The sun., 1901-12-21
ADMIRAL SIMPSONS PROTEST
BRIEF FILED ny HIS COUNSEL
WITH SECRETARY LONG.
Attention Is Called 10 the Fact That Dewey
Ruled Out Testimony - TO Who Was
In Command NJ the Battle OF SAINT
iago. and That Therefore His opinion
on That Point should lie DisapprOved.

on That Point should Be DisapprOved
WASHINGTON. Dec 2i.-The following
brief by Stayton a Campbell, attorneys
for Rear Admiral Sampson, was filed with
Secretary Long this morning:
To The Honorable Secretary Of the Navy:
SIR As counsel for Rear-Admiral Samp-
son, we have the honor TO request that the
Department, for the reasons below stated
strike out or specifically disapprove that
portion Of Admiral Dewey's opinion hled
in connection with the proceedings Of the
Schley Court of Inquiry in which he states
his views to be that Commodore Schley
was in absolute command at the naval
battle Of Santiago:
I.-Commodore Schley was not In command
at the battle
1.-THE President OF the United States
and the Navy Department had decided that
Admiral Sampson. was in command at
that battle and Commodore Schley second
in command.
uI.-The question as to who commanded
at Santiago was not referred to the Court
for consideration. and evidence bearing
on the point was excluded.
I-Commodore Schley was not in COM
mand at that battle:
(a) The disposition Of the forces at
the beginning Of the battle, according to
Commodore Schleys own statement. placed
Admiral Sampson in command The Brook
lyn and the Vixen were the westernmost
ships OF the feet; the Indiana and Glou-
cester were the easternmost. The New
York was nearer both OF the latter than
was 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 Pluton. Commodore Schley says.
THE Indiana and the Gloucester were
closer to your flagship than to the Brook
lyn.' We have. then, the case OF
feet in a regular formation, with the
Commander-in-Chief within signal distance
and closer TO a larger number Of ships than
is the second in command. IL is true
that the Commander-n-Chief could not
have reached the most distant vessels by
signals. excepting by causing them to be
by an intermediate vessel-an
entirely usual course-but IL is equally
true that the second in command could
not have reached the remote vessels Of
the fleet namely. the Indiana and the
without likewise repeating
signals. In this state of affairs. the reg
ulations of the navy and the customs OF
the sea place the absolute command and
the full responsibility on the senior officer.
Do The Brooklyn's manceuvre during
the action destroys any claim that Commo-
dore Schley might have had 10 the command
The facts as 10 the loop are found by the
Court The finding and opinions show that
to avoid danger To his own ship he manPu-
vred without warning TO the rest of the
squadron, and in disregard Of the feet for
nation.
II The President Of the United States
and he Navy Depart ment had decided that
Admiral Sampson was in command at that
battle and Commodore Schley second in
command
letter to the Senate dated
Feb. 0. lS99) states that tie Spanish squad
ron was destroyed by our feet under
his (SampSon ~ command. and the ad
Of Commodore Schley was pro-
posed in recognition of his services as next
in rank at the victory of Santiago
lll.-TEe question as TO who commanded
Al Santiago was not referred To the Court
'or consideration Evidence bearing on
he point was excluded.
(al II Commodore Schcy was in COM
nand, Admiral SAMPSON was not. and IL
he question aS 10 which was in command
wa 10 be considered by the Court, surely
Admiral sampson becamc al Interested
party and under the precvpt was entitled
% the hearing which Wa repeatedly re-
'us,d him.
do Tn" language of the precept excludes
he. question a. Ia who commanded al tina,
Jattle II dircct~ the Court Ia inquire into
he couduc, 81 Admiral Schlev not into
lis status OF a. 10 whether or not he waS IN
and To- report it, conclusions
lpun hi~ conduct Ia connection with the
.vauts of the Santiago campaign.
1ci IN. judicial officers uf the Court |
maintained that thir matter was OUTSIDE
hr -s.uI,, of the inquiry. They expressed
a willingness. tn p1 into II n their We've should
Dc. o,rfrul.d hut were in every instance |
aistaiu.l bv th. Court Thus, AT pagn l57 |
hc assistant to the Judge AdNucate said !
one further word ~ tu "A suggestion lust |
made ar 10 th. intention to show that /
admiral Samp,un wa not Ia this battle. .
wi-h o. sav that W. don't uud.rstan /
hat ia" question Wh-th.r Admiral Samp- /
.nu ~ a. - Wa not 10 the battle - santiago /
: b-iDrr the court II u l.. Nr stall l.. .
,appy Co lu,o-ugat" Il tnul .
ur r.,-,, tak,.- tlai uttltgdo ~ is im.
HoI-r to rl't,ad upon thr r"oord afgu-
ur tb,sity ma h' D. lu Go" cai.' ,ounral
uf lDr aIIii,alt uitudu'o the qIrst.uu
A. puyr sno of tAr r-.urd. "a" same
matter l,lrg l.lrI di-,ur-luu. NJ Hanna
ad ~ o. D. iir d.-ir,sui the ctlft Co gu
utp thr-, hing. o. would. of oo,ir-. L-
.rulal uar 49, -huuld aisD a. mt t.rm
10 " odd 49, uul, l-. pfutsr. L,ll ID would ho .
.,sio-sary - Wr ar thoroughly PIE.