Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1902-02-27
President RooseveIts Decision
Adverse TO the Victor of
Santiago.
DID nor COMMAND FLEET.
Naval Court said 10 Have Done
substantial Justice.
sHARrcRrTIcrsM orscHLEY
President Condemns tI4e Loop of
the Brooklyn and Tntimates
that the Admiral Wns Over
Cautious IN Avoiding Danger.


Cautious IN Avoiding Danger.
FroB, bc Boitimorc Ssa
The Presidents response 10 the
appeal Of Rear. Admiral w. S. Schley
was made public Wednesday night.
Technically IL Is adverse to both
Admiral Schley and Admiral w. 7.
Sampson, but II ishostile 70 Admiral
Schley and friendly TO Admiral Samp.
son, who is given credit for the
whole campaign, though not alleged
70 have been in command a the bat
tie Of Santiago
It's most conspicuous Characters
tics are inconsistency. absence OF
judicial analysis, and y disregard
Tor the rules Of jnstice, which dis
criminate between testimony under
oath and that which is a mere ex.
preston Of opinion subject 10 thecol.
oring Of prejudice and sen.interest
NUr BASED OS TnE TESTIMONY
The citations Ia the rep1y are not
taken from the testimony before the
Court ~ Inquiry, but FROM the sub.
sequen, statements nadn by CON.
handlers 10 the squadron after being
relieved Of the obligation Of an cath
aud the check OF cross.examiuaiion.
As stated IN The Saa some time
ago, captains were called upon for
expressions Of their opinion. and
these expressions are availed q by
the President as citations to Justify
i,ia as.s,ia,ssr o. s.ssves.-sissa
There IL marked similarity 81
expression aud opinion 10 the state
ments quoted by the President fron
the captains, with the exception Of
that by Captain Charles f. Clark,
who commanded the Oregon
CLARK : STATEMENT STRONGER
Captain Clark statement cores
ponds with his testimony before the
Court Of Inquiry, except tbai Il is
made somewhat stronger, in that he
states specifically rather than by
/ inference, that he recognized Adm
/ raj Schley as being In command and
repeated bis signaIed orders
The other captains quoted by the
President say that they received no
orders from Admiral Sohloy, and
would not have needed" them II
/ they had received them
The iusubordination Of these dec
/ larations by junior officers is ignor-
ed by the President
The President also ignores the
statement Of Captain CLARK and rem
ders his decision Ia accordance with
the opinion OF the officers who de-
clare that they would moi have heed
ed the orders Of their superior OH
GERS had they received them.
The PRESIDENTS CosnGEST
The President introduces his com
ment upon the appeal with state
ment that he has read the testimony
taken by the court aud the logs Of
the ships, and has heard the state
ments Of FIVE captains commanding
vessels in the fight His only cita.
lions, however, are from the state
ments Of the captains.
In effect be says that these cap
tains (who in their statements court
| that conelusiou) and other captains
IN the fightare entitled to whatever
credit is due for the Santiago victory
| He implies that Admiral Sampson
was technically not in command
and denies that Admiral Schley was
in command actually or technically
and implies that Admiral SchleS
was actually carried into the flgh
by the captain OF the Brooklyn,
AN INsINUATIoN Or CowARDIoE.
The decision, reply or opinion
under whatever designation It ma,
be identified, when stripped OF it
verbiage, actually accuses Admira
Schley Of cowardice. In referring
to the loop made by the Brooklyn
, the President makes use OF this sen
{ tence full OF venom,
This kind Of danger must not b
} too nicely weighed by those who's
! trade it is to dare greatly for tn
honor Of the flag
5 The danger referred to is that In
d volving the probable loss Of th
. Brooklyn had she been turned Il
S wards instead ofaway front the shor
in making the loop,