OF Conmo-
oocs Scaley in connsosion with tho
events Of 51e s&ntiego campaign.
%. The nj jar:ty OF sho e,u:e haTs
rejecied the wnole Of the testimony O.
fersd ca bsba!f Of the applicant, a1d
hsve EOS aoversed to euoa testimony
and hzvo entirely ignored she testimony
OF the applicant himself, who vas on
the stsnd for many hou:s and subj c.cd
to the most seSTcolng exsG.lnS1ias; ana
By 30 doing they have perverted tho
ends Of justice. ThaE If this testimony
vas all false they should have 30 an
Eounced, and If alI or any psEs Of II
vas true the said applicant was entitled
TO the benefit Of is and Dy declining to
consider or pass UPON 1t they hsTe de-
pfived hin Of MS com1on law AID con-
stiiutiopai rights.
%. Thss the majority Of the court
fouad the apIiicana sGlls7 upea spscl
ficssions which Wera Substantially
zbsndoaed hs the jadge aavcc"te, as
will sppesr from srsunsnt IN ths case.
29. That tho Tnoie prccseCi*Ss show
thai the msjosisy Of sGe coars, in the
op!nion and repors Of fscss rendered,
have selected she testimony of lev
hostile Witnesses and upoa thss tessl-
mouy ha7e based the said opsnion aad
report cf facts, dsscardipg sll the oshar
testimony ia the casa without making
the slightest rcferenee 70 il, &c rhes
were directed by the preceps to Go.
80. Ths spk I,csat, besides the cea-
sens herein gwen, hopes to be abie dur
ing the further isVestlgat:on Of tie In
quiry to aoGace other serious and i'm
por!sns ressons Why the nrj jo'ity opln-
lon OF tne court should not be sp-
proved.
g.. The applicant is prepared TO
show that tie whole procsstlngs upon
the pars Of the usjcrisy O. the court
have been entirely irregular; that hi7
rights have been pEejadiced AID IS
nored; shas his testimony in many nore
particulars than have bsen hecsin c:s5d
tas Eos been considered, and that she
evidence is absolutely insufficient &c
sustain the oplaion which has 5een
rendered By tbs majority Of the ccurt,
that grave Injustice has been commit.
ted, which would become irrepsra5ie
and hceoms perpesustod unless this
opinion cf the majority Ct the court
snouId be disspproved.
Wherefore TIC said applicant most
respectfully prays that approval OF the
opinion of the majority OF ssid ccu:t Of
inqu;ry rs aitaheld and thss saiG opin-
lon ba disspQroved and that rs may be
Afforded the opportunity - aaye the
testimony Of record Of himself AID his
witnesses properly considered a1d
passed upon, and that hs b. given such
otoer and further relief as he is entitled
to IL the premises.
". S. Scaley,
Resr Admiral U. S. N. (Rssired.)
Isidor kaynor,
James Parker,
Counsel for the Applicant.