The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1902-02-27

Avoiding Danger The Decision
Characterized by Inconsistency and
Lack of judicial ANAL ysis-President
Gives Sampson but Small Praise also
Special Dispatch to the Baltimore Sun.
Washington. Feb. 19.-The Presi-
dents response to the appeal Of Rear
Admiral w. S. Schley, was made pub
lie today.
Technically il is adverse to both
Admiral Schley and Admiral w. +.
Sampson, but it is hostile to Admiral
Schlsy and friendly to Admiral Samp-
son. who is given credit for the whole
campaign, though not alleged to have
been in command at the battle Of
Santiago.
Its most conspicuous characteris-
tics are Inconsistency, absence Of
Judicial analysis, and . disregard for
the rules OF justice, which discrimi-
nate between testimony under oath
and that which is q mere expression
Of opinion subject to the coloring Of
prejudice and sslf-interest.
NOT BASED ON THE TESTIMONY.
The citations in the reply are not
taken from the testimony before the
Court Of Inquiry, but from the sub
sequsnt statements" made by COM
manders in tho squadron after being
relieved OF the obligation of an oath
and the check of crsss-examina-
ton.
AS stated in the Sun some time
ago, captains were called upon for
expressions Of their opinion, and these
expressions are availed of by the
President as citations to justify his
decision or comment.
There is a marked similarity OF
expression and opinion in tho state
ments quoted by the President from
the captains, with the exception Of
that by Capt. Charles f. Clark. who
commanded the Oregon.
CLARK's STATEMENT STRONGER.
Captain Clark's statement corre-
spends with his testimony before the
Court OF Inquiry, except that it is
made somewhat stronger. In that he
states specifically rather than by in
ference, then he recognized Admiral
Schley as being in command and re-
peated his sigpaled orders.
The other captains quot ed by the
President say that they received no
orders from Admiral Schlsy. and
"would not have needed" them il
they had received them.
The insubordination OF these dec
larations by junior officers is ignored
by the President.
The President also ignores the
statement of Captain Clark and rem
ders his decision in accordance with
the opinion of the officers who declare
that they would not have needed the
orders of their superior officers had
they received them.
THE PRESIDENTS COMMENT
The President introduces his COM
ment upon the appeal with = state
ment that he has read the testimony
taken by the court and the logs OF
the ships, and has heard the state
ments of five captains commanding
the vessels in the fight. His only
citations, however, arc from the
"statemsnts" Of the captains.
In effect he says that these captains
who in their statements court that
conclusion) and other captains in the
fight are entitled to Whatever credit
is due for the Santiago victory. He
implies that Admiral Sampson was
technically not in command, and de-
niss that Admiral Schley was in COM
mand actually or technically. and i'm
plies that Schley was actually carried
into the fight by the captain Of the
Brooklyn.
AN INsINUATION OF COwARDICE.
The decision. reply or opinion.
under whatever designation it may bs
identified, when stripped OF its verbi-
age. actually accuses Admiral Schlsy
Of cowardice. In referring to the
''loop'' made by the Brooklyn. the
President makes use OF this sentence
full OF venom:
This kind OF danger must not be
too nicely weighed by those whose
trade it is to dare greatly for the honor
OF the flag"
The danger referred TO is that in
volving the probable loss OF the
Brooklyn had she been turned toward
instead of away from the shore in
making the loop"
IGNORED IMPORTANT FACTS.
The fact that the avoidance OF this
unnecessary danger enabled the
Brooklyn to prevent the escape OF the
Colon, il not other OF the Spanish
ships, is ignored by the President in
this connection, though the fact un-
avoidably appears in the further dis
cussion Of the battle.
The President approves the ..unani-
nous" finding OF the court. with a
comment that it should have speci-
fically condemned the failure to en-
force an effective night blockade al
Santiago while Admiral Schlsy wasin
command"
NOT SUPPORTED By THE EVIDENCE.
No evidence in support OF this as
sumption OF the inefiiciency OF block
ade at night while Admiral Schley
was in command is cited by the Presi-
dent. II hs were Is familiar with the
testimony rs reading it should have
made him, he should know that the
charge of inefficiency OF blockade al
night was distinctly and specifically
disprovse and WAS abandoned by the
prosecution.
Another reference made by thu
President 10 one that even the hostile
members of the court did not appear
to have found warrant for. This i.
the expression (rsferring to Schley)
His disobsdiencs OF orders and mis-
statement Of fact in relation there.
to-"
The basis for this comment must
have come from q source Of CONNIE nj