Spirit of the age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1845-1913, 1902-02-22

fore the Battle and Must Have Been
Condoned When He Was Second in
Command on the Day of Battle
Expresses the Hope That Controver.
sy Will Now Be Let Drop.
Washington, Feb. President
Roosevelt yesterday filed his memo
rAnda on the appeal of Admiral Srhlcy
from the finding of the court of inquiry.
Annhstract follows:
have received the nppeal of Admiral
Schlcy and the answer thereto from the
navy department. have examined
both. rs well aS the preceding appeal 10
the secretary of the navy. have read
all the testimony and statement Of the
counsel: have examined nll the official
reports of every kind in refercncr1o the
Santiago naval campaign. copies nf the
logbooks and signal books and the tcStI
mOny before the court OF claims, ana
have had before me the four Sur\ i"il1
captains of the five ships. aside from
those Of the two HdmilalS, which were
actively engaged nt Santiago
1t appears that the court of inquiry
was unanimous in it's findings. No ap-
peal is made to me from the verdict of
the court. 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
Schlty was in command. On the other
hand. feel that there is II reasonable
doubt whether he did not move his
squadron with sufficient expedition
from port to port.
The court is Il unit in condcmning Adj
mils,l Schlcv's acticn ON the point where
it seems to me he most "ravely erred:
his ''rrtrys:l'ad" movement" when hc
abandoned the blockade and his dis
obedience of orders and miSStutcmrntS
of facts thereto.
1t should he remembered. however.
that the ma .jority Of these actions which
the court cemSurcS occurred five weeks
or more before the fight itself: and it
certainly seems that if Admiral Schley'S
actions were censurable he should not
have been left as second in command
Under Admiral Sampson.
We can therefore dismiss the con
sideralion of so much of the appeal :ls
refers to anything except the battle. AS
regards this. the point raised in the ap-
peal is between Admiral Sampson and
Admiral Schlcy. as to which was in
command. and as to which was eutitcl
to credit. if either of them was really
entitled tOanv unusual and pre-eniilent
credit for any special exhibition of
genius. skill and courage. 1t is the
point upon which Admiral Schlry in his
| lppral lays most stress. and which hoes
therefore, carefully investigated the
matter also. AMI have informed myself
| upon it from the best sources OF in.
'~rmaton AT my command.
The HpprH of Admiral Schlry to me is
in effect an appeal from the nciio If
President Mckinley three years ago.
when he sent in the recommendation
for promotion for the various officers
connected with the Santiago squadron,
haSing these recommendations upon the
estimate of credit To which the officers
were respectively entitled to.
From the statements of the captains
engaged. from the official reports and
from testimony before the court of in.
uuiry. the fight can be plotted with nh.
Solutc certainty in its iml ortAmt out
line. though there is conflict as to minor
points. Admiral SIMPSONS ship, the
New York, was SCcnat the outset of the
| fight from all of the other ships except
| the Brooklyn. Four of these five ship
! captains have testified that they re-
yarucd him rs present and in command.
In short. the question rs to which of
| the two men. Admiral Sampson or Nd
| miral Schlry. was in command. is of
| merely nomina character. Technically.
Sampson commanded the fleet. and
Schlcy. lS usual. the western division.
The important fact is that after the
battle was joined not Il helm WAS
shifted. not IL gun was fired. not Il pound
Of steam WAS put on in the engine room
aboard any ship actively engaged. in
| obedience to the order of either San,p-
son or Schlry, save on their own two
vessels. 1t was Il captains fight So far
rs the fight was concerned: neither one
| or the other in fact exercised any com
mand. Sampson was hardly more han
technically in the fight. His real claim
| for credit rests upon his work as com
mand"r-in-chief; upon the excellence of
| the blockade: ulon the preparedness of
| the squadron: upon the arrangement Of
| the ships; and tue standing orders in
accordance with Which they instantly
moved to the attack Of the SpaniardS
when the latter appeared. For an
these things the credit is his.
Admiral Schley is rightly entitled as
is Captain Cook-to the credit of what
the brooklyn did in the fight On tl.e
whole she did we'll; hut Iagrce with the
unanimous finding of the court of iii
uuiry as to the loop 1t seriously
marrrd the Rrouklyn'S otherwise rN-
ccllent record. being in fact the one
grave mistake made 10y any American
ship that day.
Under such circumstances il seems to
me that the recommendations of pr,Si-
lent Mckinley were eminently proper.
and that 81 far aS Ahnir;ls Sampson
and Schicy We're concerned il would
have been unjust tor him To have made
other Recommendations Personally, I
feel that it would have been well 10 have
given Captain Clark of the Oregon the
same advancement that WIS given
Wainwright. hut wniving tkis. il is owl
dent that Wainwright was entitled to
receive mere than any of tho other com,
mandcrS: ana that it was just to Nd
miral Sampson that he should receive
a greater advance in numbers than .\d-
miral Schlcy-ethere was nothn.. done
Perished From Cold.