The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-02-20
SUSTAINS
SAMPSON.
President Roosevelt UphOIds
s, Verdict of Court
In the Controversy Over the
Battle of Santiago.
CREDIT TO CAPTAINS.
Though Sampson Was Actually
in Command.
Schley the Only Man Who Made
a Blunder.

Washington. Feb. 2O.-The president
has made the following statement pub
white House. Feb. IS. 1902.
nave received the appeal of Ad-
miral Schley and the answer thereto
from the navy department. l have ex-
amined both with the utmost care, as
well as the preceding appeal to the
secretary of the navy l have read
through all the testimony taken before
the court and the statements of the
counsel for Admirals Sampson and
Schley; 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 subdividing captains of the
five ships, aside from those of the two
admirals, which were actively engaged
at Santiago.
VERDICT is JUST.
'It appears that the court of inquiry
was unanimous in it's findings of fact
and unanimous in it's expressions of
opinion on most of its findings of fact.
No appeal is made to me from the YER
dict of the court on these points where
it was unapimOuS. / have, however,
gone carefully over the evidence
these points also.
Il am satisfied that. on the whole,
the court did substantial justice.
1T should have specifically condemn
ed the failure to enforce an efficient
miral Schley was in command
''On the other hand / feel that there
is a reasonable doubt whether he did
not move his squadron with sufficient
expedition from port to port.
The court is united in condemning
Admiral Schley's action on the point
where it seems to me he most graveiy
erred; his retrOgrade movement when
he abandoned the blockade. and his dis
obedience of orders. and misstatement
of facts in relation thereto.
OFFENSES ARE 7CONDONED.
"It Should be remembered, however.
that the majority of these actions
which the court censures occurred five
weeks or more before the fight itself:
and it certainly seems that il Admiral
Schley's actions were censurabla, he
should not have been left as second in
command under Admiral Sampson. His
offenses were in effect condoned when
he was not called to account for them.
Admiral Sampson, after the fight, in an
official letter to the department, alluded
for the first time to Admiral Schleys
'reprehensible conduct six weeks prev
iously.
IF Admiral schley was guilty of
reprehensible conduct of a kind that
called for such notice from Admiral
Sampson then Admiral Sampson ought
not to have left him as senior officer
of the blockading squadron on the Sd
of July. when he CSampson) steamed
away on his proper errand of commune
cation with General Shafter.
ACTED WITH PROPRIETY
I'VE can. therefore, for our present
purposes dismiss consideration of SO
much of the appeal as relates to any
thing except the battle. AS regards
this the point raised in the appeal -
between Admirals Sampson and Schley.
as to which was in comm and, and as to
which was entitled to the credit. If
either of them was really entitled 10
any unusual and pre-eminent credit by
any special exhibit of genius skill ana
courage The court could have consid-
r.a1 9th of hos hrff
a matter of fact, it unanimously ex-
cluded evidence offered upon them and
refused to hear Admiral SIMPSONS side
at all; and in view of such exclusion
the majority of the court acted with
entire propriety in not expressing amy
opinion on these points. The matter
has. however, been raised by the presi-
dent of the court. Moreover, it is the
point upon which Admiral Schley in
his appeal lays most stress, and whic.l
he especially asks me to consider.
this matter also. and have informed
myself upon it from the best sources
of information at my co n mand.
VERDICT OF MCKINLEY.
1.-THE appeal of Admiral Schley to me
is not, as to this, the chief point he
raises, really appeal from the de-
cision of the court of inquiry Five
sixths of the appeal is devoted to this
question of command and credit: that
is to matter which the court OF inquiry
did not consider. 1t is, in effect,
appeal from the action of President
Mckinley three years ago. when ne
sent in the recommendations for pro-
motion for the various officers con-
nected with the Santiago squadron.
basing these recommendations upon his
estimate of the credit to which the
officers were respectively entitled. What
I have to decide, therefore, is whether
or not President Mckinley did injus-
tice in the matter. This necessarily
involves a comparison of the actions of
the different commanders engaged. The
exhaustive official reports of the action
leave little to be brought out anew; but
as the question of Admiral SIMPSONS
right to be considered in chief COM
mand, which was determined in his ID
vor by President Mckinley and later
by the court of claims, has never hitiI-
erto been officially raised, I deemed it
best to secure statements from me
commanders of the five shiDs (otlier
than the Brooklyn and New York. the
hagships of the two admirals.) which
were actively engaged in the fight. Ad-
miral Philip is dead. / quote extracts
from his magazine article on the fight.
written Immediately after it occurred.
closing with an extract from his letter
to the secretary of the navy of f'eo-
ruarv p 1899
ADMIRAL PHILIPS STATEMENT.
1t was the blockade that made the
battle possible. The battle was a direct
consequence of the blockade. and upon
the method and effectiveness Of the
blockade was very largely dependent
the issue of the battle Under
the orders of Admiral Sampson the
blockade was conducted with a success
Spanish admiral at last made his dash