The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-02-20
To These Roosevelt Refers
as the Proof.
He SAYS lT WAS A CAPTAINS BATTLE
And That Neither Sampson Nor Schley
Issued Any Order During the Fight
That Had ANY Influence in Shaping
the Result.
the Result.
White House, February 18th, 1862.

White House, February 18th, 1862.
| 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 pre-
ceding appeal to the Secretary of the
Navy. have read through all the tes-
iimony taken before the court and the
statements of the counsel for Adn.irals
! Sampson and .Schley; have examined all
the official reports of every kind in ref
erence 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 admirals which were actively ensa-
ged at Santiago.
II appears that tke Court OF Inquiry
was unanimous III its findings Of fact
eseld unanimous Ia its expressions OF opin-
ION on most OF It's findings or fact NO ap-
Ieal Is made 10 me from the verdict OF
the court on these points where it was
unanimous. | nave, however, gone care
also. ! am satisfied that on the whole
the court did substantial justice Ii
should have specifically condemned the
failure to enforce an inefficient night block
ade at Santiago while Admiral Schley was
in command. On the other hand, feel
that there is II reasonable doubt whether
he did not move his squadron with suf-
acient expedition from port to port The
I'm
Schley's action on the point where it
seems to me he most grayely erred his
Tetrograde movement when he aban-
doned the blockade, and his disobedience
OF orders aud rnisstatement of facts in
relation thereto. 1t should be remem-
bered, however, that the majority of these
actions which the court censures occurred
five weeks or more before the fight itself
and 1t certainly seems that IL Admiral
Schley's actions were censurable ne
should not have been left as second in
command under Admiral Sampson His
onenscs were in effect condonei when he
was not called to account for them. Ad-
niral Sampson, after the fight, in an
official letter to the Department allu&ied
Tor the first time TO Admiral Schley's
repreheDSible conduct six weeks pre-
viously. If Admiral Schley was guilty
ot reprehensible conduct OF kind which
called for such notice from Admiral
Sampson, then Admiral Sampson ought
not TO have left him as senior officer
OF the blocka6ing squadron on the Bird
of July, whep he (Samrson) steamed away
on his proper errand Of communication
with General Shafter
We can therefore for our present pur-
poses dismiss consideration of so much
of the appeal as relates to anything ex-
cept the battle AS regards this the
point raised in the appeal is between Ad-
miral Sampson and Admiral Schley, as to
which was In command, and as to which
was entitled to the credit, IL either of
them was really entitled to any unusual
and pre- eminent credit by any special ex-
hlbi.ion of genius, skill. and courage.
The court could have considered both OF
these questions. but as matter OF fact
It unanimously excluded evidence Of
fered upon them, and through its PTesi-
dent announced its refusal 20 hear Ad-
miral Simpsons S side at all; and in view
OF such exclusion the majority of the
court acted with entire propriety in not
expressing any opinion on these points
The matter has, however. been raised by
the president of the court. Moreover, ii
Is the point upon which admiral Schley
IN his appeal lays most stress, and which
he especially asks me to consider. / have
therefore carefully investigated this mat
ter also, and have informed myself upon
Il from tho best sources OF information
at my command
The appeal OF Admiral Schley to me
-; not, as to this, the chief point he
raises, really IN appeal from the decis-
ion of the Court OF Inquiry. Five-sixths
OF the appeal Is devoted to this questions
OF command and credit; that is, TO mat
ter which the Court OF Inquiry did not
consider. 1t is in effect an appeal from
the action or President Mckinley three
years ago when he sent in the recon-
mendations for promotion for the various
officers connected with the Santiago
squadron, hasing those recommendations
Upon his estimate OF tho credit to which
the officers We're respectively entitled.
What have TO decide, therefore, is
whether or not President Mckinley did in
justice in the matter. This necessarily
involves a comparison OF the actions OF
the different commanders engaged. The
exhaustive official reports Of the action