The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1902-02-26
President Roosevelt's Reply to Ad-
niral Schley's Appeal.
HE AGREES WITH THE BOARD.
Sampson's Charges Against Schley
Relate Themselves: Schlcy
Erred in the Loop. and
Neither Won Glory.
ReHutC 7
Neither Won Glory.

| 1t appears that the court OF inquiry
was unanimous in its finding Of fact
and unanimous in it's expressions !ot
opinion on most Of its findings in fact.
! No appeal is made to me from the YER
! dict Of the court on these points where
it was unanimous. | have. however.
gone carefully over the evidence on
these points also. an satisfied that
on the whole the court did substantial
justice. 1t should have specifically
condemned the failure to enforce an
efficient night blockade at Santiago
while Admiral Schley was in command.
On the ether hand, | feel that there is
Q reasonable doubt whether he did
not move his squadron with sufficient
expedition from port to port.
CESSURE FOR SAMPSON.
The court l.; unit in condemning
Admiral Schley'S action on the point
where it seems to me he most gravely
erred: (his retrograde m0vement)
whenhe abandoned the blockade, and
his disobedience Of orders and mis-
statement Of facts in relation thereto.
It should be. remembered. however.
that the majority Of these actions
which the court cenSureS occurred tive
weeks or more before the fight itself:
and it certainly seems that if Adml-
raj Schley's actions were censurable he
should not have been left as second in
command under Admiral Sampon. His
offenSeS were in effect condOned When
he was not called to account for them.
Admiral Sampson, after the fight, in
an official letter to the department al
luded fol the first time to Admiral
Schley's 'reprehensible conduct six
weeks previously. If Admiral Schley
was guilty of reprehensible conduct Of
a. kind which called for such notice
from Admiral Sampson, then Admiral
Sampson ought not to have left him
as senior officer Of the blockading
squadron on the Sd of July, when he
(Sampson) steamed away on his proper
errand of communication with Gen.
Shafter.
IS SPECIAL CREDIT DUE ANYONE:
We can therefore for our purposes
dismiss consideration Of so much Of
the appeal as relate to anything eN-
cept the battle. AS regards this, the
point raised in the appeal is between
Admiral Sampson and Admiral Schley,
as to which was in command, and as
to which was entitled to the credit, if
either of them was really entitled to
any unusual preeminent credit by any
special exhibition Of genius, skill and
courage.
The appeal Of Admiral Schley to
me is not, as to this, the chief point
he raises, really an appeal from the
decision of the court Of inquiry. Five
siXths of the appeal is devoted to this
question of command and credit: that
IS. to matter which the court of in
quiry did not consider. 1t is in effect
an appeal from the action Of President
Mckinley three years ago when he
sent in the recommendations for pro-
motion for the various officers con-
nected with the Santiago squadron,
basing these recommendations upon
his estimate of the credit to which
the officers were respectively entitled.
What l have to decide therefore, is
whether or not President Mckinley
did injustice in the matter. This
necessarily involves comparison OF
the actions Of the ditfererent comman-
ders engaged"
The president quotes statements
from AdmiralS Phillip, Evans and Tay-
lor, Capt. Clark and Commander
Wainwright as to SIMPSONS part in
the battle and the extent Of Schley S
command. The president then refers
to the hits inflicted by the American
fleet upon the Spanish vessels, saying
that out of 10, II were made by shells
from the Iowa and 10 by shells from
the Brooklyn. He briefly describes the
battle and then goes on to say.
We have just cause to be proud OF
the vigilance and instant readiness
our ship displayed, and the workman
like efficiency with which they were
handled. The most striking act was
that Of the Gloucester, a converted
Yacht. which her commander, Vain
right, pushed into the fight through
a hail of projectileS, any one Of which
would have sunk her, in order that
he might do his part in destroying the
two torpedo boats, each possessing
some more than his own offensive
power.
QUESTION OF COMMAND TECHNICAL.
THE question Of command is in
this case nominal and technical. Ad-
miral SIMPSONS ship. New York, was
seen at the outset Of the fight from
all the other ships except the Brook
lyn. Four Of these five ship captains
have testified that they regarded him
as present and in command. He sig
nailed close in TO the fleet as soon as
the first Spanish ship appeared. but
his signal was not seen by any Ameri-
can vessel. He was actually under
fire from the forts, and himself fired a
couple of shots, at the close OF the ac-
ton with the torpedo boats, in addi-
ton to signalling just at the close OF
the action. But during the action not
a single order from him was received
by any of the ships that were actively
engaged.
Admiral Schley at the outset OF
the action hoisted The two signals OF
clear ship and close in which were
simply carrying out the standing Or
ders Of Admiral Sampson as to what
should be done if the encmy's ships at
tempted to brea!; out OF the harb0r.
Until after the close Of the first por,
| tion of the fight at the mouth OF the
| harhor and until after he had made
his loop and the Spanish ships were
fleeing to the westward. not another
American ship noticed Il signal from
him. When the western pursuit had