The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1902-01-01
sCHLEYs PROTEST FILED
Declares the Majority of the Court
Considered Only One Side.
In Thirty-one Objections to Verdict Ho
Contends That All Testimony Favor
able to Him Was Ignored.

Washington, D. C.-Rear-Admiral
Schley's bill OF exceptions to the ma
jority report of the Court Of Inquiry
was handed to Secretary Long by
NJ. A. league. The bill. which was
drawn by Mr.. Rayner, contains thir-
ty-one exceptions. The ground of the
objection is that the majority Of the
Court in preparing its opinion and
finding considered only the testimony
of the witnesses against Admiral
| Schley; that it ignored the testimony
| of his witnesses altogether, and that
even in considering the testimony of
| the witnesses against him it ignored
those portions of their testimony which
were favorable to him.
The prayer is that the majority re-
port be diSapproved, and that Secre-
| tary Long remit the proceedings to
| the Court, with instructions to them
| to take into consideration the testi-
mony favorable to Schley and prepare
a new report. The thrty-One para
graphs point out the cases in which
the Court is alleged to have ignored
the testimony in favor Of Schley. 1t is
! charged in plain terms IN the twenty
ninth paragraph that the majority Sc
lected the testimony of few hostile
witnesses and based their opinion and
finding on that, discarding all the other
| testimony.
1t is further charged that the ma
| jority found Schley guilty even on the
specifications which the Judge AdVo-
cate abandoned as incapable of proof.
| The bill asserts that the majority have
not only ignored all the testimony for
the defense, but have not even ad-
verted to it in their findings "nd that
''by so doing they have perverted the
ends of Justice
AS an example of this, it is charged
that the majority accepted the Damn
the Texas" colloQuy as proved. al
through the only witness who testified
that it occurred was Commander
Hodgson, while Schley and Cook de-
MED it, and the other officers present
said they heard no such conversation.
Many similar instances are given in
the bill. The bill also demands that
the Court pass upon the question OF
the efficacy of the blockade.
The precept, it Is claimed, ordered
the Court to pass upon this. but the
! majority did not express any opinion
about it. 1t also demands that the
Court shall express an opinion about
Captain Lemly's charge that Schley
did not prescribe any orders Of battle,
| and insists that the Court shall state
whether the danger which caused the
Texas to back her engines was real or
imaginary, and whether the loop which
was alleged to have been made be-
cause of the dangerous proximity of
the Spaniards was undertaken from
fear or wise precaution.
The bill insists particularly that the
Court should take into consideration
the testimony Of Captain Cook, and
also the evidence of the witnesses who
swore that Sigsbee told Schley that
the SpaniardS were not in Santiago.
The exceptions are only to those con-
clusons and findings in which tue ma
jority is charged with having ignored
the testimony of Schley's witnesses.
In cases where Admiral Schley be-
lieves that the Court took the testi-
mony of both sides into consideration
he files no exception, even tough the
decision is against him. For exam.
pie. he files no exception to the charge
that he made slow progress toward
Santiago. He and IS friends believe
that the charge was disapproved. and
Admiral Dewey so found in his minor
ity report; but Schley believes that in
finding against him in this point the
majority did consider all the testimony
and so files no exception. There are
several other instances Of the same
bind