Hutchinson gazette. [volume] (Hutchinson, Kan.) 1895-1902, 1902-02-27
THE PRESIDENTS VERDICT.
After Careful Study Of Every
Feature Gives DeCls ion.

Feature Gives DeClS lon.
ENDS WITH ADVICE TO QUIT,
Washington, The president has
made the following statement public'
"Whlte House, February Is, 1902,
~ have received the appeal OF Adml-
raj Schlcy and the answer thereto from
the navy department, Ihave examined
both with the utmost care, rs well as
the preceding appeal to the secretary
Of the navy ! 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
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,
VERDICT JUST,
ut 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 It's finding of fact
No appeal is made to me from the ycr'
diet Of the court on the points where
II was unanimous, | have, however,
gone carefully over the evidence on
these points also,
~ am satisfied that, on the whole,
the court did substantial justice,
at should have specifically con-
dcmned the failure 10 enforce an eff
Client night blockade at Santiago while
Admiral Schley was in command.
son the other hand, ] feel that there
IL 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 gravcly
erred; his 'retrograde movement when
he abandoned the blockade, and his
disobedience Of orders, and misstatc-
mcnt OF facts in relation thereto,
oFTENsEs coNpoNED.
ut should be remembered, however,
that the majority Of these actions which
the court censures occurred five weeks
or more before the fight itself; and il
certainly seems that II Admiral Schley't
actions were ccnsurable, he should moi
have been left as second in command
under Admiral Sampson, His offense'
were in effect condoned when he was
not called TO account for them Adj
miral Sampson, after the fight, in an
official letter to the department, allu
ded for the FIRST time to Admiral Schley''
'reprchensiblc conduct six weeks pre-
viously,
III Admiral Sehlcy was guilty Of rep
rchensible conduct of kind that callet
for such notice from Admiral Sampson
then Admiral Sampson ought not t
have left him as senior officer Of Tho
blockading squadron on the Sd Of July
when he (Sampson) steamed away OF
his proper errand Of communication
with General Shafter,
AS TO COMMAND,
1--WE can, therefore, for our present
purposes dismiss consideration of S,
much Of the appeal as relates to any
thing except the battle, AS regards
this, the point raised in the appeal il
betweeen Admirals Sampson and Schlel
as to which was in command, and rs Il
which was entitled TO the credit, /
either Of them was really entitled e
any unusual and pre-eminent credit by
my special exhibit of genius, skill ant
courage. The court could have con
sidered both Of these questions but, AZ
matter of fact, II unanimously eX
cluded evidence offered upon them ant
refused to hear Admiral SIMPSONS side
at all; and in view Of such exclusion