Iowa state bystander. [volume] (Des Moines, Iowa) 1894-1916, 1902-02-21
UPHOLDS M'KINLEY VIEW
PRESIDENT RoosEvELT's DEc!.
SION ON ScHLEY APPEAL.
HOLDS That Rewards Recommended
by Mckinley Were Substan-

Washington, Fen. 2O.-The presi
dent has made the following state.
ment public:
white house. Feb. 10. 1907
have received the appeal of Admiral
| Schley and the answer thereto from
| the navy department. | lave exam
| med both with the utmost care, as
well as the preceding appeal to the
| secretary of the nevy. | have read
| through all the testimony taken be-
| fore the court and the statements OF
the counsel for Admirals Sampson
| and Schley; have examined all the
official reports of every kind in ref
ercnce to the Santiago campaign,
copies of the log books ana signal
| books, and the testimony before the
| court of claims. and have also person
ally had before me the four suryiy-
| ing captains of the five ships, aside
from those of the two admirals, which
were actively engaged at Santiago.
1T appears that the court OF in
| quiry was unanimous in its findings OF
| fact and unanimous in it's express
sions OF opinion on most of it's find
ings of fact. No appeal is made to
me from the verdict of the court on
these points where it was unanimous.
have, however, gone carefully over
the evidence on these points also. l
am satisfied that on the whole the
court did substantial justice.
ut should have specifically con.
| demand the failure to enforce an eff.
| fcient blockade at santiago while
Admiral Schley was in command. On
the other hand, I feel that there is a
| reasonable doubt whether he did not
move his squadron with sufficient ex-
| petition from port to port. The
1 s. To-, r.
| miral Schley's action on the point
where it seems to me he most grave
| ly erred; his 'retrograde movement
| when he abandoned the blockade and
his disobedience of orders and mis-
! statements of facts in relation there
! to. It should be remembered, how
ever, that the majority of these ac-
| tons which the court censures oc-
| CURED five weeks or more before the
| fight itself, and it certainly seems
| that if Admiral Schleys actions were
| censurable he should not have been
! left as second in command under Ad-
miral 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
'reprehensible conduct six weeks
| previously. If Admiral Schley was
| guilty of reprehensible conuuct 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 blockading
! squadron on the 3rd of July when he
| (Sampson) steamed away on his
| proper errand of communication with
| General Shafter.
| 1--WE can, therefore, for our present
! purposes, dismiss consideration of SO
much of the appeal as relates to any
| thing except the battle. AS regards
| this, the point raised in the appeal
| is between Admiral Sampson and Ad-
miral Schley as to which was in COM
mand, and as to which was entitled to
| the credit, if either of them was real
| ly entitled to any unusual and pre-
eminent credit by any special exhi-
bltion of genius, skill and courage.
| The court could have considered both
of these questions, put as matter Of
! fact it unanimously excluded evil
| dence offered upon them and through
| it's president announced its refusal to
| hear Admiral Simpsons SIDE at all;
and in view of such exclusion the ma
! jority of the court acted with entire
! prOpriety in not expressing any opin-
! ion 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 ap-
peal lays most stress and which he
| especially asks me to consider.
| have, therefore, carefully investigated
this matter also and have informed
myself upon it from the best sources
| of information at my command"
| The president then quotes the facts
as set forth in the statements of the
captains in their official reports and
! testimony. He then proceeds as fol-
I lows:
"The question of command is in this
case nominal and technical. Admiral
Simpsons ship, the New York, was
seen at the outset of the fight from all
the ships except the Brooklyn. Four
| titled that they regarded him as pres
ent and in command. He signaled
close in to the fleet as soon as the
| first Spanish ship appeared, but his
signal was not seen by any American
vessel. He was actually under fire
from the forts and himself fired a cou.
| pie of shots at the close of action
| with the torpedo boats, in addition
to signaling the Indiana just at the
| close of the action. But during the
| action not a single order from him was
received by any or the SHIPS That were
| actively engaged.
admiral Schley at the outset of
| the action hoisted the two signals of
clear ship and close in which was
simply carrying out the standing
orders of Admiral Sampson as to
what should be done if the enemy's
ships attempted to break out of the
harbor. Until after the close of the
| first portion of the fight at the mouth
of the harbor and until after he had
| made his loop and the Spanish ships
| were fleeing to the westwar~, not an
other American ship noticed a signal
from him. When the western pursuit
had begun the Oregon, and the Ore
gon only, noticed and repeated one Of
his signals of command The cap
4o;x 49, 1l<,d HI