Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 34, Number 10, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 October 1901 — Schley Properly Sized Up. [ARTICLE]

Schley Properly Sized Up.

Inter Ocean : , The most strikiug feature of Bear Admiral Evans’ testimony before the court of inquiry on Monday was its enumeration of the. number of things that Bear Admiral Schley did not do while looking for Cervera’s squadron. Evans did.not volunteer this testimony. But, when asked whether Schley did certain things which he might or could have done, Evans answered with charaoteristio frankness that Sohley did not do those things., A few specimen questions and answers may be quoted: Question —State whaf, if anything, was done while this (Sohley’s) squadron was off Oilenfuegos toward developing the faot as to whether the Spanish squadron was or was not in the harbor?

Answer —There nothing done, so far as I knew. Q. What, if anything, within your knowledge, was done toward destroying or preventing the completion of the enemy’s batteries in the vicinity? A. On Sunday afternoon Commodore Schley formed his squadron in column and stood in to a range of about a mile and a half from shore, made a turn and stood out again. Q. Was any attack made upon the enemy or by the enemy at that time?. A. No. They all got up and stood on the breastworks and looked at us. We steamed out again. Q. Was any effort made by the flying squadron on May 28, 29, or 30, to oommunioate with the insurgents near Santiago? A. None to my knowledge. Q. Under what instructions, verbal, written, or by signal from the Brooklyn, did you maneuver the lowa during the battle of July 3rd? A. None whatever. Q. Was there any prescribed order of battle by which you would have been guided if the enemy’s ship had come out prior to June Ist? A. There was none. By the Court—Do you know any reason why the ships oould not get nearer the Colon on May 31? A. I know of no reason. Q. Was the fire of the enemy’s batteries on the 31st heavy enough seriously to endanger the attacking ship? A. It was not heavy at all. Q. Was any further effort made by the flying squadron to destroy the Colon? A, None.

Rear. Admiral Evans fully oonfirmod Lieutenant Commander Heilner’s testimony as to the great danger to whioh both the Brooklyn and the Texes were exposed by the Brooklyn’s loop. He also testified that as a result of- the Brooklyn’s movement the Texas was thrown dangerously olose to tbe lowa. With reference to the controverted question of coaling, Evans stated that from 8 a. m. on May 25 to 8 or 9a. m. on May 26 was the only time when the lowa oould not have ooaled at sea. On the evening of May 26, when the squadron arrived off Santiago, the lowa had on board 825 tons of ooal, or enough to steam 3,000 miles. The lowa oould have ooaled on May 27, when Sohley ordered the squadron to return to Key West. Asked why the retrograde movement was made, Evans answered: *'l do not know,” Robley D. Evans has never pintended to be a great naval commander. He is simply a plain and outspoken naval offioer who sees his duty and does it. He is not on reoord as ever having expressed any censure of Admiral Sohley. He is oertainly no favorite of the so-oallecT “Navy Department ring,” by whioh he has been publioiy censured for telling the plain truth as he understood and believed it about a former secretary of the Navy. Suoh testimony as that of Rear

Admiral Evans carries conviction. There is plainly no fault finding or malice in Evans’ attitude toward Schley. Evans obviously tells the simple truth as he saw it. And his testimony convinces the average fair-minded man that Admiral Schley’s troubles arose from Sohley himself and were the result of his incompetence to perform the task imposed upon him by his country.