Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-02-20

washington, fep' :" .,o,omen
s made the following s'a'e'"s"
public ~, 10 1907 hay,
WHY WHY ,bs appeal Of Admiral schle'
receN , onswer thereto from the nav!
a'' .,on, have examined DOT
o,pa' ,ne utmost care, as well as tn
g appeal TO the secretary o
n.yy | have read through al TN
, ,' taken before the court an'
,Ne statements of the counsel Tor Au
m,,ol sampson and Admiral scnley
n''~ examined all the official reports
., every kind in reference to the san
1,so naval campaign, copies OF loi
'"' and the testimony before TN
pVvo ', If claims, and have also person
lVu' Nod before me the four surYlVint
alp ains NJ the FIVE ships, aside IRON
vsp 'o ~ the two admlrals, which were
sc,yey engaged at Santiago
SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DoNI'
:, onpaors that the court OF inquiry
.s unanimous in It's findings OF facl
wa wa unanimous In It's expressions Of
S S"r on most Of its findings of fact
~ ann4al is made 70 me from the Ver'
n,, ~ the court on these points where
n was unanimous, nave, however
cono carefully over the evidence on
,sa.o Two points also. ! am satisfied
,So, an the whole the court did sub
.,"n,lsi Justice. Il should have speci-
Scalw condemned the failure 20 enforce
an e6eent night blockade at Santiago
~hne Admiral Schley was In command
oS me- other hand, feel that there Il
reasonable doubt whether he did not
move MIS- squadron with sufficient expe-
dton from port to port
scHLEY CONDEMNED.
The court Is united in condemnlne
Admiral Sohey's action on the point
where II seems to me he most gravely
erred his "retrograde movement, y
when he abandoned the blockade and
NJ, dlsobedIence Of orders and mis-
statement OF facts In relation thereto
h should be remembered, however that
me- majority OF these actions which the
court censures occurred five weeks OF
more before the fight itself, and II GER
taIny seems that II Admiral Sohley's
actions we're censurable he should not
Nave been left as second In command
under Admiral Sampson.
0FFENsEs WERE CoNDONED.
His ofenses were In effect condoned
when he was not called to account for
them. Admiral Sampson, after the
fight In an official letter to the de-
partment, alluded for the first time "a
Admiral Schey's "reprehenslble con-
duct six weeks previously. II Adj
miral schley was guilty of reprehensi-
bic conduct Of kind which called for
such notice from Admiral Sampson,
then Admiral Sampson ought not Ia
have leh him as senior officer Of the
N bIockadng squadron on the 3rd of Ju-
~ when he (Sampson) steamed away
on his proper errand OF communication
with Gen. SKATER
WHO WAS IN COMMAND?
We can, therefore for our present
purpose, dismiss consideration of so
much Of the appeal as relates to any
thing except the battle. As regards
This, the point raised In the appeal is
between Admirals Sampson and schley
as TO which vas In command and as
10 which was entitled TO the credit, II
either OF them was really entitled 10
any unusual and pre-eminent credit by
any special exhibit Of genius. skill and
courage
WHAT APPEAL DEVOTED TO.
The appeal OF Admiral Schley to me
not as TO this, the chief point he
raises, really an appeal from the de.
eSlon OF the court OF inquiry. Five
SAths OF the appeal Is devoted TO this
question Of command and credit, that
y 10 matter which the court of in
curry did not consider. II Is I'm effect
az appeal from the action Of President
NVhlhley three years ago. when he
Sht In the recommendation for pro-
motion lor the various officers connect
W win the Santiago squadron, basing
Ihee recommendation upon his esti-
iuaVe Of the credit TO which the officers
were respectively entitled.
QUESTION FOR DECISION.
Wha1 have to decide, therefore, Is
ene'her or not President Mckinley did
hustle IN the matter. This necessarily
a,ONes q comparison Of the actions OF
wy inherent commanders engaged.
ing exhaustive official reports Of the
@uOh leave little to be brought out
sa ass out as the question OF Admiral
Tuysohs right to be considered In
S'Iei command which was determined
y us layor by President Mckinley and
nv py the court of claims has never
SS''letlo been officially raised, | deemed
s /" oest TO secure statements from the
,yuihanders Of the five ships (other
s @Su ine brooklyn and New York, the
Ve ssDlps OF the two admirals), which
lN, avuyely engaged In the fight.
,,s",n a. Fhllip is dead | quote ex-
s XIV" from his magazine article ON the
T ny written Immediately after II oc-
M eu, closing with an extract from
N P ,sSt 4. 70 the secretary OF the navy
PHILIP QUOTED.
b,,,. was The blockade that made the
so ANY, possible. The battle was n direct
mo na,l OF the blockade, and upon
So.Luas lhod and effectiveness of the
ma ,s' was very largely dependent
,Ss nsue OF the battle. e Under
bocLoo luers Of Admiral Sampson the
s,a,"s aus was conducted with success
ny epuned by others. When
Dan psllsh admiral at last made his
MIN o ~ escape We We're ready.-ready
our s vur men, with our guns and with
few Is'hes' Ii was only n
eaas minutes after we had seen the
h bs e, VI the advancing squadron that
was ~ apparent that Cervera's plan
ward n ran his ships in column west
Bs,o, u an effort to escape.
s8a q, ne nad fairly found himself ont !.
smeaa MORO the entire blockodinv
Broet,o.n -lndlana, Oregon, Iogx
An and Texas-was num,Ing
y Ia | do,, nun at such a rate as virtual.
he ars ~, S lhe issue OF the battle In
had clos.5 leM moments. All our ships
''u IN simultaneously :
lHE DDnAu~,