Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1902-02-03

Z
ground that it was made 'in the execu-
ton Of the standing order to close in"
IL is asked: "But III he was then him
: self in command. how happens IL that he
was executing the orders OF somebody
else in commando Before the
court Of inquiry. every prop raised TO
support the contention that Commodore
Schley did anything to achieve the vic
tory By issuing orders as commanding
! officer Of the American feet was removed.
The plain truth was for the first time
revealed that Commodore Schley did not
exercise command on that day over any
ship. except to some extent his own flag
ship. the Brooklyn"
Extracts from Evidence.
The comment at this point contains a
number Of extracts from the testimony
TO sustain this contention. Taking the
| Brooklyn signal book Il is stated that
this showed that the Brooklyn gave only
two orders: Clear for action" and "Close
up'-a meagre record. but It is the whole
| story.
The comment insists that the order
CLOSE up" was not seen by any other
ship than the Oregon. unless, perhaps,
the Texas. and that IL exercised no in
iuence whatever upon any vessel of the
squadron. They also quote Admiral
schley's testimony that the Brooklyns
charge was made in accordance with the
original plan. OF the order, CLOSE up"
they say:
so this order. the second Of the two
signaled from the Brooklyn during the
battle OF Santiago 20 the American fleet.
was really formal also and was given I'm
accordance with Simpsons original plan
OF battle. which required closing up with
a view Of sinking the Spanish vessels in
the entrance. Surprising as this is, ii
is shown by Admiral Schleys own sworn
testimony. and Is corrobOrated by the
afsnta faln
signal was made. II is even more sur
prising but II appears TO be fact that
Admiral Schley issued no further heet
order during the progress OF the battle'.
The commentators next state:
IF Commodore Schley was in absolute
command during the battle, and II ne
made any use OF his authority, he must
have exercised some control over some
Of the vessels participating, whereupon
they take up in detail the testimony OF
the commanding officers on this point ana
say:
s.Wainwright. of the Gloucester. said he
saw no orders from the Brooklyn; Iaylor,
OF the Indiana. said he saw no signals
from the Brooklyn; Evans. OF the iowa
saw no signal from the BROOKLYN. ne
saws. 4 did rot maneuver In obedience 20
any signals from the BROOKLYN the COM
manding officer of the Texas is dead, but
the officers testimony make II clear that
No Orders from Sehley.
snealxinR Of this ship, the commentators
say;
THE question is not so much one OF
nossibTe credit to- hut of possible cen
sure Of Admiral Schley in connection with
the work of the vessel in the pattle OF
Santiago The plain truth is that AdmlraI
Schley did not, during the battle, IN any
way direct or control the splendld FORCES
~ the squadron. The officers in command
Of these ships did not receive single or
der from hi:-.."
Next the commentators turn their at
tention 70 what they declare were per
sistent efforts by Schley's attorneys 10
show that in some manner the oregon at
least under his orders during the bat
tie. first. by answering the signal. close
up'' and afterwards by firing her lS-lncn
guns under signal from the Brooklyn ana
they say. ''but the attempt. as the tesu-
mony 10 be quoted below shows, was
failure
They quote the passage from Captain
Clark's testimony I'm which he said IN re-
gsrd ~ the order 'Close up;" THAT was
a standing order to the squadron to at
tack the enemy at once II they appeared,
and to keep the heads OF the ships al
ways toward the entrance
As 70 the alleged order from the BROOK
lyn directing the Oregon. to FIRE her 10
inch guns. the commentators again quote
from Captain Clark's testimony Who'
when asked II the guns were fred in pur-
suance OF an order from the Brooklyn, the
captain said: mo. sir fired them after
celebrating with the officers and IL they
Cthe Brooklyn) made signal did not see
It."
No Credit to schIey.
The comment closes in the following
words:
The contention that the magnificent
work Of the Oregon was done under or
ders from the Brooklyn or that the Ore
gon received and obeyed even single
order from Commodore 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 II goes the last peg upon which
to hang the pretense of a claim that dur
ing the battle of Santiago Commodore
Schley effectively exercised any Of the
functions of a commander in chief.
THE weight of the testimony is to the
effect that the commodore controlled the
movements of his flagship. the Brooklyn,
well with the exception of the loop. But
IL also shows. not negatively, but affirm
atively and beyond question, that he did
not control the operations OF the heet IN
general on that day.
SehIey Totally Ignored.
The plain truth of the matter there
fore developed for the first time under
the searchlight Of this inquiry, although
quite incidentally. is that so far as the
Gloucester, the Iowa, the Indiana, the
Texas and the Oregon are concerned, not
the stroke of a propeller blade not the
touch of a helm, not the firing of a shot
was done under the direction or by the
orders Of Admiral Schley during the
memorable battle"