The San Francisco call., 1901-10-11
RESENTED BY SAMPSON.
His Counsel Call Attention to Charges
Against the Admiral

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10.-William H Stav-
ton, the New York attorney who some time
ago asked to be allowed to represent Rear Ad-
miral Sampson before the Schley court of in
quiry, and whose request denied by the
court, to-day presented the following letter to
the court:
NAVY YARD. WASHINGTON, D. c. Oct
President Naval Court of fnouirv Masbineton' rs On
d. C-Sfr: l am instructed by Rear Admiral
Sampson to acknowledge for him the receipt of
your letter of the 9th of September 1901 sta
ting the court does not at this time regard him
as asa party to the case now before it. and is,
that he be permitted to representation by
counsel
2. I am further instructed by the admiral
to ask that whenever the circumstances arise,
which entitle him to representation, you will
permit our admission counsel in his behalf.
8. MI. +. 3. Theall of Washington D. c.,
who is my associate in this matter, and my
self have been present in the courtroom of the
to be present every day hereafter.
4. We have not had facilities which would
permit US to hear the proceedings, but we have
been furnished with copies of the courts record
and beg leave to refer respectfully to certain
pages of that record. which contain attacks
8. Rear Admiral Schley, for instance. was
permitted perm to say (see page . that the prin-
elpai parties to the present issue are Rear Ad
s. DIRECT allegations have been made against
fer to pages 152 to 156 of the record where coun-
sci repeatedly accuse Admiral Sampson-frst
OF conducting a blockade with his vessels at
by Admiral Schley for his blockade; and, sec
ond, of permitting the Colon to remain for an
indefinite time after his arrival in full sight
OF his squadron without making effort to
T. On page % of the record counsel was al
lowed to declare that despite Admiral Samp-
sons official report, in which he states that
the battle on July was fought under his com
mand, and that as a matter of fact Admiral
Sampson did not command on that day, and
effort was made by counsel in yesterdays pro-
ceeQlngS to Introduce into evidence a signal
made by Admiral SAMPSON which counsel
stated in his argument was intended to shcw
chief of that battle. Surely these allegations
nyoTe e the h4nor of naval ataIs Officer
who Is interested may be permitted to appear
and defend himself and while we fully realize
case. as the court states in it's ietter Of the the
27th of September yet notice has been given
his honors and even Of his honor and his good
name, and he is accused Of permitting an
enee' and all that as naval officer he holds
dear Is involved, and ask you to decide
merely that he In interested"
g. 1t is true that the attacks upon Admiral
Sampson have been made covertly and under
the name of argument, but the statements
have been. nevertheless, public; they have been
given great currency and they are embodid
in the record to remain forever on the files
of the Navy Department 1t is at least worthy
of comment that on every occasion in Hybicb
such an argument has been INDUCED in, the
question at issue has been voluntarily with
to accuse the admiral.
10. Were We alone in our opinion that these
arguments are improper, we should hesitate
to make such statements, but the judicial Of
fcer of the court-the judge advocate-has re-
peatedly characterized these arguments as i'm
proper.
II. We of course realize fully that the in
tervention of new issues and new parties might
be improperly used to cumber the record and
prolong the trial; but counsel are entirely un-
der the control of the court and may always
be suitably restricted. We therefore request
that we now be permitted to appear before
the court and given facilities which will en-
able to hear the procedure and be present
to defend Rear Admiral Sampson when col1n-
sci shall make upon him attacks of the nature
which they have already deemed proper to
make. Very respectfully,
WILLIAM H. STAYTON.
The court replied as follows:
The court has received and considered vow
letter of this date in which you again ren,1est
that you be permitted to appear before the
court counsel for Rear Admiral Sampson
and given facilities which will enable Won To
from attack when necessary.
In reply I have to state that while the nre
cept convenng this court gives 1t AUTHORITY n
permit any person whom it may regard as con-
cerned in the investigation to be present for the
purpose of cross examining witnesses and Offer
ing evidence the court considers that Rear Al
miral Sampson is not interested nartv In
the case now before it and is not therefore on
titled to appear such either in person or b,,
counsel. and you are further Informed that r.
circumstances arise which, in the oninion ~
Sampson to be. represented, due notice will he
sent him. Very respectfully. " ~