New-York tribune., 1901-12-21
PLEA FOR SAMPSON FILED.
DEWEY'S OPINION THAT SCHLEY COM
MANDED AT SANTIAGO DE
CLARED UNJUST.

|
nent was brought to the Navy Department by
| T. 3 Theall. of counsel for Admiral Sampson. and
| iahoeo TO the Secretary. 1t is as follows
Sir s2 80 q Broadst coabt; tMsTYork Decemeer 49, 1901
have the honor to request that the department,
c5cay y reasonS below stated strike out or spe
Dewey's opinion filed in connection with the pro
view to be ha OF g scHeg HeoR
IN G absolute command at the naval battle OF
mand at that battle.
second-The President o the United States
| ana the Navy Department had decided that
| Aom1raI Sampson was in command that
| battle, and Commodore SchIey second
| command.
| Third-The question O who commanded
| at santiago was not referred O court
consideration' and evidence bearing on the
| point Vvas excluded.
SAMPSON WITHIN SIGNAL DISTANCE.
- tFtEEst-Commodore list schley was not in command
Of R 1T The disposition Of the forces beginning
own own statement, places admiral sampson in com
The Brooklyn and the Vixen were the western
| mos most shlps OF the fleet; Indiana and the
Vas Mas neSre both Of the latter than was the Brook
at the begnng Of fhG the aao nd
%nen nG tn the pGoueester was engaged with the FmTor
rnTiahs ToTT ana the Gloucester were closer to
with the commander in chief within signal
thai than is The second in command. It is true that
the commander in chief could not have reached
the most distant vessel by signals except by
ing them to be repeated by an intermediate YES YES
mat the t second in eommaad & could e not have
the Indiana and the Gloucester. without likewise
| In this state Of affairs the regulations of the
navy and the customs of the sea place the abso-
lutte command and the full responsibility In the
@ t6ns chs s misn
had oD to the he 6 The The bn as and to op
ion show that to avoid danger to his own ship he
maneuvred without warning to the the rest OF 3fo the
seeondTbe President Of the United states land and
| Sampson was in command at that battle and Com
mqdore schley second in command for tbe secre
tarys letter to the Senate, dated February g. 1872
by our fleet under his Sampson 81 command and
the advancement of Commodore Schiey was Pnk PIT[
at the victory Of Santiago"
EVIDENCE EXCLUDED BY THE COURT
Santiago was not referred the court for con
sideIation. Evidence bearing on the point was eN-
W II Commodore schey IN e0mm%nd 19'nn a. 40 %
which In command was to be cohslueIeu go ~ w
the surely ar tbs p4eeep9 9as
to the hearing which repeatedly refused nun The
question Who commanded at IT, that 6ettei Of
Admirai 31i scheyInot into his status or ,ot as to
whether or not he was In command ana 10 rep111 p
With the events Of the Santiago campaign,
,bt tb's natter was outside the of the In
quiry. They expressed Willingness to 20 M IN every
tbair view should be overrued, but were III ~ ~eN.a
instance sustained by the court Thus, at 6 p1Se
l57 assistant TO the Judge advoGate ad as 70
the Intention show that Admiral sampson was was
not in this battle. wish to say that we 90 q,1a no
understand that the question whether c1io AGTara1
Sampson was not IN the 6hoe % ba 0l 6anpy to
Investigate it. Until the case takes onT5 cnaf
attitUde It is improper spread Upon the recoLa ora
arguments questions which proceed upon @ the the
theory that ne Is IN the eh question Al page OF
the record the same mater at Rei tbe desire Of the
sion MI adnpa info beee iale things it Would Of course
be proper that should also go gI8 d,I8 IN aces
SGTld not We e are Thoroughly prepared go
any discussion OF hem b SCOPE of this
inquiry Counsel for the applicant again ~ ~
TO ton press to- Mr. Hannas view pages 53 and loSo
there similar rulings by ane there was
acquiescence the part Of the court T,denca as to
who commanded On all the pages herein cited
from record the court rejected such
( The court more than once sPeGGey Pee iGsitnce at
that this was m not Was s to the pos
tion of the commander in chief and or the t+Y NeM
ASmiraI Dewey said: I'VE do not want that We we
have ruled that out, The judge aav9ca,Gd tdnirai o
peWey fskse II replied phe We hsxe kept the
oHr out Of VENT m So See far aSe as to rule at page
I 49 that Admiral schley was not In conIn4ha h
corf related i to the periods during which Admiral
Schley had been in absolute coInnanu; @ are anu CON- on
4sni6e VourseIf to July g. are you?" Mr.. Rayner
in reply acquiesced in this view and the G2ur{ 2ne9
ruled m .na1 the 18th Of May and the
Iating to the organization management anu anu - -
trol Of that when ne eeerng to his al
legged command on July were so,ssS excrudea oi p"9
11sS ~ An PROPOSED questions this subject were
either rejected by the court Withdrawn by me ne
M court and gave up his efforts in this benail.
saving: IT bow respectfully TO the declslon u IN IN
stances Of the Withdrawal of such questions ana ana
of rejection by the court m WI pS 0sn ouiu III '
ADMIRAL. DEWEYs RULINGS
N, The minority opinion expressed by Adnirat @
Dewey this matter Is at variance WIZ WIN drectIv
nontrs sdicts the letters wherein Admiral Dewey
for the court defines Admiral SIMPSONS status.
The Navy Depapnenr spy eerscn m nteresed might be
given an opportunity OF appearing pelotG re- 'G
" AS Counsel for the applicant ignored at times times
the courts rulings and spread upon Enso1 nre we
arguments rejecting upon Admiral sampson, W.,
O. es his counsel three separate times appealeo 10
tho court asking for protectlon or Ior ihts
TO @ appear and defend Admiral SIMPSONS rights ga
Eacb r. time our request denied, and we were
assured Admiral Sampson was mIe eaip9 the
Sau aoa,pt of one of our letters, in which we hao
appealed to him the ground OF TINS Very LID
beWe to state that while the precept convening TINS
court gives authority to permit any person & w o ~
~ ta nresent court considers that Ad-
n,dai d von are further Informed that If crcum-
Stances arise which, in the OPINION OF the tou[ ba
render it necessary for yia hofal ba sent him
I1non that promise Admiral Sampson relied; Inc
notice only IN fhs dssssng feE OF beyond the
scoone of the precept and nowhere incIuoea III 'ne