The daily journal. (Salem, Or.) 1899-1903, 1902-02-20

miral Schley's appeal ana tine answer
thereto, from the Navy Department.
The President says: 81 have examined
both with utmost care, as we'll as the
preceding appeal to the Secretary of the
Navy. have read through all the testi-
mony taken before the court and the
statements OF counsel for Admiral Samp'
son and Admiral Schley have examined
all the official reports Of every kind in
reference TO the Santiago naval campaign
and also personally had before me the
four surviving captains from the five
ships, aside from those Of the two Ad-
mirals, which we're actively engaged at
Santiago. IL appears that the Court OF
Inq uiry was unanimous in its findinge
Of fact, and unanimous in its expressions
OF opinion and most of its findings oifact.
No appeal is made 10 me from the yer.
dict Of the court on these points, where
IL was unanimous, have, however, gone
carefully over the evidence on these
points also. am satisfied that IN the
whole, the court did substantial justice.
1T should have specifically con-
demned the failure to enforce an eff
cient night blockade at Santiago while
Admiral Schley was in command. On
the other hand feel that there is a
reasonable doubt whether he did not
move his squadron with sufficient ex-
petition from port 10 port. The court
isunitsd in condemning Admiral Schlsy's
action on the point where IL seems TO
me he most gravely orred-his
"retrograde movement" when he
abandoned the blockade, and his dis
obedience OF orders and mis.statement
Of facts in relation thereto. II should
be remembered, however, that the ma
jority Of these actions which the court
censures occurred five weeks or more be-.
fore the fight itself and it certainly
seems that II Admiral schley's actions
we're censurabls, he should not have
been left as second in command under
Admiral Sampson. His oifenses were
in effect condoned when he was not
called 10 account for them. Admiral
Sampson, after the fight, in an official
letter 10 the Navy Department alluded
for the frst time 10 Admiral Schley's
"reprehensible conduct" six weeks pre-
viously. II Admiral schley was guilty
OF reprehensible conduct OF the kind
which called for such notice by Admiral
Sampson, then Admiral Sampson ought
not to have left him as senior officer Of
the blockading squardon on the third
Of July, when he tSampson) steamed
away on his proper errand OF COM
munication with General Shaiter.
1--WE can therefore, for our present
purposes, dismiss the consideration Of 30
much Of the appeal as relates TO any.
thing except the battle, As regards this
the point raised In the appeal isbetween
Admirals Sampson and Schley, as to
which was In command as 10 which was
entitled to the credit, II either Of them
was really entitled 10 any unusual and
pre.eminent credit by any special ex-
hlbit Of genius, skin, and courage. The
court could have considered both Of
these questions, but as a matter Of fact
II unanimously excluded the evidence
offered upon them, aud through IFS pre-
announced refusal TO hear Admira
SIMPSONS side at all, aud in view OF
such exclusion, the majority Of the
court acted with entire proprety in not
expressing any opinion on this point,
"The matter has, however, been
raised by the President Of the court.
Moreover, II 10 point upon which Ad-
miral Schley In his appeal lays the most
stress, and which he especially asks me
TO consider, The appeal Of Admiral
Sohley 10 me is not as to this. The
chief point he raises really is an appeaI
from the decision of the Court OF ln-
quiry.
"Five-sixths Of the appeal is devoted
10 this question OF command and credit
that is, TO a matter which tho Court OF
Inquiry did not consider 1t Is In effect
an appeal from the action Of President
Mckinley three years ago, whom he sent
In his recommendation for promotion
for the various officers connected with
the Santiago squadron, basing these rec
concentrations upoi his estimate OF the
credit 10 which the officers we're respec.
lively entitled. What have 10 decide,
therefore, is whether or not President
Mckinley did an injustice in the matter,
This necessarily involves a comparison
OF the action Of the different command
ers engaged. The exhaustive official rt
porte OF the action leave little 10 be
brought out answ but as the question
OF Admiral sampson's right TO be con-
Sldered In chief command, which was de
termined In his favor by President Me
kinley and later by the Court OF Claims,
has never hitherto been officially raised,
deemed il best 10 secure statements
from the commanders OF the five ships
(other than the Brooklyn aud New York
which we're actively engaged in the fight. "
The President then includes the state
ments from the five Captains aud says;
The question as 60 which one OF the
two men, Adm raj sampson or Admiral
Schley, Was al the time in command is
OF merely nominal character. II Was
= captains fight.
Therefore the credit 10 which each
Of the two is entitled, rests ON matters
apart from the claim Of nominal COM
mand over = squadron; for, 80 far Ne