The age-herald., 1902-01-31
Say the Evidence Show Beyond Doubt That He Was NOt in
 Command at Santiago
CHARGE THAT HE HAS
 SHIFTED HIS GROUND
In Conclusion They Say In Compari- son Nobody Disputes Grants Title to Appomattox Surren-
 der, Though Miles Away.

der, Though Miles Away.
 Washington, January S0.--The "com-
 ment' of Judge Advocate General Lem
 ly and Solicitor Hanna upon the appeal
 of Admiral Schley as submitted 10 the
 President by Secretary Long, is less
 than third as long as the appeal Itself,
 fact accounted for by the compara- lively few quotations from the courts testimony in the case of the comment"
 The commentators begin with the state
 ment that Admiral Schley and his coun- sel have shifted their ground. They say the chief features of the case were "the
 retrograde movement" "dlsobedience of orders," inaccurate and misleading offi-
 cial reports, failure to destroy vessels of the enemy lying within sight and
 injustice to a brother officer
 These matters are all grave. The first
 was that the finest aggregation of Amer
 ican vessels under one command was, by Schley's direction, turned about and headed for Key West, more than 700
 miles distant, when within 22 miles of
 Santiago, where the enemys 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 Schleys reason officially given for the retrograde movement and disobedience of orders, i. e., that the flying squadron was short of coal, was not true. The fourth was that for three days some of the Spanish ships lay within reach of the flying squadron and no efforts were made to destroy
 them. The fifth involves the point of
 honor. The commentators say:
 The Point of Honor. "Upon all the above named features, believed by us to be the most important, | if not the only really important matters, | into which the court made inquiry, the conduct of Admiral Schley was con demned by the most distinguished trl- bunal Admiral Dewey and Rear Ad- mirals Benham and Ramsay united in their findings and opinions upon all Of | these several points, and they united also in the significant recommendation | that no further proceedings be had, Tn view of the length of time which nad elapsed since the occurrence Of the events | of the Santiago campaign"
 The commentators CndTBe tHett <Aolhhi oi | Schley now ignores all these grave mat | ters and bases his appeal upon unimport- ant features of the case as compared 1 with the grave matters above referred 1 to upon which there was not, and In l the face of the testimony, could not l have been any difference of opinion in | the court"
 The commentators say they recognize 1 the fact that Admiral Schley devoted by | far the larger part of his appeal to the 1 question of command, and consequent | ly gave that question a proportionate l space in their comment. They declare | that the question is between Sampson l and Schley, both alike interested, and | to investigate it fairly both should be | heard. Such incidental testimony on this l point as came before the court was on | Schley's side only, and the doors were entirely closed to Sampson. They add:
 Contrary to Justice. "To determine an important question l 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 1t Is
 recalled that though the judge advocate | expressed a willingness to enter upon it
 
 | proper to do so. The judge advocate they say might have shown that it was | Admiral Sampsons plan of night block | ade that forced Cervera to come out | in the day light, and Captain Clark is | quoted to support that statement. They | quote Admiral Schley in his testimony | to the effect that the American ships l charged in Accordance to the original l plan to sink the enemy In the channel" hat hot xxlo fatt tad haa fhn | enemy succeeded really in passig the bat | tie line" They ask why did the enemy | succeed and declare the Brooklyn hav- | ing abandoned her position on the left l of the line. thereby left an unguarded | opening along the western shore, through | which the Spanish fleet passed our ships and attempted to escape
 To sustain their contention that Samp- son was in command the commentors | quote passages from Schley's report of July 6. 1898. as follows: ''The torpedo boat destroyers were destroyed early in the action, but the smoke was so dense in | their direction that I can not say to what vessel or vessels the credit belongs | This doubtless was better seen from your | flagship
 "The dense smoke of the combat shut | out from my view the Indiana and the l Gloucester, but as these vessels were closer to your flagship no doubt their part in the conflict was under your im- mediate observation"
 Nobody Disputed Grants Title. l The remark: Nobody has ever disputed | Grants title to the victory at Appomat- | tox, though then lying sick some miles | from the place of surrender-so far that | it was feared he could not be reached | within the period of armistice. Though | Howard was senior officer present at the | capture of Savannah and Sherman ab- sent on one of Admiral Dahlgren's gum boats, nobody has questioned Sherman's l famous report to Lincoln:
 | CT beg to present you. as Christ
 mas gift, the city of Savannah And as showing Schley's own opinion of who was | in command. they quote this passage | from his dispatch of July 10. 1898, to the | Secretary of the Navy: Feel some morti- | fication that the newspaper accounts of | July have attributed victory of July | almost entirely to me- Victory was se- cured by the force under the command