Evening star., 1902-01-31
CONT ROLa 0F FLEET
Question Of Command in Naval Battle
Of Santiago
bI e
81 nt 4zs
TEE ANSWER TO GHLBY'S APPEAL
-
Orders signaled ffomss;tthe Brook
Iyn on July 3.
EXTRACTS FROM TESTIMONY


than a third as long as the appeal exhibits.
a fact accounted for by the comparatively
few quotations from the courts testimony
in the case Of the comment"
The commentators begin with the state
ment that Admiral Schley and his counsel
have shifted their ground. They say the
chief features of the case were "the retro
grade movement "disebedience of or
ders;" inaccurate and misleading Of
fetal reports failure to destroy vessels
of the enemy lying within sight" and "in-
Justice to brother officer" These mat
ters are described as grave. The first was
that "a feet selected for speed and power
was by schley's direction turned about
and headed for Key West more than 700
miles distant when within twenty-five
miles of Santiago, where the enemy's ships
were reported to be and actually were"
The second was that Schley deliberately
disobeyed'' the Secretary's order overtak-
ing him in his retrograde movement. The
third was that Schley's reason, Officially
given for the retrograde movement and dts
obedience of orders, J. e., that the flying
squadron was short of coal, was not true"
The fourth was substantially that for three
DAYS some of the Spanish ships lay within
reach of the flying squadron, and no suf-
ficient efforts was made to destroy them.
The fifth involved a point of honor. The
commentators say:
Upon all the above-named features, be-
lieved by us to be the most important, II
not the only really important matters, into
which the court made inquiry, the conduct
of Admiral Schley was condemned by that
most distinguished tribunal. Admiral
Dewey and Rear Admirals Benham and
Ramsay united in their findings and opir-
ion upon all of these several points, and
they united also in the significant recon-
mendation that no further proceedings be
had, in view Of the length of time which
has elapsed since the occurrence of the
events of the Santiago campaign"
The commentators charge that Admiral
Schley now ignores all these grave matters
and bases his appeal upon comparatively
unimportant features of the case.
Question of Command in Battle.
They declare that the question of COM
mand Is between Sampson and Schley, both
alike interested and to investigate it fairly
both should be heard. ITO determine an
important question of, this nature under
such conditions says Messrs. Lemly and
Hanna. "is contrary to the underlying
principles Of Anglo Saxon Justice. Never
asks the President to do. We admit that
the precept as drawn aby the department
was broad enough to have permitted the
court to go into this question:; but the court
did not deem it necessary or proper to do
so.''
1t is recalled, however, that the judge ad-
vocate, though expressing a, willingness to
enter upon it, was not allowed to do So
The commentators quote Admiral Schley
In his testimony to the effect that the
American ships charged in according to
the original plan to sink the enemy in the
channel" and that that plan failed be-
ing the battle line They ask why did
the enemy succeed, and declare the Brook
lyn, having abandoned her position on the
left of the line, thereby left an unguarded
q "a W. OH
which the Spanish fleet passed our ships
and attempted to escape" The courts
opinion Is also quoted to the effect that
the Brooklyn lost distance by the loop
and delayed the Texas.
To sustain their contention that Samp-
son was in command, the commentators
quote from Schley's report of July 6. 1898,
passages where Schley says that the In
diana and Gloucester were nearer to the
flagship than to himself, and that Sampson
doubtless witnessed the destruction of the
torpedo boat destroyers early in the action.
They remark:
III the New York was within signal dis
tance, as evidence, II heard, would proba-
bly, show, then there Is no doubt that Ad-
mlrai Sampson was in command. During
the first part Of the engagement the New
York and the Brooklyn both signaled to
close up: but there Is evidence indicating
that neither Of these signals was seen, or,
If seen, that they accomplished nothing,
the closing up occurring without regard to
them.
Nobody has ever disputed
Grants title to the victory at Appomattox
though then lying sick some miles from
the place Of surrender-so far that 1t 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 absent on one OF
Admiral Dahlgren's gunboats, nobody has
questioned Sherman's famous report to
Lincoln:s I beg to present you, as a
Christmas gift, the city of Savannah
Schley's Statement as to the Victory.
"On this question of command apd title
to victory nothing can be more significant
than Schley's statement in his dispatch Of
July 10, 1885, to the Secretary of the Navy:
Feel some modification that the news
paper accounts of July 6 have attributed
victory of July 4 almost entirely to me.
victory was secured by the force under the
command commander-in-chief North At
lantlc station, and to him the honor Is due
Again, in Schley's letter of December 1S,
isOl, 10 the secretary of The Navy he JUS
tlnes the loop on the express ground that
1t was made in the execution Of the stand
Ing order to close in If he went wrong,
his excuse Is that he was obeying orders.
But II he was then himself in command,
now happens 1t that he was executing the
oroers OF somebody else in command?
approval of Admiral Deweys expression
OF opinion upon the question of command
involves two points:
hS@' "dS COMMODORE SCnley IN 'aDSO-
lutte command during the battle of July 3?
Secondly-and quite different PROPOSE
tion-fs he entitled to the credit due for
that victory?
The first point is purely technical one,
wnere we have the case of running fight,
covering distance of about forty miles,
and the question is affected by the naval
practice Of reaching distant ships by re-
peating signals. Isf3s' .
Upon the second pofiit, whether Commo-
core schiey Is entitled, to the credit for
wlnnlns that battle. The testimony from
nimseI ana his own witnesses is SO conciu-
81 slve as TO leave no doubfn III the course of
sne s1 proceedings before the coart Of inquiry,
every eve prop raised to support the conten-
tion that Commodore Echieyi did anything
70 achieve the victory BY issiiing orders as
commanding officer Of the American fleet
was removed. The plaah trtth was for the
nrst time revealed thato Gommodore Schely
oid not exercise commaRd ON that day over
any snip except, to some extent, his own
flagship, the Brooklyn @
schiey's orderi Hsripe Battle.
What orders did he sgivss. The natural
place to look for such orders is the signal
book of the Brooklyn, and careful analysis
OF the testimony shows them to be cor
rectlX given there. as follows: $50 -
9;s6 a.m.-Brooklyn to feet: Clear for
action
/. -