The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1902-02-26
ROOSEVELT ON seHLEY's APPEAL.
a Dispassionate Review of Case
---sampson's Charges Against
schIay Refute Themselves.
scHLEY ERRED IN TIE Loop; NEl-
TIER WON GLORY.

snEb WON Q&OHls
Washington. Feb. i9.-Fhe follow
inc. in part. is President RooseEelt's
memorandum upon the appeal OF Adml-
raj Schley:
ssIt appears that the court Of inquiry
was unanimous in its findings of fact
and unanimous in its expressions OF
opinion on most OF It's findings IN tacG.
No appeal is made 20 nae from the
verdict OF the. court On these points
where it was unanimous. l have,
however, gone carefully over the evi-
dence on these points also. I am salts
fed that on the whole the court did
substantial justice. It should have
specifically condemned the failure TO
enforce an efficient night blockade at
Santiago while Admiral Schley was IN
command. On the other hand, l feel
that there is reasonable doubt wheth-
er he did not move his squadron with
sufficient expedition from port to
port.
The court is unit in condemning
Admiral Schley's action on the point
where it seems 10 me he most gravely
erred; This retrograde. movement
when he abandoned the blockade, and
his d;sobedieace of orders and mis-
statement Of facts in relation thereto.
It should be remembered, however,
that the majority OF these actions
which the court eensures occurred
five weeks or more before the fight
itself, and it certainly seems that if
Admiral Schley's actions were censur-
able he should not have been left as
second in command under Admiral
Sampson. His ofenses were in effect
condoned when he was not called to
account for them. Admiral Sampson,
after the Eight, In an Official letter to
the department alluded for the first
time TO Admiral Schley's reprehensl.
BILE conduct, six weeks previously. If
Admiral Schley was guilty Of repre-
henssbl conduct of a kind which call
ed for such notice from Admiral Samp-
son. then Admiral Sampson ought not
to have left him as senior officer Of the
blockading squadron on the Sd of July,
when he (Sampson3 steamed away on
his proper errand Of communication
with Gen. Shafter-
s.We can therefore for our purposes
dismiss consideration of so much OF
the appeal as relates to anything except
the battle. As regards this, the point
raised in the appeal is between Adml-
raj Sampson aDd Admiral Schley, as
to which was in command, and as to
which was entitled to the credit, if
either OF them was really entitled to
any unusual preeminent credit by any
special exhibition of genius, skill and
courage.
..The appeal of Admiral Schley to
me is not, as to this, the chief point
he raises, really an appeal from the
decision Of the court of inquiry. Five
sixths of the appeal is devoted TO this
question Of command and credit; that
IS to matter which the court of inquiry
did not consider. It is in effect an
appeal from the action Of President
Mckinley three years ago when he
sent in the recommendations for pro-
motion for the various officers connect
ed with the Santiago squadron, basing
these recommendations upon his esti-
mate of the credit 60 which the officers
were respectively entitled. What l
have to decide therefore, is whether or
not President Mckinley did injustice
in the matter. This necessarily
involves a comparison of the actions
of the different commanders engaged. "
The president quotes statements
from Admirals Philip, Evans and Tay-
lor, Capt. Clark and Commander
Wainwright ss to SIMPSONS part in
the battle and the extent of Schley's
command. The president then refers
to the hits inflicted by the American
feet upon the Spanish vessels, saying
that out of 40, II were made by shells
from the Iowa and 10 by shells from
the Brooklyn. He briefly describes the
battle and then goes on to say:
Eve have just cause to be proud Of
the vigilance and instant readiness
our ships displayed, and the workman
like efficiency with, which they were
handled. The most striking act was
that of the Gloucester, converted
Yacht. which her commander, Vain
richt. pushed into the fight through
q hail of projecti les, any one of which
wonld have sunk her, in order that he
might do his part in destroying the
two torpedo boats, each possessing
some more than his own offensive
The question of command is in this
case nominal and technical. Admiral
SIMPSONS ship, New York, was seen
st the outset of the fight from all the
other ships except the Brooklyn. -Four
of these FIVE ship captains have testl-
fed that they regarded him as present
and in command. He signaled close
in to the feet 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 ferd a couple of shots
at the close OF the action with the
torpedo boats in addition to signalling
lust at the close OF the action. But
during the action rot single order