The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-12-19
ADMIRAL sCHLEY's COUNSEL LIZ.
CIsIvELY ANALYZEs FINDINGS
OF RAMSAY AND BENHAM
IGNORE FAVORABLE EVIDENCE
Pointed Allegations That Every
thing in the Testimony Unfavor-
able to the Applicant Was
Given Undue Weight
OVERRIDE coMMoNEsT RIGHTS

eIHooh AomlraI Schiey, through his eoun-
sci, filed with the secretary of The navy
his bill of exceptions to the majority
findings of the court of inquiry and also
letter asking to be allowed to be heard
In connection with the objections to De
| filed by attorneys for Admiral Sampson
to the Individual opinion of Admiral
Dewey. This action was taken after Mr..
Rayner, Mr.. league and Capt Parker
had held a consultation throughout the
day with their client.
Secretary Long, almost Immediately af-
ter the receipt of the communications,
called Judge Advocate Lemly and the So
lictor for the department, Mr.. Hanna,
into conference. At it's conclusion the
secretary said that he had no statement
to make regarding any action that he
might take in the premises. He, how
ever, indicated to Mr.. league, through
the judge advocate, that he would not
hear an oral argument by Mr.. Rayner re-
garding Admiral Simpsons protest, but
that he would receive a written state
ment.
1t was expected that counsel for Adj
miral Sampson would file their objections
to the findings of Admiral Dewey in the
case today, but it is now stated that such
objections may not be offered before Fri
day.
RiIl of Exceptions.
The text of the bill of exceptions is in
brief, as follows:
The majority of the court have given
their opinion that Commodore Schley
should have proceeded with the utmost
dispatch off Cienfuegos when there was
no specification covering this subject, ana
when the only evidence taken bJ the
court on this subject was directly con-
trary to the opinion rendered
The majority of the court have he'd
that the applicant should have endeavor-
ed to open communication with the insur-
gents at the place designated IN the
memorandum by Commander McCaiia,
delivered to him on the morning OF the
23d of May, 1898, when, in fact, there was
NO nlace mentioned in said memorandum
as being a place at which a camp OF m
surgentS was located.
The majority of the court in the opinion
rendered hold that Commodore Schley
should have maintained a close plockaue
off Cienfucgos, when by everwnehnlhs
testimony it was proven that close anu
effective blockade of that port was NAM
tained the Judge advocate having sub
stantially abandoncd any charge TO Inc
contrary.
signal Nights and letroGrade move
The majority of the court in the opln-
ion rendered have entirely ignored me
uncontradicted evidence in the case tnat
cant Robley d. Evans, knowing lhe
meaning of the signal lights on snore at
Cienfuegos, failed to communicate ms
information concerning them TO CoHi'i"-
dore Schley The evidence proved lii.is
Commodore Schley saw and mad Know
edge of these lights only on the hisntT
of Nav %. and not on May % or at any
other time
rrha majority of the court have based
choir oninion in reference to the retro
grade movement upon a statement Inaoe
in their report Of facts thai Commodore
Schley. before sailing from CienfueSos'
received reliable information that hips
could be coaled in the vicinity "f ape
CRUZ and Gonafyes channel, and it is now
respectfully denied that there was any
such positive testimony in this case NOT
until the 9th of May, three days after
leaving Cienfuegos, when Capt Charies
s Cotton visited the flagship BROOKLYN,
did Commodore Schley receive any dell
mite information concerning the Feasibility
or practcability of coaling his shaps
ror IA Golfer in Gonaives channel.
The majority of the court in stating
in its report of facts that Commodore
Schley received no positive information
from the scout ships as to the presence
of the enemy's fleet in the harbor of San
tiago utterly ignores the overwhelming
testimony in proof of the fact that Capt.
C. d. Sigsbee did actually report to COM
modore Schley and to others thai the
Spanish fleet was not in the harbR of
Santiago.
Dare Not Hazard ships.
There has not been the slightest refer
ence made by the majority of the conrt
to the orders of the honorable secretary
of the navy, offered and proved in evil
dence, forbidding the hazarding of Amer
lean ships against shore batteries and
the court has directed against the appli-
cant upon the seventh specification of
the precept without in the slightest de-
gree referring to this important evidence.
The majority opinion of the court that
Commodore Schley should have endeav5r-
ed to capture or destroy the Spanish YES
sells at anchor near the entrance of San
tiago harbor on May 20 and 30 and that
he did not do his utmost with the force
under his command to capture Or destroy
the Colon and other vessels of the enemy
on May 81 is wholly at variance with
the orders under which Commodore
Schley was acting before Santiago.
The majority opinion of tha court is
ambiguous and indeterminate in that the
court holds that the turn of the Brook
lyn to starboard was made u ayoid get
ting her into dangerous proximity to
the Spanish vessels, without stating
whether evasion Of such dangerous prox
unity was due to the personal fears OF
Commodore Schley or to a desire On his
part to preserve the ship intact, and
ready for further work in the effort to
win a victory from the enemy.
Important Evidence Ignored.
The majority opinion of the court that
Commodore Schley's conduct in eonncc-
tion with the events of the Santiago
campaign, prior to June l, 1885, was char
acteriZed by vacillation, dilatoriness and
lack of enterprise, is in nowise justified
by the evidence submitted in the case,
and could only have been arrived at by
the action of the court in wholly iSnor-
ing all of the evidence of Commodore
Schley, ali of the evidence of witnesses
summoned in his behalf, and all that por-
tion of the evidence of witnesses called
| by the judge advocate which was favor
able to the said Commodore Schley.
The majority of the court have entirely
failed to determine as to who was in
command of the American naval forces
| engaged in the battle of Santiago, tho
! finding of which fact was absolutely nee
essary ir order to determine properly
the first specification of the precept as
| to the conduct of Commodore Schley In
rcuxauuaa nm Seventh PaGe.