The daily morning journal and courier., 1902-01-31
SCHLEY "C0M MENT" MADE
dDMIRAL AND COUNSEL ACCUSED
 OF SHIFTING GROUND.
Charged by Judge Advocate Lemiy and Solicitor Hanna With Ignoring All theImpOrtnnt Features of the Case in the Appeal to tho President--Declare That schley Was Not in Command.

the Appeal to tho President-Declare
 That schley Was Not in Command
 ment" of Judge Advocate General Lem-
 ly and Solicitor Hanna upon the appeal
 Of Admiral Schley, as submitted to the
 president by Secretary Long to-day, is
 less than third as long as the appeal
 itself-a fact accounted for by the conn
 paratively few quotations from the
 courts testimony in the case of the
 comment"
 The commentators begin with the
 statement that Admiral Schley and his
 counsel have shifted their ground They
 say the chief features of the case were
 ''the retrograde movement ''disobedi-
 ence of orders" inaccurate and mis-
 leading official reports" failure to de-
 stroy vessels of the enemy lying within
 sight" and injustice to brother off
 cer."
 These matters are all grave. The
 first was that the finest aggregation of
 American naval vessels under one com
 mand was, by Schley's direction, turn
 ed about and headed for Key West,
 more than 700 miles distant, when with in twenty-two miles of Santiago, where
 the enemys ships were. The second was that Schley delibera tely and know
 ingly disobeyed the secretary's orders overtaking him in his retrograde move ment. The third was that Schley's req son, officially given, for the retrograde movement and disobedience of orders. i. e., that the flying squa dron was short of coal,' was not true. The fourth was that for three days some of the Spanish ships lay within reach of the flying squadron, and no sufficient et- fort was made to destroy them. The fifth involves the point of honor.
 The commentators say: Upon all the above named features, believed by us to be the most important, if not the only really important, matters into which the court made inquiry the conduct or Admiral Schley was condemned by the most distinguished tribunal. Admiral Dewey and Rear Admirals Benham and Ramsay united in their findings and opinion upon all of these several points, | and they united also in the slgn1f1cant that no further pro- ceedings be had in view of the length | of time which has elapsed since the oc- currence of the events of the Santiago | 
 The commentators charge that Ar | nira Schley now ignores all these grave matters and bases his appeal up" ln unimportant features of the case, as . with the grave matters above referred to, upon which there was not, and in the face of the testimony could | lot have been, any difference of opin- on in the court
 The commentators say they recognize he fact that Admiral Schley devoted ,y far the larger part of his appeal to he question of command, and conse- 1uently give that question propor" ionate space in their comment. They declare that the question is between Sampson and Sch1ey, both alike inter- ,sted and to investigate it fairly both hould be heard. Such incidental testi- nony on this point as came before the ourt was on Schley's side only, and he doors were entirely closed to Samp- on.
 They add: ITO determine an import mt question of this nature, under such onditions, is contrary to the underly- ng principles of Anglo Saxon justice. this is precisely what the ppeal asks the president to dc"
 It Is admitted that the precept was Toad enough to have permitted the ourt to go into this question, but it is ecalled hat the judge advocate, though a willingness to enter upon :, the court did not deem it necessary I. proper to do so. The judge advo- ate, they say might have shown that
 was Admiral Sampson's plan of night lockade that forced Cervera to come ut in the daylight and Captain Clark
 quoted to support that statement. { hey quote Admiral Schley in his tes- nony to the effect that the American hips charged in accordance to the s reina1 plan to sink the enemy in the ,annel," and that that plan failed be- a ause the enemy succeeded really in c assing the battle line.' s They ask why did the enemy succeed ' 1d declare the Brooklyn, having aban- 0 ned her position on the left of the line, a hereby left an unguarded opening f ong the western shore, through which a "a Spanish fleet passed our ships and t tempted to escape.
 The courts opinion is quoted to the d feet that the Brooklyn lost distance f.
 position by the Hoop and delayed t e Texas To sustained their conten- \ ,n that Sampson was in command, il e commentators quote passages from a ,hley'e report of July 6, 1898, as fol- WIS:
 ''The torpedo boat destroyers were de- royed early in the action, but the F noke was so dense in their direction at I cannot say to which vessel or ssels the credit belongs. This doubt ss was better seen from your flag W ips. The dense smoke of the combat vt Ut out from my view the Indiana and ,.' oucester but, as these vessels were :, ,ser to your flagship, no doubt their o rt in the conflict was under your lm- z, adiate observation. ia They remark: Nobody has ever dis .' ted Grants title to the victory at l ,pomattox. though then lying sick N me miles from the place of surrender > SO far that 1t was feared he could not -,
 reached within the period of armis- e, Though Howard was senior off, A, r present at the capture of Savannah ta d Sherman absent on one of Ad- ral Dahlsren's gunboats, nobody has f- estioned Sherman's famous report to II, ncoln: T beg to present you, as ,'.