The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-02-20
FROM THE GLOBE BUREAU,

/ w as n1n&IOnt II. Cs
WASHINGTON, D. e., Feb. 1S-Presf-
dent Roosevelt announced his decision to-
night on the appeal of Admiral Schley
from the findings Of the court of in
| quiry The president approves all the
! courts condemnations of the admiral and
| goes further.
| He condemns Sampson for not having
condemned Schley earlier and then con-
| den1ns Schley for the loop of the Brook
| lyn.
~ finds that che command of Sampson
was only technical and nominal.
He finds that Schley was no. more in
| command than was Sampson.
He says that Sampson should have been
ent1Sed to some little credit above the
individual captains for work done previ-
Gus to the battle In organizing the block
ade, but the victory-itself he credits en-
| ttrely to the captains
He says Schley, as commander of the
Brooklyn, cid about as well as the other
captains, his only mistake being the
loop which caused the Brooklyn to lose
position and headway.
Greatest praise, If any be due President
| Roosevelt thinks, should have been given
to Wainwright, who took his unpro-
tected ship into the range Of the forts
and the enemies ships and did unquesCion-
able damage to the enemy at greater risk
to any other ship of the fleet
Next to Wainwright, the president COM
mends Captain Clark, of the Oregon
Schley's retrograde movements he con-
silers worthy of re2roof. In answer,
therefore, to the question raised as to
who was in command, the president re-
plies that it does not matter:
AS to Schley's conduct before the bat
| tie he agrees that it was wrong, but he
expresses the opinion that the contro-
| versy should be dropped.
| The full text of President Roosvelts
| decision is as follows:
st have received the appeal of Admiral
| Schley and the answer thereto from the
navy department / have examined both
with the utmost care, as we'll as the
| preceding appeal to the secretary OF the
navy. l have read through all the tes-
/ timony taken before the court and the
! statements of the counsel for AdmlralS
/ Sampson and Schley; have examined all
! the official reports of every kind in refer
| ence 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 be-
| fore me the four surviving captains of
| the five ships, aside from those of the
| two adnairals, which were actively en-
ged at Santiago.
1T appears that the court of inquiry
was unanimous in its findings of fact,
and unanimous in it's expressions of opin-
| ion or most of its findings of fact No
appeal is made to me from the verdict of
the court on these points, where 1t was
unanimous. have, however, gone care
fully over the evidence on these points
also 1t 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 I feel that there is a reasonable
doubt whether he did not move his
squadron with sllffcfent expedition from
port to port. The court is a unit in con-
demning Admiral Sch1ey's action on the
point where 1t seems to me he most
ment,.' when he abandoned the block
ade-and his disobedience of orders and
mssstategnent of facts in relation there
to.