The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1901-12-21

evidence as to who commanded. on
all the pages herein cited from the rec
| ord, the court rejected such evidence.
and nowhere was ii admitted against
objection.
"(e) The court more than once spe-
officially ruled that this question was
not before it. For example, at page
1,5S6, where the question was as to
the position of the commanderin in-chief
and of the New York, and as to the
part they took in the battle, Admiral
Dewey said: 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:
We have. We have kept the New
York out of it
Court Ruled Out SchIeN.
90 The court went so far as to
rule at page 1921 that Admiral Schley
was not in command during the bait
tie. The matter then before the court
related to the periods during which
Admiral Schley had been in absolute
command, and the judge advocate said
MI Rayner, you are combining your
self to July 3, are you?' Mr.. Rayner,
in reply, acquiesced in this view, ana
the court ruled that all questions
shall be confined to between
the 18th of May and the first of June,
relating to the organization, manage
ment and control of that squadron
when he was actually commanderin-
chief. Matters referring to his alleged
command on July were excluded,
'tg1 All proposed questions on this
subject Were either rejected by the
court or Withdrawn by the applicant,
who finally acquiesced in the decisions
of the court and gave up his efforts
in this behalf, saying: / bow respect
fully to the decision of the court and
| know exactly what it means
'(h). The minority opinion expressed
by Admiral Dewey i'm this matter is at
variance with all the rulings of the
court in this regard and directly con
tradicts the letters wherein Admiral
Dewey, for the court. defines Admiral
Simpsons status. The Navy Depart
ment In its precept had justly provided
that any person interested might be
given an opportunity of appearing be-
fore the court in person or by counsel
and protesting his rights. AS counsel
for the applicant ignored at times the
courts rulings and spread upon the
record arguments rejecting upon Ad-
miral Sampson, we, as his counsel,
three separate times appealed to the
court asking for protection or for per-
mission to appear and defend
Admiral SIMPSONS right. Each
time our request was denied
and we were assured Admiral Sampson
was not involved and finally Admiral
Dewey, acknowledging the receipt of
one of our letters in which we had
appealed to him on the ground of this
very question, as to who commanded
at Santiago, said; i have to state that
while the precept convening this court
gives II authority to permit any per-
son whom 1t may regard as concerned
IN the investigation to be present. .
the court considers that Admiral Samp-
son is not an interested party: =
And you are further informed that II
circumstances arise which in the opin-
ion OF the court render IL necessary for
Admiral Sampson to be represented,
1 due notice viii be sent him Upon
that promise Admiral Sampson relied
| rne notice came only in the form OF a
| minority opinion by Admiral Dewey,
| discussing matters beyond the scope
OF the precept and nowhere included
in the facts found by the court"