Evening star., 1901-12-20
'ounssl for Admiral Sampson Combat
Dewey's Report.
ENY THAT SCHLEY Was IN CoMMANI
Communication to the Secretar,
Of the Navy.
THE BATTLE OF. JULY

| ton & Campbell, counsel for Rear Admiral
| Sampson, called on Secretary Long at the
| Navy Department about 10 o'clock this
morning and handed him communication
giving their reasons why he should not ap-
prove the supplemental report of Admiral
Dewey Of the Schley court Of inquiry, In
which the declaration was made that Ad-
miral Schley was in absolute command at
| the battle of Santiago bay, and was entitled
to the credit for the destruction of the
Spanish fleet Following out his policy of
Withholding none of the correspondence re-
| lating to the controversy, Secretary Long
gave copies of the Sampson bill to repre-
| sentatives of the press.
Following is the text of the paper:
80 Broad Street, New York,
December 10, 1907.
| Sir: AS counsel for Rear Admiral Samp-
son, we have the honor to request that
| the department, for the reasons below stat
ed strike out or specifically dlsapproNe
| that portion of Admiral Dewey's opinion
| filed in connection with the proceedings OF
| the Schley court of inquiry. in which he
states his view to be that Commodore
| Schley was in absolute command at the
naval battle of Santiago.
l. Commodore Schley was not in COM
mand at that battle.
II. The President of the United States
and the Navy Department had decided
| that Admiral Sampson was in command at
that battle and Commodore Scnley, second
in-command.
III. The question to who commanded
at Santiago was not referred to the court
for consideration, and evidence bearing on
the point was excluded.
l. Commodore Schley was not in COM
mand at that battle-la) The disposition
of the forces at the beginning OF the battle,
according to Commodore Schley's own
statement, places Admiral Sampson in
command.
The Brooklyn and the Vixen were the
westernmost ships of the fleet; the Indiana
and Gloucester We're the easternmost. The
New York was nearer both of the latter
than was the Brooklyn, and notably at the
time when the Indiana was heavily en-
| gagged at the beginning of the action and
when the Gloucester was engaged with the
Furor and Pluton. Commodore Schley says:
"The Indiana and the Gloucester
were closer to your flagship than to the
Brooklyn. We have, then, the case Of a
fleet in regular formation, with the COM
| mander-in-chie within signal distance and
closer to large number of the ships than
is the second-in-c command. 1t is true that
the commander-in-chief could not have
reached the most distant vessel by signals
except by causing them to be repeated by
an intermediate vessel-an entirely usual
course-but it is equally true that the sec
ond in command could not have reached
the remote vessels of the fleet (namely. the
Indiana and the GlouceSter) without like
wise repeating signals.
In this state of affairs the regulations Of
the navy and the customs of the sea place
the absolute command and the full respon-
Sibility in the senior officer.
(b) The Brooklyn'S maneuver during the
action destroys any claim that Commodore
Schley might have had to the command.
The facts to the loop are found by the
court. The finding and opinion show that
to avoid danger to his own ship he maneu-
vered without warning to the rest of the
squadron and in disregard Of the fleet for
nation.
! II. The President of the United States and
| the Navy Department had decided that Ad-
miral Sampson was in command at that
battle and Commodore Schley second in
command. This fact was before the court:
for the Secretary's letter to the Senate
dated February 6, 1890 states that che
Spanish squadron was destroyed 'by our
fleet under his (Sampson's) commando" and
1.-The advancement Of Commodore Schley
was proposed in recognition of his services
as next in rank at the victory Of Santiago"
Ill The question as to who commanded
at Santiago was not referred to the court
for consideration. Evidence bearing on the
point was excluded.
(a) If Commodore Schley was in COM
mand Admiral Sampson was not, and II the
question as to which was in command was
to be considered by the court, surely Ad-
miral Sampson became an interested party
and under the precept was entitled to the
hearing which was repeatedly refused him.
CO. The language Of the precept excludes
! the question as to who commanded at that
the conduct of Admiral Schley-not into
his status or as to whether or not he was
in command, and to report its conclusions
upon his conduct in connection with the
events Of the Santiago campaign"
(c) The judicial officers of the court main-
tanned that this matter was outside the
scope of the inquiry. They expressed will
ingness to go into it if their view should
be overruled, but We're in every instance,
sustained by the court.
OuOtfnr From the Record
Thus, at page 157, the assistant to the
Judge advocate said: lone further word as
to a suggestion just made, as to the inten-
ton to show that Admiral Sampson was
not in this battle. I wish to say that we do
not understand that the question whether
Admiral Sampson was or was not in the
battle of Santiago is before the court. If
1t is. we shall be happy to investigate it.
Until the case takes that attitude it
guments and questions which proceed upon
the theory that he Is in the case" Coun-
sci for the applicant withdrew the ques-
ton.
| At page 400 Of the record, the same mat
ter being under discussion, Mr.. Hanna
said: 'If it is the desire of the court to go
into these things, 1t would Of course. be
proper that we should also go into them. 1t
would not only be proper. but it would be
pared to go into any discussion of them,
and extend the scope Of this inquiry"
Counsel for the applicant again failed to
press the point and the court made no OBJ
lection to Mr.. Hannas view.
At pages 153 and 1850 there were similar
rulings by the judge advocate. In the case
of ali these declarations there was ac-
quiescence on the part Of the court
Id The court uniformly rejected evidence
as to who commanded.
On all the pages herein cited from the
record, the court rejected such evidence.
and nowhere was 1t admitted against OBJ
lection.
Ruling by the Court.
(e) The court more than once specifically
ruled that this question was not before 1t.
For example. at page 1886, where the
question was as to the position of the COM
mander-in-chief and of the New York and
| al to the part they took In the battle. Ad-
miral Dewey said: I'VE do not want that
We have ruled that out" The Judge advo-
cate then asked II the court had so ruled.
and Admiral Dewey replied: 1--WE have.
We have kept the New York out OF IT"
See also page 461,
e The court went 80 far a. to rule at
page i421 that Admiral schley was not In
: CONTINUED on Eleventh Page.)