The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1901-10-04
sCuLEY-sAMPsoN.


promises To- last long time. As it
proceeds the bittorncsses and jealousics
that have existed in service which
ought To be above them, are more and
more laid bare.
To Schley the outcome Is supreme
matter TO Sampson it is no less so
though in a less lurid way. Schlcy has
this disadvantage that he is directly
before the court, practically i'm the posi-
ton Of a defendant but obliged to
prove his position afirmatively. That
is he has not the benefit of a presump-
tion i'm his favor. Sampson is not no
minally before the court, but as Schley's
counsel said he cannot be kept con-
structively out of it," Nominally it is
not contest between Schley and
Sampson, but the proceedings of the
court show more and more already
that it is.
Perhaps no clearer insight into the
issues before the court can be given
than in the words of Mr.. Raynor, now
chief counsel for Admiral Schley in ar
guing for the a.missibility of questions
as to the position Of the New York,
SIMPSONS flag ship on the day of the
battle. He said;
I'VE have the absolute right to show
the situation of the New York on the
day of the battle, and we have the
right to show the connection of Ad-
miral Sampson with the battle; we
have a right, for instance, to show that
Commodore Schley at Santiago main
tanned the same sort of blockade that
Admiral Sampson maintained when he
got there on the LIST of June. So far as
distances aye concerned, L think we
have the right to show, because one Of
the specifications Of this precept states,
whether or not a close or adequate
blockade of said harbor to prevent the
escape of the enemy's vessels there
from was established.
I'VE do not propose to bring the name
of Admiral Sampson into this contrO-
Versy any more than is necessary. This
is not a personal controversy. We are
not here for the purpose of engaging in
any personal controversy between Ad-
miral Sampson or Commodore Schley
or the adherents Of either; we are not
here for the purpose of at present, with
out knowing what this case will de-
velOp, criticising the actions of Admiral
Sampson, but it is absolutely necessary
for this court in order to properly in
Vestigate this case under the specifica-
lions of this precept, to let us prove
what Admiral Sampson did not that
a; ,,;t; 1;f.
what he did, or censure what he did.
We are not here now for the purpose of
condemning the fact if it proves to be
a fact, of the New YOrk's leaving on
the morning of the battle, We are not
here to criticse the blockade that Ad-
miral Sampson had at Santiago, but we
are here to establish this, or I'M
der the specifications of your precept
memorandums, to find out whether the
blockade at Santiago was a close or
adequate blockade. Now, if we can
prove that it was, so far as distances
We're concerned. the same blockade
that the commander in chief maintain
ed there, then we can justify the course
of Admiral Schley, who was comman-
der in chief before SIMPSONS arrival.
In other words, would Admiral
Schley be censurable for maintaining
the same character of blockade that /
Sampson maintained? Would Admiral
Schley be censurable for maintaining
on the 2Sth, 29th, 3Oth and 31st of May
the same character of blockade, so far
as distances are concerned, that Ad-
miral Sampson maintained from the .
day he got there on the LIST of June un-
til the day of the battle?
There is one other point, and this
is all done for the purpose of really not
delaying but properly getting at the /
matter We propose to prove that on /
the LIST day of June the Colon was in
precisely the same position inside the
harbor that she was on the Slst day of =
May, when Admiral Schley made the {
reconnaissance with the Massachusetts !
show that when Admiral Sampson came {
up with the ships his ships saw the {
Colon in the same position and instead
of attacking it steamed by and permit
ted her to go further inside the harbor
Now, would not we be justified in not {
engaging in battle with the Colon and
the shore batteries at Santiago if Ad-
miral Sampson took the same cOurse?"
1--WE propose to prove that when Ad-
miral Schley withdrew from the re-
connoissance AGAINST the Colon and did
not come in contact with the shore
batteries, he did it under general reg
ulation of the Navy which required it
of him, and that Admiral Sampson
passed by-the Colon at $3.50 o'clock on
June l, and saw her lying there, and
never pretended to attack her Do you
mean that we have not any right to
justify our conduct and actions of the
commander in chief? You will find you
can't keep Sampson out of this. You