The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-01-31

they declare. was a standing order. and
consequently the Oregon did not act on
signal from the Brooklyn. Other testi-
mony is cited on this point, and then the
order CLOSE up is considered.
The Comments insist that this order
was not seen by any ship other than the
oregon, unless. perhaps, the Texas, ana
that II exercised no influence whatever
upon any vessel OF the squadron. They also
quote Admired Scheys testimony that the
Brooklyns charge was made In accordance
with the original plan. OF the order close
up they say: so this order, the second
OF the two signaled from the Brooklyn
during the battle OF Santiago ID the Amerl-
can meet was really formal also ana Ms
given in accordance with Simpsons orlgl-
nal plan Of battle which required Closing
up with a view TO sinking the spanish yes
sells IN the entrance. surprising as thls II,
II Is shown by Admiral Schley s sworn
testimony, and is cOrrObOrated by the tlne
and circumstances under which the slghaI
was made. 1t did not influence other shlps.
All the captains had been advised OF the
plan OF battle and all closed accorolnSly
without waiting or looking for signals from
the BROOKLYN and paid no attention 10 TINS
seen except from the Oregon and not from
that ship until after all vessels had cioseu
up. II Is even more surprising, o1t G ~ diP
pears 10 be a fact, that Admiral SchISy
issued no further fleet order during the
progress of the battle"
The commentators next state: IF Com
during the battle and he made use OF his
authority he must have exercised some
control of the vessels participating,
whereupon they take up in detail the testi-
mony Of the commanding officers on this
point and say: Wainwright or the
Gloucester, said he saw no orders from
the Brooklyn; Taylor, Of the Indiana, SAID
he saw no signals from the Brooklyn,
Evans, of the Iowa, said of the Brooklyn,
/ never saw any signal from her; did not
maneuyer in obedience 10 any signal from
the Oregon the commanding officer OF the
Texas is dead, but the officers testimony
makes 1t clear that that ship received no
orders
Speaking Of this ship. the commentators
declare: The question is not so much
one of possible credit to but or possible
censure of Admiral Schley in connection
with the work of that vessel In the battle
Of Santiago. The plain truth is that Ad-
miral Schley did not, during the battle, in
any way direct or control the splendid per-
formances of the Gloucester and the three
battleships Indiana, Iowa and Texas. The
officers IN command of these ships neither
received nor obeyed a solitary order from
him.
Next the commentators turn their atten-
ton to what they declare were persistent
efforts by Schleys attorneys to show that
in some manner the Oregon at least was
under his orders during the battle; first,
by answering the signal CLOSE up and
afterward by firing her thrteen-inch guns
under signal from the Brooklyn, and they
say, But that attempt, as the testimony
to be quoted below shows, failure"
They quote therefore. passages from
Captain Clark's testimony in which he said
in regard TO the order Close up, that was
a standing order in the squadron TO attack
the enemy at once If they appeared and to
keep the heads Of the ships always toward
the entrance, and l remember a feeling OF
satisfaction that there was order TO
close in iE case any accident had happened
any colliding with other ships" As to the
alleged order from the Brooklyn directing
the oregon TO fire her thirteen-inch guns,
the commentators again quote from Capt
Clarks testimony where, when asked If the
guns were fred in pursuance of an order
from the Brooklyn, the captain said: NO,
sir fred them after celebrating with the
officers and IF they (the BROOKLYN made
a signal | did not see il.
The comment closes in the following
words: THE contention that the magnif-
cent work of the Oregon, or any part Of II,
was done under orders from the Brooklyn,
or that the Oregon received and obeyed even
a single order from Commodore Schley,
from the time the Spanish ships were
sighted 10 the time of the surrender OF
the Colon. which surrender may fairly be
taken as the close of the battle, must be
abandoned: and with il goes the last peg
upon which to hang the pretense of a claim
that during the battle of Santiago Com
modOre Schley effectively exercised any OF
the functions of a commandments.
THE weight of the testimony is to the
effect that the commodore controlled the
movements of his flagship. the Brooklyn.
well. with the exception of the loop. But
il also shows, not negatively, but affirma-
lively and beyond question, that he did not
control the operations of the fleet i'm gen
eral on that day All this is established
not by theoretical deduction or expert or
inexpert opinion, but by direct, positive,
unimpeac hed and unimpeachable testimony
given under oath by the admirals brothers
in arms.
THE plain truth of the matter there
fore deveIoped for the first time under
the searchlight of this inquiry. although
quite incidentally. is that so far the
Gloucester, the Iowa, the Indiana, the
Texas, and the Oregon are concerned, not
the stroke of a propeller blade, nor the
touch of a helm, not the firing of a shot,
was done under the direction by the
orders of Admiral Schley during this men,
orable battle"