The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1901-12-20
ADM. SAMPSON
DOTH OBJECT
Protests Against Dewey's
Minority Finding.
WHO WASIN COMMAND?
Argument That Schley Enjoyed Not
This Honor.
HE, SAMPSON, WAS THE TRUE "IT"
Points Out That This Question Was
Not Before the Court
of Inquiry.


of Inquiry.
Washington, Dec. 20.-The objection of
Admiral w. t. Sampson to that portion of
Admiral Deweys report of the Schley
court Of inquiry in which he says Ad-
miral Schley was in command at the bat
tie off Santiago and entitled to the credit
of the victory was filed with Secretary
Long to-day. The document was brought
to the navy department by E. S. Theall
of counsel for Admiral Sampson and hand
ed to the secretary 1t is as follows:
New York, Dec. 10, 1901-Sir: AS counsel for
Rear Admiral Sampson, we have the honor to
request that the department, for the reasons
below stated, strike out or specifically disap-
prove that portion of Admiral Dewey's opin-
ion filed in connection with the proceeding of
the Schley court of inquiry in which he states
his views to be that Commodore SchIey was
in absolute command at the naval battle Of
Santiago.
First-Commodors schley was not In com
mand at that battle.
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 second in COM
mand.
Third-The question as to who commanded
at Santiago was not referred to the court for
consideration and EVIDENCE bearing upon the
point was excluded
First-Commodore Schley was not in COM
mand at that battle. (al The disposition Of
forces at the beginning Of the battle, accord
ing to Commodore Schieys own statement
places Admiral Sampson in command
The Brooklyn and the Vixen were the west
ernmost ships Of the fleet: the Indiana and
Gloucester were the easternmost The New
York was nearer both Of the latter than was
the Brookolyn, and notably at the time when
the Indiana was heavily engaged at the be-
ginning of the action and when the Glouces-
ter was engaged with the Furor and PIuton
Commodore Schley says the Indiana and the
Gloucester closer to the fagship''
than to the Brooklyn.
Claims Sampson Was in Command.
We have, then, the case Of feet In a reg
ular formation with the commander in-chief
within signal distance and closer to a large
number of the ships than is the second in
command. It is true that The commander in
chief could not have rea1i sS1s she most distant
vessel by signals, except BY causing them to
be repeated by an intermediate vesseI-an en-
tirely usual course-Dut it is equally true that
the second in command could not have
reached the remote vessels of the fleet (name-
ly, the Indiana and the Gloucester) without
likewise repeating signals. In this state of
affairs the regulations of the navy and the
customs of the sea place the absolute com
mand and the full responsibility in the senior
officer.
(b) The BrookIyn's maneuver during the
action destroys any claim that 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 with
out warning to the rest of the squadron and
in 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 second in COM
mand.
This fact was before the court; for the
secretary's letter to the senate dated Feb. g.
1899 states that the Spanish squadron was
destroyed 'by our fleet under his (Sampson sj
command; and the advancement of Commo-
dore Schley was proposed in recognition of
his services as next in rank at the victory
of Santiago"
Not Before the Court.
Third-The question as to who commanded
at Santiago was not referred to the court
for consideration. Evidence bearing on the
point was excluded.
(a) If Commodore Schley was in command,
Admiral Sampson was not, and if the ques-
tion as to which in command was to be
considered by the court, surely Admiral
Sampson became an interested party and un-
der the precept was entitled to the hearing
which was repeatedly refused him.
(b) The language Of the precept excludes
the question as to who commanded at that
battle 1t directs the court to inquire into
the conduct of Admiral Schley-not into his
status or 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"
Cc) The judicial officers of the court main
tanned that this matter was outside the scope
Of the inquiry They expressed willingness to
go into it if their view should be overruled
but were in every instance sustained by the
court Thus at page 157 the assistant to the
judge advocate said:
lone further word as to a suggestion just
made as to the intention to show that Admiral
Sampson was not in this battle. I wish to
say that we do not understand that the ques-
ton whether Admiral Sampson was or was
not in the battle of Santiago is before the
court If it is we shall be happy to investi-
fgate it. Until the case takes that
attitude it is improper to spread upon the
record arguments and questions which pro-
ceed upon the theory that he is in the case y
Counsel for the applicant withdrew the
question.
At page 400 of the record the same matter
being under discussion, Mr. Hanna said 'If
it is the desire of the court to go into these
things it would, of course, be proper that we
should also go into them. 1t would not only
be proper but it would be necessary = .
We are thoroughly prepared to go into any
discussion of them, provided the court desires
to so enlarge and extend the scope Of this
inquiry
Court Acquiesced.
Counsel for the applicant again failed to
press the point and the court made no OBJ
lection to Mr.. Hanna's view At pages 153
and 1880 there were similar rulings by the
Judge advocate. In the case of all those
declarations there was acquiescence on the
part of the court.
(d) The court uniformly rejected evidence
as to who commanded. In all the pages here
in cited from the record the court rejected
such evidence and nowhere was it admitted
against objection.
(e) The court more than once specifically
ruled that this question was not before it,
For example: At page 1856, where the ques-
ton was as to the position of the commander
in-chief and of the New York and as to the
part they took in the battle Admiral Dewey
said: 1--WE do not want that. We have ruled
that out. The judge advocate then asked
if the court had so ruled and Admiral Dewey
replied: I'VE have. We have kept the New
York out of it." See also page 4S1
() The court went SO far to rule at page