Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1901-12-20
1B[ SAMPSON PROTEST
Counsel for the Admiral File Oh.
jections to Findings of
Schley Court.
Want Dewey's Opinion That
Schley Was In Command at
Santiago Disapproved.
Claim Sampson Commanded and
That the Question Was Not
Before Court.

Washington Dec 20-The objection
of Admiral Sampson to that portion o
Dewey's report of the Schley court OF
inquiry, in which he says Schley was
in command at the battle off Santiago
and entitled TO the credit for the vic.
! tory, was filed with Secretary Long to-
day by E. S. Theali, of counsel fol
Sampson. 1t is as follows:
New York, Dec. 19.-Sir: As counse
for Rear Admiral Sampson. we have the
honor to request the department, foI
{! the reasons below stated, to strike out
or specifically disapprove tnat portion
Of Admiral Dewey's opinion filed in con-
nection with the proceedings oil the
Schley court of inquiry, in which he
states his view to be that Schley was In
absolute command at the naval battle OF
! Santiago.
"Schley was not in command at that
/ battle. The president of the United
/ States and navy department had decid-
/ ed that Admiral Sampson was In COM
/ mand at that battle, Schiey, second IN
command. The question as to who COM
manded at Santiago was not referred to
! the court for consideration, and evil
dence bearing on the point was exclud-
ed. The disposition of the forces at the
1 beginning of the battle, according to
/ Schley's own statement, places Samp-
son in command.
The Brooklyn and the Vixen were the
| westernmost ships of the fleet; the In
| diana and Gloucester the easternmost.
The New York was neaSer both the lat
ter than was the Brooklyn, and was
notable at the time when the Indiana
was heavily engaged at the beginning
| OF the action, and when the Gloucester
| engaged with the Furor and Futon,
| Schiey says: Indiana and Gloucester
were closer to your flag ship than to the
| Brooklyn Wehave, then, the case of a
fleet in regular formation, with the COM
mander-n chief within signal distance,
and closer to large number of ships
| than is the second in command. 1t is
true the commarder-in-chief could not
have reached the most distant vessel by
signals, except by causing them to be
repeated by intermediate vessels. en-
tirely the usual course. but 1t is equally
have reached the remote vessels of the
fleet (namely the Indiana and Glouces-
teri without likewsle repeating the sig
nails. In this state of affairs, regulations
of the navy and customs of the sea place
absolute command and full Responsible
ity in the senior officer.
THE Brooklyn's maneuver during the
action destroys any claim Commodore
Schley might have had to the command.
The facts as to the loop are found by
the court. The finding and opinion show
that to avoid danger to his own ship he
maneuvered without warning to the rest
of the squadron and in disregard of the
fleet formation.
"The president of United States and
navy department had decided that
Sampson was in command at the battle
and Schley second in command. This
fact was before the court: for the sec
retary's letter to the senate dated Feb.
6th. 1S99) states that the Spanish
squadron was destroyed by our fleet
under his (Sampson's) command, and
advancement of Schley was proposed
in recognition of his services as next
in rank at the victory of Santiago"
The question as to who commanded at
Santiago was not referred to the court
for consideration. Evidence bearing
on the point was excluded.
III Schley was in command, Samp-
son was not. and If the question as to
which was in command was to be con-
sidered by the court, surely Admiral
Sampson became an interested party
and under the precept was entitled
to hearing, which was repeatedly
refused him.
The language of the precept ex-
cludes the question as to who COM
manded at that battle. 1t directs the
court to inquire into the conduct of
Admiral Schley, not into his status 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. The ju-
dicial officers of the court maintained
that this matter was outside the scope
OF the inquiry. They expressed a will
ingness to go into it IL their view
should be overruled, but they were, in |
every instance, sustained by the court"
(Here follows extracts and rulings OF |
the judge advocate on the subject)
The court uniformly rejected the evil
ueIlce as 10 VINO cOmmande0. On all Z
pages herein cited from record the court
rejected such evidence, and no where
was it admitted against objection. The I
court more than once specifically ruled
that this question was not before it. All |
questions on this subject We're
either rejected by the court or with
drawn by the applicant, who finally ac-
quiesced in the decisions of the court, I
and gave up his efforts in this behalf t
saying: L bow respectfully to the de-
cision of the court and / know exactly (
what it means Instances of Withdraw !
al of such questions and their rejection
by the court will be found In the record
The minority opinion expressed by Dew
ey in this matter is at variance with all /
rulings of the court in this regard and 1
directly contradicts the letters wherein /
Dewey, for the court, defines SIMPSONS
status The navy department, in its
precept. had justly provided that any
person interested might be given an
to appear before the court !
In person or by counsel. protecting his
right AS counsel for applicant ignored
at the time the courts rulings and
spread upon the record arguments re-
iecting upon Sampson we, as his coun-
sel, three separate times appealed to the