The Savannah morning news., 1901-11-08

Lemly said:
while my. duties here have been ar
duous and necessarily somewhat pain
full, am proud TO have been associated
with this distinguished court, which is
to pass upon one of the most important
questions ever considered by naval
court, question, as l defined ii in the
early course of the proceedings, be-
tween the applicant and the morale of
the service. In entering upon my du-
ties as judge advocate of the court. /
had in mind advice given me by the
Secretary of the Navy soon after my
appointment, as follows
Admiral Schley asks for a court
of inquiry. A perfectly impartial court
is constituted. The judge advocate and
any counsel assisting him are not, (and
their duty in this respect is plain), in
court to prosecute anybody or to find
anybody guilty. but to bring out the
facts and aid the court in declaring the
truth.
No Department Interference.
II have endeavored to follow this
advice without fear or favor. If have
appeared to fail in maintaining that
impartial attitude which ] feel and
have always felt towards the appli-
cant, it is because aggression, however
natural on the part of earnest counsel,
begets aggression, and for the further
reason that in many instances through
out the investigation honest difference
of opinion has compelled me to be
earnestly contentious In order to ad-
duee what 1 believed to be material
facts. deem it not Inappropriate that
l should here remark that the Navy
Department in this matter has main
tained an entirely neutral attitude:
that / have not been interfered with
by it in my conduct. that. as the
record demonstrates, there has been no
alteration of the departments records:
that officers on duty even in the much
abused Bureau of Navigation have
freely testified in behalf of the appli-
cant, and I am confident that the evil
dence adduced fully justifies the views
of the department"
Capt. Lemly referred to the delays
on the voyage to Cienfuegos. Comment
ing on the interview with Capt. Ches-
ter of the Cincinnati on this trip, Capt.
Lemly. said:
Already. as appeared from their
conversation, Commodore Schley,
though reassured by Capt. Chester.
was troubled in his own mind over coal
conditions. and the problem of coaling
at sea, demonstrating that at the very
outset he was borrowing trouble"
Referring to the McCalla signals he
said it was clear that the Marblehead
had not arrived at Key West when the
Flying Squadron sailed, and therefore
that these signals could not have been
communicated to Commodore Schley
there.
There is little doubt. however" he
added that if the Commodore had,
upon meeting the Marblehead. directed
Commander McCalla to report on board
the flagship. he would have been fully
informed as to the signals. But, inde-
pendently of any signals, was it not
Incumbent upon the Commodore him
self to make effort? Was he justified
in this and in other similar matters.
notably later off Santiago. in relying
Solely upon the efforts of others
Considering the voyage from Glen
fuesos, Capt. Lemly said:
The commodore's orders directed
that he proceed with all dispatch, but
cautiously to Santiago. The great
military necessity at this time was to
find and check the enemy's fleet. Ger
tainly the Flying Squadron did not
leave with dispatch, nor with caution,
as shown particularly by the fact with
regard to the latter condition, that she
was using the Ardois system of sig
nails for hours after getting under way.
1t would appear that there was little
TO prevent its departure for the east
ward from being discovered and in
due course communicated with Santf-
ago."
Having brought the squadron to the
southward of Santiago on Nav 2S the
judge advocate took up the coaline
question. Then he considered the ret
trograde movement. This step, he
said, had been undertaken "without
sufficient or decisive steps being talxe7
to ascertain whether the Spanish fieet
was actually in the harbor of Santi-
ago, leaving the mouth of the harbor
unmatched, and Cervera free to es
cape, with the possibility of mis- max
ing descent upon our coast, the moral.
to say nothing of the material effecr.
OF which II was impossible to over
estimate"
THE Commodore was alone resnon-
sible for the retrograde movement ;,
continued Capt. Lemly. "It was his
duty to ascertain to a. certaintv
whether the Spanish ships were in the
harbor, an obligation which no mega
tive information of Capt. Sigsbee's
could remove or even modify. And
1t is inconceivable that positive state
ment as to the contents Of harbor Of
the well known conformation of SantI-
ago could have been made by Sigs-
bee.'
DisObedience of Orders.
Here Capt. Lemly quoted in fuI,
Commodore Schley's Cannot obey or
ders'' dispatch to the department
March q, and commented upon it, saw
ing:
Whether the departments instruc-
tions definitely directed, in positive
terms, that the squadron remain off
Santiago, or whether it's desire that
this should be done was simply inti-
mated, appears to me under ali the cir
cumstances to be immateriaI. Disobe-
dience of orders may be an irnperative
and glorious duty, but if it be not tus
titled by the facts 1t cannot be con-
doned by terming it an error of iude-
ment. This was not an error of iudg
ment; 1t was an error of conduct"
Referring to the bombardment Of
May 81 Capt. Lemly said that even as
a reconnaissance this affair was futile.
Coming to the battle of July 3 Can't.
Lemly said:
II have never doubted, and the evil
deneed adduced confirms my view in
this respect, that the Brooklyn, as a
ship, did conspicuous duty in this hat
tie. On the other hand. submit that
the evidence shows that II was a cap
tains' fight and without disparagement
Of Commodore Schley's personal con-
duct on that occasion, that there was
no such concerted action OF the vessels
engaged as to indicate their control
by any one person"
The Loop Discussed.
Discussing the Brooklyn's loop Cant.
Lenly expressed the opinion, based
upon evidence. he said. that in turning
to stsrboard when all the other Ameri-