Waterbury Democrat., 1902-01-29
SCHLEY'S APPEA'
Given to the Public To-Day By
 Navy Department.
ADMIRAL DEWEY'S OPINION

meul-1 u0 <aSkS lAC | ANfSA
 dent to Amend Secretary Long's
 Findings-Wants Dewey's, Holding
 That the Blockade Was Effective,
 Substituted Therefor.
 Washington, Jan 29-The navy de partment has made public Admiral Schley's appeal, delivered to the presi- dent about a week ago. The depart ment's comment will be published in day or two.
 Admiral Schley appeals to the presi- mander in chief of the army and navy, vested with power to regulate ana direct the acts of the several executive officers thereof" and he asked that the president review the findings or the court. He asked this on three grounds, in each case passing his appeal on the findings of Admiral Dewey. as opposed to the majority report These three grounds are set out compendlously Ill the sspetition," which fills about eight printed pages of pamphlet ana IS signed by Admiral Schley and by Messrs Rayner, Parker and Teague or his counsel. Attached to the petition are three exhibits, "A" "B and .C,'' each made up of copious extracts from the testimony taken by the court of inquiry and intended to confirm the statements of fact made in the petition itself.
 In this latter document the first ground of appeal is the holding of Sec ir1 11fe or6 0nnnf 0n inc courts findings that ''the conduct ot the court in making no finding, and rendering no opinion in those ques- tions (that of command and of credit for the victory is approved-indeed, it could, with propriety, take no other course, evidence on these questions during the inquiry having been exclud- ed by the court" On this point the petition says that, as Dewey said Schley was the senior officer in the battle of Santiago; was in absolute command, and entitled to the credit due for the glorious victory which re suited in the total destruction of the Spanish ships On this point the pe- tition says: And your petitioner, the applicant before said court of inquiry now files with this petition an argu- ment, together with resume of the testimony taken during the inquiry in so far as it relates to the question as to who was in command at the battle of Santiago, in support of his plea that the presiding member of the court act ed within his authority and jurisdic- tion in reporting his opinion as here- inbefore set forth, and that the major ity members of the said court failed in the discharge of q most important duty revolving upon them under the preeept. in that they did not report their opinion upon the said question, that it was incumbent upon such ma iority members to consider and deter mine the said question for the reason that only by so doing could they deter mine the propriety of the conduct or the said Schley in said battle, since, 1t being fact that he did assume command of the American forces therein engaged, his action would, ln the absence of the right and duty to do so, have been highly censurable, and upon the question of such right and duty and the propriety Of his con duct in the premises the said Schley was entitled, under the precIpt, to finding and an opinion from the ma iority members of the said court; and
 
 that the said argument and resume of +estimonv (which are attached hereto and marked exhibit AO be considered as part of the petition and as basis for his prayer for relief in the prem Ises"
 Therefore the petitioner asks the president to annul Secretary Longs endorsement on this point and that he specifically approve Admiral Dewey's 8 statement declaring that Schley was in command. He says that only in this way can exact justice be done him un- der the preeept.
 The second ground relates to the al- leged withdrawal of the squadron at night from Santiago bay and the char acter of the blockade and the propriety of Commodore Schley's conduct in the premises. This was one of the points upon which Admiral Dewey specifical- ly dissented. The petition recites the findings of the court to the effect that the flying squadron did not withdraw at night. and declares that. by this statement the court obviated the ne- cessity of expressing its opinion as to whether or not a close or adequate blockade was established and the pro- priety of Commodore Schley's conduct in the premises. It Is declared that under this specification, the eighth, more than a majority of all the wit nesses were examined, and about one third of the whole period of the in- yquiry was consumed in it's considera- tion. yet notwithstanding the facts herein set forth, all of which appear upon the record of the said court the concurring members thereof have failed utterly and entirely to discharge the most important duty imposed upon them by the terms of the said specifi- cation. which duty was to report there 1pon the questions of whether or not close or adequate blockade of said earbor to prevent the escape of the enemy's vessels therefrom was estab- 1fshed and the propriety of Commodore Echley's conduct in the premises 7
 Therefore Admiral Schles asks the zresident to annul the secretary's en- .}orsement which makes valid the Eailure of the majority members there 3f to report their opinion upon that 5ortion of the said eighth speciaca- 1lon" And 1t is also asked that there be substituted therefor Admiral Dew ey's holding "the blockade Of Santi- ago was effectivev Otherwise the