The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-01-30

statemeSst to the Senate that Sampson was going toward Siboney when the Spanish ships emerged. under orders from the Department to confer with Shafter, and. It Is held. that these orders detached him temporarily from his command so that Schley was actually in command of the battle for the following reasons: ta) By virtue of his rank as second sn command of the squadron before lb) By virtue of his rank as senior line officer on the spot authorized by the
 regulations for the government of the command in such situations and to di- rect the movements and efforts of all persons in the navy present; (c) the ab- sence from the scene of action during regularly appointed commander-in-chief of the American forces before Santiago; (d) the fact that under orders of the De- pertinent the said chief had been Temporarily detached from duty as comma nder of the American forces before Santiago and assigned to the dis charge of certain~other duties, which or ders he was obeying at the time the bat tie began; (e3 the fact that being so en- gagged in the discharge of such detached duty at the time. the Spanish ships emerged from the .harbor of Santiago the commander -in-chief found 1t impossible to return to any point whence. personal ly or by means.of communicatioh with
 
 fiict he might resume his authority until after the battle at every point of such arrival had snded;, Q) the fact that, whereas, the cofnmahder-fn-chief could the squadron at any time during the ac- tual conflict. Commodore SchIey, as sec ond in command of the European forces before Santiago and, as .senior, line off, actual battle. could and did exercise au- thority and command over the American forces actually engaged.
 Further argument on this question of command is to the effect that Cook and Clark. the two ship captains present at the surrender of the Colon. recognized Schley's seniority and also that Samp- sons ''order of battle failed entirely as soon as the Spanish squadron succeeded in passing beyond the. westernmost ex- tremity of the American vessels. All of | which. 1t As submitted. goes to prove conclusively that the individual opinion of Dewey was eminently proper and wholly Justified by the evidence and the Exhibit (b) elaborates and sustains the | statements made in the petition respect ing the passage of the flying squadron from Key. West to cieafuegos. The court declared that Commodore Schley did not proceed with the utmost dispatch off Cienfuegos."
 Counsel declare that the court erred in the statement; that the sailing orders to ehC oqudutOI uOt dtTcCt IL IO pTU- ceed with dispatch off Cienfuegos." But the only direction on. that point was that you should establish a blockade off Cienfuegos with the least possible de- lay" It Is declared that this left Schley discretion; that he obeyed these orders and that there was no delay, the squad ron proceeding at ten knots per hour. The petitioner declares that this passage was both expedittous and effective and Admiral Schleys conduct undeserving of censure, wherefore the majority opinion should be set aside and Dewey's opinion approved, as otherwise commanders in the future will be deprived of all discretion and the service will be injured. The pe- titioner objects to the majority report that Commodore Schley did not block ade the port of Cienfuegos as closely as possible" and he objects to the use of dstanes alone hosing as gefertns thas 'S a means "effectiveness,' adequacy and that all of the testi- money showed that the blockade of Cien- fuegos, was adequate; that no vessel entered or departed without his permis- sion, and that all proper and customary precautions were taken in the premises. He further declares that the court failed to state all of the pertinent facts re- garding the Adula incident, and he asks that Admiral Dewey's rendition of that incident be, accepted. Lastly, in this ex- hibit. counse, deals with the passage from Cienfuegos to Santiago and again object to the majority conclusion that Admiral Schley should have proceeded with allsdispatch and have disposed his vessels with view of intercepting the enemy. In tllis connection counsel suo- init that the American squadron was a unit that he had no power to atomize 1t: that in view of the prevailing ignor- ance of the enemy's location 1t would have been the acme of military folly to have dtsintegrated his squadron; that the nature of the duty expected at Santiago required all of his vessels; that he ex- erclsed a proper discretion; that the Eagle did delay his squadron and that his vessels were disposed in that order
 mich presented the strongest forma- tion and best 2reDared the squadron to meet and, engage the enemy"
 The last exhibit, "c." is general in character and short. The findings of the court are oblected to as in conflict to the overwhelming weight of evidence and ignored the petitioners testimony and the whole of his witnesses and that part of the governments testimony favorable to him. The majority, it is stated did not give him opportunity to bring in proper and convincing evidence respect ing the passage 10 Cienfuegos and, it is declared. the evidence taken on that point was directly contrary to the opinion rendered. The majority criticized the pe- tittoner for pot communicating with the insurgents when inv. fact. McCall's memorassdum did not mention their To- cation, and the memorandum itself was given only for use in& connection with certain batter;es in Cienfuegos harbor They said he should have maintained a close blockade of Cienfuegos when the
 overwhelming testimony proved that there was a close blockade. and the Judge Advocate substantially abandoned any charge to the contrary. The majority ignored the uncontradicted testimony proving that the AduTa was permitted to go into Cienfuegos in order that infor- nation might be obtained through her as to whether the Spanish fleet was then In port. it being clearly promised that the ship would come out within twenty four hours. It is alleged that the ma iority failed to give any opinion as to the character of the blockade at Sant- ago, although the same including the eighth specification and by specific di- rection the court was obligated to give an opinion thereupor:>,It is also alleged that the majority entirely failed to de- termine who was in command at Santi- ago, a fact which was. absolutely neces- sary to determine properly the propriety of Schleys conduct in connection with the whole campaign. Finally, it is re-