The Washington times., 1901-10-11
SAMPSON NOT A PARTY.
MIR. Stnyton Again Denied the Right
to Represent Him.

William H. Stayton, of New York, Sc
I lected by Admiral Sampson to represent
him as counsel before the Court of En-
Guiry. yesterday morning filed with Ad-
miral Dewey. President of the Court a
second application to be recognized by the
Court as the attorney for Admiral Samp-
son. and to be extended the right TO hear
testimony and to defend Admiral Samp-
son as his legal representative. The ap-
plication is embodied in d lengthy com
munication, in which are recited what
Mr. Stayton considers as effective argu-
ments IN support Of his application.
The letter follows:
Washington, D. c., Oct 10, 1901
Admiral George Dewey, L. ). n, Presi-
dent Naval Court Of Enquiry, Wash
Sir: / am instructed by Rear Admiral
Sampson to acknowledge for him the re-
ceipt of your letter of the 18th of Septem-
Der. 1901, stating that the Court does not
at this time regard him as a party TO the
case now before IL, and is. therefore, an
able TO comply with his request that he
he permitted representation by counsel.
- 1 am further Instructed by the ad-
miral to ask that whenever the circum-
stances arise which entitle him to rep
resertatian you viii permit our admls-
sion as counsel in his behalf.
-. Mr. f. $. TheaIl, Of Washington, d
g.. who is my associate in this matte r
and myself have been present in the
court room nearly every day of this pro-
cedure. and one or both Of US will en-
deavor to be present 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 Court s record, and beg leave 70
refer respectfully to certain pages of that
record which contain attacks upon Ad-
miral Sampson.
% Rear Admiral Sehley. for instance.
was permitted To say tsee page y that
the principal parties to the present is
SUE are Rear Admiral Sampson ami
SchIey'
20 Direct allegations have been made
against Admiral Sampson, and we ask
the Court TO refer to pages I52 to l56 Of
the record, where counsel repeatedly ac-
cuse Admiral Sampson, first, of conduct
ing a blockade with his vessels at dis
lance as great as that which was selected
by Admiral Schley for his blockade and,
second. for permitting the Colon to re-
main for an Indefinite time after his ar
rival, in fun sight OF his squadron. with
out making an effort 10 destroy her.
- On mage % OF the record counsel
was allowed to declaIs that despite \ l.
mIral SIMPSONS official report, In which
he states that the battle Of July Uss
fought under his command, that as u
matter Of fact Admiral Sampson dill not
command on that day and effort WAS
made by counsel in yesterdays proc' ed
ings to introduce INTO eEldrn,e a siEi al
made by Rear Admiral sampson which
counsel stated in his argument WAS IN
tended TO show that Rear Admiral Schley
was cOmmauder-ln-chief ut that battle.
Surely these allegations Involve the honor
Of a naval officer.
IS The Courts precept states that an
officer who Is interested may De permitted
to appear and defend himself: and while
we fully realize that Admiral Sampson
is not a party to the case as the Court
states in its letter of the 9th Of Septem-
Der. yet notice has been given that an
effort will be made to deprive him OF his
horOrs, and even or his honor and his
good name. and he Is accused of per
mitting an enemy's vessel to lie undis
turbed in his presence. and all that
naval officer he holds dear is involved,
and we ask you To decide merely that he
is interested
9. ii is true that the attacks upon
Admiral sampson have been made covert
ly and under the name of argument, but
the statements h ave been nevertheless
public: they have been given great cur
rcncy and they are embodied In the
record to remain forever on the files of
the Navy Department. II is at least
worthy of comment that an every occa-
sion in which such an argument has been
INDUCED in the question at issue has been
voluntarily Withdrawn after full Oppor-
tunity had been taken 10 accuse the ad-
miral.
10 Were we alone in onr opinion that
these arguments are improper we should
hesitate to make such statements. but the
judicial officer of the Court-the Judge
adN NOcato-has repeatedly characterized
these arguments as improper.
IL We. of course. realize fully that the
parties might be improperly used to cum
ber the record and prolonR the trial. but
counsel are entirely under the control Of
the Court and may always be suitably re
stricted. a..
we therefore, request that we now be
permitted to appear before the Court and
hear the procedure and be present to de-