Richmond daily palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1876-1904, 1902-01-31
FIVE CHIEF FEATURES
The Judge Advocate and S0lieitOs
Hanna Append Their Comments
Upon Demand For a Review.
They Charge the Admiral With
Shifting Ground and Dodging
Main Issues.

ments OF Judge Advocate Generel
Lemly and Solicitor Hanna on the ap-
peal of Admiral Schley as submitted to
the president by Secretary Long. is
less than a third as long as the ap-
peal itself, a fact accounted for by
the comparatively few quotations
from the courts testimony in the case
OF the comments. The commentators
begin with a statement that Admiral
Schiey and his counsel have shifted
their ground. They say the chief fea-
lures of the case were the retro
grade movement "disobedience of
ORDERS" inaccurate and misleading
official reports" failure to destroy
vessels Of the enemy lying within
sight" and injustice to brother
officer" These matters are all grave
The first was that the finest agsrega
tion of American naval vessels under
one command was. by Schley's direc-
tions, turned about and headed for
Key West. more than 700 miles dis
fant, when within % miles of Santi-
ago, where the enemys ships We're.
The second was that Schley deliber-
ately and knowingly disobeyed the
secretary's order overtaking him in
his retrograde movement. The third
was that Schley's reason. officially
given. for the retrograde movement
and disobedienoe of orders. i. e., that
the flying squadron was short of coal
was not true. The fourth WAS that
for three DAYS some OF the Spanish
ships lay within reach of the flying
squadron and no sufficient effort was
made to destroy them. The fifth in
wolves the point of honor. The com
mentators say:
Upon all the above named features.
believed by us to be the most impor
'm1s.-7nru-the onIy really aisortan,
matters into which the court made
inquiry. the conduct of Admiral Schley
was condemned by that most dis
tinguished tribunal. Admiral Dewey
and Rear Admirals Benham and Ram
say united in their findings and opin-
ion upon all of these several points.
and they united also in the significant
recommendations that no further pro-
ceedings he had lin view of the length
of time which has elapsed since the
occurrence of the events of the San
tiago campaign"
The commentators charge that Ad-
miral Schley now ignores all these
grave matters and bases his appeal
upop unimportant features of the case
as compared with the grave matters
above referred to, upon which there
was not. and in the face OF the testi-
mony could not have been any differ
ence of opinion of the court"
The commentators say that they
recognize the fact that Admiral
SchIey devoted by far the longer part
o. his appeal to the question of com
mand and consequently give that
question proporuonate space in
their comment. They ueclare that
the question is between Sampson and
Schley 10th alike interested. and TO
investigate 1t fairly both should be
heard Such incidental testimony on
this point as came before the court
was on Schley's side only. and the
doors were entirely closed TO Samp
son. They add: ITO determine an
important question of this nature. un-
der such conditions. is contrary to the
underlying principles of A1glo-Saxon
justice Nevertheless it is precisely
Il, do" Ii is admitted that the precept
was broad enough to have permitted
the court 20 go into this question. but
il is recalled that the Judge advocate.
though expressing a willingness 10 en-
ter upon IT, the court did not deem it
necessary or proper to do SO.
The comment closes in the follow
ing words. bearing on the question OF
command: The plain truth of the
matter, therefore. developed for the
first time under the searchlisht of this
inquiry, although quite incidentally. is
that so far as the Gloucester. the Iowa.
the Indiana. the Texas and the Oregon
are concerned, not the stroke of pro
peller blade nor the touch of helm,
not the firing of shot. was done un-
der the direction or by the orders of
Admiral Schley during this memora
bls battle
Wayne County Historical