The Washington times., 1901-12-21

his squadron. and 1t would accordingly be
idle to remit these matters to the same
body for recon nsideration on the same evi-
dence.
No Good End in Rcmittir- Case.
In conclusion. VIC arc satisfied that TO
good purpose would bc served by remit
ting the proceedings or any OF the fca-
lures OF ihis enquiry to the court a
more patient. exhaustive, s1d painstakieg
hearing vas never given; greater consld-
GRAFTON was never extended 10 any officer
fcfore military court OF enquiry. No
exp use was spared; no convenience or
facility denied 10 courtesy refused. The
applicant has had his day in court, and
the judgment IS against him. II Is ac-
co-dingly recommended that the proceed
igss be hot returned, but that the mat
ter be concluded By the department APP
proval OF the unanimous findings OF the
court"
Admiral Snpipson's Protest.
IN the protest aled by the attorneys for
Admiral Sampson yesterday. It Is con
tended that Admiral Dewey's report
should 5e either stricken out or ofIlcislly
disapproyed. s. the latter went beyond The
scope Of the prcccpt and shoul1 not have
touched upon the question OF who was n
command OF the United States naval
forces participating in the fight OF July
3. 1888.
Admiral Sampson waa in complete com
n.and. statns the protest. ard was FULLY
responsible for anything that might have
occurred lie was az close 10 n majority
oil the vessels OF the aect. Il IS claimed. as
was Admiral Schley. and neither could
have siEnalcd the Indiana or the Glouccs-
ter without the aid OF an intermediate
vessel.
Nat Permitted TO Re Heard.
The protest holds that in making the
loop ADMIRAL schlcy showed that he was
not in command. as he executed the move
ment to save his own vessel from injury
and without warning OF regard for the
other vessels OF the feet.
Admiral Sampson side. states the pro-
test. was not permitted to be aired by the
court and the judges regularly rejected
all evidence as 10 who was in command OF
the leei TIE judges claimed thai all per
.ons Interested" in the matter might APP
pear ana give evidence. Admiral samp-
soa. IL is claimed was more Interested ~
tho case than anyone else except Schley.
yci Sampson was not permitted to 80 on
the stand and testify. Three requests OF
this nature were refused.
DIGESTION oI Who Was in Command.
The protest cor. aims the following with
reference 10 the question as TO Who was
IN command:
"Commcdore Schlcy vas not IN COM
u.and al that hattie. The President G.
The United states and the Navy Depart
mcnt had decided that ADMIRAL Sampson
was "a command q that battle and Com
mcdore Schicy second in command.
| The question as TO who commanded ut
| Santiago was no referred TO the court
| for ~.onsidera, on and evidence bearing on
| jhe point was excluded.
Commodore Schley vas not in con-
nand al that battle
The disposition Of the forces al the
! beginning OF the battle according TO Com
wodure Schley's oEn statement places al
/ riiral Sampson In command.
Immediately after receiving Admiral
SIMPSONS protest Secretary Long went
TO the White House where he had long
! conference with the President and laid
| before the latter the Schlcy bill Of ex-
| crptious and the protest
SehIcy Maintains silence.
Last night Rear Admiral schley refused
| to discuss the closing of the case anC
maintained the silence which has marked
his conduct since the Court Of Enquiry
| vas convened. He may issue some state
ment through his attorneys. but viii no
! be interviewed or quoted directly
Secretary Root IS determined TO pre-
Stops the Cough
! aud Works of the Cold