Phillipsburg herald. [volume] (Phillipsburg, Kan.) 1882-1905, 1902-02-22
SCHLEY LOSES AGAIN
President Gives Credit of Santiago
Battle to the Captains.
He Refuses to Modify the Verdict of Court
of Inqulry-BIames SchIey for the
LOOP" During the Famous
Naval Fight.

Washington, Feb. 2O.-The follow
ing statement by President Roosevelt
in reply to the appeal recently made
to him by Rear Admiral Schley was
made public yesterday:
I have received the appeal of Admiral
Schley and the answer thereto from the
navy department. have examined both
with the utmost care, as well as the pre-
ceding appeal to the secretary of the
navy. I have read through all the testi-
mony taken before the court and the
statements of the counsel for Admiral
Sampson and Admiral Schley; have ex-
amined all the official reports of every
kind in reference to the Santiago naval
campaign, copies of the logbooks and sig
nal books, and the testimony before the
court of claims, and have also personally
had before me the four sub-dividing cap
tatns of the five 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 unanimous in its
expressions of opinion on most of it's find
ings of fact. No appeal is made to me
from the verdict of the court on these
points where it was unanimous. I have,
however, gone carefully over the evidence
on these points also. 1 am satisfied that,
on the whole, the court did substantial
justice.
1t should have specifically condemned
the failure to enforce an efficient night
blockade at Santiago while Admiral
Schley was in command. On the other
hand, I feel that there is a reasonable
doubt whether he did not move his
squadron with sufficient expedition. The
court is united in condemning Admiral
Schley'S action on the point where it
seems to me he most graVely erred his
'retrograde movement when he aban-
doned the blockade and his diobedience
of orders and misstatement of facts in
relation thereto. 1t should be remem-
bered, however, that the majority of these
actions which the court censures occurred
nve weeks or more before the fight it
self; and it certainly seems that if Ad-
miral Schley's actions were censurable
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.
We can, therefore, for our present pur-
poses dismiss consideration of so much
of the appeal as relates to anything ex-
cept the battle. AS regards this, the point
raised in the appeal is between Adrnirals
Sampson and 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 and pre-eminent
credit by any special exhibit of genius,
skill and courage. The court could have
considered both of these questions, but
as a matter of fact 1t unanimously ex-
cluded evidence offered upon them and
through it pronounced its refusal to
hear Admiral SIMPSONS side at all; and
in view of such exclusion the majority
of the court acted with entire propriety
in not expressing any opinion on these
points. The matter has, however, been
raised by the president of the court.
Moreover, it is the point upon which Adj
miral Schley in his appeal lays most
STRESS and which he especially 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 president says he has deemed
it best to secure statements from
the commanders of five ships (other
than the Brooklyn and New York;
and he also quotes a magazine arti-
Gle on the fight. The president then
sums up the battle and says that
technically Sampson commanded the
fleet and Schley the western division,
but the engagement was really a cap
tains' fight. He declares SIMPSONS
claim rests on his work as command
er-in-chief and his standing orders
about the blockade and then says:
Admiral SchIey is rightly entitled-as
is Capt. Cookie the credit of what the
Brooklyn did in the fight. On the whole
she did well; but I agree with the unani-
nous findings of the three admirals who
composed the court of inquiry as to the
loop" 1t seriously marred the Brook
lyn's otherwise excellent record, being
in fact the one grave mistake made by
any American ship that day. Had the
Brooklyn turned to the westward, that is,
In the same direction that the Spanish
ships were going. instead of in the con-
trary direction, she would undoubtedly
have been in more dangerous proXim-
ity'' to them. But it would have been
more dangerous for them as we'll as for
her. This kind of danger must not be
too nicely weighed by those whose trade
it is to dare greatly for the honor of the
flag.
The president concludes by saying:
1t was just to Admiral Sampson that
he should receive a greater advance in
numbers than Admiral Schley-there was
nothing done in the battle that warranted
any unusual reward for either. In short,
as regards Admirals Sampson and Schley,
I find that President Mckinley did sub
stantial justice and that there would be
no warrant for reversing his action.
The president heartily concurs in
the recommendation of the court of
inquiry that no further action be
taken in the matter, as to keep it
alive, he says, would damage both
the navy and the country.
THOSE SLY LEGISLATORS.