Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-01-31
T,a0y nsnnsbse Journal
THE "cOM M EMIT"
CONTINUED from page ~


ion of who was in command. they quote
This massage from his dispatch of July
10 1883. to the secretary of the navy:
Feel some modification that the
newspaper accounts of July 6 have at
tributed victory of July almost
entirely to me. Victory was secured
by the force under the command of
commander in chief North Atlantic
station and to him the honor is due"
Further, they quote Schley's letter OF
Dec IS, 1901. TO Secretary Long. justify
ing the loop on the ground that it was
made in the execution Of the standing
order to close in - 1t is asked but if he
was then himself in command, how hap
pens it that he was executing the orders
OF somebody else in command? Before
the court OF inquiry every prop raised to
support then contention that Commodore
Schley did anything to achieve the victo-
~ by issuing orders as commanding Off
GER of the American fleet was removed.
The plain tru:n was for the first time re-
vealed that Commodore Schley did not
exercise command on that day over any
ship, except to seine extent his own flag
ship the Brooklyn"
The comment 1t this point contains
number of extracts from the testimony
to sustain this contention. Taking the
Brooklyns signal book, it is stated that
This showed that the Brooklyn gave only
the two orders clear for action ana
close up
"A meagre record, but it Is the whole
story"
The commentators quote Lieut.. McCau-
ley. the Brooklyn'n signal officer. that the
first signal "clear ship for action, was
hoisted by hirl ION my own hook.
They assert that the fleet had been
substantially Gle: red for action for over
a month and that what remained to b"
6one on board ship was not done in pur-
suance of this order.
They quote Capt clark to the effect
that 1t was standing order on the ore
ron, upon sighting the enemy. TO imme-
diatelv strike the alarm gongs for clear
ing shin for action" which. they declare.
was A standing 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 consid-
cred.
The comment insists that this order
was not seen by any other ship than the
Oregon unless. perhaps, the Texas. and
that it exercised no influence whatever
uuon any vessel of the squadron.
They also quote Admiral Schley's tes-
timonv that the Brooklyn's charge was
made in accordance with the original or
der OF the order CLOSE up they say
..co thie order the second of the two,
stpnalled from the Brooklyn during the
Rattle of Santiago to the American fleet,
was really formal also and was given i'll
accordance with SIMPSONS original plan
of battle which required closing up with
"A view of sinking the Spanish vessels III
the entrance Surprising as this IS, II
g. shown by Admiral Schleys own sworn
testimony ana sorroborated by the time
and circumstances under which the sig
nal was made It did not influence other
sbius All the CAPTAINS had been advised
of the plan of battle and all closed ac-
cordingly without waiting or looking for
signals from the Brooklyn, and paid no
attention to this signal which, as above
stated was not seen except from the
.Erooklyn and not from that ship until
after all vessels had closed up. 1t Is
even more surprising. but it appears to
be- a fact. that Admiral Schley issued no
further fleet order during the progress
of the battle.
The commentators next state: al
Commodore Schley was in absolute com
mond during .ht battle. and If ne made
any use of his Authority, he must nave
exercised some control over some OF Inc
vessels participating. whereupon theN
take up i'm detail the testimony OF Inc
commanding officers on this point ah'
say: wainwright of the Gloucester
said he saw no orders from the Brooklyn
TAYLOR of the Indiana. said he saw III
signals from the BROOKLYN: Evans of th'
Iowa said Of the Brooklyn: l never saw
any signal from her | did not manoeh
yre In obedience to any signals from th'
Brooklyn the commanding officer OF th'
Texas is dead, but the officers testimony
makes Il clear that that ship received nj
orders.
Speaking of this ship the commenta
tors declare: The question Is nor .
much one of possible credit, but OF pos
sible censure of Admiral Schley in con
nection with the work of that vessel II
the battle of Santiago. The plain truti
Is that Admiral Schley did not durini
the hattie i'm any way control the splen
did performances of the Gloucester am
the battleships Indiana. Iowa an
Texas. The officers in command O
These ships neither received nor obeye
n solitary order from him."
Next the commentators turn their at
ttntion to what they declare We're per
sisteut efforts by Schley's attorneys t
show that In some manner the Oregon
at least was under his orders during
the battle. first by answering the sigma
Close upland afterward by firing he
13-irch guns under signal from tn
Brooklyn, and they say but the at
tempt, as the testimony to be quote
below shows, was a failure"
They quote, therefore. passages fror
Capt. Clark's testimony in which h
said in regard to the order CLOSE up.
that was standing order in tn
squadron. to attack the enemy at one
if they appeared, and to keep the head
of the ships always toward the en-
trance" and II remember feeling @
satisfaction that there was an order t
close in. in case any accident had hap
pened--any colliding with other ships.
As to the alleged order from the Brook
- =