The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-01-31
Counsel for the Admiral Charged
with Shifting Ground and Disre-
garding Main Points.
COURTS FINDING UNANIMOUS
ON THE MOST IMPORTANT MATTERS
THAT WERE INVESTIGATED.
Sch1ey Was Found Guilty of DisObey-
ing Orders, Injustice TO Brother
Oficer, Etc.

ments'' of Judge Advocate General Lemly
and Solicitor Hanna on the appeal OF Adj
miral Schley, as submitted TO the President
by Secretary Long, is less than third as
long as the appeal itself, fact accounted
for by the comparatively few quotations
from the courts testimony in the case or
the comments" The commentators begin
with a statement that Admiral Schley and
his counsel have shifted their ground.
They say the chief features of the case
were the retrograde movement" dis
obedience Of orders" inaccurate and mis-
leading official reports failure to destroy
vessels of the enemy lying within sight
and injustice to a brother officer" These
matters are all grave. The first that
the finest aggregation of American naval
vessels under one command was, by
Schley's directions, turned about and
headed for Key West, more than 200 miles
distant, when within twenty-five miles Of
Santiago, where the enemy's ships were.
The second was that Schley deliberately
and knowingly disobeyed the secretarys
order overtaking him in his retrOgrade
movement. The third was that Schley's
reason, officially given for the retrograde
movement and disobedience of orders,
namely that the flying squadron was
short of COAL" was not true. The fourth
was that for three days some of the Span
ish ships lay within reach of the flying
squadron and no sufficient effort was
made to destroy them The fifth involves
the point of honor.
The commentators say: upon all the
above-named features, believed by us to be
the most important if not the only really
important matters, into which the court
made inquiry, the conduct of Admiral
Schley was condemned by that most dis
tinguished tribunal. Admiral Dewey and
Rear Admirals Benham and Ramsay united
in their findings and opinion on all Of these
several points and they united also in the
significant recommendations that no
further proceedings be had lin view OF the
length of time which has elapsed since the
occurrence of the events of the Santiago
campaign"
GRAVE MATTERS IGNORED.
The commentators charge that Admiral
Schley now ignores all these grave mat
ters and bases his appeal on unimportant
features of the case as compared with the
grave charges above referred to, upon
which there was not, and in the face of
the testimony. dould not have been any diff
ference of opinion of the court
The commentators say that they recog-
nize the fact that Admiral Schley devoted
by far the longer part of his appeal to the
question of command and consequently give
that question a prOportiOnate space in their
comment. They declare that the question
is between Sampson and Schley, both alike
interested, and to investigate il fairly both
should be heard. Such incidental testimony
on this point as came before the court was
on Schley'S side only, and the doors were
entirely closed to Sampson. They add: ITO
determine an important question of this
nature, under such conditions, is contrary
TO the underlying principles of Anglo-Saxon
justice. Nevertheless it is precisely what
the appeal asks the President to do"
1t is admitted that the precept was broad
enough to have permitted the court to go
into this question. but ii is recalled that
the judge advocate though expressing a
willingness to enter upon it, the court did
not deem il necessary or proper to do so.
The judge advocate, they say, might have
shown that it was Admiral Simpsons plan
of night blockade that forced Cervera to
come out in the daylight, and Captain
Clark is quoted TO support that statement.
They quote Admiral Schley in his testi-
mOny to the effect that the American ships
charged in according to the original plan
to sink the enemy in the channel and that
that plan failed because the enemy sue
Ceeded really in passing the battle line.
They ask why did the enemy succeed and
declare the Brooklyn, having abandoned
her position on the left of the line, thereby
left an unguarded opening along the west
ern shore, through which the Spanish fleet
passed our ships and attempted to escape -
The courts opinion is quoted to the effect
that the Brooklyn lost distance in posi-
ton by the loop" and delayed the Texas.
SAMPSON IN COMMAND.
To sustain their contention that Sampson
was in command. the commentators quote
paragraphs from Schley's report of July s,
1898, as follows: THE torpedo-boat de-
stroyers were destroyed early in the action,
~
ton that cannot say to which vessel or
vessels the credit belongs. This doubtless
was better seen from your flagship The
dense smoke of the combat shut out from
my view the Indiana and the Gloucester
but as these vessels were closer to your
flagship, no doubt their part in the conflict
was under your immediate observation"
They remark: Nobody has ever dis
puted Grants title to the victory at APP
pomattox, though lying sick some miles
from the place of surrender-so far that
it was feared he could not be reached with
in the period of armistice. Though Howard
was senior officer present at the capture
of Savannah and Sherman absent on one
of Admiral Dahlgren's gunbodts, nobody
has questioned Shermans famous report
to Lincoln: L beg 10 present you, as a
Christmas gift, the city of Savannah "
And as showing Schley's own opinion of
who was in command, they quote this mes
sage from his dispatch Of July TO- 1895 to
the secretary of the navy: Feel some
of July have attributed victory of July
almost entirely to me. Victory was Sc
cured by the force under the command of
commander-in-chief North Atlantic station
and TO him the honor is due"
Further. they quote Schley's letter of
Dec. Is, 1901, TO Secretary Long, justifying
the loop" on the expressed ground that
1t was made lin the execution of the stand
ing order to close in 1t is asked: But if
ne was there himself in command how
happens il that he executing the or
ders of somebody else in command? Be
fore the court of inquiry, every prop raised
to support the contention that Commodore
Schley did many .nIngs TO achieve the
victory by issuing orders as commanding
officer of the American fleet was removed.
The plain truth was for the first time re-
vealed that Commodore Schley did not ex-
ercise command on that day over any shin
except. 10 some extent, his own flagship
the Brooklyn
EXTRACTS FROM TESTIMONY.
The comment at this point contains a
number of extracts from the testimony
10 sustain this contention. Taking the
Brooklyn's signal book it is stated that
this showed that the Brooklyn gave only
two orders: clear for action" and CLOSE
up" A meagre record, but il is the whole
story The commentators vote Lieutenant
McCauley. the Brooklyn signal officer. that
the first signal, Clear ship for action. "
was hosted by him ION my OWE hook -
They assert that the feet had been sub
stantially cleared for action for over a
month, and that what remained TO be
done on shipboard was not done In pur-
suance Of this order They quote Captain
Clark TO the effect that IL was a standing
~aar. he ii r~h ffne q ~