The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1902-02-21
PRESIDENT DECIDES THE ADMIR-
AIS APPEAL.
WAS A CAPTAINS BATTLE
Neither Sampson Nor SchIey Were
In More Than Technical
Command.

today made the following statemen
to the public:
White House, February Is. 1909
l have received the appeal of Admira
Schley and the answer thereto from
the navy department. l have perusec
both with the utmost care, as we'll as
the proceeding appeal to the secretary
of the navy. | have read through al
the testimony taken before the court
and the statements of the counsel fol
Admirals Sampson and Schley, have
examined all the official reports of ev.
cry kind in reference to the Santiago
naval campaign; copies of the log
books and signal books and the testi.
mony before the court of claims, and
have also personally had before me the
ships. aside from those Of the two adj
mirals, which were actively engaged
at Santiago.
1t appears that the court of in
quiry was unanimous in it's findings Of
fact in the ease and unanimous in its
expressions Of opinion on most of it's
findings of facts. No appeal is made
to me from the verdict Of tho court OF
those points where it was unanimous.
| have, however, gone carefully over
the evidence on these points also.
| an. satisfied that on the whole
the court did sub2 initial justice. 1t
should have specifically condemned
the failure to enforce an efficient
night blockade while Admiral Schley
was in command.
On the ether hand | feel that there
is a reasonable doubt whether he did
or did not mov his squadron with suf-
ficient expedition from port to port.
The court is a unit in condenning
Admiral Schley's action on the point
where it seems to me he most gravelv
erred: his "~retrograde movement
when he abandoned the blockade.
And his disObedience of orders and
IlSSldteulSHl Ol ldClS Ill leldllOH
thereto. 1t should be remembered.
however, that the majority of these
action which the court c%ensures. Oc-
CURED five weeks or more before the
fight itself. and it plainly seems that
if Admiral Schlev's actions were cen
surable. he should not have been left
oe ennnnI -, ,o,, ~ ri ,nI,, A Il ~; VOL
Sampson. His o~ffenses were in eff
feet %condoaed, when he was not call
ed to account for them.
Admiral Sampson. after the fight. in
an official letter to the department
alluded for the first time to Admiral
Schlev's "reprehensible conduct six
weeks previously.
If Admiral Schley was guilty of
reprehensib1e conduct of a kind which
called for such notice from Admiral
Sampson, then Admiral Sampson
ought not to have left him as senior
officer of the blockading squadron on
the third of July, when he (Sampson)
steamed away on his proper errand
of communication with General Shat
ter.
We can therefore. for our present
purposes dismiss consideration of so
much of the appeal as relates to any
thing except the battle. AS regards
this. the point raised in the appeal
is between Admiral Sampson and Ad-
miral Schley, a sto which was in com
miral Schley. as to which was entitled
to the credit, if either of them was,
really entitled to any unusual and pre-
eminent credit. by a special exhibition
Of genius. skill and courage.
The court could have considered
both of these questions. but as a mat
ter of fact it unanimously excluded
evidence offered. and through it's pres
ident, announced its refusal to hear
Admiral SIMPSONS side at all: and j n
view of such exclusion the majority
of the court acted with entire pro-
priety in not expressing any opinion
on these points. The matter has, how.
V e been raised by the president of
the court, moreover it is the point
upon which Admiral Schley in his ap.
peal laid most stress. and which he
especially asks me to consider.
have therefore carefully investigated
this matter also, and have informed
myself upon it from the best sources
of information at my command.
The appeal of Admiral Schley tc
me is not, as to this, the chief point
he raises, really an appeal from the
decision of the court of inquiry. Five
sixths of the appeal is devoted to this
question of command and credit; tha1
is to the matter which the court Of
inquiry did not consider.
Et4 II 81 So 1R~A 1890 H~--a A.