The Chanute times. [volume] (Chanute, Kan.) 1897-1913, 1902-02-28
THE PRESIDENTS VERDICT.
After Careful Study Of Every
Feature Gives Decis ion.
ENDS WITH ADVICE TO QUIT.

Washington.-The president has
made the following statement public:
| "White House, February Is, 1909.
81 have received the appeal of Admit
raj Schley and the answer thereto from
tn navy department, Ihave examined
both with the utmost care, as well as
the preceding appeal to the secretary
of the navy. have read through all
the testimony 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 reference to the Santiago naval
campaign, copies of the logbooks and
the testimony before the court of claims
and have also personally had before me
the four surviving captains of the
five ships, aside from those of the two
admirals, which were actively engaged
at Santiago.
VERDICT JUST.
| at appears that the court of inquiry
was unanimous in its findings of fact
| and unanimous in it's expressions of
opinion on most of it's finding of fact
| No appeal is made to me from the YER
dict of the court on the points where
it was unanimous. i have, however,
gone. carefully over the evidence on
these points also.
II am satisfied that, on the whole,
the court did substantial justice.
sit should have specifically con-
demned the failure to enforce an elf
cient night blockade at Santiago while
Admiral Schley was in command.
son the other hand, feel that there
is a reasonable doubt whether he did
not move his squadron with sufficient
expedition from port to port.
"rhe court is united in condemning
Admiral Schley's action on the point
where it seems to me he most gravely
erred; his 'retrograde movement when
he abandoned the blockade, and his
disobedience of orders, and misstate-
ment of facts in relation thereto.
oFFENsEs CoNDONED.
'It should be remembered, 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 as second in command
under Admiral Sampson. His offenses
not called to account for them. Adj
miral Sampson, after the fight, in an
official letter to the department, allu-
ded for the first time to Admiral Schley's
'reprehensible conduct six weeks pre-
viously.
eff Admiral Schley was guilty of rep
rehensible conduct of a kind that 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 Sd of July,
when he (Sampson) steamed away on
his proper errand of communication
with General Shafter
AS TO COMMAND.
"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 Admirals Sampson and Schley
as to which was in command, and as to
which was entitled to the credit, if
cit her of them was really entitled to
any unusual and pre-eminent credit by
any special exhibit of genius, skill and
courage. The court could have con-
sidered both of these questions, but, as
a matter of fact, it unanimously OK
cluded evidence offered upon them and
refused to hear Admiral Simpsons side
at all; and in view of such exclusion