The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-01-30

partment has made public Admiral Schleys appeal, delivered to the Presi- dent about week ago. The Depart
 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 'egulate and di- rect the acts of the several executive officers thereof" and he asks that the President review the findings of the court. He asks this. on three the findings of Admiral Dewey. as op- posed to the majority report. These three grounds are set out .compendi ously in the petition" which fills about eight signed by Admiral Schley and Messrs. Rayner, Parker and Teague, of his coun- sel. Attached to the petition are three exhibits. 'a,' "b'' and "c." each made up of copious extracts from the. testi- mony taken by the court of inquiry, and intended to confirm the statements of fact made in the petition itself
 In this latter document the first ground of appeals the holding of Secretary rendering no opinion on those questions (that of command and of credit for the victory is unprecedented, 1t could. with propriety. take no other course, evi- dence on these questions during the in- Quiry having been excluded by the court. On this point the petition says that the Secretary of the Navy was in error Tn stating that the court excluded testi- mony to show that as Dewey said. Schley was the senior officer in the battle o1 Santiago: was in absolute command ana entitled to the credit due for the glori, ous victory which resulted in the total destruction of the Spanish ships. on this point the petition says: And your petitioner. the applicant before said court of inquiry, now fiies with his petition an argument. together with resume of the testimony taken during the inquiry insofar as 1t related to the question as to who was In com maEd at the battle of Santiago. Tn sup port of his plea that the presiding mem Der of the said court acted within his authority as hereinbefore set forth. and that the majority members Of the said court failed in the discharge of most important duty devolving upon them un- der the precept in that they did not report their opinion upon the said queS- ton; that it was incumbent upon such mine the said question for the reason that only by so doing could they deter. mine the proprietv of the conduct of said Schley in said battle. since it being a action would. in thF absence of the right and duty so to do. have been mgnly censurable and upon the questions or his conduct in the premises the said Schley was entitled. under the precept, 10 a finding and an opinion from the ma jority members as from the minority petitioner respectfully requests that the said argument and resume (which are attached hereto and marked exhibit ) be considered as a part of his peutioi. and as the basis for his prayer TOT rehei in the premises"
 Therefore the petitioner asks the Pres- ident to annul Secretary Long endorse ment on this point and that he speclnc
 
 declaring that Schley was in command :. He says that only in this way can exact justice be done him under the preeep:,
 The second ground relates to the al. night from Santiago bay and the char acter of the blockade and the proprlety of Commodore Schley's conduct Tn tne premises. This was one or the pn1,s, poihIs dissented. The petition recites the nndlnS of the court to the effect that the nylng squadron did not withdraw at night ana declares that by this statement the court obviated the necessity of expressing an opinion as to whether or not close or adequate blockade was estabiished ana the proprietv of Commodore Schley con duct in the premises. It is declared that under this specification-the eighth-more than a majority of all the witnesses were examined and about one-third or tne whole period of the inquiry was consumed insits consideration. vet. "notwithstande ing the facts herein set forth, all of which appear upon the record or salo court the members thereof nave fallei utterly and entirely to discharge the most important duty imposed upon tneni oS the terms of said specification, -wnlch duty was to report their opinion upon the questions of whether or not close or adequate blockade of said harDor 10 prevent tho eseape or b1;ened tne eI1en,S and the proprietv of Commodore Schleys con- duct In the premises. .,,o
 Therefore Admiral Schley asks the President to annul the Secretary's en- dorse ment which makes valid'' the fail ure of the majority members thereoi to report their opinion upon that porsio.. .t of the said eighth specification. Ana is also asked that there be substitnt,eu 1t,e therefor Admiral Dewey's holding Ine blockade of Santiago was effective, oth- erwise the petitioner declares he will be without a finding or opinion upon one of the most important speclncatiohs'
 The third ground recitts Admiral Dewcv's opinion to the effect that the passage from Key West to Clentuegos was made by the flying squadron with all DC ssiblc dispatch. having Tn view the ii,. portance of arriving of Cienfuegos Wlth sufficient coal: that the blockade or Cleh- fuegos was effective = that the Adula was permitted to gain information ana nnaily that the passage from CientuegoS 10 a noint off Santiago was made with as much dispatch as possible. while keeping the squadron unit. The petition de- clares that this opinion, being at vart- ance in certain points with the majority opInion, is the only one justified by the evidence and facts before the court and it is asked that the Secretarys approNa! of the majority findings be set aside and annulled in each instance where lS IS at variance with Admiral Deweys opinion. and that the latter's opinion should be annroyed for the reasons heretofore set out in the bill of exceptions nled Witn the Secretary of the Navy. It Is also asked that the President annul that portIon of Secretary Longs endorsement which states as to points on which the presiding member differs from the opih- ion of the majority of the court, the opin- ion of the majority Is approved. and that in place he substitute and approve the declaration of Admiral Dewey on these points above referred to, connected with the passage from Key West to Cienfuegos and thence to Santiago. The petition concludes:
 And your petitioners most respectfully states that only by. the action for which he prays in this relation can exact JUS tice be done. him without the contempla- ton of the precept ui.oer which the said court sat and whence 1t derives Its au- thority mitted."
 Exhibit A is an argument and res tune of testimony concerning the ques- tion of command during the battle of Santiago, and comprises full two-thirds of the sixty-two printed pages which make up the petition and exhibits. It discusses the right of the court to con slider the question of command; the fact as 10 whether or not it actually did so; the propriety of Deweys opinion in re- gard to that question and the action re-