The Topeka state journal., 1902-01-31

miral Schley now ignores all these
grave matters and bases his appeal
upon unimportant features of the case
as compared with the grave matters
was not and in the face of the teSti-
mony could not have been any differ
ence of opinion in the court
The comm entatOrS say they recognize
the fact that Admiral Schley devoted
by far the larger part of his appeal to
the question of command, and conse
quently gave that question a propor-
tlOnate space in their comment. They
declare that the question is between
Sampson and Schley, both alike are
interested, and to investigate it fairly
both should be heard. Such incidental
testimony on this point came before
the court was on Schley'S side only,
and the details were entirely closed to
Sampson. They add:
TO determine an important question
OF this nature under such conditions is
contrary to the underlying principles of
Anglo-Saxon justice. Nevertheless it is
precisely what the appeal asks the pres
ident to do"
1t is admitted that the precept was
broad enough to have permitted the
court to go in this question, but it is
recalled that though the judge advocate
expressed a willingness to enter upon it,
the court did not deem it necessary or
proper to do so. The judge advocate
they say, might have shown that it was
Admiral SIMPSONS plan of night block
the daylight. and Captain Clark is quo
ted to support that statement. They
quote Admiral Schley in his testimony
to the effect that the American ships
charged in accordance to the original
plan to sink the enemy in the channeI''
and that plan failed because the enemy
succeeded really in passing the battle
line" They ask why the enemy sue
ceeded and declare ''the Brooklyn hav-
ing abandoned her position on the left
of the line, thereby left an unguarded
opening along the western shore, through
which the Spanish fleet passed our ships
and attempted to escape" The courts
opinion is quoted to the effect that the
Brooklyn lost distance in position by
the loop" and delayed the Texas.
To sustain their contention that
Sampson was in command, the commen-
tators, quote passa ges from SchIey's re-
port of July 6, 1898.
The commentators next state:
.If Commodore Schley were in abso-
lutte command during the battle, and if
he had made any use of his authority.
he must have exercised some control
over some of the vessels participating"
whereupon they take up in detail the
testimony of the commanding officers on
this point and say:
Wainwright of the Gloucester said he
saw no orders from the BROOKLYN; Tay-
lor of the Indiana said he saw no signals
from the Brooklyn; Evans of the Iowa
said of the Brooklyn: Il never saw any
signal from her. 1 did not maneuver in
obedience to any signals from the
BROOKLYN" the commander of the Tex
as, is dead. but the officers testimony
makes it clear that she received no or
ders.''
Speaking of this ship the commenta-
tors declares:
The question is not so much one of
possible credit, but of possible censure of
Admiral Schley, in connection with the
work of that vessel in the battle of
Santiago The plain truth is that Ad-
miral Schley did not, during the battle
in any way direct or control the splend-
id performances of the Gloucester and
the three battIeships Indiana, Iowa and
Texas. The officers in command of these
ships neither received or obeyed a soli-
tary order from him"
Next the commentators turn their at
tention to what they declare were per-
sistent efforts by Schley's attorneys to