The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1902-02-21
THE DECISION OF PRESIDENT R00Se-
WELT ON THE APPEAL.
ALL THE FACTS AGAlNT SCHLEY
Schley's "Reprehensible Conduct"
Before the Battle of Santiago Con-
doned by Those Above Him-Samp-
son in Command at the Time of the
Battle-The Loop Of the Brooklyn
the Only Mistake Made by Our
tafns and Not by SchIey or Sampson
White House, February IS.

/ have the appeal oil Admiral Schley
and the answer thereto from the navy
department. / have examined both
with the utmost care as well as the pre-
ceding appeal to the secretary Of the
navy. 1 have read through all the tes-
timony taken before the court and the
statements Of the counsel for Admirals
Sampson and Schley: have examined all
the official reports Of every kind in
reference to the Santiago naval cam
paign. copies of logbooks and signal
books, and the testimony before the
court Of claims, and have also personal
ly had before me the four surviving
captains of the ships, aside from those
of the admirals, which were actively
engaged at Santiago.
It appears that the court Of inquiry
was unanimous in it's findings of fact
and unanimous in it's expressions of
opinion on most Of it's findings of fact.
No appeal is made to me from the ver-
dict of the court on these points where
gone carefully over the evidence on
these points also. am satisfied that
on the whole the court did substantial
justice. 1t should have specifically con-
demned the failure to enforce an eff
cient night blockade at Santiago while
Admiral Schley was in command. On
the other hand, 1 feel that there is a
reasonable doubt whether he did not
move his quadron with sufficient eX-
pedition from port to port. The court
is unit In condeming Admiral Schley's
action on the point where it seems to
me he most gravely erred; his retro
grade movement" when he abandoned
the blockade, and his disobedience of
orders and miSstatement of facts in re-
lation thereto. 1t should be remembered,
however, that the majority of these ac-
tions which the court censureS occurred
five weeks or more before the fight it
self; and it certainly seems that if Ad-
miral Schley's actions were cenSurable
he should not have been left as second
in command under Admiral Sampson.
His offenses were in effect condoned
when he was not called to account for
them. Admiral Sampson, after the
fight. in an official letter to the depart
ment alluded for the first time to Ad-
miral Schley's "reprehensible conduct"
six weeks previously. If Admiral
Schley was guilty of reprehensible con-
duct of a kind which called for such
notice from Admiral Sampson, then
Admiral Sampson ought not to have
left him as senior officer of the block
aiding squadron on the Sd of July, when
he (Sampson) steamed away on his pro-
per errand of communication with Gen.
eral Shafter.
We can therefore for our present pur-
poses dismiss consideration of so much
of the appeal as relates to anything ey-
cept the battle. AS regards this, the
point raised in the appeal is between
Admiral Sampson and Admiral Schley,
as to which was in command, and as
to which was entitled to the credit, if
either of them was really entitled to
any unusual and preeminent credit by
any special exhibition of genius, Skill
and courage. The court could hav,
considered both of these questions. but
as matter of fact 1T unanimously ex-
cluded evidence offered by them, and
through its president announced it's re-
fusal to hear Admiral Sampson's side at
all; and in view Of such exclusion the
majority of the court acted with entire
propriety in not expressing any opin-
ion on these points.
In short, the question as to which of
the two men, Admiral Sampson or Ad-
miral Schley, was at the time in COM
mand, is of merely nominal characte.
Technically Sampson comman nded the
fleet, and Schley as usual, the western
division. The actual fact, the import
ant fact, Is that after the battle was
Joined not helm was shifted, not a
gun was fired, not pound OF stean
was put on in the engine room aboard
any ship actively engaged, in obedience
TO the order Of either Sampson or
Schley, save on their own vessels. 1t
was a captains fight.
Therefore the credit to which each of
the two in entitled rests on matters
apart from the claim of nominal COM
mand over the squadron: for so far as
the actual fight was concerned neither
one nor the other in fact exercised any
command. Sampson was hardly mor-
than technically in the fight. His real
claim Tor credit rests upon mis- work as
commander-in-chief; upon the excel
lence Of the blockade; upon the prepar-
edness Of the squadron; upon the ar
rangement of the ships headon In
semicircle around the harbor: and the
standing orders in accordance win
which they instantly moved to the at
tack Of the Spaniards when the latter
appeared. For all these things the
credit is his. -
80
Admiral Schiey is rightly entitled
as Is Captain Cook-to the credit of
what the Brooklyn did In the nxht. On
the whole she did well: but agree with
the unanimous finding OF the three ad-
mirals who composed the court OF m
Qutry as to the loop" It serioslv
marred the Brooklyn's otherwise cx-
cellent record. being In fact the ,,n.
grave mistake made by any American
ship that day. Had the BROOKLYN turr.
ed to the westward. that Ia, In the
same direction that the Spanish ships
were going. instead or in the contrary
direction. she would undoubtedly have
been In more dangerous proximity to
them. But Il would have been more