The Savannah morning news., 1901-12-19
ADMIRAL SCHLEY'S PROTEST
Continued from First Page1

Continued from First Page.)
dated May II. 1898. and sent by Ad-
miral Sampson to Commodore Schley,
restricting his operation to the estab-
lishment and maintenance of a block
ade of the port of Santiago, If the en-
envy should be found therein; and also
said opinion is utterly and absolutely
at variance with the overwhelming
weight of testimony, which clearly es-
tablshed the fact that the affair of
May 81 was predetermined upon and
executed as a reconnaissance and not
as a formal attack upon the Spanish
vessels, nor upon the land batteries
at the entrance TO the harbor OF San
tiago.
An Opinion Tint Is Vague.
Nineteenth. The majority opinion of
the court is ambiguous and indeter-
inmate in that the court holds the turn
of the Brooklyn to starboard was
made to avoid getting her into dan
geroIs proximity to the Spanish YES
sells, without stating whether evasion
of such dangerous proximity was due
to the personal fears of Commodore
Schley, or to desire on his part to
preserve the ship intact and ready for
further work in the effort to win a
victory from the enemy.
Twentieth. The ma jority of the
court have entirely ignored the over
whelming testimony submitted in the
case in arriving at the opinion that
Commodore Schley erred in common
cling the engagement on July with
the port battery. the evidence in the
case clearly establishing the fact that
in the execution of the standing order
to CLOSE in and attack in harbor en-
trance" it was impossible for the
Brooklyn, without turning away from
the enemy, to open the engagement
except with her port battery; and the
evidence also clearly establishes the
fact that the turning of the Brooklyn
in the manner and direction in which
she did turn did not cause her to lose
either distance or position with the
Spanish vessels, the contrary opip!ofi
of the court upon this subject being
arrived at only by disregarding all of
the evidence offered in behalf of Com
modore Schley.
Twenty-f1rst. The majority opinion
of the court is ambiguous and indie
terminate, in that while stating that
the Brooklyn's turning caused the
Texas to stop and "to back her en-
gines to avoid possible collision" said
opinion does not state whether the dam
ger of such collision as comprehended
by the ninth specification of the pre-
cept was real or imaginary whereas
the overwhelming weight of testimony
clearly established the fact that at no
time was there danger of collision be-
tween the Brooklyn and the Texas.
Twenty The testimony of
Capt. f. r. Cook, witness called by
the judge advocate, in reference to
the proximity of the Brooklyn to the
Texas at the time of the Brooklyn's
turning. has been ignored and not
even adverted to in the statement of
pertinent facts.
The HOdgson COIIoquy.
Twenty third The majority of the
court have assumed that the testimony
of Lieut.. Commander A. c. Hodgson,
notwithstanding its repeated CONTRA
diction in reference TO the alleged con-
versat ton regarding the proximity of
the Texas at the time of the Brook
lyn's turning, is true and have en-
tirely ignored the testimony of Com
modore Schley and Capt. F. K. Cook
to the contrary, without even referring
to it in their statement of pertinent
facts.
Twenty fourth. The majority opin-
ion of the court that Commodore
Schley's conduct in connection with
the events of the Santiago campaign,
prior to June 1, 1898. was characterized
Dy NdClllHllOH, ulidIOllneSS ana lack
of enterprise, is in no wise justified
by the evidence submitted in the case
and could only have been arrived at
by the action of the court in wholly
ignoring all of the evidence of Com
modore Schley, all of the evidence of
witnesses summoned in his behalf,
ond all that portion of the evidence of
witnesses called by the judge advocate
which was favorable to the said Com
modore Schley.
silent on Lemly's Charge.
Twenty fifth. The majority opinion
of the court is inconclusive in that
it is entirely silent upon a charge pre-
ferred by the judge advocate during
the course of the public investigation,
and claimed by him to come within the
purview of the first specification, to-
wit: That the said Commodore Schley
was dereIict in the discharge of his
duty and unmindful of the regulations
for the government of the navy Of the
United States in that he did not pre-
scribe and promulgate anticipatory or
ders of battle.
Twenty The majority of the
court have entirely failed TO determine
as to who was in command of the
American naval forces engaged in the
battle of Santiago, the finding of
which fact was absolutely necessary
in order to determine properly the
first specification of the precept as to
the conduct of Commodore Schley in
connection with the events of the Sam
tiago campaign.
Twenty seventh. The majority OF
the court have rejected the whole OF
the testimony on behalf of the appli-
cant, and have not adverted to such
testimony, and have entirely ignored
the testimony of the applicant him
self WIN WAS ON the stand for many