The Corvallis times. (Corvallis, Or.) 1888-1909, 1902-02-22
A CAPTAINS BATTLE
THAT is WHAT PRESIDENT ROOsE-
WELT SAYS SANTIAGO WAS.

VIII 0AAo OhN w AtOa
Decides, in the Schley Appeal That
Neither. Sampson nor Schley
Was in Command-Says
the Loop Was Wrong
Move-Other News.
Washington, Feb. 19.-The Pres
ident today made the following
statement public:
White House, Feb. IS, 1907
have received the appeal of Admir-
al Schley and the answer thereto
from the navy department.. I have
examined both with the utmost care
as we'll as the preceding appeal to
the secretary of the navy. I have
read through all the testimony TAX
en- before the court and the state.
ments of the counsel for Admiral
Sampson and Admiral Schley.
It appears that the court ef in
quiry was una animous inits findings
of fact and unanimous in its ex-
pressions of opinion on most of its
6ndings of fact. No appeal is made
TO me from the verdict of the court
on these points where it was unani-
NOUS. I have, however, gone care
fully over the evidence on these
points also. I 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 COM
mand. On the other hand, [ feel
that there is reasonable doubt
whether he did not move his squad
ron with sufficient expedition from
port to port.
The court is united in condemn
ing Admiral Schley's action on
the part where it seems to me he
most gravely erred-his ''retrograde
moYement,o when he abandoned the
Blockade and his disobedience Of
orders and mistatement Of facts in
relation thereto. 1t should be re-
membered, however, that the ma
jority of these actions which the
court eensured 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 Samp-
son. His ofenses were in effect con-
doned when he was not called to
account for them.
In short the question as to which
one of the two men, Admiral Samp-
son or Admiral Schley, was at the
time in command, is of merely
nominal character. Technically,
Sampson commanded the feet, and
Schley as usual, the western divi-@
sion. The actual fact, the import
ant fact, is that after the battle was
planned not a helm was shifted,
not gun was fired, not a pound Of
steam was put on the engine room
aboard any ship actively engaged
in obedience to the order of either
Sampson or Schley, save on their
own two vessels. 1t was captains
fight.
Therefore the credit to which of
of the two is entitled
rests on matters apart from
the claim of nominal command ov-
er the squadron; for, SO far as the
actual fight was concerned, neither
one nor the other in fact exercised
any command. Sampson was hard
ly more than technically in the
fight. His real claim for credit
rests upon his work as commander
in-chief.
Admiral Schley is rightly entitled,
as is Captain Cook, to the credit of
what the Brooklyn did in the fight.
On the whole, she did well; but |
agree with the unanimous finding
of the three admirals who composed
the court of inquiry as to the "loop."
1t seriously marred the Brooklyn's
otherwise excellant record, being in
fact the one grave mistake made by
any American ship that day. Had
the Brooklyn turned to the west
ward, that is, in the same direction
the Spanish ships were going, in
stead of in the contrary direction
she would undoubtedly have been
in more dangerous proximity" to
them. But it would have been
more dangerous for them, as well
as for her. This kind of thing must
not be too nicely weighed by those
whose trade it is to dare greatly for
the honor-of the flag. Moreover,
the danger was certainly not az
great as that which, in the self
same moment, marked Wainwright's
fro oc,;ln oro ff &c bo n ravo fnruord