The Forest Republican. [volume] (Tionesta, Pa.) 1869-1952, 1901-10-09
SETS SAMPSON RIGHT.
He Did Not Approve Proofs oil
Maclay's History.


the Work when lie Came to Section
That villihed Hero of santiago-Secre.
Statement.
NEW YORK, Oct. S.-Colonel II. y.
Thompson of this city, president of the
United States Naval Academy Alumni
association, makes a statement to the
press in connection with the Schley in
quiry in which he says:
There is one story which | am very
anxious should be truthfully presented
to the public. After Maclay's book was
published Mr.. Maclay stated that his
proofs had been submitted to the com
manding officers, including Admiral
Sampson, and that they approved his
statements \ reporter calling upon
Admiral Sampson when he was i'll in his
bed obtained from the admiral what
appeared to be a confirmation of this
statement The admiral was asked il
he had seen and read the proofs Of Ma
clay's book and he said yes. But unfor-
tunately he was too i'll to go into the
matter at any length and explain every
thing and 50 the public were informed,
and today believe that Admiral Samp-
son entirely approved the statement that
Schley was a coward ana a caitiff, which
was the gist Of Alaclay's charge against
Schley.
IL am in position to state the true
facts, and you may absolutely rely upon
them as the truth. The proofs were sent
by Maclay to Admiral Sampson, with
request that they should be read and cor
rected The admiral at the time was
not in good health and did not wish to
undertake the labor but his secretary
pointed out that the Maclay history was
standard one and used at the Naval
academy as text book. This volume
brought the history down through the
period of the Spanish war and it was de
sirable that there should he no mae
curacies in it,
The admiral, therefore, consented to
read them and he did correct certain
part of them, but AS soon as he arrived
at the part which contained the state
ment that Schley was coward and II
caitiH, he was very much angered and
said the statement was one the author
had no right to make, that il was unjust
and unfair to speak of any naval officer
in such terms and declined to have any
thing further to do with the proofs.
Secretary Finished the Work.
His secretary, impressed with the
great desirability of having the state
ments of facts accurate, and not believ-
ing that he was in any way responsible
for the statements of opinions did, on his
own account compare the book with the
records and make on the margins a
number of corrections. As these were ip
the same handwriting as those made
when Admiral Sampson was giving his
personal attention to the corrections,
Mr.. Maclay was perfectly justified in his
statement. The order of the secretary
of the navy forbiding naval officers to
make any statement for publication re-
garding this controversy. issued imme-
diately after this interview, prevented
the above correction being officially
made.
There is one other matter that has
been brought up in which accusations of
careleSsness, to say the least, have been
made against the gallant Wainwright, in
cOnection with the chart of the battle
of Santiago, prepared and printed in the
socalled appendix. yet anyone reading
the report accompanying the chart sees
that there was no misrepresentation as
to what it was. Ii did not claim to be
and in the nature of things could not be
absolutely correct. At the best there
could only be as there was, a general
discussion between the navigators, each
one putting down his ship where he
thought it ought to be, and where there
We're differences of opinion, the majority
had to decide as to what position was to
be accepted and so the board reported.
"The chart in question, which shows
in a general way, the positions of the
ships is as accurate as in the nature Of
things we can make it, and in any event
is an approximation of the truth. This
description stands true today and all the
criticism of Wainwright and the others
is entirely unjust"