The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-12-21
COMMODORE SCHLtY
WAS NOT IN COM
MAND
Thus Opens the Protest Filed
by Admiral SIMPSONS
Counsel.
THEY ARGUE THE POINT
And Ask That Dewey's Opinion be
Either Striker Out or
Disapproved.
POINT TO DISPOSITION OF VESSELS
Declare This Showed Sampson in Command,
But Maintain That Question OF Who Com
mandvd at Santiago Was Outside
Scope Of Inquiry.
(By the Associated Press.)

washington, Dec. 20-The objection Of
Admiral W. T. Sampson to the portion
of Admiral Dewey's report of the Schley
Court of Inquiry, in which he says Ad-
miral Schley was in command at the
battle off Santiago and entitled to the
credit for the victory, was filed with
Secretary Long today. The document
was brought to the Navy Department by
f. S. Theall of counsel for Admiral
Sampson and handed to the Secretary.
1t is signed by Stayton & Campbell and
E. S. Theall, counsel for Admiral Samp-
son, and is addressed to Secretary Long.
1t follows:
Sir-As counsel for Rear Admiral
Sampson, we have the honor to request
that the department, for the reasons be-
low stated, strike out or specifically dis
approve that portion Of Admiral Dewey's
opinion filed in connection with the
proceedings of the Schley Court Of In
quiry, in which he stated his view to be
that Commodore Schley was in absolute
command at the naval battle off San
tiago
l. Commodore Schley was not in COM
mand at that battle. 4
(A.) 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 In
diana and Gloucester were the eastern
most. The New York was nearer both
of the latter than was the Brooklyn, and
notably at the time when the Indiana
was heavily engaged 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 fleet in a regu-
lar formation, with the commander-in-
chief within signal distance and closer to
a large number of the ships than is the
second in command 1t is true that the
commander in-chief could not have
reached the most distant vessel by sig
nails. except by causing them to be re-
peated by an intermediate vessel-an en-
ltirely unusual course-but it is equally
true that the second in command could
not have reached the remote vessels OF
the fleet (namely-the Indiana and
the Gloucester) without likewise repeat
ing signals.
In this state of affairs, the regulations
of the Navy and the customs of the
sea place the absolute command and the
full responsibility in the senior officer.
(B). The Brooklyn's vancouver dur
, ing the action destroys any claim that
Commodore Schley may have had to the
command. The facts as tothe loop are
found by the court. The finding and
opinion report that to avoid danger to
his own ship he manoeuyered without
warning to the rest of the squadron and
in disregard of the fleet formation
9. The President of the United States
and the Navy Department have decided
that Admiral Sampson was in command
at that battle and Commodore Schley
second in command.
This fact was before the court for tho
Secretary's letter to the Senate. dated
February 9Th, 1892 states that the Span
ish squadron was destroyed oy our feet
under his (Sampson's) command and
1.-THE advancement of Commodore Schley
was proposed In recognition of his ser
vices as next in rank at the victory OF
Santiago"
3. The question as to who commanded
at Santiago was not referred to the
court for consideration. Evidence beal-
ing on the point was excluded.
fA.) If Commodore Schley was in COM
mand, Admiral Sampson was not, and If
the question as to which was in cor
mand was to be considered by the court
surely Admiral Sampson became an in
terested party and under the precept was
entitled to the hearing which was re-
peatedly refused him.
(B.) The language of the precept ex-
cludes the question as to who command
cd at that battle. 1t directs the court
to inquire into the conduct of Admiral
Schley--not into his status or as 10
whether or not he was in command and
to report its conclusions upon his ICON
duct In connection with the events of the
Santiago campaign.
CO. The judicial officers of the court
maintained that this matter was outside
the scope of the inquiry. They expressed
willingness to go into 1t if their view