The Washington times., 1901-09-23
Circulation Statement.
The Sampson Blockade story.

Alluousn lneFe nave DSen OUT INU
business sessions of the Schley Court
OF Enquiry thus far, enough has devel-
oped TO show that the case the Navy
Department thought it had against
Admiral Schley on being tested
amounts to little or nothing beyond
hearsay or opinions based upon envy.
jealousy, or malice. One Of the mcst
serious charges against Rear Admiral
Sehley is the one contained in the
eighth paragraph of the precept in
which the Court is instructed to en-
quire Into the necessity, if any, for.
and the advisability Of withdrawing at
night the Flying Squadron from the en-
trance to Santiago HarbCr to n distance
at sea" To understand the animus of
the paragraph above quoted from, it is
necessary to bark back to the basis of
the allegation that while blockad,ng
Santiago Harbor. it was Commodore
Schley's practice at night to order the
squadron to distance, leaving the
shore line unguarded. The Century
Magazine" in its issue for April 1899,
contained a paper written by Rear Ad-
miral William T Sampson, in which the
following language occurred
'-The log of the Brooklyn, Commodore Schley's
flagship, for the five or six days from May 20 to
June /. indicates that whatever may have been
the disadvantages under which the blockade had
been maintained, it can hardly be described
close of the sort desired and expected by
both the Navy Departnieut and myself Dur
ing this period it had been the custom OF
vessels TO retire from the coast at night, dis
t2nee of twenty-five miles"
The
pears to prove conclusively that Samp-
sons statement, that lit had been the
custom of our vessels to retire from the
coast at night a distance of twenty-five
miles" was baseless and inexcusable.
Sampson, indeed, is fatty contradicted
by the testimony of Rear Admiral Hig-
ginson, who can hardly be considered as
friendly to Rear Admiral Schley He
was bound to tell the truth, however.
and did it with the manner ef one to
whom it was unpalatable. What Hig-
ginson swore to was, in substance, that
TO his knowledge the squadron never
went of shore a distance of twenty
five miles while Commodore Sehley was
in command of the blockade; that, IL
such thing had happened, the fact
would appear ON the log of his ship.
which it does not: and that he had no
idea that the squadron at any time
cruised out farther at night than six
miles from the mouth Of the harbor
Rear Admiral Higginson's statements
were fully corroborated by Lieutenant
Commander Seaton Schroeder, who was
the executive officer of the Massachu-
setts in the Santiago campaign.
So another navy ring slander has
been exploded 1t did not altogether
rest upon the Century article, but
partly upon loose assertion once made
by man named Muella, who was
Spanish eommandant of the part of
Santiago during the blockade. He said
that the Flying Squadron put out
long distance to sea at night, but he
did not and could not know that it did,
inasmuch as Commodore Schleys ships
did not show lights, and they might
have been two. twelve. or forty miles
away for any difference that would ap-
pear on shore.
1t will be noticed that Sampson does
not qualify his statement in any way.
He says positively that, ''it had been
the custom of our vessels To retire from
the coast at night a distance of TWEEN
ty-fve miles" One of the chief wit
nesses, depended upon by the navy ring
to bring Rear Admiral Schley into dis
credit, fatty contradicts Sampson. The
latter, for his own sake, as well as in
the interests of exact truth ard JUS
tice, ought to welcome call to the
witness stand that he might tell the
Court of Enquiry upon what founda-
tion Of recc I'd, fact, hearsay, or unaid-
ed Imagination he ventured 10 make an
allegation which by implication was a
serious charge against brother officer.
Perhaps we yet shall see him in court,
though probably not at once. There
are other things yet to be developed
which it may also be desirable for him
TO explain-if he can.