Jasper County Democrat, Volume 4, Number 37, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 21 December 1901 — SCHLEY'S EXCEPTIONS [ARTICLE]

SCHLEY'S EXCEPTIONS

Aby the Rear Admiral Objects to the Findings of the Court of Inquiry. - .—X i MAJORITY WRONG ON EVERY POINT According to the Bill Presented to Secretary Long—Sampson Now in the Case. Washington, Dee. 19.—Late yesterday Admiral Schley filed with the secretary of the navy bls bill of exceptions to the majority findings of the court of Inquiry, and also a letter asking to be allowed to be beard in connection with the objections to be filed by attorneys for Admiral Sampson to the individual opinion of Admiral Dewey. Secretary Long, almost immediately after the receipt of the com mun [rations. called Judge Advocate Lemly and the solicitor for the department, Hanna, into conference. At its conclusion the secretary said that he had no statement to make regarding any action that he might take in the premises. He, however, indicated to Teague that he would not hear an oral argument by Rayner regarding Admiral Sampson’s protest, but would receive a written statement. No Specification to Cover Thin. The Schley bill of exceptions would make over three columns of type mat- ■ ter if given in full. It claims that the I majority of the court gave its opinion ! tliat Commodore Schley should have | proceeded with the utmost dispatch off, Cienfuegos, when there was no sped-1 flcation covering this point, and without giving the applicant an opportun- ■ ity to furnish evidence on it. The bill further contends that overwhelming evidence was presented to the court to j show that a close blockade of Clenfue-1 gos was maintained; that the majority of the court entirely ignored the uncontradicted testimony proving that the British steamer Adula was allowed to enter Cienfuegos to obtain information regarding the Spanish fleet. Majority Charged with Ignoring Facts. It then says that the,order of Ad- ; miral Sampson, known as No. 7, was! an imperative order for Commodore ! Schley to hold his squadron off Cien ■ fuegos. whether the Spanish fleet was : in that harbor or not; that the majority of the court lias ignored the admitted fact that the commander of the ■ Eagle did not communicate the situation at Cienfuegos to Commodore' Schley and the fact that Captain' Evans failed to communicate to Com-1 modore Schley the meaning of the signal lights on shore at Cienfuegos. ‘ Ah to the Retrograde Movement. Then the point is made that the majority based its opinion as to the retrograde movement upon a statement that Commodore Schley, before sailing from Cienfuegos, had reliable Information that ships could be coaled in the vicinity of Cape Cruz and Gonaives channel, whereas it is denied that there was any such positive information, and that the records show that not until three days after leaving Cienfuegos did Commodore Schley receive definite information concerning the feasibility or practicability of coaling ships from' a collier in Gonaives channel. REFERENCE TO SIGNBEE'S REPORT Denial That Schley Had Information of the Enemy's Whereabouts. The bill declares that the majority erred in stating that Commodore Schley received no positive information from the scout ships as to the enemy’s presence in Santiago harbor, because Captain Sigsliee reported to Commodore Schley that the Spanish fleet was not In that harbor. The bill denies that the conditions of wind, sea and weather from May 26 to June 1 were favorable for thking coal from a collier off Santiago. It declares that no reference has been made to the orders of the secretary of the navy forbidding the hazarding of American ships against shore batteries. The majority opinion, the bill says, failed to contain any reference to the character of the blockade off Santiago, although covered in the specifications; that the demonstration made by Commodore Schley before Santiago on May 29 and 30 was predetermined and executed solely as a reconnoissance and not as a formal attack upon the Colon or the other vessels in the harbor; that the majority opinion of the court is ambiguous with respect to the loop of I the Brooklyn in that It holds that said loop was made to avoid getting into dangerous proximity to the Spanish vessels without stating whether such act was due to personal fears of Commodore Schley or to his desire to preserve the ship Intact. The majority of the court, says the bill, entirely Ignored the overwhelming testimony in arriving at the opinion that Commodore Schley erred In commencing the engagement on July 3 i with the port battery, and it adds that , the Brooklyn did not lose either dls- | tai ice or position with the Spanish ships in making the turn; that the majority opinion Is ambiguous upon the subject of the backing of the Texas, In that It does not state whether the danger of collision was real or imaginary; that the finding with the Hodgson coptroveray has been repeatedly contradicted in the testimony. REGARDING THE VACILLATION Not Justified, Kay. the Bill— Other Exception* of Importance. I The concluding clauses of the bill are as follows: “That the majority opinion that Commodore Schley’s conduct was characterized by vacillation, dilatoriness and lack of enterprise Is ' not Justified by the evidence submitted; that the majority opinion Is entirely silent upon a charge by the judge ( advocate coming within the purview of the first specification that Commodore 1 Schley was derelict In the discharge of hla duty, that the majority of the court entirely failed to determine who i was commander-ln-chlef In the battle I of Santiago, which finuing was neces--1 aary to determine the first specification of the precept as to the conduct of Commodore Schley. "That the majority of the court has rejected the whole of the testimony on behalf vs the applicant, and the testi-

mony of the applicant himself, and by so doing has perverted the ends of jus? tice and deprived him of his common law and constitutional rights; that he has been found guilty upon specifications substantially abandoned by the judge advocate, and that the testimony sf a few hostile witnesses has been made prominent.’’ The bill concludes with the statement that the proceedings of the majority of the court were irregular; that Admiral Schley’s rights have been prejudiced and his testimony in many particulars not considered, and that the evidence is absolutely insufficient to sustain the opinion which has been rendered, and that therefore a grave and irreparable injustice has been done Admiral Schley. Admiral Schley has also served notice that if Admiral Sampson objects to the finding of Admiral Dewey he will claim the right to be heard in reference to sueh objection. In regard to this claim Secretary Long informed counsel tliat it was not the practice of the department to have oral hearings on matters of this kind. He Intimated that he would entertain a written argument.