Evening journal., 1902-01-31
COMMENT ON
NCHLHY CASE
Document Submitted to Pres
ident by Secretary Long
He Ignores Grave ChargeS-AppPal
Based on UnimpOrtant Features
8b OF Case

Washington, Jan. s1-The "com.
ment" Of Judge Advocate Lemly and
Solicitor Hanna upon the appeal of
Admiral Schley, as submitted to the
president 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 testimony in the case of the
comment"
The commentators begin with the
statement that Admiral Schley and
his counsel have shifted their ground
They say the chief features Of the case
were 'the retrograde movement"
disobedience of ORDERS" inaccurate
and misleading official reports"
failing to destroy vessels of the enc.
my lying within sight" and Injustice
to a 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 % miles of
Santiago, where the enemys 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 Schley's reason, Off.
cially given, for the retrograde move.
ment and disobedience of orders, /. e.,
that the flying squadron was short of
coal, was not true. The fourth was
that for three days some of the Span.
ish ships lay within reach Of the fly.
ing squadron and no sufficient effort
was made to destroy them. The fifth
involves the point of honor.
The commentators say: Upon all
the above features believed by us to
be the most important, if not the only
really important matters, into which
the court made inquiry, the conduct
of Admiral Schley was condemned by
that most distinguished tribunal. Ad-
miral Dewey and Rear Admirals Ben
ham and Ramsay united in their find
ings and opinion upon all Of these
several points, and they united in the
significant recommendation that no
further proceedings be had, Gin view of
the length of time which has elapsed
since the occurrence Of the events OF
the Santiago campaign"
The commentators charge that Ad-
miral Schley now ignores all these
grave matters and bases his appeal
upon unimportant features of the
case. They remark: Nobody has
ever disputed Grants title to the vic.
tory at Appotomax. although then ly.
ing sick some miles from the place
Of surrender-so far that It was
feared he could not be reached within
the period of armistice. Though How.
ard was senior officer present at the
capture of Savannah, and Sherman
was absent on one of Admiral Dahl
gren's gunboats, nobody has ques
toned Sherman's famous report tc
Lincoln: Il beg to present you, as a
Christmas gift, the city of Savannah
The comment" concludes as fol
lows: "The weight Of the testimony
is to the effect that the commodore
controlled the movements of his flag
ship, the Brooklyn, we'll, with the ex
ception of the loop. But it also shows
that he did not control the operations
of the feet in general on that day
This is established by direct, posi-
tive unimpeached and unimpeachabl'
testimony, given under the oath b!
the admiral's brothers in arms Thl
plain truth of the matter, therefore
IS that so far as the Gloucester, th'
Iowa, the Indiana, the Texas and thu
Oregon are concerned, not the strok
of a propeller blade, not the touch o
a helm, not the firing Of shot, wa
done under the direction or by the OF
ders of Admiral Schley during thi
memorable battle"