Daily Kennebec journal., 1901-12-21

| Mich. uccl. lJ--I
beginning of the action and when the
gloucester was engaged with the Fu-
ror and Pluton. commodore Srhl"y
| says:
The indiana and Gloucester We're
| loser to your flagship" than to the
brooklyn. We have. then. the case of
q fleet III n regular formation, with the
! comma nder- in-chief within signal dis
| tance and closer to II larger number of
| >hi-s than is the second in command.
| IL is true hat the ,mmander-in chief
| could not have reached the most dis
,ant vessel by signals. except by caus-
! ing them to be repeated by an inter
| mediate vpssel--an entirely usual
coulse-but il is equally true that the
second in command could MT have
| reached the remote. vessels of the fleet
tp&mely tn, Indiana and Gloucest.
| with mi likewise repeating signals.
! In this state OF affairs, the regula
| ti,ns OF the navy and the customs Of
| the sea place the absolute command
| {: nj the fun responsibility ON the Sonia;
Officer.
C". The Erooklyns maneuVer during
The action destroys any claim that
Commodore Schley might have had tn
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 manoeuvred without Waraiag
10 the rest Of the squadron and i'll dis
regard Of the fleet formation.
This act was before the court. for the
secretarr's letter To the Senate dated
February s. 1890 states that the Span
ish squadron was destroyed by our
lleet under his tSampson's) command"
End the advancement OF Commodore
Schley was PROPOSED in recognition OF
his services at next i'm rank AT the viz
tory of Santiago.
tan. If Commod0r" Schley was in
command Admiral sampson was not
and if the question as to which was in
commend was to be considered ny tue
court surely Admiral Sampson became
an interested party ANA under tho pre-
ccpt was entitled To the hearing which
was repeatedly refused him.
tbl. The language of the precept ~
cludes the question as to who com
manded 1T the battle. 1t directs the
Admiral Schley--not into his status or
as To whether or not he was in com
mand and to report It's conclusions up
on his conduct in connection with the
events Of the Santiago campaign.
tc). The judicial officers of the court
maintained that this matter was out
side the scope of the inquiry. They cy-
pressed Willingness to go into il if thcil
view should be overrule but were in
every instance. sustained by the court.
Thus. at page l57. the assistant to
the judge advocate said: "One further
word as to n suggestion just made rs
TO the intention to show that Admiral
Sampson was not in this battle. | wish
/" say that we do not understand that
the question whether Admiral Samp-
son was or was not in the battle of
Santiago is before the court. If it is
we shall he happy to investigate it.
Until the case takes that attitude il is
improper to spread upon the records
arguments and questions which pro-
ceed upon the theory that he is in the
case
Counsel for the applicant withdrew
he question.
AZ page 1870 of the record. the same
matter being under discussion Mr..
Hanna said 1T is the desire OF the
court to go into these things, it would
Of course be proper that we should az
50 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 courS
desires TO 50 enlarge and extend the}I
scope of this inquiry"
Counsel for the applicant again fail y
cd to press the point and the count
made no objection to Mr. Hannats
view. !
At pages 153 and 1880 there werh
similar rulings by the judge advocats.
In the case Of all those declaration
there was acquiesence on the part Of
the court
Ub. The court uniformly rcicctCdj "V.-
dcncc as to who commanded
| On all the pages herein cited from tn"
record the court rejected such evi,kr rncc
| and nowhere was it admitted arainst} Oh
| j.ction.
| tei. The court more than once spcaih
| caliy said that this case Was not beto:
| For instance. AT page 1885 where III
uies tion was as To the position al, the
commander -in-chict and of the New
| York and as t. the part took in the bat
| tie. Admiral Dewey said: We do nor
| want that. We have ruled that out
The judgc adrocatc then asked il the
court had so ruled and Admiral Dewey
| replied: We have. We have kept tn
NV York ont "f T." See also page Isl.
| ~. The court went 50 tar as t" RI,
IN command during the BATH. TIL" mat
| ter then before the court related TIN
periods during, which Admiral Schiey
| idHe advocate said: MIR. RaNner YOU