The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-03-07

WASHINGTON, March 6.--The Senate
Committee on Naval Affairs to-day made
public Secretary Longs second letter IN
the Sampson-Schley controversy, this
communication being in reply to Rear Ad-
miral Schleys letter. The first matter
which the Secretary takes up is Admiral
Schley's mention of Admiral Sampson
letter of May 20, which the Secretary says
seems to have given certain Senators the
impression the department has withheld
that letter. On this point he says:
First-That this letter was not in the
possession of the department on February
6, nor was its existence known to the
department at that time.
Second-That it was in the possession OF
Admiral Schley until the 9Th OF FEBRUARY,
when il was sent to the department, upon
its request to be furnished with all othclaI
records relating to his duty as commander
in chief of the flying squadron ana as
flag officer in the North American fleet.
Third-In its instructions with regard
to maintaining the blockade OF Cientuegos
81 WIS not more explicit than the letter Of
Admiral Sampson of May l9 when accom-
nanied the communication OF FEBRUARY D.
and which is published in the appenotX 10
the report of the Bureau OF Navigation
on page 464.
Fourth-That on May q, the day after
It was written, Admiral Sampson sent
orders to Commodore Schley in duplicate
by the Hawk and Marblehead which or
ders were received by Commodore Schley
during the early forenoon OF the 23d ana
Path respectively, directing Commodore
Sehley TO proceed with all dispatch, but
cautiously, TO Santiago, if satisfied that
the Spanish squadron was not at Glen
fuegos. The orders as sent back by the
Hawk were received on the same day as
the letter of the GOTH and bearing the
later date, May q, of course revoked the
instructions to blockade. Cienfuegos, con-
tanned in the letters of the 18th and Goth
Fifth-That in addition to these lnstruc-
lions the flying squadron LETT Clentuegos
on the afternoon OF the 24th, but dlu nol
reach the Immediate vicinity Of the port
of Santiago until the morning Of the 18th
of May.
The Secretary quotes the admirals
reference to the departments order re-
ceived by him on May o. directing him
to positively ascertain If CerVera'S fleet
was in Santiago harbor and not to al
low him to leave Santiago if found GER
tainly to be there, without decisive
action" gives the admiral's reply in full
and says:
It will be seen that Rear Admiral
Schley's statement to the Senate does not
show that he started TO return to Key
West and signaled TO the squadron to
that effect and so informed the depart
ment, and it might be inferred that he i'm
mediately obeyed that order and ascer-
tanned the presence of the enemy at San
tiago. On the contrary, his telegram dat
ed May IS, and written May Y, shows
that though just having received the tel
egram of the department and having on
hand sufficient supply of coal to return
to Key West, he reported that he could
not obey the order and continued TO pro-
coed to Key West. However, it later be-
came evident to him that this was unne-
Cessary and he resumed the movement
toward Santiago.
Another point in Admiral Schley's
letter is touched upon in the following
manner:
Admiral schley's mention of the signal
of Admiral Sampson at S:45 a m. July 3
Disregard movements of the commander
in chief" and his mention OF the move