The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-02-21
REPLY TO SCHLEY'S
APPEAL ANALyzED
Hostility to Schley and In
consistency Shown.
COWARDlCE INSULATED
Citations Not Taken from Testimony
Under Oath.
COMMENT CONFLICTS WITH TESTIMONY
One Of the Most Remarkable Things About
the Document is the Attempt to Drag
President Mckin!ey's Name
Into the Matter
Into the Matter.


Especial Dispatch to the Baltimore
SUM
Washington Feb. 19.-The Presidents
response to the appeal of Rear Admiral
W. s. Schley was made public tonight.
Technically 1t is adverse to both ad-
miral Schley ard Admiral w. r. Samp-
son, but it is hostile to Admiral schley
and friendly 70 Admiral Sampson, who
is given credit for the whole campaign.
though not alleged 70 have been in COM
mand at the battle of Santiago.
It's most conspicuous characteristics
are inconsistency, absence OF Judicial
analysis, and q disregard for the rules
of justice which discriminate between
, testimony under oath and that which is
mere expression of opinion subject to
the coloring of prejudice and self-in-
terest
NOT BASED ON THE TESTIMONY.
The citations in the reply are not taken
from the testimony before the Court Of
Inquiry, but from the subsequent
statements" made by commanders in
the squadron after being relieved of the
obligation of an oath and the check CT
cross examination.
AS stated in the sun some time ago.
captains were called upon for express
sions of their opinion, and these express
sions are ayailed Of by the President as
citations to justify his decision or COM
mont.
There is a marked similarity of e2-
preston and opinion in the statements
quoted by the President from the cap
tains. with the exception of that by
Captain Charles r. Clark. who command
ed the Oregon.
CLARK's STATEMENT STRONGER
Captain Clarks statement corresponds
with his testimony before the Court OF
Inquiry, except that ii is made some
what stronger, in that he states speci-
fically rather than by inference, that ne
recognized Admiral SchIey as being in
command and repeated the signaled or
ders.
The other captains quoted by the
President say that they received no or
ders from Admiral Schley, and would
not have needed them If they had re-
,eeived them.
The characterization of these declara-
tons by Junior officers is ignored by
the President
THE PRESIDENTS COMMENT.
The President introduces his comment
upon the appeal with statement that
he has read the testimony taken by the
court and the logs of the ships, and has
heard the statements of five captains
commanding the vessels In the fight
His only citations, however, are from
the statements of the captains.
In effect he says that these captains
(who in their statements court that con
clusicn) and other captains In the fight
are entitled to whatever credit is due
for the Santiago victory He implies
that Admiral Sampson was technically
not in commend. and denies chat Ad-
miral Schley was In command actually
or technically and implies that Admiral
Schiey was actually carried into the
tight by the captain of the Brooklyn
AN INSINUATION OF coWARDIcE.
The decision, reply or opinion, under
whatever designation it may be identi-
fed. when stripped Of its verbiage. ac-
ardice. In referring to the s.loop'' made
by the Brooklyn, the President makes
use of this sentence full of venom:
This kind of danger must not be too
nicely weighed by those whose trade it
is TO dare greatly for the honor of the
flag.
The danger referred to is that involv-
ing the probable loss of the BROOKLYN
had she been turned toward instead OF
away from the shore in making the
loop"
IGNORED IMPORTANT FACTS.
The fact that the avoidance of this
lyn to prevent the escape of the Colon
If not other of the Spanish ships, is ig-
nored by the President in this connec-
ton, though the fact unavoidably APP
pears In the further discussion of the
battle
The President approves the "unani-
nous" finding of the court, with COM
ment that 1t ''shouId have specifically
condemned the failure to enforce an ef-
fective night blockade at Santiago while
Admiral Schley was in command"
NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.
No evidence in support of this as
sumption of inefficiency of blockade at
night While Admiral Schley was in COM
mand is cited by the President. If he
We're as familiar with the testimony as
reading 1t should have made him he
should know that the charge of inef-
ticiency of blockade at night was dis
tinctiy and specifically disproved and
was abandoned by the prosecution.
Another reference made by the Presi.
dent is one that even the hostile men,
bers Of the court did not appear 10 have
warrant for. This is the expression Gre
ferring to Schley); His disobedience
of orders and misstatements of fact In
relation thereto"
The basis for this comment must have
come from source of comment availed
of by the President rather than from