The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1901-12-27
SAMPSON HAS Gail
He Claims That He Was In Command
at the Santiago Fight.

l J.
The objection Of W.1'.. Sampson Ia
that part 81 Admiral Dewey'e report cf
the Sohley court Of inquiry in which
he Says that Sohley VAS In command 81
tho hattlo Of Santiago and ia entitled to
the credit for the eyiotory, was 4 'ed.wish
Secretary Long Friday. Tho ,duoumen nj
follows: ii & ,3i 55 3I'
"As counsel for Rear Admiral Samp.
son, we hsve the honor to rt quest that
tho department. strike out, or spcoifoal-
ly dienpprove, Of that portion Of Ad.
| miral noweys opinion filed ia oonnoo.
tion With tho proooodingd Of tho Sohloy
court Of inquiry in which be Dtatcs
that his yiow would be that Uommol
dore Schley WIS in absolute oommsnd
ct the naval battle Of Ssn.isgo. Com.
modore Schley was not in command at
that battle, 81 b B3E SIS
Tho President Of the United States
md tho Navy Dopsstmons hsd d ,cided
that Admiral sampson Wss ia command oa
of the battle and Sohlcy wss sooona in
command. The quoetion 90 to who
commanded st Santiago was not ro-
Yetrod to the couys for consideration.
and tho oyidono, boariDg Oh tho point
was excluded. S1hloy ws.e not in ooYo.
mand at Tho battle. 1ho d;sposi, ia of
hho forcaa et tho be ginning OF tRe bat /.
tlo, acpordtng to Soh'oySs oWn state
ment, places Sampson in o!nmmeud.
'"Tho Brooklyn and tho Vlxen wero
the, wosterDmosa ships Of the fl sot. The
Indiana eud Glouoeatar wore Eastern
most. The Now York was noaeer both
than Was tho latter and tie Brookjyn.
and notably Ct tho time when the IN
diana was heavily engaged, ct the bo
ginning Of tho action, ard when Tic
0louooster vas opgagsd with the Furor
and Pluson."
"Sehley rsys: 'The Indiana and
Gloucester wcro oloser TO your ships
thsn to tho Brooklyn We hsys, shen.
tho oaeo Of q fl ,ot IN regular formation.
wish q commAnderin chief within sig
nal dis,anco and closer to Is Largo nun.
ber Of chips than his b.cona III com.
mand.
''Is is true that the commander in
chief could not hayo roaohod tbs most
distant veHools by nignsls exo.pt by
oau0ing them to bo reported by an in.
tormodia,e veasel, au ontitoiy utual
oourae, but it is equally true Chm. ths
second in command could not haya.
roaohod the remote veesols Of tho feot
(samoly, tho lndiana aud tho Giouoes-
ter) without KkeWise rcptat,ng tic
signals, In this etatc OF AFFAIR." the
trnditione of the navy and oustoms8 OF
tho soa plaoo absolute oorlmand and
full responsibility in tue topior oliue I
"Tno Brooklyn's maneuvers duriGg
the action destroyed any claim that
Sohloy might hayo had to command.
Tho finding and Q inion show that. to
avoid danger 10 HI, own 1nip, hs ma
ponvored without warning 10 tho rsst
Of the squadron and in disregard cf tho
asst formation. v
'"Tio question ss 20 who oosamsndo I'd
at Santiago Haa hot 1eiolred To tlG
court for consideration. IL ridenes boar.
Ing upon that poiat was excluded, II
Schloy Wss In command, Admiral Ss,np..
son was not, md il Che Question Ws,, "a
bo conEider.d by tho scuvt, auy elyl
Samp pson Vas ensited to a hearing,
which wac ropsasedly refueod him. 4
.nThe lapguego of&tha precept ex.
oluaes tho question as 10 Who 0op1g.
r1snded asthe. batt|e. IL DIRECTS tho
court to Inquire into hn conduct OF
Adnirel Bohlsy, not into hiis ststup 81.
as to whother ho was in command,
and 10 reporyiis conclusion upon ilis con.
duct In connection with tho Santiago
campaign" \