Connecticut western news., 1902-02-27

Was Technically In Command, but
 Calls the Battle a Captains' Fight.
 President Roosevelt's memorandur on the appeal of Admiral Sch;ey was made public on Friday. President Roosevelt says:
 have received the appeal of Admiral Schley and the answer thereto from the navy department. I have examined both with the utmost care, we'll the pre- ceding appeal to the secretary of the navy. I have read through all the testi- mony taken before the court and the statements of the counsel for Admirals Sampson and Schley; have examined all the official reports of every kind in refer ence to the Santiago naval campaign, copies of the logbooks and signal books and the testimony before the court of claims and have also personally had be- fore me the four surviving captains of the five ships, aside from those of the two admirals which were actively engaged at Santiago.
 It appears that the court of inquiry was | unanimous in its findings of fact and unanimou1 in its expressions of opinion on | most of its findings of fact. No appeal is made to me from the verdict of the court on these points where 1t was unanimous. I have. however. gone carefully over the evidence on these points also. am satis- fled that on the whole the court did sub stantial justice. It should have specif1cal- ly condemned the failure to enforce an eff icient night blockade at Santiago while | Admiral Schley was in command. On the | other hand, I feel that there is a reason | able doubt whether he did not move his | squadron with sufficient expedition from port to port
 The court is a unit in condemning Ad- | miral Schley's action on the point where | 1t seems to me he most gravely erred-his ie n- | doned the blockade and his disobedience | of orders and misstatement of facts in | relation thereto. It should be remember | ed, however. that the majority of these actions which the court censures 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 second in command | under Admiral Sampson. His offenses were in effect condoned when he was not called to account for them. Admiral | Sampson, after the fight, in an official let ter to the department alluded for the first time to Admiral Schley's ''reprehensible conduct six weeks previously If Admi- ral Schley was guilty of reprehensible conduct of a kind which called for such | notice from Admiral Sampson, then Ad- | miral Sampson ought not to have left him l as senior officer of the blockading squad | ron on the Sd of July when he (Sampson) ! steamed away on his proper errand of | communication with General Shafter. | We can therefore for our present pur- | poses dismiss consideration of so much of | the appeal as relates to anything except | the battle. As regards this, the point raised in the appeal is between Admiral | Sampson and Admiral Schley, to which | was in command and as to which was en- ! titled to the credit, If either of them was | really entitled to any unusual and pre- | eminent credit by any special exhibition | of genius, skill and courage
 | The president then says that practi- cally the only point raised in Admiral Schley's appeal is the question of the command during the battle. After re viewing the evidence concerning the battle taken by the court and the state ments of the captains the president continues:
 | In short the question as to which of the | two men, Admiral Sampson or Admiral Schley, was at the time in command is of | merely nominal character. Technically | Sampson commanded the fleet and Schley. as usual, the western division. The actual fact, the important fact, is that after | the battle was joined not a helm was l shifted, not a gun was fired, not a pound ! of steam was put on in the engine room aboard any ship actively engaged in obe- dience to the order of either Sampson or Schley save on their own two vessels It | was a captains fight.
 | Therefore the credit to which each of the two is entitled rests on matters apart | from the claim of nominal command over the squadron, for so far as the actual
 fight was concerned neither one nor the | other in fact exercised any command. | Sampson was hardly more than technical | ly in the fight. His real claim for credit ! rests upon his work as commander in | chief.
 Admiral Schley is rightly entitled. as is | . xF vHaN xk,,
 Brooklyn did in the fight. On the whole
 she did well, but agree with the unani- ] nous finding of the three admirals who composed the court of inquiry as to the l loop" It seriously marred the Brook | Iyn's otherwise excellent record, being, in
 fact, the one grave mistake made by any l American ship that day. Had the Brook | lyn turned to the westward-that is, in the
 same direction that the Spanish ships
 were going-instead of in the contrary di- rection she would undoubtedly have been
 in more dangerous proximity" to them.
 But 1t would have been more dangerous
 for them as well as for herl This kind of
 danger 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 as great as that
 which in the selfsame moment, menaced
 Wainwright's fragile craft as he drove
 forward against the foe. It was not. in
 my judgment. as great as the danger to
 
 as actually made. It certainly caused
 both the Brooklyn and the Texas mate
 rially to lose position compared to the
 fleeing Spanish vessels
 But after the loop had once been taken
 Admiral Schley handled the Brooklyn
 manfully and we'll. She and the Oregon
 were thenceforth the headmost of the
 American vessels. though the Iowa cer- | tainly, and seemingly the Texas also. did | as much in hammering to a standstill the | Teresa "
 Indiana did all her eastward position and | crippled machinery permitted. In the | chase of the Colon the Brooklyn and Ore
 gon share the credit between them.
 | Under such circumstances It seems to
 me that the recommendations of President
 Mckinley were eminently proper and that | so far as Admirals Sampson and Schley | were concerned it would have been unjust
 for him to have made other recommends | tions. Personally l feel that in view oi | Captain Clark long voyage in the Oregon | and the condition in which he brought her
 to the scene of service. as we'll the
 way in which he actually managed her | before and during the fight, 1t would have
 been well to have given him the same ad- | yancement that was given Wainwright
 But, waiving this. it Is evident that Vain
 wright was entitled to receive more thar
 any of the other commanders, and that fl | was just to Admiral Sampson that ht | should receive a greater advance in num-
 bers than Admiral Schley-there was noth.
 ing done in the battle that warranted any | unusual reward for either In short al ] regards Adrnirals Sampson and Schley.
 find that President Mckinley did sub
 stantiaI justice and that there would bt
 no warrant for reversing his action.
 The president in conclusion states
 that he hopes there will be DO further
 agitation of the controversy.
 A ZoIn BlnHe.
 There has just been another bonfire
 of NJ. Zola's books in Melbourne. The
 local supreme court has decided that
 certain of his novels are indecent lit
 erature" within the meaning of the act
 In consequence when consignment of
 these books arrives from London or
 Paris it is promptly seized at Port Mel