The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-12-21

~
OF May 18th Disoredience of an i'm
portant order in time of war having been
thus virtually confessed, no other find
| ings by the court was possible.
Under the 9Th clause of the precept:
Commodore Schley's explanation of the
retrograde movement and of his disobed
fence Of orders as made at the time in
full telegram to the department on the
subject was, in substance, shortage OF
coal and inability to coal the ships of
his squadron from the collier. Evidence
developed before the court shows that
the squadron was at the time well equip
ped with coal, and that coal had been
and could be readily taken from the col
Tier. There was nothing for the court
! but to and as 1t did that Commodore
| Schley's official reports regarding the
coal supply and the coaling facilities
of the Flying Squadron were inaccurate
and misleading" An attempt to justify
| by inaccurate and misleading official re-
ports the turning homeward of a power
| full squadron at critical period of war
| in disobedeuce of orders is a very seri-
| GUS matter.
| Under the 7th clause of the precept:
| The evidence adduced before the court
| shows that during the whole of the Goth
| and Both OF May the Cristobal Colon and
| other vessels of the Spanish squadron,
'lay in the entrance to Santiago harbor,
| the Colon moored in plain sight, broad
/ side to the entrance that this harbor w3s
! defended by weak batteries, and there
/ was nothing to prevent the Flying Squad
ION from destroying the Colon and per-
! haps other of the enemy's vessels as they
4 lay at anchor; that no effort whatever
! was made to do so on the 18th or On
the Both of May and that the attempt
made on the 31st, was brief and abortivo.
1t is complained in paragraph 16 Of the
paper above mentioned that certain eau
tionary orders issued by the department
were not ''in the slightest degree" re-
serred to by the court.
These cautionary orders were intro
duced in evidence, and fully discussed in
argument We contended that, quite OBJ.
viously, they had no application TO the
conditions oxisting at Santiago on the
18th, both and 31st of May and the find
! ing Of the court, that Commodore Schley
should have endeavored to capture or
I destroy the Spanish vessels at anchor
near the entrance of Santiago harbor on
May 29th and 30th,' and that 'he did
not do his utmost with the force under
his command to capture or destroy the
+ Colon or vessels OF the enemy which he
/ attacked on May 31st.' Show that the
court reached such conclusion.
1t may very properly be added that
the claim of the applicant and counsel
that the affair of May 31st was intended
merely as a reconnaissance, is not borne
out by the evidence, for while tcsu-
mony was introduced to show that it was
so designated by Commodore Schley IN
conversation with a naval cadet and
/ with newspaper correspondent prior TO
entering upon it, none of the command
! ing officers of the vessels engaged was
so advised, and no instructions were given
relative to the takin of notes Of the en-
| aement The commandn officers We're,
on the contrary. informed in effect. that
the purpose was to destroy the Colon and
the officers in charpe Of the turrets OF
the Massachusetts were instructed a.
onrdinly by the Commodore IN persnn
Undor the 9Th clause of the precept;
The evidence adduced before the court
from the bridge, and from the engine
room, showing that the Texas was stop
ped and backed ito avoid possible col
That danger and delay to the Texas and
loss of distance and position by the
Brooklyn were the immediate results
of the hop executed by the latter vessel,
is too clearly shown to admit of doubt,
and the finding of the court upon this
point is fully sustained by the evidence.
Under the 10th clause of the precept;
1t was established by the introduction
~ 1,irr nj fn1%-
themselves that Rear Admiral Schley OBJ
tanned from Lieutenant Commander
Hodgson, a junior officer who had served
under him. a categorical statement that
a "colloquy" reported in the public press
to have taken place nthe bridge of the
brooklyn" July 3rd between himself
and Commodore Schley, never occurred, 4"
although Mr.. Hodgson had assured the
Admiral that the facts as published were
substantially correct" that the Admiral
gave out for publication the categorical
denial thus obtained but did not pub
lish an accompanying explanatory ami
qualifying letter! and that, subsequently,.
although repeatedly appealed to by Mr..
I Hodgson Admiral Schley failed to do
justice in the matter.
All members of the court agree in find
ing that Admiral Schley Ibid no justice
to Lieutenant Commander Hodgson in
publishing only a portion of the CORES
. pondence which passed between them.
Upon the points above set forth, which
appear to embrace substantially the In
portart matters covered by the inquiry.
the court is united, and its findings sre
unanimous; they are sustained by the
unimpeached and unimpeachable testi-
mony of Commodore Schley's brother
officers. who served with and under him,
by official kilograms, letters, and re-
ports, by the logs of the several vessels
of his squadron, and it would accordingly
be idle to remit these matters to tho
same body for reconsideration upon the
same evidence
The court is unit upon all points,
| except that as to which the admiral OK
pressed individual. bat not in all cases
contradictory. views. Tt does not appear
that any good purpose will be served by
/ asking the court to reconsider these.
/ Aside from tue inaccurate and mis-