The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-02-20
.SCHLEY WAS WRONG
Text Of the Presidents Reply to the
Admiral's Appeal.
THAT LOOP WAS A GRAVE, ERROR
Mr. Roosevelt Contributes What He
Hopes Il the Last Chapter of
the Controversy.
Washington. Feb. 2o.-The president ha.

Washington, Feb. 2O.-The president has
made the following statement public:
I have received the appeal of Admiral
Schley and the answer thereto from the
navy department. I have examined both with
the utmost care. as we'll as the preceding APP
peal to the secretary of the navy I 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 reference to the Santiago naval
campaign, copies OF the log books and signal
books and the testimony before the court of
claims, and have also personally had before
me the four surviving captains Of the i've
ships, aside from those of the two admirals,
which were actively engaged at Santiago.
1t appears that the court of inquiry was
unanimous in its findings Of fact and unan-
imous in its expressions of opinion on most
of it's findings of fact. No appeal is made
to me from the verdict OF the court on these
points where it was unanimous. I have how
ever, gone carefully over the evidence on
these points also. am satisfied that on the
whole the court did substantial justice.
It should have specifically condemned the
failure to enforce an efficient night block
ade at Santiago while Admiral Schley was
in command, On the other hand. feel that
there Is reasonable doubt whether he did
not move his squadron with sufficient expedi
ttOQ from DOrL TO DOfC Inc court ID q unlL
in condemning Admiral Schley's action on
the point where it seems to me: he most
gravely erred; his "retrograde movement"
when he abandoned the blockade. and his
disobedience' of orders and misstatement of
facts in relation thereto. &...
Sampson Inconsistent.
It should be remembered. however, that
the majority Of these actions, which the
kn m
before the fight itself; and it certainly seems
that II Admiral Schley's actions were censur
able he should not have been left as second
in command under Admiral Sampson His
offenses were in effect condoned when he was
not called to account for them. Admiral
Sampson after tie fight, in an official letter
to the department. alluded for the first time
to Admiral Schley's ''reprehensibe conduct
six weeks previously
| If Admiral Schley was guilty Of repre-
hensible conduct Of a kind which called for
such notice rom Admiral Sampson, then Adj
miral Sampson ought not to have left him as
senior officer of the blockading squadron on
the Sd Of July, when he (Sampson) steamed
away on his proper errand Of communica
ton with General Shafter.
We can. therefore. foA our present pur-
poses 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 Admiral Sampson and
Admiral Schley, as to who was in COM
mand, and as to who was entitled to the
credit, If either Of them was really entitled to
any unusual and pre- eminent credit by any
special exhibition Of genius, skill and courage.
The court could have considered both of
these questions, but as q matter of fact it
| unanimously excluded Evidence offered upon
them, and although its president announced
its refusal to hear Admiral SIMPSONS side
| ,,,1 to- Loq aS,~L
majority of the court acted with entire pro-
priety in not expressing any opinion on these
points. .r- '..
Command and Credit .,
The matter has. however, been raised by
the president Of the court. Moreover. it is
the point upon which Admiral Schley in his
appeal lays much stress, and which he espe-l
cally asks me to consider. I have therefore
carefully investigated this matter. also. and
have informed myself upon it from the best
sources of information at my command.
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 de-
voted 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 recommends
lions for promotion for the various officers
connected with the Santiago squadron, bas-
ing these recommendations upon his esti-
mate of the credit to which the officers were
respectively entitled ...t =. f.
What I have to decide, therefore, is whether
or not President Mckinley did injustice in the
! matter This necessarily involves COM
! parison of the actions of the different COM
| manders engaged. - 49,. - -. -
| The exhaustive official reports Of the action
| leave little to be brought out anew: but as
( the question Of Admiral SIMPSONS right
| to be considered in chief command. which
was determined in his favor by President
| Mckinley, and later by the court Of claims,
has never hitherto been officially raised.
deemed it best to secure statements of the
commanders Of the five ships. other than the
| Brooklyn and New York. the flagships of the
two admirals, which were actively engaged
1 in the fight.
The president then quotes statements