The Norfolk weekly news-journal., 1902-01-31
COMMENT ON THE APPEAL
Navy Department Upholds
y Courts Findings.
CHARGE A CHANGE OF FRONT
Judge Advocate LemIy and Solicitor
{ Hanna Accuse Admiral sehIey Of
Shifting Ground-Hls Conduct the
Main Point at Issue.


Washington, Jan. 31.-The com
ment" of Judge Advocate General
Lemly and Solicitor Hanna upon the
appeal of Admiral Schley, as submit.
ted to the president by Secretary Long,
begins with the statement that Admi-
raj Schley and his counsel have shift
ed their ground. They say the chief
features OF the case were "the retro
grade movement" 'disobedience of
ORDERS" inaccurate and misleading
official reports" failure to destroy
vessels of the enemy lying within
sight" and injustice to brother Of
ficer." The commentators says:
upon all the above named features,
believed by us to be the most import
ant, If not the only really important
matters into which the court made In
quiry, the conduct of Admiral Schley
was condemned by that most distin.
guished tribunal. Admiral Dewey and
Rear Admirals Benham and Ramsay
united in their findings and opinion
upon all these several points.
. The commentators charge that Ad.
miral Schley now ignores all these
grave matters and bases his appeal
upon unimportant features of the case
as compared with the grave matters
above referred to, upon which there
was not, and in the face of the testi-
mony could not have been any differ
ence of opinion in the court"
Question Between Schley and Sampson
The commentators say they recog.
nize the fact that Admiral Schley de-
voted by far the larger part of his ap-
peal to the question of command, and
consequently give that question
proportionate space in their comment.
Both alike are interested and to In
vestigate it fairly both should be
heard. Such incidental testimony on
this question as came before the
court was on Schley's side only and
the doors were entirely closed to
Sampson They add: "To determine
an important question of this nature
is contrary to the underlying principle
of Anglo-Saxon justice. Nevertheless,
It is precisely what the appeal asks
the president to do"
It is admitted that the precept was
broad enough to have permitted the
court to go into this question, but 1t is
recalled that the Judge advocate,
though expressing willingness to en-
ter upon it, the court did not deem
1t necessary or proper to do so. The
judge advocate, they say might have
shown that it was Admiral Simpsons
plan of night blockade that forced
Cervera to come out in the daylight,
and Captain Clark Is quoted to support
that statement. They quote Admiral
Schley in his testimony to the effect
that the American ships charged in
according to the original plan to sink
the enemy in the channel and that that
plan failed because the enemy sue
ceeded in passing the battle line.
They ask, Why did the enemy sue
ceed? And declare, "the Brooklyn
having abandoned her position on the
left of the line, thereby left an un-
guarded opening along the western
shore, through which the Spanish
fleet passed our ships and attempted
to escape"
The courts opinion is quoted to
the effect that the Brooklyn lost dis
tance in position by the loop" and de-
layed the Texas. To sustain their
contention that Sampson was in COM
mand, the commentators, quote pas
sages from Schley's report of July 6,
1898. as follows: "The torpedo boat
destroyers were destroyed early in
the action, but the smoke was so dense
in their direction that / cannot say
to which vessel or vessels the credit
belongs. This doubtless was better
seen from your flagship. The dense
smoke of the combat shut out from my
view the Indiana and the Gloucester
but as these vessels were closer to
your flagship, no doubt their part in
the conflict was under your immediate
observation"
Deny Credit to SchIey.
The comment" closes in the fol-
lowing words: "The contention that
the magnificent work of the Oregon or
any part of it was done under orders
from the Brooklyn, or that the Oregon
received or 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 1t goes the
last peg upon which to hang the pre-
tense of claim that during the battle
of Santiago Commodore Schley effect
lively exercised any of the functions Of
q commander-in-chief. The weight Of
the testimony is to the effect that
Commodore Schley controlled the
movements of his flagship, the Brook.
lyn, we'll, with the exception OF the
loop, but 1t also shows, not negatively,
but affirmatively. and beyond question.
that he did not control the operations
Of the feet in general on that day.
All this is established by unimpeached
testimony, given under oath by the
admirals brothers in arms. The plain
truth of tho pnattar tharafora davaI