The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-12-21
THE PLEA OF SAMPSON
HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE FIND.
 INGs OF DEWEY.
He Says He Should Be Recognized as the Commanding Officer in the Battle of Santiago
 July 3, 1898.

Washington, Dec 20.-The objection of W. T. Sampson to that portion of Ad- miral Dewey's report of the schley Court of Inquiry, in which he says Admiral Schley was in command at the battle off Santiago and entitled to the credit of the victory. was filed with Secretary Long today. The document was brought to the Navy Department by K. s. Thall of counsel for Admiral Sampson, and handed to the Secretary. It is as follows:
 't30 Broad Street.
 "New York, Dec. 19, 1901.
 "Sir-As counsel for Rear Admiral Sampson, we have the honor to request that the department strike out or speci- fically disapprove that portion of Admiral Dewey's opinion filed in relation to the pr oceedings of the Schley Court of In- quiry in which he states his views that Commodore Schley was in ahsolute com- IT and at the naval battle of Santiago.
 ''FIrst--Commodore SchIey was not in command at that battle.
 "Second-The President of the United States and the Navy Department should decide that Admiral Sampson was in command at that battle, and Commodore Schley second in command.
 'Third-And who commanded at Sam tiago was not referred to the court for consideration, and evidence bearing on the point was excluded.
 First, Commodore Schley was not in command at the battle,
 "(a) The disposition of the forces at the beginning of the battle. according to Commodore Sehley's own statement, places Admiral Sampson in command.
 The Brooklyn and the Vixen vera the chi aF ha he Tn diana and Gloucester were eastern-most. The New York was nearer the latter than 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 Fulton. Commodore Schley says the Indiana and the Gloucester were closer to your ships than to the Brook lyn. We have, then, the case of a fleet, in a regular formation, with the comman- der-in-chief within signal distance and closer to a large number of ships than is the second in command. It Is true the commander-in-chief could not have reached the most distant vessels by sig naIs. except by causing them to be re- peated by an intermediate vessel-an un- usual 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 Gloucester) without likewise repeating signals.
 "In this state of affairs, the regula- tons of the navy and the customs of the sea place the absolute command and the full responsibility in the senior of- ficer.
 (b) The Brooklyn's maneuver during the action destroys any claim that Com modore Schley may have had to the command. The facts as to the loop are found by the court. The findings and opinion show that to avoid danger to his own ship he maneuVered without warning to the rest of the squadron and disregard of the fleet formation.
 '.Second-The President of the United States and the Navy Department had decided that Admiral Sampson was in command at that battle. and Commodore Schley not fin command.
 '"This fact was before the court for the Secretarys letter to the Senate dated February 9th. 1S99.) stated that the Sbanish squadron was destroyed by our fleet under his (Sampson's) command, and the advancement of Commodore Schley was proposed in recognition of his services as next in rank for the victory of Santiago.
 '"Third-The question as to who com rnanded at Santiago was not referred to the court TOT coislueiatloi' hearing on the point was excluded.
 "(a1 If Commodore Schley was in com mand Admiral Sampson was not; and if the question was to be considered by the court, sure Admiral Sampson was entitled to the hearing. which was re- peatedly refused him.
 70, The language of the Drecept ex- cIudes the question as to who commanded at the battle. It directs the court to ;no,,ire into the conduct of Admiral schIev. not into his status, or as to whetter he was in command, and to re- mort it's conclusions upon his conduct in connection with the events of the San tiago campaign.
 "9c) The judicial officers of the court maintained that this matter was outside the scope of the injury. They expressed willingness to go into 1t If their views should be overruled. but were sustained h,- the court ["