Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1902-01-24
A Query in the SchIey Case.

A correspondent of the New York
Evening Post. writing from Cleveland,
Ohio, propounds query of which our
distinguished Secretary of the Navy
might profitably take some notice. He
points out that the department claims
to have been dissatified with Admiral
Schley before the 1st of June, l 898. 1t
was during the month of May that all
of his alleged shortcomings had been
noted. His blockade of Clenfuegos
was defective and half-hearted. He
ignominiously failed to communicate
with the insurgents on the shore Oh to
take the smallest notice of their signals.
His trip from Cienfuegos to Santiago
was dilatory, characterized by irreso-
luton, suggestive of incapacity. His
retrograde movement was damnable.
His operations against the Colon, May
20, revealed his unfitness for command
or for responsibility of any kind.
These are the accusations which
were urged against Schley before the
court which Rear Admirals Benham
and Ramsay found to be well taken;
which the department s representatives
declared had been formulated by the
Secretary and the Bureau of Navlga-
tion at the time If anything more
than another stood in bold relief as a
result of the court of inquiry it was the
proposition that the Navy Department
had been. by the 1st of June, 1898, thor
oughly convinced of Admiral Schley s
unworthiness. If anything seemed
especially and conspicuousiy settled it
was the departments distrust and re-
probation. No delinquency on the
part of Schley was possible after that
date, Sampson arrived then and took
charge. His genius, without changing
the character of Schley's blockade OF
Santiago, transformed it from pitiable
insufficiency to perfection. Heprompt-
ly sacrificed the Merrimac in an effort
to Obstruct the channel and 80 make a
sea- fight impossible, and generally IL
lustrated bis fearless and eager lust OF
battle. From that time on until the
3rd of July-coveringa a period OF near
Iy five weeks-Sampson was in COM
mand and Schley in a position of sub
ordination and insignifcance. All
Schley's crimes had been committed
when Sampson reached the scene. The
department, as it now claims, knew of
his various delinquencies and malefac
tions on the 1st of Juue.
Why, then, was Schley left there all
that time-second in command; sure to
take charge in any emergency that
might arise in SIMPSONS absence;
constant peril to our fleet, an hourly
menace to our national integrity and
honor? How does Mr.. Long explain
his deliberate disregard of the dread
full possibilities which, according to
his own solemn and repeated pro-
clamation, beset the United States
fleet off Santiago? What right had
he, believing what he says he be-
lieved convinced that Schley was in
competent and untrustworthy-what
right had he to keep him in such a
position for whole month during the
most critical period of the war? If
Cervera had inflicted any serious
damage on our ships-still worse, if he
had escaped altogether-would not the
Navy Department have been response
BILE? Would it not have been con-
demned for having connived at the
disaster And that being the case. is
not the Navy Department, by its own
confession, the chief offender in all
this miserable coil?
We are putting hypothetical case.
We consider, and have always con-
sidered, the departments course in
this matter as course OF slander,
persecution, meanness, and mendacity.
But we now take the department at its
own valuation-for sake of argument,
of course-and, taking it so, accept
ing all it's statements and conclusions
and making them the basis of our In
.terrogatory, we ask whether, during
the month of June, 1898, the Navy
Department was not false to it's duty,
false to the service ana the country
false to every patriotic and honorable
obligation