The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1901-12-21
.LEMLY MAKES REPLY
ANSWERS SCHLEY's BILL OF EX-
CEPTIONS TO FINDINGS.
IS SEVERE ON THE ADMIRAL.
CLAIMS THAT FIRST REPORT WAS
UNANIMOUS.

"A
Judge Advocate and His Assistant
Follow Up Their Argument Before
the Court and Manage 10 Get in is
Lot of Criticism of Schley-Much
of the Evidence Rehearsed ana
SchIey's Contentious in His Bill
of Exceptions COmbatted.
Washington, Dec. 2O.-Judge Advo-
cate Lemly and Solicitor Hanna to-day
submitted to Secretary Long their re-
port upon the bill of objections filed
by Admiral Schley through his coun-
sci, to the findings of the Schley court
of inquiry. In substance this report
is an argument supplementary to The
argument made by the writer's before
the court of inquiry. The principal
points are an insistence upon their
contention that the first report is the
unanimous report of the court of in
quiry; that the court was justified in
rejecting Admiral Schley's evidence by
the number of witnesses who took is
sue with him, and that there is no
sufficient reason for a reopening of the
case as requested by Admiral Schley.
If adopted, the report will be for
warded to Admiral Schley.
The report, as appears from it's text,
is solely that of Judge Advocate Lemly
and Solicitor Hanna, and as such was
laid before Secretary Long. The Secre-
tary stated that he would not act upon
the report to-day. He added that he
would Withhold action to-day on the
other matters pending connection with
this issue namely, Admiral SIMPSONS
appeal. Admiral Schley's request to be
allowed to be heard by argument on
the appeal and the findings of the
court of inquiry itself. There was an
intimation, however, that all of these
matters would receive attention to-mor-
row, and would be finally disposed of as
Ear as the department is concerned.
The report is as follows:
Dec. 20, 1901. Sir: A communication,
dated the 18th instant, signed by Rear
Admiral w. S. Schley and by Isidor
Rayner and James Parker his coun-
sci, objecting to the approval of the
findings of the court of inquiry in the
case of Rear Admiral Schley, and ask
ing particularly that what the signers
are pleased to term the opinion of the
majority of the court be remitted to
the court for further consideration, has
been received by the departments ref
erence, and is returned with the follow
ing statement:
1T is somewhat difficult to deal with
this paper on account of its general
and non-specific character, and sweep
ing, though unsupported assertion of
1t,fv, h. Iii
sci, that, in their judgment, the ad-
verse finding of the court is not justi-
fled by the evidence. The paper might
be dismissed as simply a not unex-
pected expression of dissatisfaction
with an adverse judgment, but for the
tact that it contains a number of mis-
statements and, particularly, has WOW
en- throughout it's entire structure an
inaccurate and misleading use of the
words majority of the court
Full Verdict Claimed.
THE findings of fact and the opinion
of the court of inquiry in the case of
Admiral Schley, upon the more import
ant and material points before it,
were not reached by a majority of the
members only, but by the entire court.
The points of the precept upon which
all the members of the court unite ap-
pear to be incontrovertibly established
how any other conclusions could have
been reached upon them; and they con-
stitute the essential features of the
entire matter under inquiry.
The evidence adduced before the
court conclusively shows:
Under the fourth clause of the pre-
cept, that on the 26th of May. 1898,
when within few miles of Santiago,
to which point he was under orders to
proceed with the utmost dispatch and
where he was advised that the enc
mys' fleet was reported to be, and
where in fact it actually was,
Commodore Schley turned about with
the fleet under his command, consist
ing of some of the best vessels of the
American navy, and headed for a home
port more than 700 miles distant, with
out sufficient reason or excuse for such
action, taking with him at the same
time the scouting vessels the depart
ment had sent there to watch the en-
trance, and leaving the port of San
tiago, with the enemy's fleet inside,
unguarded. Upon this point the court
says in its opinion:
He should not have made the
retrograde turn westward with his
squadron
Tn the face of the facts the court
could not have found otherwise.
Disobedience of Orders.
Under the fifth clause of the pre-
oept: That while thus abandoning the
field of action with his fleet, Commo-
dore Schley was overtaken by a dis
patch vessel bearing an urgent order,
dated May %, from the department In
substance directing him to proceed to
Santiago, ascertain facts, report and
not suffer the enemy to escape; that,
nevetherless, he continued to retreat
with his squadron, telegraphing to the
Secretary of the Navy: 1T is to be re-
gretted that the departments orders
cannot be obeycd' The court found
that he should have promptly obeyed
the Navy Departments order of May
20. Disobedience of an important or
der in time of war having been thus
virtually confessed, no other finding by
the court was possible.
scI,ley's "Inaccurncy."
Under the sixth clause of the pre-
cept: Commodore Schley's explana-
Ton Of the retrograde movement and
OF his disobedience OF orders as made
al the time In a full telegram to the
department. on the subject was In
substance. shortage of coal and inabil-
ny TO coal the ships Of his squadron
from the collier. Evidence developed
before the court shows that the squad
ron was at the time we'll equipped with
oal and that coal had been and could
no readily taken from the collier.
Ifere was nothing for the court, but
TO hnd as Il did that Commodore
schley's official reports regarding the
coal supply and the coaling facilities