The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-01-31
CLAIM THAT SCHlEY
HAS Shifted GROUND
Comment Of Judge-Adyocate
Upon Admiral's Appeal.
QUESTION OF COMMAND
Attempt to Prove from SchIey's
Dispatches it Was Sampson.
THE LOOP BROUGHT UP AGAIN
Courts Opinion Is Quoted that Brooklyn List
Distance by Making It aud Also Delayed
the Texas-say Question Is Not
OF Credit to. but Gem
sure of, Admirsl
SehI.y.
Attempt to Prove from schIey's
Dispatches it Was Sampson.
THE LOOP BROUGHT UP AGAIN
tEy Associated Press,

Try Associated Prsss.)
WASHINGTON. n c.. jan. ze.-fas
comment Of ee-Advocato-Gencrat
Lemly and Solicitor nanna upon tho
appeal of Admiral Schley as submitteJ
TO the President by Secretary Long be-
gins with the statement that Admiral
Schley and his counsel have shifted their
ground. They say the chief features OF
the case were the retrograds movement
"disoEedience of orders inaccurate and
misleading official reports failure to
destroy vessels of the enemy lying wlthin
sight and injustice to a. brother officer
These matters are all grave. The first
was that the finest aggregation of Ameri-
can naval vessels unGer one commanI
was by Schley's direction turned about
and headed for Key West. more than
100 miles distant. when within twenty
two miles of Santiago. where the enemy's
ships were.
The second was that Schley deliberate
ly and knowingly disoEeyed the Secre-
tarys orders. overtakiug him on the
retrograde movement. The third was THAI
Schleys reason officially given for the
retrograde movement, and diSohedienca
OF orders, /. e., that the Flying Squadron
was short of coal, was not true. me
fourth was that for three days some or
the Spanish ships lay within reach of tho
Flying Squadron and no sufficient effort
was made 10 destroy them. The fifth in
wolves the point of honor.
The commentators say: Upon all tins
above named features. believed by us to
be the most important. IL not the only
really important, matters, into which
he court made inquiry. the conduct OF
Admiral Schley was condemned by that
most distinguished tribunal admiral
Dewey and Rear-Alrnirals Benham and
Ramsay united in their findings and opin-
ions on all of the several points.
The commentators charge that Admiral
Schley now ignores all these grave mat
ters and bases his appeal upon relatively
unimportant features of the case.
The commentators say they recognizes
the fact that Admiral Schley 6evoteesby
far the larger part of his appeal to the
question of command, and consequently
gave that question proportionatesspace
in their comment. They declare ,hat tho
question is between Sampson and Schley.
both alike Interested. and to investigate
1t fairly both should be heard.
THE LOOP AGAIN
It is admitted that the precept is broad
enough to have permitted the court to go
into the question, but it is recalled that
although the judge-advocate expresse6 a
Willingness to enter upon it. the cotvrt did
not deem it necessary or proper to do so.
The judge-advocate, they say. might hava
shown that it was Admiral Simpsons :
plan Of night blockade that forced Cerver;.
to come out in the daylight, and Captain
Clark is quoted to support that statement.
They quote Admiral Schiey IN his testi-
nony to the effect that the American
ships charged in ACCORDING to the orig
nal plan to sink the enemy in the chan
..~A go
the enemy mad succeeIed in passing the
battle line" They. ask why did tia en-
cnny succeed. ana declare ..t::e Brooklyn.
having abandoned its position On tho
left of the line. thereby left an uuguartieti
opening along the western shore. through
which tie Spanish feet passed Our ships
and attempted to escape" The courts
opinion is quoted to the effect that tns
1}rooiziyn lost distance in position by t!.o
'.Eoop'' and delayed the Texas. To stls-
tain their contention that Sampson was
in command. the commentators guoss
from SchIey's report of July 6, 1855, as
follows:
THE dense smoke OF the combat shut
out from my view the Indiana and the
Gloucester, but, as these vessels were
closer. to your flagship no doubt tneir
part IN the conflict was under you. inne-
date observation
Thev remark: ..%obady has ever dis
puted Grants title TO the victory at Ap-
ponattox. though then lying sick some
miles from the place of srrrender-so far
that il was feared he could not be reached
within the period OF armstise. Though
Howard was senior officer present at tho
capture of Savannah. and Sherman ab-
sent on one OF Admiral DahfgTeTs gun
boats. nobody has questioned Shermans
famous report to lincoln: Y beg to pre-
sent you. as a. Christmas gift. tho city
Of Savannah.
EXERCISED NO COMMAND.
And as showing Schley's own opinion o.
who was in command. they quote this
paragraph from his dispatch OF July 10.
1898. to the Secretary of the Navy:
Feel some modification tint the reu!s-
paper accounts OF July 6th have attri-
buted victory OF Juiy sth almost entirely
to me. Victory was secured by force uI-
der the command of the ccmmander-in-
chief North Atlantic Station. and to him
the honor is due.
Further along they quote schley,s let
ter of December is. 1901. to Secretary
Long, itlstifying the loop" on the ex-a
pressed ground that it was made Tn
the execution of tho standing order to
close in.
II is asked, ..But if he was himself in
command how happens 1t that he was
executing the orders OF SOMEBODY elsa
in commando"
Eefore the. Court of Inquiry every prop
raised to support the contention that
| Commodore Schley did ANYTHING to ae-
ccmpIisi the victory by issuing orders
ae commanding officer of the American
| feet. vas removed. The plain truth was
for the first time revealed that copr1o-
| dor. sch,ey did not exercise command on
fhat dsy over any ship. except. to some
extent. over his own flagship. the Brook
| Iyr,. The comment at this point contains,
a number Of extracts from the testimony
+ Ia sustain this contention