The age-herald., 1901-12-21
..3o Broad street.
"New Work. December 10. 1901.

and handed to the Secretary. It is as fol- lows:
 ''30 Broad street,
 ''New York, December 1e. 1901
 Sir: As counsel for Rear Admiral Sampson, we have the ..onor to request that the department strike out or specif- cally disapprove that portion of Admiral Dewey's opinion filed in relation to the proceedings of the Schley court of Inquiry in which he states his views that Commo- dore Schley was in absolute command at the naval battle of Santiago.
 "First-Commodore Schley was not in command at that battle.
 "Second-The President of the United States and the Navy Department should decide that Admiral Sampson was in com mand at that battle. and Commodore Schley second in command.
 "Third-And who commanded at San tiago was not referred to the court for consideration, and evidence bearing on the point was excluded.
 "First-Commodore Schley was not in command at that battle
 Disposition of the Forces.
 "(a) The disposition of the forces at the beginning of the battle according to Com modore Schley's own statement, places Admiral Samposn in command
 "1'he Brooklyn and the Vixen were the western-most ships of the fleet; the In- diana and Gloucester were eastern-most The New York was nearer the latter than the Brooklyn and notably at the time when the Indiana was heavily engaged at the beginning of the action, and when the Gloucester was engaged with the Furor and Fulton. Commodore Schley says the Indiana and the Gloucester were closer to your ships than to the Brooklyn. We have then the case of a fleet, in a regular formation with the commander-in-chief within signal dis tance and closer to a large number of ships than is the second in command. It is true the commander-in-chief could not have reached the most distant ves- sells by signals, except by causing them to be repeated by an Intermediate vessel -an unusual course-but it is equally true that the second in command could not have reached the remote vessels of the fleet mamely the Indiana and Giou- cester) without repeating signals.
 In this state of affairs the regulations of the navy and the customs of the sea place the absolute command and the full responsibility in the senior officer. BrookIyn's Movements Destroys Claim
 (b). The Brooklyn's manoeuver during the action destroys any claim that Com modore Schley may have had to the com mand. The facts as to the loop are found by the court The findings and opinion show that to avoid danger to his own ship he manoeuvered without warning to the rest of the squadron and disregard of the fleet formation.
 .'second-The President of the United States and the Navy Department had de- cided that Admiral Sampson was in com mand at that battle, and Commodore Schley not in command.
 This fact was before the court, for the secretarys letter to the Senate, dat ed February 6, 1S99 stated that the Span ish squadron was destroyed by our fleet under his (Sampsons) command, and the advancement of Commodore Schley was proposed in recognition of his services as next in rank for the victory of San tiago.
 "Third-The question as to who com 4 manded at Santiago was not referred to the court for consideration. Evidence bearing on the point was excluded.
 '(a). If Commodore Schley was in com mand. Admiral Sampson was not and if the question was to be considered by the court. surely Admiral Sampson was en- titled to the hearing, which was repeated ly refused him.
 Precept Excludes the Question. "(b) The language of the precept ex- cludes the question as to who commanded l at the battle. It directs the court to in- quire into the conduct of Admiral Schley, | not into his status, or as to whether he | was in command, and to report it's con- cusions upon his conduct in connection with the events of the Santiago cam paign.
 "(c) The judicial officers of the court | maintained that this matter was outside | the scope of the inquiry. They expressed | willingness to go into it if their views | should be overruled, but were sustained | by the court.
 d). The court uniformly rejected evi- | dence as to who commanded and nowhere l was 1t admitted against objection. (e). The court more than once speclh- | cally ruled that this question was not | before 1t.
 For example at page 15sS, where the question was to the position of Je | commander-in-chief and of the New Y rl | and as to the part they took in the battle, | Admiral Dewey said:
 We do not want that. We have ruled | that out
 The Judge Advocate then asked if the --------------- ------------------------- |