The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1901-12-24

port to Which he Makes Exception.
His Lawyers Efforts to Pre-. ent
This Question Being Passed Cpon
by Court OIL Secretary.
Washington, December 2O.-The OBJ
lection of Admiral w. T. Sampson to
the portion of Admiral Dewey's report
of the Schley court of inquiry, in which
he says Admiral Schley was in COM
mand at the battle of Santiago and
entitled to the credit for the victory,
was filed with Secretary Long today.
The document was brought to the navy
department by E. S. Theall, Of counsel
for Admiral Sampson and handed to the
secretary. 1t is signed by Stayton &
Campbell and E. S. Theall, counse for
Admiral Sampson, and his address to
Secretary Long. 1t follows:
Sir:-As cOunse for Rear Admiral
Sampson. we have the honor to request
that the department. for the reasons be-
low stated, strike out or specifically dis
approve that portion of Admiral Dew
ey's opinion filed in connection with the
proceedings of the Schley court of in
quiry in which he stated his view to
be that Commodore Schley was in abso.
lutte command at the naval battle of
Santiago.
Commodore Schley was not in COM
mand at hat battle.
(A.) The disposition of the forces at
the beginning of the battle. according
to Commodore Schlev's own statement,
places Admiral SAMPSON in command.
The Brooklyn and the Vixen were the
nonCf chsnc of tho Aoot- tho In6iano
and the Gloucester were the eastermost.
The New York was nearer both of the
latter than was the Brooklyn, and not
ably 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 Pluton.
Commodore Schley says: The Indiana
and the Gloucester . were closer
to your flagship than to the Brooklyn"
We have then the case of a fleet in a
regular formation. with the
4er-in-chief within signal distance and
closer to a large number of the ships
than is the second in 1t is
true that the cOmmander-in-chief could
not have reached the most distant YES
sci by signals, except by causing them
to be repeated by an intermediate Ves-
sG]-an entirely unusual COurse-but it is
equally true that the second in COM
mand could not have reached the re-
mote vessels of the fleet (namely, the
Indiana and the Gloucester) without
likewise repeating signals. In this state
of affairs the regulations of the navy
and the custom OF the sea place the alb
solute command and the full response
bility in the senior officer.
CD The Brooklyn's maneuvre dur
ing the action destroys any claim that
Commodore Schley might have had to
the command. The facts as to the loop
are found by the court. The finding
and opinion show that to avoid danger
to his own ship, he without
warming to the rest Of the squadron ana
in disregard of the fleet matt
The president of the United States
and the navy department a decided
that Admiral Sampson was in COM
nand at that battle and
Schley second in command.
This fact was before the court; tor
the seCretary's letter to the the admiral,
dated February 6, 1898 states that the
Spanish squadron was destroyed by
eur fleet under his (Sampson'SD COM
mand' and 1.-The advancement of Com
modore Schley was proposed in recogni-
ton of his services as next in rank al
the victory of Santiago
III.
The question as to who commanded
at Santiago was not referred to In
the court for consideration. Evidence
gearing OIl liz pOlLIl "oS
(A) If Commodore SChley was IN
Admiral Sampson was not,
and if the question as to which was In
command was to be considered by the
SQUIRT. surely Admiral Sampson became
an interested party n under the pre-
sept was entitled TO the hearing which
was repeatedly refused him.
OBJ The language of the precept eN-
sludes the question as to who COM
handed at the battle. 1t directs thI
court to inquire into the conduct OF Ad-
nIral Schley-not into his status or as
% whether or not he was in
and to eport its conclusions upon MS
conduct in connection with the events
81 the Santiago campaign.
(C The judicial officers Of the cour,
maintained that this matter was out
side the scope Of the inquiry. The3
expressed Willingness to go into 1t 1
fheir view should be overruled. bu
were. in every sustained by tht
Ssurt.
thus, at Page 157. the assistant to tn
judge advocate said:
zone further word as TO 4 suggestion
lust made. as to the intention to SHOW
Ehat Admiral Sampson was mot in TIL
battle. I wish to say that we 90 no
understand that the question Whethe
dmiral Sampson was or was not in tn
battle of Santiago is before the court
II it is. we shall be happy to investigat
if. Until the case takes tina
attitude it is improper to spread upoi
the record arguments and question
which proceed upon the theory that h
is in the case"
Counsel for the applicant withdreN
the question.
At Page 400 of the record, h sam
matter being under discussion, MI
Hanna said:
eff it is the desire of the court to e
INFO these things. it would. of courSe
be proper that we should also go int
them. It would not only be proper, bu
it would be necessary w
are Thoroughly prepared to go into an
discussion of them provided the cour
desires to so enlarge and extend tn
scope OF this inquiry"
Counsel for the applicant aga
failed to press the point and the cour
made no object to Mr.. Hanna's view
Al Pages 153 and 1850 there were SINH
lar rulings by the Judge advocate. /
the case of all these declarations Their
VAS acOuieSceQce on tho mart of tia