The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1902-02-20
Feb. 1s-The pres
w ident today made the following

W ident today made the following
statement public:
white House, Feb. IS 1902: / have
received the appeal Of Admiral Schley
and the answer thereto from the navy
department. have examined both
with the utmost care, as wen as the
preceding appeal to the secretary Of
the navy. 1 have read through all the
testimony taken before the court and
the statements of the counsel for Ad-
miral Sampson and Admiral Schley;
have examined all the official reports
of every kind in reference to the san
tiago naval campaign, copies Of log
books. and the testimony before the
court Of claims. and have also person.
ally had before me the four surviving
captains OF the five ships. aside from
those Of the two admirals. which were
actively engaged at Santiago
1T appears that the court of in
quiry 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, how
! ever. gone carefully over the evidence
/ on these points also. I am satisfied
/ that on the whole the court did sub
| stantial justice
1T should have specifically con-
I demned the failure to enforce an ef-
fcient night blockade al Santiago,
/ while Admiral Sch;ey was in com
mand. On the other hand. 1 feel that
/ there is a reasonable doubt whether
! he did not move his squadron with
/ sufficient expedition from port 10 port
] G. Gill T1--.5
The court is united in eondemning
| Admiral Schley's action on the point
! where it seems to me he most gravely
| erred; his 'reTogra6e movement. S--ren
| he abandoned the blockade and his
/ disObedience o. orders and missta-e-
ment of facts in relation thereto.
1t should be remembered. however,
! that the majority Of these actions
which the court ensures occurred five
/ weeks or more before the fight itself
| and il certainly seems that If Admiral
| Schleys actions were cenSurabie he
| should not have been left as second in
! command under Admiral Sampson. His
offenses were in effect 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 re-
prehensible conduct of a kind which
called for such notice from Admiral
| Sampson, then Admiral Sampson ought
not to have left him as senior officer
of the blockading squadron on the 3rd
of July, when he tSampsOn) steamed
away on his proper errand Of cOmmu-
nicatiOn with General Shafter.
We can, therefore. for our present
purposes. dismiss consideration of sc
much of the appeal as relates to any
/ thing except the battle As regards
this. the point raised in the appeal is
between Admirals Sampson and Schley
as to which was in command and Is
to which was entitled 10 the credit
if either Of them was really entitled
10 any unusual and pre-eminent cred
il by any special exhibit Of genius
skill and courage
Discusses Courts Action.
THE court could have considered
both of these questions. but as a mat
ter of fact it unanimously excluded
| evidence offered upon them anC
| through the preannOunced refusal Z
hear Admiral Simpsons side at all
and in view of such exclusion. TIT
I
tire propriety in not expressing any
opinion on this point. The matter has
however, been raised by the presiden
of the court.
Moreover. it is the point up01
which Admiral Schley. in his appeal
lays most stress. and which he es
pecially asks me TO consider 1 have
therefore, carefully Investigated thi,
matter also, and have informed my
self upon it from the best sources o
information at my command.
The appeal of Admiral Schley 20 N,
is not. as 10 this. the chief point ~
raises, really an appeal from the de
ciSiOn of che court of inquiry Five
siXths of the appeal is devoted 10 mi
I question Of command and credit; tina
t is. to matter which the court OF in
T qUiry did not consider. 1t is, in effect
? an appeal from the action of Presiden
Mckinley three years ago. when h
sent in the recommendation for pro
] motion for the various officers connect
] ed with the Santiago squadron. basin.
these recommendations upon his est
: mate Of the credit to which the ON
, GERS were respectively entitled.
a Review McKinley's Decision.
What I have TO decide. therefore. i
; " A-NAA4EA VI AltA E1ttlLtlh llN AAllllr-
injustice in the matter. This neces
sarily involves a comparison Of the &C
lions of the different commanders en-
gagged The exhaustive official report
Of the action leave little to be brough
out anew; but as the question of Ad
+ miral Simpsons right TO be c0nsidere
in chief command. which was deter
mined in his favor by President Nc
'Kinley, and later by the court @
. | claims, has never hitherto been on
; ! cially raised. I deemed it best TO Sc
? cure statements from the commanded
, | Of the five ships (Other than the Brook
, lyn and New York. the hagships q
; / the two admirals). which were activeI
, engaged in the fight. admiral Phil
, is dead. I quote extracts from his mas
; agine article on the fight. written im
, mediately after IL occurred. clOsin
; with an extract from his letter TO I'd
, secretary Of the navy Of Feb. y, 1899: