The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1902-02-25
Sampson May Claim Credit
For the Plan.
HOWEVER, IT WAS A CAP TaINS' BATTLE
And Neither Sampson Nor schley
Issued Any Order During the Fight
That Had Any Influence in SHAPING
the Result. Roosevelt Says He
Thinks the Court Did Schley Sub
stantial Justice.
(By the Associated Press.)

stantial Justice.
(By the Associated Press.)
Washington, Feb. 19.-president Roose-
velt's reply to Admiral Schley's appeal
from the majority report OF the Court Of
Inquiry was made public today. It is
as follows:
White House, February 10Th, 1862.
! have received the appeal OF Admiral
Schley and the answer thereto from the
Navy Department. | have examined both
with the utmost care, as we'll as the pre-
ceding appeal to the Secretary OF the
Navy. l have read through all the tes-
timony taken before the court and the
statements Of the counsel for Adu:irals
Sampson and Schley; have examined all
the official reports Of eveey kind in rer-
erence To the Santiago naval campaign.
copies Of the logbooks and signal books.
and the testimony before the Cour Of
Claims, and have also personally had be
fore me the four surviving captains Of
the five ships. aside from those Of the
two adrlirals which were actively ensa-
ged at Santiago.
1t appears that the Court OF Inquiry
was , unanimous in It's findings Of fact
end III animOus in ita expressions OF op:n-
ion on most of its findings OF fact. No ap-
zeal is made 10 ms from the verdict Of
the court on these points where ii was
unanimous. ! have. however, gone care
fully over the evidence on these points
also. l am satisfied that on the whole
the court did substantial justice. Il
should have specifically condemned tho
failure to enforce an efficient night block
ade at Santiago while Admiral Schley was
III command. On the other hand, / feel
that there is . reasonable doubt whether
he did not move his squadron with SUI
.icient expedition from port TO port. The
court is a unit in condemnii:g Admiral
Schley'S action on the point where il
seems to me he most eravely erred; his
'~retrograde movement" when he abau-
doned the blockade, ami his disobadience
OF orders and misstatemeut OF facts ia
relation thereto. It should be renlem-
bered, however, that the majority Of these
actions which The court censures occurred
FIVE weeks or more before the fight itself;
and it certainly seems hat il Admiral
Schley's actions were censurabIe he
should not have been left as second In
command under Admiral Sampson. His
orenscS were Ia effect eonGonel when he
was not called to account for them. Ad-
miral Sampson. after The fight, in ar
official letter to the Department alluded
for the first time TO Admiral Schiey's
"reprehensible conduct" six weeks pre-
viously. If Admiral Schley was guilty
of repTehensihle conduct of a Kind which.
called for such notice from admiral
Sampson, then Admiral Sampson ought
not TO have left him as senior Office
OF the b~lockadiug squadroa on the 3d.
of July. when ha (Sa r7rsppl CfaaraS VIZ
on his proper errand Of communication
with General Shaftcr.
The Question # Command
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 etwee Ad-
miral Sampson ard Admiral Schley. as 10
which was in command, and as 10 which
was entitled TO the credit. if either OF
them was really entitled TO any unusual
and pre-erinent credit by any special ex-
hibition OF genius, skill. and courage.
The court could have considered both Of
these questions, but as q matter CT fact
1t unanimously excluded evidence Of
fered upon them, and through its presi.
dent announced its refusal TO hear Ad-
miral SIMPSONS side at all; and in view
OF such exclusion the majority of the
court acted with entire propriety in not
expressing any opinion On these points.
The matter has, however, been raised By
the president of the court. Moreover, it
is the point upon which Admiral Schiey
in his appeal lays most stress, and which
he especially asks me to consider. l have
therefore carefully investigat ted this mat
ter also, ard have informed myself upon
1t from the best sources OF Information
at my command.
Tn appeal of Admiral Schley to me
is not, as TO this, the chief point he
raises. really IN appeal from the decis-
ion OF the Court Of Inquiry. Five-sixths
OF the appeal is devoted to this question
of and credit; that is, to mat
ter which the Court Of Inquiry did not
consider. 1t is in effect an appeal from,
the action OF President Mckinley three
years ago when he sent in the recon-
mendations for promotion for the various
officers connected with the Santiago
squadron, hasing these recommendations
upon his estimate OF the credit TO which
the officers We're respectively entitled.
What l have to decide, therefore, is
whether or not President Mckinley did in
Justice in the matter. This necessarily
Involves a comparison OF the actions CT
The different commanders engaged. The
exhaustive official reports Of the action
leave little to be brought out anew; but
as the question Of Admiral SIMPSONS
right TO be considered in chief command,
which was determined in his favor b:
President Mckinley, and later by the
Court OF Claims, has never hitherto
been officially raised, l deemed II bes:
to secure statements of the commanders
OF the five ships (other than the Brook