The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-01-16
TUESDAY, JANUARY l6, 1890.


Sampson. Prize Money.
True to the instinct Of duty, and reeking
with consciousness of the high dignity OF
his office, Attorney General Griggs meets
the Sampson assault upon the Santiago
prize money in the Court of Claims with
the possibly true contention that Ger
vera's squadron, aided by the medievai
smooth-bore guns Of The land batteries,
was not destructively. REALISTICALLY, and
penetratively equal TO the elements OF
battle power possessed and exerted by
Commodore Schley's victorious war YES
sells: and hence, that some of the usu-
fruct should be credited TO the Govern
ment and not all of it TO Sampson.
Treated strictly as an academic propo-
sition. this proforma demurrer of Griggs
may be taken as the concession OF prob
able fact. in order to cover resort TO
position neither just, founded on fact or
equity. nor legally tenable. For the Attor-
ney General in the next breath admits,
and indeed AYERS without apparent fear oil
death or the judgment that 'all the herein
above named vessels of the King OF Spain
were sunk or destroyed on or about July
3 1898. by the libellant (meaning Samp-
son who was behind the horizon at the
iime) and the vessels under his command"
In this action Of the chief law officer Of
the Administration. we are sorry it must
be assumed that the Administration has
definitely announced its determination 10
to he fpTs-
therance of one of the most despicable and
infamous departmental conspiracies in the
history of this or any other country. Al
though we have known all along how
strong the influences are which have been
working to give the lie TO the notorious
facts of the sea battle of Santiago, we
have never until now believed they would
be potent enough to entangle The Admin
istration as a whole in any affirmative
action in support of the plot.
But the averment OF Griggs seems TO
settle that matter, and 10 settle it in a
way which will be a grievous disappoint-
ment 10 and will be roundly resented by
the American people. The Spanish naval
force commanded by Cervera was not de-
stroyed by the Hbellant and the vessels
under his command" for two conclusive
reasons. In the first place Sampson
was completely absent from the scene
of the conflict and did not appear until
after the last Spanish ship had surren-
dered. The battle was fought and won
by Commodore Schley and the vessels
and officers and men under his command
and Sampson had as much TO do with II
as he had with Dewey's victory over
Montojo in Manila Bay. Secondly, if our
first objection were not sufficient, it can
not be said with truth, equity. or legality
that the vessels which participated in
the sinking of the Spanish squadron at
Santiago. were at that or at any time dur
ing the Spanish war under the command
OF the libellant, Sampson.
He was nothing more than captain,
who in absolute defiance of the plain letter
of the law and of the regulations, had
been assigned by an authority without
power TO do such d thing, TO command
over the North Atlantic Squadron and
his superior officer, Commodore Schley.
Hence. Sampson never legally commanded |
the squadron. He was not present at the |
engagement, and he would not have been /
riyhtfully in command if he had been I
present. These are things which the 1
plain people OF the country know and APP
preciate much more clearly than may be
supposed at MIR. Hanna's headquarters. or
at the plants OF the corporations which
ere 80 insistent to have Sampson rewarded
REGARDLESS of the honor of the country.
the good of the service, or oil common
decency.