New-York tribune., 1902-02-20

White House, February IS 1902
I have received the appeal Of Admiral Schley
and the answer thereto from the Navy Depart
nent l have examined both with the utmost
care as we'll the preceding appeal to the Sec
retary Of the Navy. I have read through all the
testimony taken before the court and the state
merits Of the counsel for Admirals Sampson and
schey. have examined all the official reports of
every kind in reference TO the Santiago naval
campaign, copies Of the logbOoks and signal
books and the testimony before the Court 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 engaged at Santiago
Il appears that the court Of inquiry was
unanimous in its findings Of fact and unaniGlous
III lis EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION on most OF It's Ihu-
ings Of fact No appeal is made TO me from
the verdict Of the court on these points where II
unanimous. I have, however, gone care
fully over the evidence on these points also.
am satisfied that on the whole the court did
substantial justice. 1t should have specifically
condemned the failure TO enforce an efficient
night blockade at Santiago while Admiral
Schley was in command On the other hand, 1
feel that there is a reasonable doubt whether
he did not move his squadron with sufficient
expedition from port 10 port Ihe court IS d
unit IN condemuing Admiral Schley's action on
the point where IL seems TO me he most gravely
erred his "retrograde movement" when he
abandoned the blockade. and his disobedienCe OF
orders and uisstatemenr OF facts in relation
thereto. It should be remembered, however,
that the majority Of these actions which the
court censures occurred five weeks or more be
fore the fight itself, and it certainly seems that
IL Admiral Schley's actions were censurable he
should not have been left as second IN com
nand under Admiral Sampson. His offences
were IN effect condOned when he was not called
10 account for them Admiral Sampson, after
the fight, in an official letter 10 the department
alluded for the first time 10 Admiral Schley's
'reprehensible conduct six weeks previously.
Il Admiral Schley was guilty OF reprehenslnIe
conduct Of kind which called Tor sucn hoIlce
from Admiral Sampson, then Admiral Sampson
ought not TO have LEFT him as senior Qfncer or
The blockading squadron on the Sd OF July, Wheh
ne (SampsonD steamed away on his proper
errand OF communication with General Shafter
QUESTIONS AS TO CONDUCT OF BATTLE.
We can. therefore for our present purposes
dismiss consideration OF so much Of the appeal
as relates 70 anything except the battle As re-
CARDS this the point raised in the appeal is be
tween Admiral Sampson and Admiral Schley,
10 which was in command and as 10 which was
entitled 10 the credit II either OF them was
really entitled 70 any unusual and pre-emlnent
credit by any special exhibition Of genius, skill
and courage. The court could have considered
both of these questions but matter Of fact
II unanimously excluded evidence onered upon
them. and through its president announced its
refusal 10 hear Admiral Simpsons side at all;
and in view Of such exclusion the majority Of
the court acted with entire propriety in not ex-
pressing any opinion on these points The mat
Ter has. however, been raised by the president of
the court Moreover. il is the point upon which
Admiral Schey in his appeal lays most stress
and which he especially asks me 10 consider
I nave therefore carefully investigated TINS
matter also and have Informed myself upon II
from the best sources Of information at my
command
The appeal Of Admiral SchIey 10 me is not,
as TO this the chief point he raises. really
an appeal from the decision Of the court
Of inquiry Five-sixths OF the appeal is devoted
10 this question Of command and credit: that IS.
10 matter which the court Of inquiry did not
consider It is in effect an appeal from the
action 0f President Mckinley three years ago
when he sent in the recommendations for pro-
motion for the various officers connected with
the Santiago squadron basing these recon-
mendatiOns upon his estimate Of the credit TO
which the officers were respectively entitled
What have 10 decide. therefore. Is whether or
not President Mckinley did injustice in the
matter. This necessarily involves a comparl-
son Of the actions Of the different commanders
engaged The exhaustive official reports of the
action leave little 10 be brought out anew; but
the question Of Admiral SIMPSONS right 10
be considered in chief command, which was de
termned in his favor by President Mckinley, and
later by the Court Of Claims has never hither-
TO been officially raised. I deemed il best TO Sc
cure statements of the commanders Of the five
ships (other than the Brooklyn and the New
York the hagshps Of the two admirals) which
were actively engaged in the fight.
PHILIP CALLED SAMPSON COMMANDER.
Admiral Philip is dead. I quote extracts
from his magazine article on the fight. writ
ten Immediately after it occurred. closing with
an extract from his letter 10 the Secretary OF
the Navy Of February "a 1899:
''It was the blockade that made the battle