The age-herald., 1901-12-19
NAVAL CLIQUE STUNG
 BY SCHLEYS PROTEST

(Continued from First Page.)
 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 victory from the enemy.
 Ignored Overwhelming Testimony.
 ''20. The majority entirely ignored the overwhelming testimony submitted in the case in their opinion that Commodore erred in commencing the engagement on July with the port battery the evidence in the case clearly established the fact that in the execution of the standing order to close in and attack in the harbor en- trance was impossible for the Brooklyn without turning away from the enemy to open the engagement except with her port battery; and the evidence also clear ly establishes the fact that the turning of the Brooklyn did not cause her to lose either distance or position with the Span ish vessels, the contrary opinion of the court being arrived at only by disregard ing all of the evidence offered in behalf of Commodore Schley.
 ''21. The majority opinion is ambiguous and indeterminate in that, while stat ing that the Brooklyn's turning caused the Texas to stop and to back her en- zines to avoid possible collision said opinion does not state whether the dam age of such collision as comprehended by the ninth specification of the precept was real or imaginary, whereas the over whelming weight of testimony clearly es- tablished the fact that at no time was there danger of collision between the Brooklyn and the Texas
 Cooks Testimony Ignored.
 ''22. The testimony of Captain Cook, witness called by the judge advocate, in reference to the proximity of the Brook lyn to the Texas at the time of the Brooklyn's turning, has been ignored.
 ''23. The majority assum ed that the testimony of Lieutenant Commander Hodgson, naming it's repeated contradic- ton in reference to the alleged conversa- ton regarding the proximity of the Tex as at the time of the Brooklyn's turn ing Is true and have entirely ignored the testimony of Commodore Schley and Cap- tain Cook to the contrary.
 ''24. The majority opinion that Commo- dore Schleys conduct in connection with the events of the Santiago campaign was characterized by vaccillation, dilatoriness and lack of enterprise, is in no wise jus tifed by the evidence submitted in the case and could only have been arrived at by the action of the court in wholly ig noring all of the evidence of Commodore Schley, all of the evidence of witnesses summoned in his behalf and all that DOT ton of the evidence of witnesses called by the judge advocate, which was fa- vorable to the said Commodore Schley.
 ''25. The majority opinion is inconclus- i've in that it is entirely silent upon charge preferrel by the judge advocate that Commodore Schley was dereI.et in the discharge of his duty and unmindful of the naval regulations in that he did not prescribe and promulgate anticipa- tory orders of battle.
 Did Not Determine the Command.
 ''26. The majority entirely failed to de- termine as to who was in command of the American naval forces engaged in the battle of Santiago, the finding of which fact was absolutely necessary in order to determine properly the first spe- ci1cation of the precept as to the con- duct of Commodore Schley in connection with the events of the Santiago cam paign.
 ''27. The majority have rejected the whole of the testimony offered on behalf of the applicant, and have not adverted to such testimony, and have entirely ig- nored the testimony of the applicant him. self, who was on the stand for many hours; and by so doing they have pervert- ed the ends of justice. If this testimony was all false they should have so an- nounced, and if all or any part of it was true. the said applicant was entitled to the benefit of it, and by declining to con- slider or pass upon it, they have deprived him of his common law and constitutional rights.
 found the applicant guilty upon speci-