Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1902-02-27
ROOSEVELT'S REPLY.
The President Gives an Answer to
Admiral Sehlsy's Appeal.
COURT DID SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.

Sampson Technically Commanded the Fleet
ct the battle Of Santiago and schisy
the Western Division The Brook
lyn's "Loopr Condemned.
Washington, Feb. 20.--The follow
ing statement by President Roosevelt
in reply to the appeal recently made
to him by Rear Admiral Schley was
made public yesterday: tf
I have received tho appeal Of Admiral
sshley and the answer thereto from the
navy department. have examined both
with the utmost care, ~ we'll ~ tho pre-
osding appeal to the secretary Of the
navy. have read through al tho tssti-
monv taken before the court and the
statements Of the counsel for Admiral
Sampson and admiral Schley: have ex-
aminsd ali the oileial reports Of every
kind In reference to the Santiago naval
campaign, copies Of the logbooks and Sig
nal books, and the testimony before the
court Of claims. and have also personally
had before me the four sub-dividing cap
tains Of the nvs ships. aside from those
OF the two admirals, which were actively
engaged at Santiago II appears that
the court Of inquiry was unanimous In
Its findings OF fact and unanimous In Its
expressions OF opinion on most Of Its find
ings OF fact. No appeal IL made to me
from the verdict of the court on these
points where 1t was unanimous. have,
however. gone carefully over the evidence
on these points also. | am satisfied that,
on the whole the court did substantial
Justice.
II should have specifically condemned
the failure to enforce an efficient night
blockade at Santiago while Admiral
Schley was In command On the other
hand, feel that there Is a reasonable
doubt whether he did not move his
squadron with sufficient expedition. The
court is united In condemning Admiral
schlsy's action on the point where 1t
seems to me he most gravsly erred his
"retrograde movement" when he aban-
donsd the blockade and his diobedience
Of orders and mlsstatement Of facts In
relation thereto. 1t should DO remem-
bsred, however, that the majority of these
actions which the court censures occurred
five weeks or more before the fight It,
self; and 1t certainly seems that II Ad-
miral schlsys actions were censurable
he should not have been left az second
In command under Admiral Sampson. His
oYenses were In effect condoned when
he was not called to account for them.
We can, therefore for our present pur-
poses dismiss consideration of 10 much
Of tho appeal as relates to anything ex-
cspt the battle. As regards this, the point
raised In the appeal Is between Admirals
Sampson and Schley, as to which was In
command, and as to which was entitled
TO the credit, II either Of them was really
entitled to any unusual and pre-erninent
credit by any special exhibit OF genius,
skill and courage. The court could have
considered both Of these questions, but
~ matter Of fact 1t unanimously ex-
cluded evidence offered upon them and
through 1t pronounced It's refusal to
hear Admiral SIMPSONS 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, 1t Is the point upon which Ad-
miral Schey in his appeal lays most
stress, and which he especially asks me
to consider. have, therefore, carefully
Investigated this matter also, and have
informed myself upon 1t from the best
sources Of information at my command.
The president says he has deemed
II best to secure statements from
the commanders of five ships (other
than the Brooklyn and New York;
and he also quotes magazine arti-
Gle on the fight. The president then
sums up the battle and says that
technically Sampson commanded the
feet and Schley the western division,
but the engagement was really cap
tains' fight. He declares Simpsons
claim rests on his work as command
er-in-chief and his standing orders
about the blockade and then says:
Admiral schley Is rightly entltled-as
Is Capt Cook-to the credit OF what the
Brooklyn did In the fight. On the whole
she did well; but agree with the unani-
nous findings of the three admirals who
composed the court Of inquiry as to the
loop" 1t seriously marred the Brook
lyn's otherwise excellent record, being
In fact the one grave mistake made by
any American ship that day. Had the
Brooklyn turned to the westward, that Is,
in the same direction that the Spanish
ships were going, instead Of In the con-
trary direction she would undoubtedly
have been In more dangerous proxlm-
lty" to them. But It would have been
more dangerous for them as well as for
her This kind Of danger must not be
too nicely weighed by those whose trade
It Is to dare greatly for the honor of the
flag.
The president concludes by saying
1t was Just to Admiral Sampson that
he should receive a greater advance In
numbers than Admiral Schley-there was
nothing done In the battle that warranted
any unusual reward for either. In short,
as regards Admirals Sampson and Schley
I fnd that President Mckinley did sub
stantal Justice and that there would BE-
no warrant for reversing his action.
The president heartily concurs in
the recommendation of the court Of
inquiry that no further action be
taken In the matter. as to keep II
alive. he says, would damage both
the navy and the country.
banner Prize for Largest Kansas Camp
Kansas City, Kan, Feb. 20.--Clerl
William White, of the Granite CAM