The progressive farmer., 1902-02-25
Living Issues.
TER PRESIDENTS REPLY TO sCHLEY's
APPEAL.


down last Wednesday. The mate
rial part of the document, all that
the average man would be interested
in, follows:
WHITE House, Feb. IS, 1902.
have received the appeal of Ad
miral Schley and the answer thereto
from the Navy Departments. have
examined both with the utmost care,
as we'll as the preceding appeal TO
the Secretary of the Navy. have
read through all the testimony taken
before the court and the statements
of the counsel for Admiral Samp
son and Schley have examined all
the official reports of every kind in
reference TO the Santiago naval cam
paign, copies of the logbooks and
signal books, and the testimony be-
fore the Curt of Claims, and have
also personally had before me the
four surviving captains of the five
ships, aside from those of the two
admirals, which were actively en-
gagged at Santiago.
Is appears that the Court OF In
Quiry was unanimous in its findings
of fact and unanimous in it's express
sions of opinion on most of it's find
ings of fact. No appeal is made to
me from the verdict of the court on
these points where it was unanimous.
have, however, gone carefully over
the evidence on these points also. l
am satisfied that on the whole
THE COURT DID SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
1t shoIld have specifically con-
demned the failure TO enforce an
efficient night blockade at Santiago
while Admiral Sohley was in COM
mand. On the other hand, / feel
that there is a reasonable doubt
whether he d d not move his squad.
ron with sufficient expedition from
port to port. The court is unit in
oondemning Admiral Schley's action
on the point where is seems so me
he most gravely erred; his "retro-
grade movement" when he aban
dened the blockade, and his disc
bedience of orders and mlsstatement
of facts in relation thereto. Is should
be remembered, however, that the ma
jority of these actions which the court
censures occurred five weeks or more
before the fight itself; and it GER
tainly seems that if Admiral Sohley's
actions were censurable he should
not have been left as second in COM
mand under Admiral Sampson. His
OFFENCES 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 alluded for the first
time to Admiral Sohley's "repr rehen.
sible conduct" six weeks previously.
If Admiral Schley was guilty of rep
rehensibLe conduct of a kind which
called for such action from Admiral
Sampson, then Admiral Sampson
ought not TO have left him as senior
officer of the blOckadlng squadron
on the third of July, when he (Samp
sony steamed away on his proper
errand of communication with Gen
eral Shafter.
SAMPSON TECHNICALLY IN COMMAND.
The question OF command Is In this
case nominal and technical. Ad-
miral Sampson g ship, the New York,
was seen at the outset of the fight
from all the other ships exoept the
Brooklyn. Four of these five ships
captains have testified that they re-
garded him as present and in com
mand. He signaled "ClOse in" so
the feet as soon as the first Spanish
ship appeared, but his signal was
not seen to any American vessel. He
was actually uuder fire from the
forts, and himself feed a couple OF
shots, as the close of the action with
the torpedo boats, in addition to
signaling she Indiana just at this close
of the action. But during the action
not single order from him was re-
oeived by any of the ships that wore
actively engaged.
Admiral Sohley as the outset of
the action hoisted the two signals o.
"Clear ship" and "CIose up, which
was simply carrying out the sa4nd
ing orders of Admiral Sampson as 80
what should be done if the enemy's
ships attempted TO break out of the
harbor Until after the close of the
first portion of the fight at the mouth
of the harbor, and until after he had