Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-01-31
THE COMMENT"
By Navy Department officials
on the Sch|ey Appeal.
Charges Admiral and Counsel With
Having Shifted Their Ground.
Jump from the Grave Matters Of Case
to Trivial Points.

lC;Cnt by secretary Long, is less imam
| third as long as the appeal itself. a
fact accounted for by the comparatively
few quotations from the courts testi-
n.ony in the case of the comment"
| The commentators begin with the
statement that Admiral Schley and his
counsel have shifted their ground. They
say the chief features of the case We're
the retrograde movement; ''disobedi-
ence of orders; inaccurate and mis-
leading official reports; failure to de-
stroy vessels Of the enemy, lying with
in sight" and injustice to brother
| officer" These matters are all grave.
The first was that the finest aggre-
| gctien of American naval vessels under
one command. was, by Schley's direc-
ton. turned about and headed for Key
West, more than 700 miles distant,
when within % miles of Santiago, where
the enemy's ships were. The second
was that Schley deliberately ard know
ingly disobeyed the secretary's orders
overtaking him in his retrograde move
ment. The third was that Schley's rea-
sen. officially given. for the retrograde
| movement and disobedience 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
involves the point of honor.
! The commentators say: Upon all the
above named features. believed by us
to be the most important, If not the
l nrlv- rao1lN ;r,pnrfa NJ ,,,offorc into
which the court made inquiry, the con-
duct Of Admiral Schley was condemned
by the most distinguished tribunal.
Admiral Dewey and Rear Admirals
Benham and Ramsay united in their
findings and opinian upon all of these
several points and they united also in
the significant recommendation that no
further proceedings be had, in view of
the length of time which has elapsed
since the occurrence of the events of
the Santiago campaign"
The commentators charge that Adj
miral Schley now ignores all these
grave matters and bases his appeal
upon 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-
mcny could not have, been any differ
ence Of opinion in the court"
The commentators say they recognize
tine fact that Admiral Schley devoted by
far the larger part of his appeal to the
question of command and consequently
give that question proportionate
space in their comment. They declare
| that the question is between Sampson
/ Cch1a1- hat ~; ;,,t :,
to investigate it fairly both should be
heard. Such incidental testimony on
| this point as came before the court was
Oh Schley's side only and the doors
were entirely closed to Sampson
| They add: ITO determine an impor-
tant question Of this nature, under such
conditions, is contrary to the under
lying principles of Anglo-Saxon justice.
Nevertheless. this is precisely what the
appeal asks the President to do
| 1t is admitted that the precept was
i'troad enough to have permitted the
court to go into this question, but it is
recalled that the judge advocate,
though expressing willingness to en-
| tel upon IT, the court did not deem it
necessary or proper to do So The judge
afNoca they say, might have shown
that it was Admiral SIMPSONS plan Of
night blockade that forced Cervera to
come out in the daylight, and Capt.
| clark is quoted to support that state
n,ent. They quote Admiral Schley in
has testimony to the effect that the
| Americans charged In according to the
original plan to sink the enemy in the
channel" and that that plan failed be-
cause the enemy succeeded really in
| passing the battle line
| They ask why did the enemy succeed.
and declare the Brooklyn having aban-
doned its position on the left of the line
| thereby left an unguarded opening
along the western shore. through which
the Spanish fleet passed our ships and
| attempted to escape.
| The courts opinion is quoted TO the
effect that the Brooklyn lost dis
tancc in position by the loop" and de-
layed the Texas. To sustain their con-
tention that Sampson was in command
| the commentators quote passages from
Schley's report of July 6. 1895. as fol-
lows:
THE torpedo boat destroyers were
! destroyed early in the action, but the
smoke was so dense in their direction.
that cannot say to which vessels or
vesse! the credit belongs This doubt
less is better seen from your flagship
= The dense smoke of the
combat shut out from my view the In
diana and the Gloucester, but as these
vessels were closer to Your flagship. no
doubt their part in the conflict was
under your immediate observation"
They remark: Nobody has ever dis
puted Grants title to the victory at
Appomattox. though then lying sick
some miles from the place of surrender.
50 far that it was feared he could not
be reached within the period of armis-
ltice. Though Howard was senior Of
ficer present at the capture of Savan-
nah and Sherman absent on one of
Admiral Dahlgren's gunboats, nobody
/ has questioned Sherman's famous re-
! port to Lincoln: Il beg to present you.
as Christmas gift. the city of Savan-
/. nah.'
(contInusd on page ~