The daily morning journal and courier., 1902-01-31


 They also quote Admiral Schleys tes
 timony that the Brooklyn's charge wa!
 made in accordance with the origina
 plan. Of the order "close up" they
 say:
 So this order, the second of the two
 signalled from the Brooklyn during the
 battle of Santiago to the American
 fleet, was really formal also, and was
 gwen in accordance with Sampson 2
 original plan of battle, which required
 closing up with view of sinking the
 spanish vessels in the entrance. Sur prising as this is, it is shown by Ad- miral Schley's own sworn testimony and corroborated by the time and cir cumstances under which the signal was made. It did not influence other ships. All the captains had been advised of the plan of battle, and all closed ac- | cordingly, without waiting or looking | for signals from the Brooklyn, and paid no attention to this signal, which, as | above stated, was not seen except from the Oregan, and not from that ship un- til all vessels had closed up. It is even more surprising, but it appears to be a fact, that Admiral Schley issued no | | the battIe''
 The commentators next state: 'If Commodore Schley was in abso- 1 lute command during the battle, and if he made any use of his authority, he must have exercised some control over some of the vessels participating" whereupon they take in detail the tes- timony of the commanding officers on this point and say:
 Wainwright of the Gloucester said he saw no orders from the Brooklyn; Taylor of the Indiana said he saw no signals from the Brooklyn; Evans of the Iowa said of the Brooklyn I never saw any signal from her. I did not manoeuvre in obedience to any signals from the Brooklyn; the commanding of ficer of the Texas is dead, but the off, cers' testimony makes it clear that that ship received no orders"
 Speaking of this ship the commenta- tors declare,
 "The question is not so much one of possible credit to, but of possible cen sure of Admiral Schley, in connection with the work of that vessel in the battle of Santiago. The plain truth is that Admiral Schley did not during the battle in any way direct or control the splendid performances of the Glouces- ter and the three battleships, Indiana, Iowa and Texas. The officers in com mand of these ships neither received nor obeyed a solitary order from him"
 Next the commentators turn their at tention to what they declare were per isitent efforts by Schleys attorneys to show that in some manner the Oregon at least was. under his orders during the battle, first by answering the sig nal "close up and afterward by firing her 13-inch guns under signal from the Brooklyn and they say but the at tempt as the testimony to be quoted below shows was q failure"
 They quote, therefore, passages from Captain Clark's testimony in which he said in regard to the order "close up," that was standing order in the squadron, to attack the enemy at once if they appeared, and to keep the heads of the ships always toward the entrance" and q remember a feeling of satisfaction that there was an order to close in, in case any accident had collding with other ships.'
 As to the alleged order from the Brooklyn directing the Oregon to fire her 13-inch guns, the commentators r again quote from Captain Clark's testi- mony, where, when asked if the guns were fired in pursuance of an order rom the Oregon, the captain said: No sir; I fired them after deliberating o,oI | made signal I did not see f."
 The comment closes in the following words: "The contention that the mag lificent work of the Oregon, or any part of it. was done under orders from he Brooklyn, or that the Oregon re- ,eived and obeyed even a single order rom Commodore Schley from the time he Spanish ships were sighted to the ime of the surrender of the Colon, which surrender may fairly be taken IS the close of the battle, must be aban- Ioned, and with 1t goes the last peg lpon which to hang the pretense of a laim that during the battle of Santia- 70 Commodore Schey effectively eXer- ised any of the functions of a com in chief. "The weight of the testimony is to fleet that the commodore controlled he movements of his flagship, the Brooklyn, well, with the exception of he loop But it also shows, not neg lively, but afflrmatively and beyond uestion, that he did not control the perations of the fleet in general on I hat day.
 4 "All this is established not by the heoretical deduction or expert or ineX ert opinion, but by direct positive, ( and unimpeachable testi- 1ony, given under oath by the admir- ( Is brothers in arms. Y "The plain truth of the matter there l lre, developed for the first time under V le searchlight of this inquiry, al- I tough quite incidentally, is that so far S s the Gloucester, the Iowa, the In- q lana, the Texas, and the Oregon are 1ncerned not the stroke of a propeller Iade not the touch of a helm not the l ring of a shot was done under the di- . ,ction or by the orders of Admiral