The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1899-03-11
THAT SAMPSON LETTER.
1t was Not in Possession of the
Navy Department UutiI
Quite Recent y.

Washington, ID. c., March THE
Senate committee on naval affairs made
| public Secretary Longs second letter in
| the Sampson-Schlcy controversy, this
communication being i'll reply to Admiral
! Schey's letter. With refer"n. e to Ad-
mirul Schlcy's mention of Ad....ral Samp-
sons letter OF May 20. and Ia inference
! that the department has Wi,.Ihcid that
! letter the secretary says thJt the letter
| was not III the possession of The depart
mcnt on February Il, nor WIS It's exist
enCs known to the department at that
F.! time; that il was III the posses Slun of Adj
| miral Schley until the 9th OF February,
when j. was sent to the department, and
! that Ill its instructions with regard TO
| maintaining the blockade OF tIcnfuegoS
/ it was not more explicit than the letter OF
! Admiral Sampson on May H., which ac-
| Companicd the communication Of the de
partmcnt of February u.
The secretary explains that on May -,
| the day after ii was written, Admiral
Sampson sent orders to Commodore
Schley, in duplicate, which orders were
received 10y Commodore Schlcy during
the early forenoon of the I'D ana -4th
respectively, directing Commodore Schiey
TO proceed with all dispatch. but chu-
tiouSly, to Santiago, if satisfied that the
Spanish squadron was not at tlchlueSoS
These orders, he says, revoked the llt-
Structions TO blockade CicnfucS"s con
tanned in the letters of the 18th and .oth.
In obedience to these instructions the i'y
ing squadron left CicnfuegoS on th"
afternoon of the 24th, but did not reach
the immediate vicinity of Santiago until
the morning of the 10Th of May.
1t will be seen" says Secretary Long.
that Rear-A Admiral Schley's statement
to the Senate does not show that he
started to return to Key West ana sly
nailed to the squadron to that effect, and
50 informed the department. ana 1t mi}'ht
bc inferred that he Immediately oh"Hrd
that order and aScertalned the presence
of the enemy at Santiago.
''On the contrary, his telegram, dated
Nav DS and written May -, shows that,
though, having Just received the telegram
of the department, and having on hand
Il sufficient supply of coal to return to
Key West, he reported that he could not
obey the order. and continued To pro
cced towards Key West. However. 1t
later became evident Ia him that TINS
was unnecessary. and he resumed III"
movement towards Santiago.
Admiral Sch!cyS mention of the signal
hy Admiral Sampson, "DiSrcgard move
ncnt of commander-in-ch chief, is declared
To hc one which is frequently made III
squadron and is never held as IN any
sense a REIMBURSEMENT of command.
Annexed to the letter from the Secrc-
tary is one from Capt. Sigsbce in reply
to Admiral Schlcy's declaration that i'll
the opinion of Sigsbec Ccrver, 5 fleet
WAS not in Santiago harbor. On this
point Sig bee says:
What | actually said to the admiral
was that Pilot Nuncz had first eX-
pressed Il belief that such large vessels
as Cervcra'S cruisers could not get into
Santiago because of their length, but he
afterwards admitted that they might get
in with the aid of tugs. Every officer
on board the ST Paul knew that | be
Iicved Cprvcra to be at Santiago; never
theleSs. | considered NuncZ's opinion.