The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-01-31
The Brooklyn's Signal.

lyn -
The Brooklyn's Signal.
The comment at this point contains n
number of extracts from the testimony
to sustain this contention. Taking the
Brooklyns signal book it is stated that
this showed that the Brooklyn gave
only the two orders. clear for action"
and "close up"
"A meagre record, but it is the whole
story" The commentators quote Lieu
tenant McCauley. the Brooklyn signal
officer, that the first signal, "clear ship
for action" was hoisted by him ION my
own hook They assert that the ships
had been substantially cleared for ac-
ton for over u month and that what
remained to be done on shipboard was
not done in pursuance of this order.
They quote Captain Clark to the effect
that it was q standing order ON the
Oregon, upon sighting the enemy, "to
Immediately strike the alarm gongs for
clearing ship for action which they
declare, was standing order, and con-
sequently the Oregon did not act on
signals from the Brooklyn. Other tes-
timony is cited on this point, and then
the order "close up is considered
The comment insists that this 'er
was not seen by any ship other than
the Oregon, unless perhaps the Texas
and that it exercised no influence what
ever upon any vessel of the squadron.
They also quote Admiral Schley's testi-
mony that the Broolslyn's charge was
made in accordance with the original
plan.
Speaking of this ship, the comentc-
tors declare: The question is not So
much one of possible credit to, but
possibleNcehsure of Admiral Schley III
connection with the work of that vcs-
sci in the battle of Santiago. The
plain truth is that Admiral Schley did
not during the battle in any way
direct or control the splendid perform
ances of the Gloucester and the three
battleships, Indiana, Iowa and Texas.
The officers in command of these ships
neither received or obeyed solitary
order from him."
They quote passages from Captain
Clari's testimony, in which he said,
in regard to the order. "close up
that was standing order, to attack
the enemy at once if they appeared,
and to keep the heads of the ships
always toward the entrance" and II
remember a feeling of satisfaction
that there was an order to close in,
in case any accident had hapepned-
any coliding with other ships"
AS to the alleged order from the
Brooklyn, directing the Oregon to FIRE
her thirteen-inch guns. the commenta-
tors again quote from Captain CIarkc'3
testimony, where, when asked if the
tn, Of
order from the Brooklyn, the captain
said: mo, sir; fired them after de-
liberating with the officers" and, "ls
they (the Brooklyn) made a signal,
did not see it,"
Closing Comment.
The comment" closes in the follow
ing words:
The contention that the magnificent work OF
the Oregon, or any part of it was done unlCr
orders from the Brooklyn, or that The urespI
received and oboycd even single order from
Commodore Schley from the time IL, Spsnish
were sighted to the tine OF the surrender ut the
Colon, which surrender may fairly bc taken as
the close of the battle, must be abandoned: and
with it goes the last peg upon which 10 hang
the pretenss OF a claim that during the battle
OF Santiago Commodore Schlcy effectively cN'
ercisad any of the functions OF cUmmlnder-in'
chief
The weight of the testimony is to the effect
that the commodore controlled the movements
of his flagship, the Brooklyn, we'll with the eN'
cepton of the "loop," But it also shows, not
negatively, but aftimatiyely and beyond ques'
ton, that he did net control the operations of
the fleet in general on that day
All this is established not by theoretical de-
duction or expert or meXpcrt opinion, hut by
direct, positive, unimpeached and unmpcachablr