The Worcester spy., 1901-12-22
PROTEST AGAINST
DEWEY'S DECISION

Continued From Page Eight)
patch vessel bearing an urgent order,
dated May 25, from the department,
in substance directing him to p1SAeed
to Santiago, ascertain facts, report
and not suffer the enemy to escape;
that, nevertheless, he continued TO re-
turn with his squadron, telegraphlng
to the secretary Of the navy; 1T is to
be regretted that the departments or
ders cannot be obeyed."
The court found that he should have
promptly obeyed the Navy Depart
ment's order of May %. Dlsobedience
of an important order in time of war
having been thus virtually confessed,
no other finding by the court was pos
sible.
SQUADRON HAD ENOUGH COAL.
Under the sixth clause of the pre-
cept to Commodore Schleys explora-
ton of the retrograde movement and
of his disobedience of orders as made
| at the time in a full telegram to the
department on the subject 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 squadron
was well equipped with coal and that
coal had been readily taken. There
| was nothing for the court but to find
| as it did that Commodore Schley's Off
cial reports regarding the coal supply
and the coaling facilities of the flying
squadron, were inaccurate and mis-
| leading"
An attempt to justify by inaccurate
and misleading official reports the turn
ing homeward of a powerful squadron
at a critical period of war in disobe-
9 i- i1I1= 10 I
| ter.
Under the seventh clause of the pre-
cept: The evidence adduced before the
court shows that during the whole of
the 18th and 30th of May the "Cristobal
Colon" and other vessels of the Span
ish squadron lay in the entrance to
Santiago harbor, the Colon" moored
in plain sight broadside to the en-
trance, that this harbor was defended
by weak batteries and that there was
nothing to prevent the flying squadron
from destroying the Colon and per
haps other of the enemy's vessels as
they lay at anchor; that no effort
whatever was made to do so on the
29th or on the 30th of May and that the
attempt on the 31st of May was brief
and abortive. 1t is complained in par
agraph IS OF the paper above men
toned that certain cautionary orders
issued by the department were not
lin the slightest degree" referred tC
by the court. These cautionary orders
were introduced in evidence and fully
discussed In argument We contend
that, quite obviously, they had no APP
plication to the conditions existing al
Santiago on the 29th 30th and 31st OF
May, and the finding of the court, that
Commodore Schley should have en-
deavored to capture or destroy the
Spanish vessels at anchor near the en-
trance of Santiago harbor on May 29tt
and 30th," and that He did not do his
utmost with the force under his COM
mand to capture or destroy the Co
lon" and other vessels of the enemy
which he attacked on May 31st, show
that the court reached such conclu-
sion.
1t may very properly be added that
the claim of the applicant and counsel
that the affair of May 31st was intend
ed merely as a reconnaissance, is NOT
BORNE OUT BY THE EVIDENCE,
for while testimony was introduced to
show that it was so designated by
Commodore Schley in conversation
with a naval cadet and with news
paper correspondent prior to entering
upon it, none of the commanding Off
GERS of the vessels engaged was so
advised and no instructions We're Civ
en- relative to the taking of notes Of
the engagement The commanding Of
t1cers were, on the contrary, Informed
in effect that the purpose was to de-
stroy the Colon and the officers in
charge of the turrets of the "Massa-
chusetts" were instructed accordingly
by the commander in person.