The San Juan islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1902-02-06
COMMENT
SCHLEY'S APPEAL ANSWERED BY
NAVY DEPARTMENT.
The Admiral Is Directly Charged With Dods-
Ing the Real Points at Issue in the
Trial-Also Claimed That r. Was Not in
Command and Did Not Direct the Battle
Of Santiago.

Washington, Jan. 31.-The Com
ment" of Judge Advocate General Lemly
and Solicitor Hanna upon the appeal of
Admiral Schley as submitted to the pres
ident by Secretary Long is less than
third as long as the appeal itself, a fact
accounted for by the comparatively few
quotations from the courts findings in
the case of the comment" The COM
mentators begin with the statement that
Admiral Schley and his counsel have
sifted their ground. They say the chief
features of the case were the "retrograde
movement" "disobedsence of ORDERS"
inaccurate and misleading official re-
ports," Failure to destroy vessels of the
enemy lying within sight," and ''injus-
tice to brother officer" These matters
are all grave. The first was that the
finest aggregation of American naval
vessels under one command was by
Schley's direction, turned about and
headed for Key West, more than 700
miles distant, when within twenty-five
miles OF Santiago, where the enemy's
ships were. The second was that Schley
deliberately and knowingly disobeyed
the secretary's order overtaking him in
his retrograde movement. The third
was that Schlev's reason, officially given,
for the retrograde movement and DISC
bedience of orders, j. e., "that the flying
squadron was short of COAL" was not
true. The fourth was that for four days
the Spanish ships lay within reach of
the flying squadron and no sufficient
effort was made to destroy them. The
fifth involves the point of honor The
commentators say:
upon all the above named features,
believed by US to be the most important,
if not only the really important matters
into which the court made inquiry, the
conduct of Admiral Schley was con-
demned by that most distinguished tri-
bunal. Admiral Dewey and Rear Admirals
Benham and Ramsey unite in their find
ings and opinion upon all these several
points, and they unite also in the signifi-
cant recommendation that no further
proceedings be had in view of the length
of time which had elapsed since the oc-
currence of the events of the battle of
Santiago"
The commentators charge that Admiral
Schley now ignores all these grave mat
tiers and bases his appeal upon unimpor-
tant features of the case, as compared
with the grave matters referred to, up
on which there was not, and in face of
the testimony could not have been any
difference of opinion in the court"
Question Of Command.
The commentators cay they recognize
the fact that Admiral Schley devoted by
far the larger part of his appeal to the
question of command, and consequently
give that question proportionate 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 as came before the court was
on Schleys 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"
The Comment" further claims that
neither the Oregon, Texas, Indiana or
the Gloucester, in the battle of Santiago,
obeyed any of the signals given by
Schley, and that his. contention that he
vas in command and directed the battle
therefore fails.