The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1901-12-24

OF the 29th and S0th of May the Girls.
tobal Colon and other vessels OF the
Spanish fleet lay In the entrance to
Santiago harbor, the Colon moored In
plain sight, broadside to the en-
trance; that this harbor was defend.
ed by weak batteries, and that there
/ was nothing to prevent the flying
squadron from destroying the Colon
and perhaps 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 3Oth OF May;
and that the attempt made on the
31st was. brief and abortive. It Is
complained in paragraph in para
graph 16 Of the paper above mention
ed that certain cautionury orders is.
sued by the department were not "in
the slightest degree" referred to by
the court. These cautionary orders
were introduced In evidence and fully
discussed in argument.
IL may very properly be added that
the claim Of the applicant and coun.
sci that the affair of May 81 was in.
tended merely as a reconnaissance is
not borne out by the evidence.
Under the ninth clause OF the pre-
cept: The evidence adduced before
the court. from the bridge and from
the engine room, showing that the
Texas was stopped and backed "to
AVOID possible collision" with the
Brooklyn is indisputable. That dan.
ger and delay to the Texas and loss
Oh distance and position to the Brook
lyn were the immediate results of the
loop executed by the latter vessel, is
TOO clearly shown to admit Of doubt.
Agreed He Mistreated Hodgson.
All members Of the court agree in
1nding that Admiral Schley did in
justice to Lieutenant Commander
A. II. Hodgson in publishing only a
portion Oh The correspondence which
passed between them.''
Upon the points above set forth
which appear TO embrace substanl l.
ly the important matters covered by
the inquiry, the court is united. and
its findings are unanimous; they are
sustained by the unimpeached and
unimpeachable testimony OF CommU.
dore Schley's brother officers, who.
served with and under him, by Official
telegrams, letters and reports, and
by The logs Oh the several vessels of
his squadron, and it would accord
ingly be idle to remit these matters
upon The same evidence.
Aside from the inaccurate and
misleading" use OF the term, the ma.
jority OF the court" the next proni-
nent feature Of the paper before us is
the broad and sweeping fashion in
which the applicant ana his counsel
declare Lnat ire court mas ignored
or not considered" evidence.
The court adjourned m IN, Tth op
November last. since That date its
members have been, with rare excep- |
tiohs, III daily session, morning and
afternoon, examining the evidence
before them. 1t was their sworn duty
TO consider and weigh that evidence.
ana the applicant and his counsel
nave no right to say taat they have
disre3arded it.
But IL is particularly urged in par
agraphs "a and ~, and elsewhere i'm
the objection, that the testimony OF
the applicant himself has been lg.
uoFeu. lnis is mel ely stated. not |
SHOWN. we contend that the testi. .
mohy Oh The applicant alone. upon
uitect ana cross-examination, esLab.
hshes the important iacLs generally
OF dilatoriness, vacillation and want
OF energy al Cienfuegos, and through. ,
out the entire campaign from kew
west to Santiago; the particulars of
the retrogrGde movement; the dis.
obedience OF orders; OF the inaccurate
ana misleading official reports
neglect ana failure to DESTROY the
Colon; Injustice to Lieutenant Com.
mander Hodgson, ald some minor
matters. The court may have based
lts most important findings thereupon /
But the court has perfect right /
aiter Weighing it, to ignore any testi.
mony. -
Didn't Agree With Most Witnesses.
1t happened in the present inquiry
that the applicant, while on the stand,
contradicted in whole or In part, di-
rectly or Indirectly, testimony given
by majority of the witnesses.
Regarding the charge that the ma
jority OF the court failed to determine
as to who was in command of the
American naval forces engaged in the
battle OF Santiago. the statement says
in part:
Ii 1t Is true that a finding by the
court upon this question was abso-
lutely necessary in order to deter.
mine properly the first specification
of the precept, then it must be stated
that counsel for the appellant failed
Of their duty during the Inquiry. Sew.
eral times in the course OF the pro-
ceedings they brought this question
into court and took it out again, with.
out giving the court opportunity to
rule upon it; once even withdrawing
It so hastily as to interrupt the presi.
dent or the court in sentence that
promised to be an adverse ruling.