New-York tribune., 1902-01-31
SCHLEY'S PLEA ANSWERED
NAVY DEPARTMENT SAYS HE WAS NOT
COMMANDER AT SANTIAGO.
RECORDS CITED TO SHOW THAT HE DID
NOT DIRECT THE BATTLE-GROUND
SHIFTED IN ADA1IRAL'S APPEAL.
rpr TELEGRAPH TO THE TR1BUSE.l

rBr TELEGRAPH THE TR1sUSE.]
Washington. Jan. 3o.-The comment OF the navy
Department Rear Admiral Sc5leY : apPeal ~
the President is devoted mainly TO the question
command and credit at the battle OF Sah'asO'
and A strong case is presented to contraVeT
Schey's contention of absolute cornrnahc anu
confute his claim to any credit Whatever ioI NV
destruction of Cervera's fleet. For the hls' "io
since the controversy arose, the onlclal Aa'ls i1
sunport Of the department's position on the matter
of command are fully set forth In 1he 10TH 'i".
they would have been presented 10 'he 0ou'I %
inquiry had that tribunal given attention 10 TINS
nhsse Of the subject instead of ruling out all test-
rnonv hearing upon IT, 1t is now shown concur
sively however from the records, that' so Tar "9
the Gloucester. the Indiana. the Iowa. 'Ae
and the Oregon were concerned rear @AuiIi
Schley exercised no practical cornllaiu w. -
vessels took no part in directing their movements
in the fight and is entitled to no credit Tor tIe
services they rendered, leaving the BROOKLYN alole
subject TO his orders and control.
Judge Advocate General Lemly and his assistant
solicitor Hanna, who prepared the comment pay
sligt attention to the minor points raised by Rear
Admiral Schley and his counsel and emphasize ."e
gravity Of the offences on which the couit ~ ~
in condemning him. and which his peu'loh ie'0' e0
The comment opens as follows
Sir: In the appeai. 9efGTs or yo1 yE&ond Re features
Of the case that chiefly occupied me and
the GTc tb Great mass of the testimony adduced
re,ates 70 Mal!cH we're: ete 7'e"
feFiT Firsf.The retrograde movement.
second-Dsobedence of orders 47,aI ,,,norts
Third-Inaccurate and misleading oluClsh porcI
Fourth-Failure to destroy vessels OF the enemy
N4is Figt biniIIsfiee MIi,1iii to A brother officer
These matters are all grave The hrSt ianted for
retrogade movement Tas fhag htqreFeon of Amer
lean naval vessels then under any one HIas
sSehnse TeRas Brooky and and
ang sS1g ST In eop@9SI Yale tag a9d Vxe and Well
collier; was by Commodore sGheys & oE dTecri9n ref < eG
West, than seven hundred miles distant ah9
this when within weny@two Two iSs nrdsred cd to proceed
with ali dispatch and where the eneny's ships were
The second. "disobedience of orders was that
moTement by an order from the Secretary Of the
Navy. deliberately and lsnowingly disobeyed @ that
The third inaccurate and misleading official re-
modore Schley for such retrogrqde' movement and
Ton %ss snort u Of SfS coa was not true
hs a S2e aT one o more OF %
the Spanish ships; part OF the hostile force the
stroy lay within reach Of the guns Of the flying
squadron, and endeavor. or sufficient en-
The fifth, the matter OF injustice to brother Of
Upon all the above named features believed by
us us to be the most important If not the only really
qury the conduct of Admiral schiey was con
ma Dewey and Ra SGrs Be5bam an a
sey united in the findings and opinion upon all OF
sn pg1n1s and theH united also III Inc me
ceedings be had "in view OF the length OF. time
which has elapsed since the occurrence of the
events Of the Santiago campaign"
The comment after pointing out briefly certain
erroneous statements. If inadvertent. yet the
less misleading" in regard TO the minor points OF
dilatoriness which had already been fully threshed
over and regarded as unproftabIe for further
discussion proceeds directly TO attack the claim
command and credit, 10 which the petition had de-
voted IS out OF 104 typewritten pages.
QUESTION BETWEEN SAMPSON AND sCHLEY
The commentors say they recognize the fact that
Admiral Schey devoted by far the larger part Of
MS appeal to the question OF command. and
ssausntly- give that question proportronare space
In their comment. They declare that the question
Is between Sampson and Sohley, both alike inter
ested' and 10 investigate il fairly both should be
heard. Such incidental testimony on this point as
came before the court Schley's side ONLY
and the doors entirely closed TO SAMPSON
They add:
To determine important question OF this
natHTe under such conditions is contrary the
ertheless this is precisely what the appeal asks the
President to do
1t Is admitted that the precept was broad enough
to have permitted the court go into this ques-
hon but 1t is recalled that although the Judge ad-
Tocate expressed willingness to enter upon it the
court did not deem it necessary proper to do So
The judge advocate they say, might have shown
that 1t was Admiral Simpsons plan of night block
ade that forced Cervera TO come our in the dav-
az
statement They quote Admiral Schley IN his testi-
mony to the effect that the American shDs charged
in according to the original plan 10 sink the
enemy in the channel" and that that plan failed
because the enemy succeeded really in passing the
battle line" They ask why did the enemy sue
ceed. and DECLARE that the P ooklyn having aban-
doned her position the left of the line thereby
LETT an unguarded opening along the western shore
through which the Spanish fleet passed our ships
and attempted to escape" The courts opinion IS
hat Dr., ,l-T,-
in position by the loop, and delayed the Texas
10 sustain their contention that Sampson was in
command the commentators quote passages from
schieys report of July q. 1898. follows
The torpedo boat destroyers were destroyed early
IN IN me action, fut the smoke was dense in their
ulIecIoh that / cannot say 10 which vessel or YES
sells the credit belongs. This doubtless was better
of the combat shut out from my view the 1ndiaRs
closer no TO yn1r put as these vessels were
conflict was under your immediat tc observation.
They remark;
Nobody has disputed Grants title to the
victory at Appomattox, though then lying sick
IT feared he could not be reached within the
period of armistice Though Howard was senior off,
man. man absent on one Of Admiral Dahlgrens gun
port to Lincoln: Il beg to present you as a Christ
mas gift. the city Of Savannah"
And. as showing Schley's own opinion of who
was in command, they quote this passage from his
dispatch OF July TO- 1895, to the Secretary of the
Navy:
counts OF July have attributed victory of July
almost enureiy TO me Victory was secured by the
due ~ ' %
sCHLEY QUOTED AGAINST HIMSELF.
Further they quote Schley's letter Of December
* 1871 TO Secretary Long. justifying the loon on
the expressed ground that IT was made on tho
execution OF the standing order to close in II 20