Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1902-01-31

Closed to Sampson. They add: TO de-
terruiue an important question OF tins
nature under such conditions is con-
tr&ry TO the underlying principles OF
!AngIo-Saxon justice. Nevertheless. il.
is precisely what The appeal asks the
president 70 do"
1t is admitted that the rrecept was
bread enough 10 have permitted the
court 70 go into this question. but il
is recalled that though the judge ad-
Vocate EXPRESSED his Willingness 20
enter upon it. the CoJsIt I'D rot deem
il necessary or proper 10 90 so. the
judge advocate. the say, might nave
shown that iJ vas Admiral SIMPSONS
plan of night blockade thai forced
2 Cerveua to come out in daylight, and
Captain Clark is quoted TO support
! that statement. They quote Ad-
il1iral Schley, in his testimony. 10 The
effect that the American ships We're
charged according to the original
plan. to sink the enemy in The chan
nell" and that that plan failed be
cause the enemy succeeded in passing
: the battle line"
They ask. Why did ti,e enemy suc-
coed? And declare. the Brooklyn hav-
3 Ing abandoned her position on the left
OF the line. thereby LEFT an unguarded
opening along the western shore.
through which the Spanish d2et passed
our ships and attempted to escape"
The courts opinion is quoted to the
effect that the Brooklyn lost distance
in position by the loop and delayed
the Texas.
To sustain their contention that Adj
niral Sampson was in comma nj. the
Commentators quote passages from
; Schley's report of July 6, 1898.
The commentators next state: III
I Commodore Schley were in absolute
+ ccInmand during the battle. and If he
had made any use of mis- authority, he
must have exercised some control over
some OF the vessels participating.
whereby they take up il detail The tes-
timony of the commanding officers on
/ this point. and say: wainwright OF
( the Gloucester. said he saw no orders
from the Brooklyn: Taylor o. the IN
diana. said he sav no signals from
the Brooklyn; Evans OF the Iowa, said
of the Brooklyn: I never saw any
signal from her. ! did not manoeuvre
in obedience t. any signals from the
Brooklyn the commanding officer Of
the Texas is dead. but the officers tcs-
timony makes It clear tha: she received
10 orders
Speaking Of his ship. the conlment1--
tors declare: "Tne. question is not as
much ore OF possible credit 70, but OF
possible censure OF Admiral Schley. in
connection with the work of that yes
s=l in the battle Of Santiago. The
plain truth is that admiral Schley did
not, during the battle, in any way, Gi-
rect or control the splendid perfor-
nances Of the Gloucester and the three
battlesh!ps Indiana. Iowa and Texas.
The officers in command OF these shipa
neither received or obeyed q solitary
order frcm him
Next, the commentators turn their
attention TO what they declare We're
the persistent efforts by Schley's at
torneys to show That in some manner
the Oregon, at least, was under mis-
orders during the battle first 10y an
swering the signal close" and after
ward by firing her 13-inch guns under
a signal from the Brooklyn, and they
say But that attempt. as the testi-
mony quoted below shows. was fail
ire" They quote, therefore. passa Ses
from Captain Cldrk's testimony. in
which ne said in regard to the order
CLOSE up" that that Was a standing
order in the squadron. u attack the
enemy at once, if they appeared, and
keep the heads OF the ships always
toward the entrance" ana Il remem-
Dor the feeling of satisfaction that
there was an order to close in, in case
any accident had happened, any Collid-
ing with the other ships
As to the ALLEGED order from. the
Brooklyn. directing the Oregon 10 fire
her 1G-inch guns, the commentators
again quote from Captain Ciaril's tes-
timony, where. when asked il the guns
were fired in pursuance OF an order
from the Brooklyn, the captain said:
NO. sir; I fired them after delibera ting
with my officers" and If they che
Erooklyn) made the signal l did not
see it
The comment closes in the following
words: The contention that the mag
nifcant work Of the Oregon or any part
Of il was dore under orders from the
brooklyn. or that the Oregon received
and obeyed even a single order from
Cornomdore 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 abandoned:
and with it goes the last peg upon
which TO hang the pretense of claim
that during the battle of Santiago Com
modore Schley effectively exercised any
CT the functions of a commander in
chief
The weight Of the testimony is to
the effect that the commodore con-
trolle5 the movements cf his flagship.
the Brooklyn, well. with the exception
OF the loop But it also shows. not
negatively, but aff;rmativeiy and be-