The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-01-31
REPLY TO SCHLEY APPEAL
Say the Rear Admiral Has
 Shifted His Ground.
They Declare That the Court Deter mined It Improper to Go Into the Question of Who
 Commanded.

Washington, Jan. 30.-The "comment" of Judge Advocate General Lemly and Solicitor Hanna upon the appeal of Ad- miral schley, as submitted to the Presi- dent by Secretary Long, is less than third as long as the appeal itself. g fact accc unted for by the comparatively few quotations from the courts testimony in the ."comment." The commentators be- gin with the statement that Admiral Schley and his counsel have shifted their ground. They say the chief features of the case were "the retrograde movement" 'disobedience of orders" inaccurate and misleading official reports" failure to destroy vessels of the enemy lying with in sight," and injustice to a brother of- flcer."
 These matters are all grave. The first was that the finest aggregation of Ameri- can naval vessels under one command was, by Schley's direction. turned about and headed for Key West. more than 700 miles distant, when within twenty-two miles of Santiago. where the enemy's ships were. The second was that Schley deliberately and knowingly disobeyed the Secretary's order overriding him in his retrograde movement The third was that Schley's reason officially given. for the retrograde movement and disobedi- ence of orders, 1. e.. that the flying squadron was short of coap' was not true; the fourth was that for three days some of the Spanish ships lay within reach of the flying squadron and no sufficient efforts was made to destroy them. The fifth involves the; point of honor. The commentators say:
 Upon all the above named features be- heved by us to be the most important if not only really important matters, into which the court made inquiry, the con. duct of Admiral Schlev4 was cnpd pdemned by the most distinguished tribunal. Ad- miral Dewey and Rear Admirals Benham and Ramsay united in their findings and opinion upon all of these several points and they united also in the significant recommendation that no further proceed ings be had. in view of the length of time which has elapsed since the occur renee of the events of the Santiago cam paign."
 The commentators charge that Admiral Schley now ignores all these grave mat ters and bases his appeal upon unim- portant features of the case as compared with the grave matters above referred to, "upon which there was not and in the face of the testimony, could not have been any difference of opinion in the court.'
 The commentators say they recognize the fact that Admiral Schley devoted by far the larger part of his appeal to the question of command, and, consequently gave that question a proportionate space in their comment. They declare that the question is between Sampson and Schley both alike interested, and to investigate it fairly, both should be heard Such in- cidental testimony on this point as came before the court was on Schley's side only, and the doors were entirely closed to Sampson. They add:
 ''To determine an important question of this nature, under such conditions is contrary to the underlying principles of Anglo-Saxon justice"
 It is admitted. that the precept was broad enough to have permitted the court to go into the question, but it is recalled that though the Judge Advocate express ed willingness to enter upon 1t, the court did not deem it necessary or prom CT to do so. The Judge Advocate, they say, might have shown that 1t was Ad- miral Sampson's plan. of night blockade that forced Cervera to come out in the daylight and Captain Clark is quoted to support that statement. They quote Ad- miral Schley in his testimony to the ef- feet that the American ships charged in according to the original plan to sink the enemy in the channel" and that 'that plan failed because the enemy suc- ceeded really in passing the battle line. !" They ask why did the enemy succeed and declare 'the Brooklyn. having aban- doned her position on the left of the line. thereby left an unguarded opening along the western shore, through which &AN GVaR AAAf attempted to escape" To sustain their contention that Sampson was in com mand. the commentators quote passages from Schleys report of July 6. 1898, as follows:
 "The torpedo boat destroyers were de- stroyed early in the action but the smoke was so dense in their direction that I cannot say to which vessel or vessels the credit belongs. This doubtless was bet ter seen from your flagship" '. "The dense smoke of the combat shut out from my view the Indiana and the Glou- cester. but as these vessels were closer to your flagship, no doubt their part in the conflict was under your immediate observation"
 They remark: Nobody has ever dis puted Grants title to the victory at Ap- po II attox. though then lying sick some miles from the place of surrender-so far that ft was reared ne WOuiu not Dc reached within the period of armistice. Though Howard was senior officer present at the capture of Savannah and Sher- man absent on one of Admiral Dahl- grens gunboats. nobody has questioned Sherman's famous report to Lincoln: I beg to present you, as Christmas gift, the city of Savannah"
 And, as showing Schley's own opinion of who was in command. they quote this massage from his dispatch of July 10. 1898. to the Secretary of the Navy: Feel some modification that the newspapers accounts of July 9th have attributed vic torv of July 4th almost entirely to me. Victory was secured by the force under the mander-in-chief North Atlantic station ,and to him the honor is due. :" Further they quote Schley's letter of De- cember IS, 1901. to Secretary Long. iusti- ryinE the Hoop" on the expressed ground that 1t was made 'in the execution of the standing order to close in It is asked;