The age-herald., 1902-02-20
PREVIOUS CONDUCT OF
 SCHLEY NOT CONSIDERED
President Thinks If Ills Conduct Was ReprehenslbIe Admiral Sampson
 Should Not Have Waited
 Five Weeks to Say So.

Washington, February 19.-The Pres ident today made the following state ment public:
 White House, February 19, 1902.
 q have received the appeal of Admiral Schley and the answer thereto from the Navy Department. I have examined both with the utmost care as well 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 Admiral Sampson and Schley; have examined all the official reports of every kind in re- ference to the Santiago naval campaign copies of the log books and the testimony before the court of claims and have also personally had before me the four sur viving captains of the five ships. aside from those of the two admirals which were actively engaged at Santiago
 Tt appears that the court of inquiry was unanimous in its findings of fact and unanimous in it's expressions of opinion on most of It's findings of fact No ap- peal Is made to me from the verdict of the court on those points of which 1t was unanimous l have, however, gone care fully over the evidence on these points also. I am satisfied that on the whole the court did substantial justice. I should have specifically condemned the failure to enforce an efficient night blockade at Santiago while Admiral Schley was in command. On the other hand I feel that there is a reasonable doubt whether he did not move his squadron with sufficient expedition from port to port The court is unit in condemning Admiral Schleys action on the point where it seems to me he most gravely erred, his "retrograde movement when he abandoned the block ade and his disobedience of orders and misstatement of facts in relation thereto. It should be remembered. however, that the majority of those actions which the court censures occurred five weeks or more before the fight itself and it cer- tainly seems that If Admiral Schleys actions were censurable he should not have been left as second in command under Admiral Sampson.
 SchIey's offense condoned.
 
 when he was not called to account for them. Admiral Sampson after the fight in an official letter to the department al- luded for the first time to Admiral Schley's reprehensible conduct 'six weeks previously. If Admiral Schley was guilty of reprehensible conduct or a kind which called for such notice from Admiral Sampson, then Admiral Sampson ought not to have left him as senior officer of the blockadlng squadron on the Slird of July when he (Sampson) steamed away on his proper errand of communication with General Shafter. We can, therefore for our present purpose dismiss consideration of so much of the appeal relates to anything except the battle. As regards this, the point raised in the appeal is between Admiral Samp- son and Admiral Schley as to which was in command and as to which was en- titled to the credit, if either of them was really entitled to any unusual and pre- eminent credit. by any special exhibition of genius, skill and courage. The court could have considered both the questions, but as a matter of fact it unanimously excluded evidence offered upon them, and
 
 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 passing any opinion on these points. The matter, however should have been opened by the president of the court. Moreover it Is the principal upon which Admiral Schley in his appeal lays much stress. and which he especially asks me to consider, I have therefore care @,,1Iv ale have informed myself upon it from the best sources of information at my com mand.
 Appeal From Courts Decision.
 '"The appeal of Admiral Schley to me Is not as to this. The chief point he raises Is really an appeal from the decision of the court of inquiry. Five-sixths of the appeal is devoted to this question of command and credit; that is. to matter which the court of inquiry did not con aider It is in effect an appeal from the action of President Mckinley three years ago when he sent in the recommendations for promotion for the various officers connected with the Santiago squadron basing these recommendations upon his estimate of the credit to which the off cers were respectively entitled. What I have to decide, therefore, IS whether or not President Mckinley did injustice in
 
 a comparison of the actions of the differ ent commanders engaged. The exhaustive official reports of the action leave little to be brought out anew; but as the ques- ton of Admiral Sampsons right to be considered in chief command, which was determined in his favor by President Mckinley and later by the court of claims has never hitherto been officially raised I deemed 1t best to secure state ments of the commanders of the five ships (other than the Brooklyn and New york. the hagships of the two admirals) which were actively engaged in the fight Admiral Philip Is dead I quoted extracts from his magazine article on the fight written immediately after it occurred closing with an extract from his letter to the Secretary of the Navy of February 27. 1s99
 Admiral Philips Views.
 .'It was the blockade that made the hattie possible. The battle was. direct