The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-12-20

:
statement OF objections to the Dewey rs
port, filed with Secretary Long by At
torneys Slayton and Camp5ell today.
Secretary Long-
sir. As counsel fer Rear Admiral
Sampson We have the E.1oT TO request
that the department. for the reasons be-
low stated, strike out OF specifically dis
approve that porticn Of Adm -raI Dewey-s
opinion fled IN connection With tbs pro
eeedings OF the Schley Court Of Enquiry
IN which he states MS view 10 he that
Commodore SehIey was in absolute con-
maRd at the naval battle Of Santiago.
Say Sampson Was in CommaHsi.
Commodore schley was not in COM
msnd at that battle The President Of
the United States and the Nayy Depart
meRt had decided that Admiral Sampson
was in command at that battle and Com
modcre SchIey second in command
The question as 10 who commanded at
Santiago was ne referred 20 the court
fer consideration and eviaence bearing on
the point was excluded
Commodore Sehley was net in com
nanf ct that battle.
The disposition OF the forces at the
beginning Of she battle according 10 Com
modore Seh1ey's own statement places Ad-
miral Sampson il command
Positions Of the Ships.
The Brooklyn and the Vixen we're the
westernmcst ships of the feet. the n
diana and Gloucester were the eastern
mcst- The New York was nearer the
scene than was the Brooklyn. and notably
at the Tine when the Indiana was heavily
engaged al the beginning of the acticn
and when the Gloucester was engaged
with TIE Furor and Pluton Commodore
Schley says the Indiana and Gloucester
we're closer TO the flagship than was the
Brooklyn We have. then, the case OF a
feet in 4 regular formation. with the
coumander-in-chief within signaling dis
tance and closer to q large number Of
ships than is the second in command It
is true that the commaDder-in-chief could
not have reached the most distant vessels
BY signals except by causing them TO be
repeated By an intermediate vessel, an
entirely usual course; but it is equally
true that the second in command could
not have reached the remote vessels OF
the fleet. namely, the Indiana and the
Gloucester. without likewise repeating
signals.
sampson Fully Responsible
In this statement Of affairs the regu-
lations OF the navy and the customs Of
the sea place the absolute command and
the fall resoousibiIftv in the senior Of
fcer-
The BrookIyn's maneuvre during the
action destroys any claim that Commo-
dore SchIey might have had to the com
nand. The facts as to the loop are found
BY the court. The finding and opinion
show that in order to avoid damage TO
his own ship lie maleuvrcd without
warning to the rest CT the squadron and
in disregard TO the fleet formation
The President OF the United States and
the Navy Department had decided that
Admiral Sampson was in command at that
battle and Commodore SchIey second in
command
This fact was before the court, for the
Secretary's letter to the Senate. dated
February 6, 1899, states that the Spanish
squadron was destroyed by our fleet un-
der his fSampscn's) command; and the
advancement CT Commodore sehiey was
proposed in recognition CT his services as
next in rank at the siege Of Santiago
The Question of Command.
'oThe question as TO who commanded the
feet at the Santiago battle is brought to
your notice. If Commodore Schley was
in command, Admiral Sampson was not
and if the question as to which was in
command was to be considered by the
court surely Admiral Sampson became an
interested party and under the cireum-
stances was entitled to the hearing which
was refused him
The language CT the precept Excludes
the question as 10 who commando at that
battle. It directs the court inquire
into the conduct o9 Admiral Schley, MT
into his status or as to whether CT not
Norfolk d Washington Steamboat Co
Delightful trips daily at $50 D. m from loot
.ih St 10 Old Point Comfort Norfolk Virginia
Bach. and Newport News. See aG. page =