The commercial. (Union City, Tenn.) 190?-193?, 1902-02-21
The Command at Santiago.

OOhh-NCAhS AOpOAC op oil VII L.
puted good authority" continue
to be given out concerning the
Presidents decision in the SchIey
case. The latest statement comes
from the Washington Post, a pa
per that should have exceptional
facilities for obtaining that kind of
news and which is usually accurate
in its reports. According to the
statement made in the Post Sunday
morning the President will not TN
dertake to review Admiral SchIey's
record in the Spanish war prior to
the battle of Santiago because any
thing that may have been repre-
hensible in Schley's conduct at that
time vas condoned by President
Mckinley and the Navy Depart
ment in promoting him to be a
Rear Admiral. This leaves open
only the question of who was in
actual command at the battle of
Santiago. In regard to this the
Post says the President is inclined
to the opinion, according to his
visitors, that the victory was won
by all the Captains, and that credit
cannot therefore be given exclu-
sively to Schley, although the lat
ter acted courageously, and with
the Oregon, succeeded in prevent
ing the escape of the Colon.
This reported opinion would
seem in some respects to lack the
usual directness and candor sup
posed to be the Presidents leading
characteristics. 1t avoids one part
of the controversy on techni
caIity and gives no positive decision
in the other. 1t is sort of com
promise verdict that in more
di Iomatic man than Mr.. Roosevelt
would seem to be intended to avoid
giving offense to either party.
Such a verdict would not please
either party to the controversy.
But the circumstances under
which the battle was fought give
some ground for the decision the
President is reported to have
reached. Sampson was not pres
ent and several of the ships Cap
tains have testified that they did
not observe or obey signals from
the Brooklyn. These circum-
stances have led those who have
not been drawn into either side of
the heated controversy to declare
repeatedly that it "was q Captains
fight" and the Presidents sincerity
cannot be challenged if he has re .
ally reached such a conclusion.
Yet, that admitted, such de-
cision is in manner what the 10
gicians call reductio ad absurdum.
An American fleet in such an
as that at Santiago
without a commander shows some
thing radically wrong in our naval
regulations, fault which, despite
the successful issue in this instance,
might lead to the most disastrous
consequences in other instances
But the naval law, as we have seen
it printed, is plain on this point.
1t says that in the absence of the
in chief the line officer
next in rank ''on the spot" is in
This phrase ION the
spot" is very explicit and should
20 plain enough to cover all con
questions.
When Sampson raised the sig
lal, disregard movements of
and sailed
lway toward Siboney, he tempo
'arily resigned command and the
aw, it would seem, deyolved it on
Schley. When the battle began
md the New York was beyond the
lorizon Schley was charged by
he law with the command and
lad no option but to assume it.
The captains were under obliga-
ions to obey his signals.
In his book, "The Sailors Log,
Rear Admiral Robley d. Evans
elates that at an earlier period in
he war, when with Sampson on
he north of Cuba, the New York
oisted the signal disregard
of commander-in,chiet"
nd sailed away, and he adds: Il
'eing the officer next in rank as
umed command of the fleet.
Without regard to what was
ctualIy done at Santiago, if Samp
on's absence be admitted, Schley
yas at least technically in CON-
land. Nashville Banner.
New Nuts, Figs, Dates, Malaga
RI nes. at Dahuke'S.