The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1899-01-24
SAMPSON
SCHLEY
Their Promotion Discussed in Sem
ate's Executive Session.
SENATORS GALL FOR THE RECORD

voted wholly to the discussion Of the
promotion Of Admirals Sampson and
Schley and other naval officers en-
gagged In the Santiago campaign over
the heads OF officers who were their
superiors in rank. The controversy
was then postponed for 20 days after
a vote had been taken to call for the
records OF the navy department bear
ing upon the conduct Of all affected by
the advancement,
The discussion arose over the resolu-
tion. OF which Senator Butler was the
author. calling for these documents.
AS originally offered 1t asked for the
reasons for the advancement, but the
resolution was modified so as TO re-
quest the record only. The first vote
was on a motion made by Senator Hale
to lay the resolution on the table, and
on this the yeas and nays were taken,
resulting in Il yeas to 35 nays. The
resolution was then allowed to pass
without further division.
For three hours previous to this. how
ever. the senate had been engaged In
a very animated verbal battle, which
involved many intricacies and was par
ticipated in by large number OF sena-
tors. The main contests were first over
the general policy Of promoting these
officers over others who were char
acterized as quite as deserving though
less fortunate. in that they were de-
prived OF such active participation In
the war, and second as to the relative
merits Of Sampson and Schley.
Senators German and wellington, Of
Maryland, one a Republican and the
other a Democrat, united in a horld
attack upon the navy department for
favoring Sampson over Schley. While
Senators Lindsay, Pettigrew, Perkins
and Money attacked the whole system
Of promotion as "a species Of favorit-
ism which was not warranted by the
facts" The method Of the administra-
tion was defended by Messrs. Hale.
Chandler and Lodge. Senator yelling
ton was especially Jealous In his ad-
vocacy Of the claims Of Admiral Schley.
and in his presentation of reasons why
Admiral Sampson should not be pre-
ferred over him, and both he and his
Democratic colleague, Mr.. German
made the statement that II the official
papers were ordered they would dem
onstrate beyond a possible question the
fact that Schley. and not Sampson
fought the battle Of Santiago. They
contended that with Sampson ten miles
away he could not be accredited con-
structively with having command OF
the fleet on the memorable day when
the Spanish vessels were sent to the
bottom. on the contrary they held that
Schley was on the ground; he was the
senior officer, and that he was en-
gagged actively and most effectively In
the conflict all the world knew, re-
gardless Of the favors Of the govern
ment at Washington.
Senator Lindsay found much In the
promotion of both Schley and Sampson
over Commodore Watson to condemn
He took occasion To praise " atson as
man who would undoubtedly have
made a fine record in the war if given
the opportunity he should have had as
senior officer, and said that to de-
prive him of his rightful rank because
other men were pressed to the front
and given the posts Of honor was in
every way unfair and unworthy OF a
great country. Senator Perkins, Sem
ator Platt, of Connecticut, and Senator
Pettigrew also criticized the system as
one liable to result in unfairness.
Senators Hale and Chandler. both
members Of the naval committee, de-
ment in giving preference to the men
who took upon themselves the brunt %
the battle in Atlantic waters, and in
preferring the man who was In COM
mand of the fleet. They deprecated
the opening up Of a controversy, which
Senator Chandler said might lead to a
condition which might prove as un-
savory as that which the war investi-
eating commission has developed in
connection with the army beef con-
tracts. Senator Lodge joined in de-
ploring this policy, and owing to the
fact that he had but recently, in the
interest Of private research, made an
exhaustive investigation he was en-
abled to throw much light upon the
controversy on behalf OF the conten-
tion that the controversy should not be
stirred.
During the presentation of this side
much was said in uphOlding the claims
Of Sampson in preference to those Of
Schley, and the friends Of the latter
officer were warned that n they In
sisted upon pressing the investigation
too closely some facts would be de-
veloped that would not be agreeable
10 them" The charge was made that
Schley had voluntarily left Santiago
after reaching the vicinity of that port
and after Cervera had entered the har-
Dor, and also the charge that when the
Spanish fleet had sailed out through
the narrow mouth Of the channel Ad-
miral (then commodore) Schley had
made a reverse movement with the
Brooklyn and had gone in a direction
| opposite to that taken by the Spanish
| squadron instead Of boldly attacking
! the enemy in the beginning II was
/ asserted that these facts were among
| those which the archives would reveal
The friends of Admiral Schley de-
| clared they had nothing to fear from
| having all the facts known. Explain
| ing his start to leave Santiago and his
! refusal to obey department orders be-
| fore SIMPSONS arrival, they said that
| it was because he had been unable 20
! coal at sea. When they we're asked
how it had hoppened that they had
been able TO coal 30 hours afterward
they replied that this was due TO the
| fact that a storm had given place 10 "A