Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1901-12-20
80 Broad street, New York,

THE OBJbClJON.
30 Broad street, New York,
Dec. 49, 1901
Sir; AS counsel for Roar Admiral
Sampson, we have the honor to request
that the department, for the reasons
below stated, strike out or specifically
disapproye that portion Of Admiral
Dowey's opinion filed IN connection with
the proceedings OF the Schley court of
inquiry In which he states his View to
be that Commodore Schley was In alb
solute command at the naval battle OF
Santiago
l-Commodore Schley was not in
command at that battle
2,--The President OF the United states
and the navy department had decided
that Admiral Sampson was In commanG
at that battle ana Commodore Schloy
second In command.
3-The question as TO who commanded
at Santiago was not referred TO the
court for consideration, and evidence
bearing on the point was excluded
sCHLEY NOT IN COMMAND.
1~-Commodore schley was not in com
mand at that battle.
(a)--The disposition Of the forces at
the beginning of the battle according 10
Commodore Schley's own statement,
places Admiral Sampson IN command
The Brooklyn and the Vixen were the
Westernmost ships Of the fleet the
Indiana and Gloucester were the east
ernmost, The New York was nearer
both Of the latter than the Brooklyn
and notably at the time when the IN
diana was heavily engaged az the be-
ginning of the action, and when the
Gloucester was engaged with the FurOr
and Pluton Commodore schley says
THE Indiana and the Gloucester
We're closer TO your flagship than TO-
the Brooklyn. We have then. the
case Of feet In a regular formation
with the c1mmander-ln~ehlef within
signal distance and closer TO O large
number OF the ships than is the second
In command. II Is true that the com.
mander-ln-chief could not have reached
The most distant vessel by signals eX-
cept by causing them 10 be repeated by
an intermedltae yesse-an entirely
usual course bul II Is equally true that
the second In command could not have
namely, the Indiana and the Glouces-
teri, without likewise repeating sig
nails.
In this state Of affairs, the regula-
lions OF the navy and the customs or
the sea place the absolute command
and the full responsibility In the senior
officer
% The Brooklyn's monoeuyre dur
Ing the action destroys any claim that
Commodore Schley might have he'd to
command The facts as to the loop are
found by the court The finding and
opinion show that 10 avoid danger to
his own ship he manoeuvred without
warning the rest of the squadron, and
in disregard Of the fleet formation
PRESIDENTS DECISION.
1.-The President OF the United
States and the navy department had
decided that Admiral Sampson was In
command at that battle and Commo-
dore Schley second IN command
This fact was before the court; for
the secretarys letter to the Senate
dated Feb. 6, 1890, states that the
Spanish squadron was destroyed "by
our fleet under his (Ss mpsonO COM
mand,' and the advano ement OF Cone
modore Schley was proposed In recogni-
ton OF his service as next IN rank nc
the victory of Santiago.
3.-The question as 20 who commanded
At Santiago was not referred to the
court for consideration. Evidence bear
ing on the point was excluded
(a)-If Commodore Shley was In
Admiral Sampson was not,
md IL the question as bo which was In
was to be considered by The
'ourt, surely Admiral Sampson became
IN interested party and under the pre-
'ept was entitled TO the hearing which
vas repeatedly refused him
(b)-The language Of the precept ex-
'ludcs the question az 10 VINO COM
handed at that battle It directs the
'ourt to inquire into the conduct Of
Admiral Schley--not into his status or
n TO whether or not he was In COM
nand and 10 report It's conclusions up
N his conduct In connection with the
vents OF the Santiago campaign.
(c)-Thc judicial officers Of the court
this matter was outside the
cope OF inquiry They Expressed will
ngness TO go into II II the In view should
,e oyerruled, but were In every instance
ustained by the court.
REPORT CITED.
Thus at page 49, the assistant 10 the
udge advocate said: "One further word
IS to a suggestion Just made as TO the
to show that Admiral Samp-
on was not In this battle. wish to
ay that we do not understand that the
question whether Admiral Sampson was
n was not IN the battle Of Santiago Is
'efore the court If II Is We SHAH be
Apply 90 Investigate H.. Un-
II the case takes that attitude II is
improper to spread upon the records
rguments and questions which pro-
eed upon the theory that he Is In the
ase"
Counsel for the applicant withdrew
he question.
At page $40 OF the record, the same
natter being under discussion, Mr.
lama said
III II Is the desire OF the court to 30
nto these things, Il would. OF course,
e proper, but Il would not be neces-
airy
We are thoroughly prepared 70 go ins
o any discussion OF them provided the
curt desires so to enlarge and extend
he scope of this inquiry Counsel for
he applicant again failed 10 press the
oint and the court made no objection
D Mr.. Hanna's View.
At pages 1853 and 1880 there were sim
ar rulings by the Judge advocate. In
he case Of all those declarations there |
'as acquiescence on the part OF the
curt.
td) The court uniformly rejected
whence as to who commanded on GIL