The daily morning journal and courier., 1901-12-21
REPLY TO SCHLEY'S PROTEST
FILED WITH SECRETARY LONG LATE YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.

FILED WITH SECRETARY LONG
 LATE YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.
 Drawn by Judge Advocate Lemiy and
 Solicitor Hanna They Claim MisIead-
 ing Use of the Words snIajority of the
 Court'-D.cIaro That the Report ot
 the Majority Was Really the Report
 of the Entire Court-AIso That the
 Court Was Justified in Rejecting
 schIey's Evidence
 Washington, Dec. 20.-Judge Advo- cate Lemly and Solicitor Hanna late t,.is afternoon submitted to Secretary Long their report upon the bill of ob- jections filed by Admiral Schley, through his counsel, to the findings of the Schley court of inquiry. In sub stance this report is an argument sup elementary to the argument made by the writers before the court of inquiry The principal points are an insistance upnn their contention that the first re- port is the unanimous report Of the court of inquiry; that the court was justified in rejecting Admiral Schleys evidence by the number of witnesses who took issue with him and that there is no sufficient reason for a reopening of the case as requested by Admiral Schley. Secretary Long has not yet acted upon the report, but is expected to do so to- morrow.
 If adopted the report will be for warded to Admiral Schley. It is as fol- lows:
 communication dated 18th inst. signed by Rear Admiral w. $. Schley ar@ by Isidor Rayner and James Park CT. his counsel, objecting to the approv- al of the findings of the court of inqui- ry in the case of Rear Admiral Schley and asking particularly that what the signers are pleased to term "the oDin ion of the majority of the court" be re- mitted to the court for further consider ation, has been received by the depart ment's reference, and is returned with the following statement:
 It is somewhat difficult to deal with this paper on account of it's general and non-specific character and sweep ing. though unsupported assertion of opinion by the applicant and his coun- sell. that, in their judgment, the ad- verse finding of the court is not justified by the evidence. The paper might be dismissed as simply not un- expected expression of dissatisfaction with an adverse judgment, but for the fact that it contains number of mis- statements. and particularly has wov-
 ;te. a,,tf ctr a ii inaccurate and misleading use of the words majority of the court
 The finding of fact and the opinion of the court of inquiry in the case of Ad- miral Schley, upon the most important and material points before it, were not reached by majority of the members only but by the entire court. The points of the precept upon which all the mem- bers of the court unite appear to be in controvertibly established by the evil dence, and it is not understood how any other conclusions could have been reached upon them; and they constitute the essential features of the entire mat ter under inquiry.
 The evidence adduced before the court conclusively shows:
 Under the 4th clause of the precent: That on the 18th day of May, 1898, when within a few miles of Santiago. to which point he was under orders to proceed with the utmost dispatch and where he was advised that the enemys fleet was reported to be. and where in fact it actually was, Commodore Schley turned about with the fleet un- der his command, consisting of some of the best vessels of the American navy, and headed for port more than 700 miles distant, without sufficient reason or excuse for such action, taking with him at the same time the scouting vessels, the department had sent there | to watch the entrance, and leaving the | port of Santiago. with the enemy'S fleet l inside unguarded Upon this point the | court says in its opinoin: ''He should l not have made the retrograde turn | westward with his squadron" In the | face of the facts the court could not | have found otherwise.
 Under the fifth clause of Lhe precept: That while thus abandoning the field of action with his fleet Commodore Schley was overtaken by dispatch vessel bearing an urgent order, dated May 25, from the department, in sub- |
  tiago, ascertain facts, report and not suffer the enemy to escape; that, never theless, he continued to retreat with his squadron, telegraphing to the secre- tary of the navy: Tt is to be regretted that the departments orders cannot be obeyed.' The court found that he should have promptly obeyed the navy order of May 25 Disobe- dience of an important order in time of war having been thus virtually con fessed, no other finding by the court was possible.
 Under the sixth clause of the precept to Commodore Schleys explanation of the retrograde movement and of his lisobedience orders was in sub stance, shortage of coal and inability to coal the ships of his squadron from the collier The evidence developed be- fore the court shows that the squa adron was well equipped with coal and that coal had been and could be readily talk ,n from the collier. There was nothing for the court but to find as it did-that Schley's official reports re the coal supply and the coaling facilities of the flying squadron were