New-York tribune., 1901-09-13
REAR-ADAIIRAL SAMPSON.

business In the navy OF that could not
main in the English navy under such circum-
stances. Il made any such remark that
IN regard to Admiral sehey If anything "a Of r that hat
snswer to you before II he (Nich3s1 hdd STATED
orders or done something that ne ought not TO
nave dRe ad m Should e0 be broar SH beope
martial. That Is simply one of the regulations of
that ff eST are sGy of such and Gu suoR @ things
Is natura! for you who know the regnlati2nS and ID
guilty those things ne should be ccurt-martialed
Mr. @ f ssE sy so xpTes5ed Surprise that
he should feel this way toward schey and he said:
| You would not if you were in touch with senti-
Rear-Admirai Howison-Werl how in the world
could stranger TO me coming TO my house on his
own business. get mo 10 speak IN such wd; as
| or unless he msinterpreted my answers 20 him?
this court l do not want TO sit on it. It :. not
! agreeable duty for me. have no desire Wna:eysr
myself or for any Of nv private discussions With
amy 6nsodT 0os es sk9d ahn these pTv dis
Ietter a@ perfectly willing to get out as say my
| to relieve you?
WILL NOT ASK TO BE RELIEVED.
| Rear-Admiral Howison-I cannot ask the court
| 10 relieve me- because they have got 10 do that
| upon the merits of the case
| Mr.. Raynor-Now. you say just now that you
4
the credit of the battle Of Santiago was due to the
CON nander- -in-chief and IL Sampson was the COM
mander-in-chief If that comes under any Hs,,0I OF
made up your mind on a very important question
! Rear-Admiral Howison-No sir .,..,o,,
| Mr. Raynor-If you have come to the conclusion
that sampson was the commander rin.chief and that that
&Sou & 't n aIT com u befor yom now as Judge Of this
'It,i,, Rear. Admiral IIowison-No., sir
| Rear-Admiral Howison-- Because do not care
h4 qTs Il 8 GF in 9eGn more hn
Naval officers taught from youth UP t.tt t 1nel
ppe pminpd bonestIy beevs and Judge from the testi-
| monV that is given before him. without regard 10
what he may have taken from newspapsF reRTr,s 2n
or from other reports that have gone before; Inr @
is what l believe. and is what say In my per-
Mr.. Raynor-But If you have made up yoV.E mind lind
would you not necessarily thr9W upon Us eepu oe pe
onS maXg Won GoG thSt attic and was the commander
, nnhie} ON moi that day would YOU throw, upon
our side the burden OF proving TO your satlsIctpn
t6n XGTd TehS snd that @ he did thar
battle? DO you not put on US the burden oi proving
Rear-Admiral HowisonIf that question came l', up up
Mr.. Raynor-would we not have to produce suf-
dcient evidence satisfy YOU that You were wrong
in the opinions that you formed; .,,,,, chat ubera
a man is known to be the cOmmander-in r-in-chief. II
he known be the conmandgr-n ,t 3i fdr n
squadron. there must be something orousn' io'
ward to show that he is not, ,, - hiring for
Mr. RaVuOr-Thpu
v,ard MOOT which would satisfy you that he was
not the commander chief on that DAY day. % ro,,s
who and who not the Of
The Judge Advocate-May ! ask what H deaSEre tios u
the precept is referred to with regard 10 winning
M Mr., Raynor~It is involved in three Of the spec-
fcations | think if YOU viii look at these speci.
cations The first specification directs tnG SoIl th
IN innutrc into This conduct in connection win Ihe
U.nts U ~ the santiago campaign" Now II the con-
duct Of Admiral schoy at tme Win tb Santiago
campaign l would like to know what is
sCuI.Ey.s CONDUCT THE ONLY QUESTION
Tho Iudre- Advccnte-The conduct Of Admiral
schley is in question. not only az the o"''ie VI
Santiaso but i'm the whole Santiago campaign
rut I may ns we'll say here. Mr.. President ana
members of the court that the question OF Au-
miral Sampson's conduct upon those Occasions l.
not before this court in any way ms IL "o'
comma rative question as to whetheI soiSo rbIny II
op did not do better than Commodore SchlSy Sb,
question ng 70 the santagG campaign and
NJ the battle OF Santiago Ana sae setetS ~ w
is better man than Commodore SSnfSSi tSi OF mt
good man & Is n9f Is IN no o ihs point may it please
the court that addressing we ihtenI ~ ~ bPattIf
that Oago af s anG it Secomes quessi9n OF
the comm, sampson was not there the
admirai schley was the mn his
II }ufSe dSet ADMIRAL Sampson as commandetr
chief won that battle II becomes @ 70 VIII what Vas the
cohdast SehlsYu su Sgrps Se one tae OF the aues
fons aToved coparsOn hS Se'wss1 ws
oanticalIy legally officially ana techhltaliy hnn
pdnerdcr al the battle of Santias3 'osi. ..
,t ie due IT, as the admiral has sad erse't \ =
Az, n the officer who was in charge ~ rorsa @
~ an onnion expressed on that point o a. a. :.
We want 70 know IT. and we want TO hii1 M h,r5an ~ al
WV an oninon as throw upon us the p9ruen tIio "
nroof Now l will ask YOU AdiniIai Adai ritS apy.
p,har vo, have not In conversation WIFI any
hodvNwitb Mr. Frost Mr. spon or MI, isSlorr nnr
or ANYBODY else-at times expressed youiset. orn op
tha nTonosition that Admiral sampson was IA eJsa h,
mand at Santiago. and deserves the creu' 4'' '''N
! victory? wei, that ts the genera
oacta; understanding-tha he was the S 81
tnchisf. and the commander chief Is oraereo .,
the President OF the United States ana M II Is r se
araIl, understood that he Ana II ne Wds tne.
and aid his duty then he would be the COMMANDER
| a. chiaf and should have the credit
Raynor-Your view, then. Is that ne WOE
/ ~ iciaIIv the commander -n-chietE ,
Rear Admiral Howison-Of the North A'ian'ie
SS Wr Raynor-Of the North Atlantic squadron; ano
ha, offIciaIly the commander ne deserved
tha credit of that victory?
! Resr Admiral Howison-It depends upon what ne
! did and what he did not do. whether the Sreoi'
part of IL comes IN - , -, ,h,s rort
wtth the result Admiral 9owison SAID any
| conrlusion would depend official reports, anu
| then in answer further questions; ne salo tua'
he had discussed the controversy In many con.
versations in the last three years on the basis OF
Some he