The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1902-01-31

Navy.
washington, January 2e.-The navy
department has made public Admiral
Schlev's appeal. delivered to the presi-
dent about a week ago. The depart
ment's comment" will b published IN
a day or two.
Admiral Schley appeals to the presi-
dent as the chief executive and COM
mander-in-chief of the army and navy,
vested with power to regulate and di-
rect the acts of the several executive
officers thereof" and he asks that the
president review the findings or the
court. He asks this on three grounds
In each case basing his appeal on the
findings OF Admiral Dewey, as opposed
to the majority report. These three
grounds are set out compend1ousiy h
the petition" which fills about elght
printed pages of a pamphlet n IS
signed by Admiral Schley, and by
Messrs. Raynor. Parker and league of
his counsel.
Attached to the petition are three ex-
hibfts ~, 81, and Co. each mace
up of coDious extracts from the testl-
mony taken by the court of inquiry anu
intended to confirm the statements OF
fact made in the petition itself.
In this latter document the hrst
ground of appeal Is the holding OF Sec
rotary Long in his endorsement on the
courts findings that the onduc Oh tne
court in making no finding M renoef-
ing no opinion of those questions (tnat
of command and of credit for~the VIC
toryo ia approyed-indeed 1t could, with
propiety, a ke no other course, cyl
%Hn-a nrrnctinnG during the ll-
ouiry having been excluded by the
court"
On this point the petition says that
the secretary of the navy was In error
in stating that the court excluded tesIl-
mony to show that, as Dewey said'
.Schlev was the senior officer in the bat
tie of Santiago; was in absolute COM
mand and entitled to the credit due Tor
the glorious victory which resulted IN
the total destruction Of the spanish
ships. On this point the petition says;
land your petitioner, the appncdnt,
before said court of inquiry, now hies
with this petition an argument, togetn-
er with a resume of the testimony TAKEN
during the inquiry in so far as IL re-
lates to the. questions as to VINO was III
command at the battle of Santiago, IN
support of his plea that the presldins
member of the said court acted Wltnln
his authority and jurisdiction in report
ing his opinion as he~reinbefore set Iortn
and that the majority members OF the
said court failed in the Vi d
most important duty devolvlng upon
them unde the precept, in that they
did not report their opinion upon the
said question:; that it was lncunpeII
upon such majority members to consio-
er and determine the said question IoI
h reason that only by SO dolns couiu
they determine the propriety OF the
Id of the said Schley in said nat
tie. since, it being a fact that he dld
assume command Of the American
forces therein engaged, MS actlon
would. in the absence of the r1gnt ana
duty so to do, nave been highly cen
Surable and upon the question of SUCH
right and duty and the propriety or ms
conduct in the premises the said Scniey
was entitled, under the precept' ~ d
finding and an opinion from the iha-
jority members as we'll as from Ine luia
nority member of the said COURT duo
your petitioner respectfully requests
that the said argument and resume OF
testimony (Which are attached hereeo
and marked exhibit A") be consldereo
as a part of his petition ana as INC
basis for his prayer for RELIEF In the
Therefore the petitioner asks the pres
ident to annul Secretary Long En-
dorsement on this point. ana Indt ne
,specifically approve Admiral DeWeS ;
statement. declaring that Scniey q 81.
n I1c SoJS
way can exact justice pe ooHN $780,
under the precept.
The second ground rClateS 10 li0 u
legged withdrawal of me squaulon a.
night from Santiago bay and the omar
acfer of the blockade, and the proprlety
~ ~Commodore Schley's conduct in the
r,er1ises. This was one of the polnts
.,non which Admiral Dewey speclficaly
rissented. The petition recltes tne Lnu-
ines of the court. to the ehect thdl Ifs
living squadron did not WITHDRAW
p,aht. and declares that by THIS state
ment the court obviated the necessity
nf Expressing it's opinion as to whethef
or nnf a close or adequate blockade was
established, and the proprlety ol Yin
rodore Schley's onduc In the prem
jses. 1t is declared that unoeT lne
erecihcation-the ~eighth-more imam d
majority of all the witnesses were eN-
amined and about one-third OF the
whole period of the inquiry was con
sumed in Its consideration. yet hot-
wfthstanding the facts herein set lorlh,
all OF which appear upon the Iecoap "
TIE said court, the ~concurr1ng mernoeIs
thereof failed utterly and ent1reiy u
Schare the most important duty I'M
r,sed upon them by the Terms OIL 'ne
laid specification which duty was 10
report their opinion upon the ques.ios
of whether Or not a close or adequate
blockade of said harbOI to prevent the
(s1ane Of the enemy's vessels there
rom was established and the proprlety
CT Commodore Schley S conduct In the
premises" tbo
Therefore Admiral Schley asks the
o,esi6ent to annul the secretary en-
dorsenent which makes valid the Iali-
are of the majority members Thereon 70
report their opinion upon that portioh
OF the said eighth speclnca'ioh-
And It is also asked that there De
substituted therefor Admiral Dewey 5
holding: 1.-The blockade of Santiago
vas effective
otherwise the petitioner declares that
he will be without a finding or opin.
Ion upon one of the most iripof.ah'
specifications. .,
.The third ground recites Admiral
Dewey's opinion to the effect that:
The passage from Kew West to Cien-
fuegos was made by the living SQUAD
--s4h on nossihie diSpatch. having