Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1901-10-10
SAMPSON WANTS IN
His Ceunsel Makes Another Re.
ausst to Be Allowed Repre-.
sentation at Inquiry.
savs Attempts Are BEING Made
t. Deprive Sampson Of His
Honors.
Cent Replies That He Can Not
II be Admitted at the Present
Time.

lime.
Warrington, Oct. 10. - William n.
elayton. the New York attorney who
sometime ago asked to be allowed to
represent Admiral Sampson before the
4 ochley: court Of inquiry, and whose re-
& quest was denied by the court, today
presented the following letter to the
( court:
washington, D. c., Oct. 10.-To Ad-
Z nairal George Dewey president Of the
I naval court Of inquiry: am instructed
~ Real Admiral Sampson to acknowl-
edge from him receipt Of your letter
i ON the 27th of September, stating that
( the court does not at this time regard
him as party to the case now before
I ii, and is, therefore, unable to comply
with his request, that he be permitted
representation by counsel. am further.
Instructed by the admiral to ask that
whenever circumstances arise which
entItle him to a representative, you VIII
! permit our admission as counsel In his
behalf. e. s. Theall. who is my asso-
ciate In this matter and myself have
been present in the court room nearly
every day OF the procedure and one or
both OF us VIII endeavor to be present
4 every day hereafter. 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 respect
I fully to certain pages Of that record,
which contain attacks upon. Sampson;
/. Rear Admiral Schley, for instance, was
4 permitted to say The principal parties
L TO the present issue are Rear Admirals
! sampson and Schley. Direct alle-
cations have been made against Samp-
oon: First. Of conducting the blockade
with his vessels at a distance as great
~ that which was selected by RSchley
for his blockade; Second, OF permitting
& the Colon to remain for an indefinite
i time after his arrival, in full sight OF.
his suuadron, without making an effort
to destroy her.
Counsel was allowed to declare de-
spite sampson's ofiic!at report, In which
he states the battle OF July 3 was fought
under kis command. that as a matter
Of fact Sampson did not command on
that day. and an effort was made by
counsel In yesterdays proceedings to
Introduce into the evidence a signal
! made by Sampson, which counsel stat
ed In his argument was intended to
show that Echiey waP commander-in-
chief at the battle. Surely these allega-
tions involve the honor OF a naval off,
Ger. The courts precept states that an
officer who 10 interested may be permit
4 ted to appear and defend himself. And
Gov tc INT ~
party to the case, as court states in its
letter Of the 9th September, yet notice
has been given that an EFFORT will be
made to deprive him of his llonors. even
his honor and good name, and he is ac-
c1sedl Of permitting the enemy's vessel
to lie undisturbed in his presence, and
ali that as o naval officer he holds dear
3 10 involved. We ask you to decide mere
" that he is interested" 1t is true the
attacks upon Sampson nave been made
scovertly and under the name Of argu-
ment, but the statements have been,
neverthelese, public; yhey have been
given great currency; they are embod-
I'D In the record to remain forever on
The llles Of the navy department. It is
4 At least worthy OF comment on every
occasion In which such argument has
been tndulged In, the question at Issue
has been voluntarily withdrawn, after
s8ull opportunity has been taken to ac-
eUse the admiral. Were we alone in our
opinion that these arguments are i'm.
proper, We should hesitate to make such
\ statements. but judicial officers OF the
court the judge advocate-has repeat
i edly characterized these arguments as
Improper. We, Of course, realize fully
that the Intervention of new issues and
new parties might be Improperly used
to cumher the record and prolong the
trial; but counsel is entirely under con-
troll OF the court. ana may always be
suitably restricted. We, therefore. re-
quest that We now be permitted to ap-
pear before the court and be given fa-
Scilities which will enable us to hear the
procedure and be present and defend
Gampson when counsel shall make up
on him attacks In the nature OF those
which thye have already deemed proper
to make. Very respectfully
.sWILLIANI5 H. sTAYTON."
IA reply was sent to Slayton, to the ef-
feet that Sampson Is not party to the
INQUIRY and would be notified when The
court considered him as interested.
Washington, Oct. 10. & - The schley
I court Of inquiry began. business today
with a recall Of yesterdays witnesses
for correction of testimony. They were
4 followed by Lieut.. Edwards F. Leiper,
who had begun his testimony yesterday.
Leiper was an officer on the New Or
leans and participated in the lombard
ment and reconnolsance of the Colon on
May 81, the day before the arrival at
ssistiago Of Sampson. He was also on
the New Orleans when that vessel bonn
barded the Spanish shore batteries at
Santiago and his testimony today dealt
with those events. Witness said when
4 tile New Orleans Joined the blockade the
vessels were lying in a column from six
Z to4eight miles Off shore. They We're so
/ far out that 1t was impossible to distin-
euish points on shore or determine
where the shore line met the water lone.
4 On cross-examination Rayner called the
attention OF witness to the statement of
Capt. .Folger, who commanded the New
Orleans, that the fleet was nearer shore
at night than the daytime and asked
whether he agreed with the commando