Waterbury Democrat., 1902-02-20
sCHLEY CONDEMNED BY TIE PRESIDENT.
Roosevelt Carries Out Policy Laid Down Months Agole says Schley Not in Command at Santago-Crticizes the Famous Loop and Gives Opinion of Several
 Captains of Vessels Engaged in
 the Battle.
the Battle.

lie to-day, and is as follows:
 White House, Feb IS, 1902
 have received the appeal of Admi- ral Schley and the answer thereto from the navy department. l have exam ined both with the utmost care, as we'll as the preceding appeal to the sec retary of the navy. 1 have read through all the testimony taken before the court and the statements of the counsel for Admirals Sampson and Schley; have examined all the official reports of every kind in reference to the Santiago naval campaign, copies of the logbooks and signal books, and the testimony before the court of claims, and have also personally had before me the four surviving captains of the five ships. aside from those of the two a0mirals, which were actively engaged ar Santiago.
 It appears that the court of inquiry was unanimous in it's findings of fact and unanimous in it's expressions of opinion on most of the findings of fact. Nc appeal is made to me from the yer- dict of the court on these points where it was unanimous. 1 have, however. gone carefully over the evidence on these points also. 1 am satisfied that on the whole the court did substantial justice. It should have specifically condemned the failure to enforce an efficient night blockade at Santiago while Admiral Sehley- was in command. On the other hand, feel that there is a reasonable doubt whether he did not move his squadron with sufficient expe- dition from port to port. The court Is g unit in condemning Admiral Schley's action on the point where it seems to me he most gravely erred; his retro grade movement when he abandoned the blockade and his disobedience of orders and miSStatement of facts i'll re- Iation thereto. It should be remem- bered, however. that the majority or these actions which the court cenSureS occurred five weeks or more before the fight itself; and it certainly seems that if Admiral Schley's actions were cen surable he should not have been left as second in command under Admiral Sampson His offenses were in effect condoned when he was not called to account for them. Admiral Sampson, after the fight. in an official letter to the department. alluded for the first time to Admiral Schley's 'sreprehensi- ble conduct six weeks previously. Ii Admiral Schley was guilty of reprehen- sibla conduct of a kind which called for such notice from Admiral Sampson, then Admiral Sampson ought not to have left him as senior officer of the blockadfng squadron on the 3d Of July, when he (Sampson) steamed away on his proper errand of communication with General Shafter.
 We can therefore for our present purposes dismiss consideration of so much of the appeal as relates to any Ina hof C ft~, this, the point raised in the appeal is between Admiral Sampson and Adm1- ral Schley as to which was in com mand, and as to which was entitled 10 any unusual and pre-eminent credit by any special exhibition of genius, skill and courage. The court could have considered both of these ques- lions. but as a matter of fact it unani- naously excluded evidence offered upon them, and through its president announced it's refusal to hear Admiral Sampson's side at all; and in view of such exclusion the majority of the court acted with entire propriety in not expressing any opinion on these points. The matter has, however, been raised by the president of the court Moreover, it is the point upon which Admiral Schley in his appqn lays most stress, and which he especially asks me to consider I have therefore carefully investigated this matter also and have informed myself upon 1t from the best sources of information at my command.
 Chief Point in the Appeal.
 The appeal of Admiral Schley tc me Is not, as to this, the chief point he raises, really an appeal from tht decision of the court of inquiry. Five sixths of the appeal is devoted to this question of command and credit; thaf is. to matter which the court of in ouiry did not consider It Is i'll eff feet an appeal from the action ol President Mckinley three years agt when he sent in the recommendation: for promotion for the various officers connected with the Santiago squad ron. passing these recommendation upon his estimate of the credit t which the officers were respectivel. entitled What I have to decide therefore. is whether or not Presiden Mckinley did injustice in the matter This necessarily involves a compari son of the actions of the different com manders engaged.
 Reports of the Commanders.
 The exhaustive official reports o the action leave little to be brough out anew; but as the question of Ad miral Sampson's rights to be consid cred in chief command. which wa determined in his favor by Presiden Mckinley, and later by the court o claims, has never hitherto been ofio Ially raised, deemed it best t2 secur statements of the commanders of tn five ships (ether than the Brookly and New York, the flagships of tn two admirals) which were actively CT gagged in the fight Admiral Phili is dead. I quote extracts from hi magazine article on the fight, write Immediately after it occurred; closin with an extract from his letter to tn secretary of the navy of February 2 1s99:-
 Tt was the blockade that mad the battle possible The battle wa a direct consequence of the blockade and upon the method and effective ness of the blockade was very largel dependent the issue of the battle. . Under the orders of Admiral Samr son the blockade was conducted wit a success exemplified by the resul
 When the Spanish admiral g last made his dash to escape, we wer ready-ready with our men, with ou rx~ffl, <x44,. <.x, <.f.,