Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1902-01-31
sCHLEY sHoRN OF HONOR.

hout w b1o pctlblOu VI hNA -
Schley to the President has been given
out for publication. 1t Is signed by
Capt. 8. @. Lsmly. iudge-advocste OF
the Court of Inquiry, and by E. Z.
Hams, his assistant. The comment"
opens with and lie based upon an asser-
ton which does not appear 70 De oorne
out by any part OF the record and which
is commonly understood outside the
Navy department to be wrong; thst ls,
that all the members OF the court, in'
Guiding Admiral George Dewey, the
president of the court, united 10 con-
demning Admiral Scblsy on the follow
log couots in the precept:
/. The retrograde movement.
2. Disobedience of orders.
3. Inaccurate and misleading offi'
cial reports.
4. Failure to destroy vessels OF the
enemy lying within sight; and
B. Injustice to brother officer.
After snslyziog the counts the depart
ment thus PERSISTS in the assumptions
apparently without warrant, that Ad-
miral Dewey concurred In ell the opiD-
ions expressed by the other members oil
the court upon which he failed to specif-
cally comment, though these opinions
are utterly inconsistent with the indi-
vidusl report by Admiral Dewey him.
self. Having dogmsIically declared
that Admiral ecnley was convicted by
the entire court on these points, the
comment" proceeds to characterize
the grounds OF appeal presented In Ad.
mIral Schley's petition as certain minor
and comparatively uDimportsnt features
| which were In the case"
Then passing TO the question OF
whether or Dot Admiral 6cDley was 10
command during the battle OF Santiago,
toe ground is taken Qn utter disregard
Of testimony covering many pages oil
the official report OF the proceedings OF
the Court OF Inquiry, 10 which the
question is considered from nearly
every possible point OF view that the
| quet ton OF who was in command was
not entered into during the investigs.
ton of the court.
The absence OF Admiral w. T. Samp-
son from the Court of Inquiry, In
person or by counsel, is argued as
evidence that the question OF who was
10 command was not before the court,
though the object of the argument is 10
snow that his absence from the scene
of battle should not deprive him of the
credit for the victory.
The fact is CIT I'd that the court ruled
out or the counsel for Admiral Schley
Withdrew without waiting for ruling
everything which was construed as
rejecting upon Admiral Sampson.
Yet IL is confessed that testimony bear
| log upon whether or not Admiral
Schley was 10 command during the
battle was admitted by the court, and
SUCH of this testimony as seems ID deny
Schley's claim of command Is made use
of 10 the comment" to sustain the
contention of tue department that Ad
miral 5chley was not in command.
AS al evidence that Admiral Samp.
son was 10 command the comment"
SAYS: Incidentally 1t appears that
duriog tue progress Of the battle Ad-
miral Sampson gave orders to the ves-
sels of the American feet affecting
their movements, notably sending the
Indiana back to guard the entrance o.
the harbor and prevent any remaining
Spanish gunboats from taking advsn-
tage of the absence -four fighting ships
TO the iDI1I7 or Unprotected trans
porte"
That this order wac obviously given
after the Spa Dish fleet had been de.
stToyed is MOI suggested in the COM
mebt."
The Comment" closes in the follow
ing words:
"The contention that the magnificent
work OF the Oregon or any part oil IL
was done under orders froa the Brook
lyD, or that the Oregon received and
obeyed even a single order from Com
modore Schley from the time the
Spanish ships were sighted to the time
of the surrender of the Colon, which
surrender may fairly be taken as
the close of the battle, must be aban'
doned, aud with it goes the laet peg
upon which to hang the pretense OF .
claim that during the battle OF Santiago
Commodore Schley effectively exeI'
cised any OF the functions Of commsu-
der-in.chIei. The weight Of the testi
mony is to the effect that the Commo.
dore controlled the movements OF bis
flagship, the Brooklyn, well, with the
/ exception OF the loop. But ID also
shows-not negatively, but atfirms.
lively aud beyond question-tnat be
did not control the operations OF the
q Get In general on that day. The plain
truth OF the matter, therefore, devel-
oped for the first time under the search
light OF this inquiry, although quite
incidentally, is that so far as tne
Gloucester, the Iowa, the Indiana, the
Texas aud the Oregon are concerned,
not the stroke OF a propeller blade, net
tne touch OF helm, net the firing OF
shot was done under t1e direction or
by the orders Of Admiral Schley during
this memorable battle"
COURT OF APPEALS.