The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1901-10-15
ALETTER To THE COURT
SAMPSON AGAIN ASKS TO Be HEARD II
THE SCHLeY INQUIRY.
THIS REQUEST is ALSO DENIED
The Letter OF His Attorney TO the Ccurt
and the Reply ofAdmiral Dewey-M =
stayton Charges Schleyss Coun -
With Repeatedly Making Char @
Against sampsoa bv Implication Nc
Sees Danger to the .Honor.s a. Wei
as Honor, of Ms Client.

Washington. October ie.-Wiiliam H
Stayton. the New York attorney who
| some time ago asked TO be allowed &c
represent Rear Admiral Sampson be-
fore the schley court Of inquiry and
whose request was denied b. the Court
today presented the following letter to
the court:
Washington. D. g. October 10
ITO Admiral George Dewey. United
States Navy. President Naval Court
of Inquiry, Washington. ID. c.:
Sir: l am instructed by Rear Ad-
miral Sampson TO acknowledge for him
the receipt OF your letter Of the sIth
OF September. 1901. stating that the
| court does not at this time regard him
as a party TO the case row before IL ard
is. therefore. unable to comply with his
request. that he be permitted represent
TAXATION by counsel.
80. l am further instructed by h
admiral to ask that the cir
cumstances arise. which entitle him to
representation. you Will permit our ad-
mission as counsel in his behalf.
IS Mr.. f. 5. Theall. Of Washington.
D. c.. who is my associate in this mat
ter and myself have been present in b
| court room nearly every day of the re-
| cedure and one or both OF Us viii en-
| deavor to be present every day hereaf-
ter.
Il. We have not had facilities which
would permit us To hear the proceeds
ings, but we nave been furnished with
copies of the courts record and beg
leave TO refer respectfully TO certain
age of that record, which contain at
tacks upon Admiral Sampson.
%. Rear Admiral Schley, for in
stance. was permitted TO say (see Page
= that the principal parties to the
present issue are Rear Admirals SanaD-
son and Schley." .
&c. Direct allegations have been
made against Admiral Sampson and
we ask the court to refer TO pages 152
to l56 of the record. where counsel re-
peatedly accuse Admiral Sampson-fD,
Of conducting n blockade with his YES
sells at n distance as great as that
which was selected by Admiral Schiey
for his blockade: and CD, of permitting
the Colon 10 remain for an indefinite
time after his arrival. in full sight OF
his squadron without making an effort
to destroy her.
-. On Page % Of the record. counse
was allowed to declare that 'iespite
Admiral Simpsons official report in
which he states hat the battle OF July
Bird was fought unde his command, az
a matter of fact, Admiral Sampson did
not command on that day, and effort
was made by counsel in yesterdays
proceedings to introduce into evidencF
J a signal made by Rear Admiral Samp.
J son which counsel stated in his argu-
I ment was intended TO show that Rear
Admiral Schley was communicating
} chief at that battle Surely these alie-
1 cations involve the honor Of a naval
D officer.
, IS. The courts precept states taaf
I ar officer who is interested may be per-
. mitted to appear and defend himself.
and While We fully realize that Admiral
Sampson is not a party to the cas-. as
the court states in it's letter OF the 18th
of September, yet notice has been given
/ that an effort will be made TO deprive
e him of his honors and even Of honor
e and his good name, and he is accused 81
permitting an enemy's vessel TO lie uI-
o disturbed in his presence, and all that
as a naval officer he holds dear Is In
yolved. and we ask you TO decide
n merely that he is interested.
80. 1t is true that the attacks upoT
Admiral Sampson have been made
q covertly and under the name Of arg
/ ment. but the statements ave been
c nevertheless, public; they ave beer
e given great currency and they are en-
d bodied in the record to remain forevei
T on the files of the navy department. II
n is at least worthy of comment that OF
q every occasion in which such an II
ment has been INDUCED in. the question
at issue has been voluntarily with
drawn after full opportunity had beer
taken to accuse the admiral.
10. Were we alone IN our opinior
n that these arguments are improper. We
v should hesitate to make such state
2 ments. but the judicial officer of the
court-the judge advocate-has repeat
= eddy characterized these arguments AZ
g improper.
e I'll. We, of course. realize fully thai
e the Intervention Of new issues and neu
T parties might be improperly used fe
cumber the record and prolong the fri.
al: but counsel are entirely under
: the control OF the court. and
may always b. suitably restrict.
ed. We. therefore, request In
We now be permitted TO appear befors
the court and be given facilities which
L Will enable us TO hear the procedure
and be present to defend Rear Admiral
! sampson when counsel shall make uoox
him attacks OF the nature which the,
have already deemed proper 10 make
Very respectfully.
f, "WILLIAM III. STAyTON.p
The court replied as follows:
: Sir: The court has received and
considered you letter Of this date III
which you again request that you b
permitted to appear before the cour-
az counsel for Rear Admiral Sampson
;. and given facilities which will enabt
YOU TO hear the procedure and to d.
: fend that officer from attack when nee
essary.
. In reply. / have to state THAI wniI
the precept converting this court gives
1t authority to permit any person whom
II may regard az concerned In the In.
TO be present for the pur
: pose OF cross examining witnesses ana
Offering evidence. h court consider,
that Rear Admiral Sampson is nor 81
Interested party IN the case now befor.
!. = nd e not. therefore. entitled TO an
pear as such. either IN person or bs
T ccunsel. and you are further informed
: that il circumstances arise. which. II
the opinion of the court. render IL nee,
:, essary for Admiral Sampson to be rep.
i, resented. due notice will be sent him.
! Very respectfully