The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1902-01-31

THE NEWS, PROVII
ship. except to some extent his own nag
ship. the Brooklyn
The comment at this point contains a
number OF extracts from the testimony
10 sustain this contention. Taking the
Brooklynr signal book, II is stated that
this showed that the Brooklyn gave only
the two orders. Clear for action" and
"Close up" "A meagre record. bat IL Il,
the whole story" ~ "a a.
The commentators quote Lieutenant
McCsuley. the Brcoklyn's signal officer,
that the first signal. Clear ship for ac-
ton" was hoisted by him 'on my own
hook" III
They assert that the fleet had been sub
stantially cleared for action for over
month, and that what remained TO be
done on board ship was not done In pur-
suance OF this order
They quote Captain Clark 20 the effect
that Il was 4 standing order on the ore
gon upon sighting the enemy TO imns-
distely strike the alarm gongs for clear
ing ship for action" which they declare.
was a,standlng order, and consequently
the Oregon did not act on signal from
the Brooklyn
Other testimony is cited on this point
and then the order "Close up Is con-
sidered.
The comment insists that this order
was not seen by any ship other than the
Oregon, unless, perhaps. the TEXAS, and
that II exercised no influence whatever
upon any vessel OF the squadron.
THE ORDER CLOSE Up.
They also quote Admiral Schleys tes-
timony that the Brooklyn's change was
made in accordance with the original
| plan. or the order Close up they say:
so this order. the second OF the two
sgnslled from the Brooklyn during the
battle OF Santiago 10 the American feet.
was really formal also, and was given
in accordance with SIMPSONS original
plan OF battle. which required closing up
with view OF sinking the Spanish vessel
| in the entrance.
Surprising az this is IL II shown by
Admiral Schley's own sworn testimony
| and corroborated by the time and cir
cumstances under which the signal was
made IL did not influence other ships.
All the captains had been advised Of the
| plan Of battle and all closed accordingly
| without waiting or looking for signals
| from the Brooklyn, and paid no attention
| 10 this signal, which, As above stated,
4
and not from that ship until after all
| vessels had closed up.
1t is even more surprising, but II APP
pears TO be fact, that Admiral Schley
| issued no further feet oroer during the
| progress OF the battle the commentators
next state:
III Commodore schley was I'm absolute
| command during the hattie and " he
l made anv use OF hts authority. he must
/ ha igoH
! the vessels participau unE Nhereupon
they take up in detail the testimony OF
the commanding officers on this point
SAW NO ORDERS.
wainwright OF the Gloucester said he
| saw no orders from the Brooklyn; Taylor
Of the Iowa said he saw no signals rom "a,
| the Brooklyn: L never saw any signal
from her. I did not maneuver In obe-
dience 10 any signals from the Brooklyn.
| THE commanding orricer OF the Texas ia
| dead but the officers testimony makes II
| clear that that ship received no orders.
Speaking OF this ship the commentators
The question is not 80 much one OF
! possible credit but OF possible censure of
Admiral schley In connection win se she
tlago The plain truth is that Admiral
SchIey did not during the battle in any
| WAY direct or control the splendid per
formances of the Gloucester and the three
hattleships Indiana. Iowa and Texas. Ihe
+, officers I'm command OF these ships neither
| received nor obeyed solitary order from
| him"
| Next the commentators turn their at
| tention 10 what they declare were per
sistent efforts by Schley's attorneys 10
| show that I'm some manner the oregon
| al least was under his orders during the
| battle. FIRST. by answering the signals.
| close up and afterward. by hring her
| ls-inch guns under signal from the Brook
| lyn and they say: But the attempt as
the testimony TO be quoted below shows
! was a failure.
They quote. therefore passages from
| Can't. Clark's testimony, In which he sald,
| I'm regard 10 the order close up. that
| was a standing order In the squadron TO
| pesr~d and 10 keep the heads OF the ships
| always toward the entrance. and Il re-
| member a feeling OF satisfaction that
| there was an order 90 close In. in case
| any accident had happened-any eoilidlng
| with other ships.
| A. the alleged ordsr from the Brooklyn
| directing the Oregon 20 fire her lS-inch
/ guns, the commentators again quote from
| Capt Clark's testimony where. when ask
| ed II the guns were fired In pursuance
| of an order from the BROOKLYN the cap
NO air: 7 fred them after deiiber-
| atinC with the officers" and III they tthe
| BROOKLYN made signal ] ala not see H.
| THE LAST PEG.
The comment closes I'm the following
4 words
| pThs contention that the magnificent
| work OF the Oregon. or any part or H.
| Was done under orders from the Brook.
Y lyn or that the Oregons received ana
| obsyed even single order from Commo
dwore Schisy from the time the Spanish
! ships were sighted 20 the time ~ the sur
| render Of TIE Colon which surrender may
/ fairly be taken as the close OF the battle,
must be abandoned. and with II goes the
| last peg upon which to hang the pretence
| OF a claim that during the battle OF San-
! tiasa- Commander SchleX- effectively eT
| ercised any OF the functions or COM
1 nander n-chef.
"The weight of the testimony Is 10 the
| effect that the commodore controlled the
! movements Of his flagship. the brooklyn.
| we'll with the exception OF The loop. Bui
| II also shows. not nepatiel but affirma
| lively and beyond question maj ne niu niu
| general on that day.
| "All this is established not by theoreti-
| cal deduction or expert or inexpert opn-
| ion. hut h" direct positive. unimpeached
| ard uniurea bic testimony, given un-
| der oath by the adnirais brothers-in-