The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1902-03-06

Sampson Was Technically in Com.
mand-Full Text OF the Pres sident' :
Decision.
The following is President Roose-
velt's comment upon the appeal oil
Admiral w. 5. Schley:
WHITE HOUSE, Feb. Is, 1902.
! have received The appeal oi
Admiral Schley and the answer there
to from the Navy Department.
have examined both with the utmost
care, As we'll as the preceding appeal
To the Secretary Of the Navy. | have
read through ali the testimony taken
before the court and the statements
Of the counsel for Admirals Sampson
and Schley; have examined all The Off
clsl reports Of every kind in reference
To the Santiago naval campaign,
copies Of the logbooks and signal
books, and the testimony before the
Court Of Claims, and have also per
sonally had before me the four surviv-
ing captains Of the five ships, aside
from those Of the two admirals. which
were actively engaged at Santiago.
1t appears that the Court OF Inquiry
was unanimous in its findings OF fact
and unanimous 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 it was unanimous. | have,
however, gone carefully over the evi-
dencs on these points also.
DID SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
| am satisfied that on the whole
| the court did substantial Justice 1t
should have specifically condemned
the failure to enforce an efficient
| night blockade at Santiago while
Admiral Schley was in command.
On the other hand, feel that there is
IA reasonable doubt whether he did not
move his squadron with sufficient
expedition from port 10 port. The
court is unit in condemning Adj
miral Schley's action gu 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 mis-
statement of facts in relation thereto.
1t should be remembered, how
ever, that the ma jority of these
| actions which the court censured oc-
CURED five weeks or more before the
fight itself, and it certainly seems
that if Admiral Schley's actions were
censurable he should not have beer
left as second in command under
Admiral Sampson. His offense:
| were in effect condoned when he wa:
not called to account for them. Ad
miral Sampson. after the tight, in al
nffical letter TO the Department, al
ludsd for the first time to Admira
Schley's eprehensible conduct 81,
weeks previously.
Ii Admiral Schley was guilty 0
reprehensible conduct of kind whici
called for such notice from Admira
Sampson, then Admiral Sampson
ought not TO have left him as senio
offcer of the blockading squadron OIL
the Sd OF July, when he (Sampson
steamed away on his proper errand o
Communication with General Shafter
| THE BATTLE OF SANTIAGO.
| We can, therefore, for our presen
purpose dismiss consideration Of s
much of the appeal as relates to any
thing except the battle. AS regard
this, the point raised in the appeal
between Admiral Sampson or Admirs
Schley as to which was in command
and as to which was entitled to credit
II either of them was really entitls
to any unusual and pre-sminent credi
by any special exhibition of geniu.
skill and courage.
The court could have considers
both of these questions, but as a maj
ter OF fact it unanimously exclude
evidence offered upon them, an
through its president announced i,
refusal to hear Admiral Sampson
side a. all; and in view of such e.
clusion the majority OF the court &C
ed with entire proprsty in not e,
pressing any opinion on these point!
. The matter has, however, been raise
: by the president OF the court. Nor,
ever. it is the point upon which AZ
miral Schley in his appeal lays mo'
stress. and which he especially ask
me to consider. | have, therefore
carefully investigated this matt,
also, and have informed myself upo
it from the best sources of informs
ton at my command.
AN APPEAL FROM M'KINLET.
The appeal of Admiral Schley
| - :,
he raises, really an appeal from tt
decision Of the Court of Inquir
, Five-sixths Of the appeal is devoted
Y this question OF command and credi
that is, to matter which the Court
Inquiry did not consider. 1t is
effect an appeal from the action
President Mckinley three years as
when he sent in the recomme u datit
y for promotion for the various office
\ connected with the Santiago squa
ron. basing these recommendatio
upon his estimate of the credit
which the officers were respective
entitled. What l have to decid
d therefore, is whether or not Pre-.
J." dent Mckinley did injustice in t
'r matter.
l. This necessarily involves a col
H. parison Of the actions of the differe
commanders engaged. The sxhar
tive official reports of the acti
N leaves little to be brought out ans
% but as the question of Admiral Sam
k. sons right to be considered in CHI
in command, which was determined
his favor by President Mckinley, a
later by the Court Of Claims, b
never hitherto been officially raise
t. l deemed it best to secure statemer