The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-12-21
REPORT MADE ON
THE SCHLEY BILL
Arguments by Jlldge-Ad
voCate and Solicitor.
NO REASON TO REOPEN
Strong lnsistencs That the Findings
Were Justified.
OBJECTION OF DMIRAL SAMPSON
Lengthy Parsr Filed With Secretary Long
Claiming Thst Sampson and Not sehlcy
Vas in Command at Santiago
and En- Tiled 10 the Credit
for the Vic.
tory.
Strong lnsistencs That the Findings
Were Justified.
OBJECTION OF ADMIRAL SAMPSON
tBy Associated p-ess.)

tBy Associated P.ess.>
WASHINGTON. D. C., Dec. 20.--Jndse-
Advocate Lcmly and Solicitor Hanna to-
day submitted to Secretary Long their
report upon The bill of objections filed by
admiral Schlcy. through his counsel, 70
she findings OF the schlcy Court OF In
huiry.
ln1aubstaucc This report is an argument
trrplomcntary TO the arguments made by
The writers before the court OF inquiry.
Thc principal points are an insistencc
npon their contention that the first re-
port is the unanimous report of the court
ef inquiry: that the court was justified
sn rejecting ADMIRAL sscbley.s evidence
F,y the number of Witnesses who took
issue with him, ana that there is not
Sufficient reason for a rcopcnipg. of the
ease. as requested by Admiral schley. If
bdoptcd. The report VIII i,c forwarded 10
Admiral Schicy.
The report as it appears from its text.
g. solely that of advocate Lemly
and Solicitor Hanna. and was laid before
Secretary Long as such Tho Secretary
ttafcd that he would not act upon tlle
report today. He added that llc would
Withhold action to-day on the other mat
str& pending connected With This issue.
ramely, ADMIRAL Sampsou's appeal. Adj
tnirsl Ss.hIeys request 10 bc allowed TO
he heard by argument OH tho appeal, and
Abe findings oi the court Of inquiry IT.
self. There MAS an intimaticn, however,
s'lat all of these matters would receive
Eucntion tomorrow. and would ise finally
disposed of as far as Department.
concerned.
Tent OF TRE REPORT.
The report is as follows:
December 20, 19ai.
"Sir.--l communication, dated tho 18th
12stant. signed By R2ar-Adnliral ". s.
tS:hcy anG by Tsad5Fa Rayncr and James
Parker his counsel. objccting to the APP
prevail Of the findings OF the court OF in
sluiry IN the case OF RcaI'-Admiral Sclllev
tnd asking particularly that what the
t5igllers arc pleased 10 term tile opinion
pf Ito majority OF the court be lenlittcd
10 tn" court for further consideration.
bias pcrn received by the departments
difference and is 4'cturnd with the follow
ipg ;tatmcn::
1t is somewhat difficult TO deal with
1hs paper. ON account OF It's general ANA
sloil-Spcciiic character ;ilG sweeping
though unsupported assertion Of opin-
teil by tho applicant and his coun-
sol that in their Judgment the adverse
Ending of the court is not justified by
-le evidence. Tho paper might be, dis
missed rs simply Il ret unexpected cA-
ss-cssioIl OF dissatisfaction with an ad-
nerse Judgment. but FOR Tie fact that it
contains . number of mis-statements and
Particularly has woven throughout its en-
are structure an Inaccurate ano mis-
beading use OF The words majority of
fae ceurt." The findings OF fact and the
nplion OF The court of Inquiry i'll the
ease OF Admiral sSchley, upon tho moro
1mpcrtant and material points before H.
we're not reached by a majority OF tnt
members only. bnt ny the entire court
rhe points OF the l,reccpt ,pon which
MI The members of the court unite APP
pear 70 be incontrovertib!y established
lbs tile evidence: it is not understood how
srny other conclusions could have been
ose..cicd upon them, and they constitute
tha essentia! features OF the entire mat
ser under inquiry.
WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS.
The evidence adGuccd before the
rc1Gt concusiyely shows:
naer INC ,otrth cause O. the Pre-
,a!i: That On the a6tn ot May, ISIS
rNAeG witl11l u few miles of Santiago.
10 which point he was uIsder orders 10.
EiipceEE Win lAe ht!ilpSl c!Fssl.ttS!i GNU
Where lie Was advised that The eaenly's
feet vas reported 10 be, and where. il
fact actually WAS. Commodore SclllcS
tur!lca about with the tleet under his
uemmamd cosfsistills; of some OF The best
Nesseis Of iile American navy. and headed
Ior a home port more tllan .ea miles dis
taut without sufficient reason or excuse
i:or a.:ch action, taking with ham u. The
same rmo tho scouting vessels the de-
t7.,
entrance. and leaving the port OF Santi-
Ggo with the cneinyss tlect inside, an
= rdaraed. ,pon this l,oi.at the court says
.E its opinion:
.iIe should not have made ilie retro
grade turn westward with his iie.t. In
h!,e face of the facts the COURT could, not
AVE found otherwise.
Under the fifth clause Of The preeept.
That While thus abandoning the iieiG OF
sction with his feet. Commodore Sehley
was opcrtaken hysa dispatch vessel tsar-
.as AN urrent order, dated May csti,,
from tho Department il substance di-
iccIng him TO proceed to Santiago, as
. certain facts, report, and not suffer the
enemy 10 escape; that nevertheless. ne
continued 10 retreat with his squadron, I
ttlegrai hing 10 the Secretary of the 4
Navy; 1t is 10 be regretted that the
Departments orders cannot be obeyed:
The court found that he should nave
promptly obeyed the Navy Departments
og.ie:- Of MAY s5th' DisoDedience of an 4
a:aDortar.t order IN time Of war having
loen fns virtually confessed. no other
findings bs the court WAS possible.
!, rdpr the sixth clause OF the precepf:
tConmocore Schl@ys explanation OF the
iretros,cdc rnoEes.sift and of his aisehe-s
d:cnce of orders as made 1t the time in
n full telegram 10 the Department on
i1he subjes. N.;;s IL substance. shortage
of coz. a..,. .i..ss biiit! 10 coal the ships