The age-herald., 1901-12-21

tradicted in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, the testimony given by ma jority of the witnesses. Commodore Schley gave testimony at variance with that of the following witnesses: Rear Admirals Cotton, Evans and Taylor, Captains Sigsbee, McCalla, Cook, Folger and Chadwick; Commanders Rodgers, wainright Schroeder and He'll ner; Lieutenant, Commanders Hodgson, Southerland, Sharp Marsh and Wood; Major Wood, |. s. M. C.; Lieutenant Hood, Keys and others. In most cases these witnesse swore afhrmatively to in- cldents of which Commodore Schley had no recollection.
 Some of the minor misstatements of facts above referred to as appearing Tn the paper under consideration are the statements in paragraph l, that there was not specification covering the voy- age from Key West to Cienfuegos when this point Is covered by the first and in part by the second clause of the pre- cept; the complaint in paragraph of the paper, that there was no place men toned in the Mccalla memorandum at which a camp of Insurgents was located when the fact Is that the court does not say there was such a place, but correctly paraphrases the memorandum The statement that the McCalla memorandum was sent to Commodore Schley only for use fin connection with the matter or bat teries at Cienfuegos and the statements in paragraphs 1 and elsewhere. that the judge advocate had substantially made certain admissions. whereas the fact is that the judge advocate made no admis- sions respecting matters under inquiry excepting that the flying squadron did not withdraw at night from the entrance to Santiago to distance at sea and that no personal cowardice on the part of ap- plioant had been established"
 As to the Command.
 As to the objection that the court failed to determine who was in command of the naval forces in the battle of San tiago. the report says that If it is true that finding upon this question was ab- solutely necessary in order to determine properly the first specification of the precept. then it must be stated that coun- sel for the applicant failed of their duty during the inquiry Several times in the course of the proceedings they brought this question into court and took 1t out again without giving the court oppor- tunity to rule upon it. To request that the court now rule upon 1t is to ask that another officers interests be passed upon, to his possible prejudice. in his ab- sence and without a hearing--a thing in- tolerable whomsoever may be con- cerned"
 In conclusion the report says:
 We are satisfied that no good purpose would be served by remtting the pro ceedings or any of the features of this inquiry to the court. more patient, ex- haustive and painstaking hearing was never given; greater consideration was never extended to any officer before g military court of inquiry No expense was spared, no convenience or facility denied. no courtesy refused. The appli. cant has had his day in court and tht judgment is against him. It is. accord ingly recommended that the proceedings be not returned. but that the matter bt concluded by the departments approva of the unanimous finding.
 We have the honor to be,
 SAMUEL c, LEMLY, Judge Advocate, Court of Inquiry | ''E. P. HANNA,
 Assistant to Judge Advocate
 "The Secretary of the Navy"