The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1902-02-21

Nioht Blockade at Santiago Should
Have Been OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
Famous "Loop" the One Grave Mis-
take of the RattIe-Recommends
CLOSING of the Incident.
washington, Feb. 2O.-The presi.
dent has made the following state
ment public:
st have received the appeal of Ad.
miral Schley and the answer thereto
from the navy department. have ex.
amined both with the utmost care, as
well as the preceding appeal to the
secretary of the navy. l have read
all the testimony taken before
the court, and the statements Of the
counsel for Admirals Sampson and
schley; have examined all the official
reports of every kind in reference to
the Santiago naval campaign, copies
of the logbooks and signal books and
the testimony before the court OF
claims. and have also personally had
before me the four surviving captains
of the five ships, aside from those OF
the two admirals which were actively
engaged at Santiago.
at appears that the court OF in.
uuiry was unanimous in its findings OF
fact and unanimous in its expressions
of opinion on most of its findings OF
fact. No appeal is made to me from
the verdict of the court on these points
where it was unanimous. I have,
however, gone carefully over the evil
dence on these points also. l am sat
isfied that on the whole the court did
substantial justice. 1t should have
specifically condemned the failure to
enforce an efficient night blockade at
Santiago while Admiral Schley was
in command. On the other hand l
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 schIey's Action
on the point where it seems to me he
most gravely erred-his 'retrograde
movement when he abandoned the
blockade. and his disobed1ence OF or
ders and misstatement OF facts In rela
ton thereto. 1t should be remember
ed, however, that the majority of these
actions which the court censures, oc
Cured five weeks or more before the
fight itself; and it certainly seems
that if Admiral Schley's actions were
censurable, he should not have beer
left second in command under Admira
Sampson. His offenses were In effec
condoned when he was not called tt
account for them. Admiral Sampcol
after the fight, in an official letter II
the department, alluded for the frs
time to Admiral Schley's 'reprehens1
BILE conduct six weeks previously.
Admiral Schley was guilty of repre-
hensible conduct of kind which cal
ed for such notice from Admiral SamI
son, then Admiral Sampson ought no
| to have left him as senior officer OF tn
blockading squadron on July 3, whel
he (Sampson) steamed away on hi
| proper errand of communication wit
General Shafter.
1--WE can, therefore, for our presen
purposes dismiss consideration of S
much of the appeal as relates to an!
| thing except the battle. AS regard
this, the point raised in the appeal
between Admiral Sampson and Az
miral Schley. as to
Which Was In Command,
| and as to which was entitled to tn
| credit. If either of them was really el
| titled to any unusual and pre-emineI
credit, by any special exhibition
genius, skill, and courage. The coul
could have considered both of thes
questions, but as a matter of fact
unanimously excluded evidence offe
ed upon them, and, through its pres
dent, announced its refusal to hes
Admiral Simpsons side at all; and
view of such exclusion the majorit
of the court acted with entire prop1
ETY. in not expressing any opinion {
these points. The matter has, hoy
ever, been raised by the president
the court. Moreover 1t is the poi
upon which Admiral Schley in his a
peal laid most stress, and which he e
pecially asks me to consider. ha'
therefore carefully investigated tn
matter also, and have informed myse
upon it from the best sources OF
formation at my command.
"The appeal Of Admiral Schley
me is not, as to this the chief poi
he raises, really an appeal from Il
decision of the court of inquiry. Fiy
sixths of the appeal is devoted to th
question Of command and credit; tn
is, to matter to which the court Of
, curry did not consider. It Is In effe
an appeal from the action of Preside
.. Mckinley three years ago when
! sent In the
Il Recommendation for Promotion
for the various officers connected wi
the Santiago squadron, basing the
recommendations upon his estimate
! the credit to which the officers we
! respectively entitled. What I have
decide. therefore. is whether or Z
President Mckinley did injustice
the matter. This necessarily involv
. q comparison of the actions of the d
: ferent commanders engaged. The
haustive official reports of the acti
:. leave little to be brought out ane'
but as the question Of Admiral San
sons right to be considered in CHI
command, which was determined in
favor by President Mckinley and la
4 ny Ju0 ClcAAho1 hoO AOFOl Ia
erto been officially raised, I deem
\ it best to secure statements OF
commanders of the five ships (ott
9 than the Brooklyn and New York,
fagships of the two admiralty, viii
were actively engaged in the fight.
y ''The question of command Is In t
y case nominal and technical. Admi
= Simpsons ship, the New York, v
y seen at the outset of the fight from
!. the ships except the Brooklyn. FL
g Of these FIVE ship captains have tel
!, Red that they regarded him as pres
/. and in command. He signalled eli
n In to the fleet as soon as the q
Spanish ship appeared, but his sig
i was not seen by any American vess
II He was actually under fire from
n forts, and himself fired a couple
IS shots, at the close of the action W