The Washington times., 1904-08-11

Rear Admiral Winfield Scott Schley,
Il. S. n. retired, scores the late Rea'
Admiral Sampson in an article entitlGL,
''The Fight on Santiago: a Person.
Account OF the Destruction of TIE
Spanish Fleet" appearing In the cur
rent issue Of the Philadelphia 'Satur-
day Evening Post"
Admiral Schley explains that on the
morning Of July 5. 1888. the flagship
New York and the bat.Ieship Massachu-
setts withdrew from the blockading line
before Santiago and left him, the com
mander Of the second squadron. in com
mand He points out further the Well
established usage Of the Navy Depart
ment under such conditions. He shows
that the vessels mentioned had with
drawn TO conference or their officers
with General Shafter. Admiral Schley
declares that the commander OF the
feet was under orders from the depart
ment TO meet General Shafter, and that
fact. he says, fixes incontestably the
status OF the commander of the second
squadron as senior officer present in
command"
Example of Lord Jervis-
Admiral SchIey then says:
when Sir John Jervis. one OF Eng
lands great sea fighters, OF hundred
years ago. dispatched Nelson in May,
lT9s. to intercept the great French ara
ment prepared under Napoleon Bona
parties guidance, TO reach Egypt In or
der 70 menace England's route 10 India.
Nelson's feet, crippled BY a gale, reach
ed Toulon too late. The French squad
ron eluded Nelson and reached Abouklr
Bay July l.
In seeking the French squadron Mel
son OWNED its purpose 10 be 10 reach
Egypt, and he arrived at Aboukir Bay
on June 2S. three days before the French
arrived. Believing the enemy still at
| sea. Nelson made q circuit Of Crete tC
| the shores OF Sicily. and back again tG
! the shores OF Greece, where ne learned
| that the French had made good thelI
| landing in Egypt He set cut from the
| Gulf OF Caron, and. on August !, gusi
one month after the French arrived al
Aooukir Bay, Nelson deserted them IN
/ that port.
The battle which took place on that
| memorable night in l79S history accords
| rightly TO Nelson. though his command
| was a division Of Sir John Jervis' fleet
| From that day 10 this no military
man has ever claimed that the glory
| OF Aboukir Bay. or. as better known
| the Battle Of the Nile. was in any re-
spect shared by the grand and great
| JerVis, who vas Nelson's commander
in-chief. II made no difference then
! and II makes none today, whether .
| cOmmander-in-chief be eleven miles OF
| LOO miles away from the scene of an
| action in which he did not participate
The Man Who Wins.
History will always grant the guer
| don Of victory to that commander whC
| fights and wins the battle. II the battle
! here related had miscarried. or 4
| through mismanagement,C Cevera or AM
OF his ships had escaped that day, there
would have been no difficulty whatever
about who was in command, or wht
| would have to bear the censure.
| 1T is certain, IN that event. that ther,
would have been no effort 10 prove tina
the New York was in signal distance, N
! claim that II was captains battle. no.
icny other OF the sophistries that were In
| vented In the aftermath OF cortroveTs!
| about this great victory.
! No instance is recalled where grea
success was won in battle when everl
| participant was not anxious 10 shdr'
| in the glory, but no instance is remem
| desired 10 share with his superior tn
| odium Of defeat. Santiago alone wOulC
| be unique as one of the worlds grea
| battles won without anybody beinl
| IN command. If defeat had occurred tn
commander Of the second squadron
| just the same.
Cervera's Opportunity.
while the squadrons strength wa
thus reduced. we know today from tn
contributions Of Spanish officers, pub
nshed afterward by the Ohice OF Nava