Evening star., 1901-08-09
Arguing Conversely in the Current
Naval Controversy.
FHE RESPONSIBILITY OFF SANTIAGO
View of One Who is Friendly to
Sampson.
THE CASE OF CAPT. EVANS

| in naval and other circles closely observant
! Of the Schley-Sampson controversy hv the
| interview with Senator Burton of Kansas.
| published in The Star yesterday, in which
| he declared that no matter what the re-
| suit Of the work Of the Schley naval court
| of inquiry may be 80 per cent of the Ameri-
| can people will remain undisturbed in the
conviction claimed to be held that credit
| for the victory is due to Admiral Schley.
That feature IF the interview in which
! Senator Burton declared that had the battle
| Of Santiago resulted in a defeat for the
| American naval forces Admiral Schley
would have been condemned, was particu-
larly subject of discussion, for the reason
| that the followers Of Admiral Sampson
claim the contrary. The friends of Ad
| miral Sampson state that the idea that
| had the American ships been conquered
Sohley would have been blamed is entirely
erroneous. Sampson, they aver, was the
commanding officer and upon the same
ground that credit for the victory should
be given him, an 'lnfavorable verdict would
have been rendered had the outcome been
disastrous.
View of a Friend of Sampson.
A Sampson supporter, who is entirely
conversant with official naval procedure, in
speaking of this phase of the controversy,
said to a Star reporter today:
"As matter of fact it does not necessar-
lily follow that If American defeat had been
sustained either Admiral Schley or Samp-
son would have been blamed Such de-
feat might possibly have occurred through
the sheer physical superiority of the
Spanish squadron, and in that event our
vanquishment could only have been laid
to the door of lesser strength. Any court
| which might have examined into the re-
suit under such circumstances would. Of
| course, have completely exonerated b1th
men from blame. 1t would not then have
been a matter Of superior offcership, but a
question of main strength of forces.
aside from that consideration, however,
If the United States fleet had been van
quished through lact of tact, strategy,
agement, the commanding officer could
have been held responsible. The man who
prepared the American ships for the affray
was Sampson. he gave the immediate
training to the officers and men for the
battle and it was he who superintended
the arrangement Of the ships and provided
for the maneuvers as Soon as the Span
ish vessels should appear at the mouth of
the harbor in their expected effort to es-
cape. When the first Spanish vessel showed
its nose out Of the harbor, followed By it's
sister Ships the commanding officer of
each American craft knew from his orders
given by Sampson exactly how to meet the
situation and each man proceeded at once
to place those orders into execution. It
was all question Of preparation for the
event which had previously been outlined
by Sampson. The orders of the command
ing officer stood promulgated and they only
remained to be obeyed.
again, If this engagement had been lost
to our forces while Admiral Sampson was
away there can be no doubt in the minds
of people who reason with the facts that
Sampson would have been held blamable
for the defeat. Though the department
would probably not have so regarded the
matter great many persons would no
doubt have said: Well, Sampson was
away. He ought to have been on the spot.
If he had been there to command, instead
of being ten miles away, we would have
won. He is to blame It is a hard argu-
ment to answer. Admiral Sampson would
have been in very embarrassing situation
all due to a fortuitous circumstance which
prevented his actual presence at the time
of the battle.
"Can it be gainsaid that Admiral Samp-
son would have been generally blamed un-
der the circumstances. I think not
Everything, therefore, points to the empti-
ness Of the contention that had the battle
been lost Admiral Schley would have been
held responsible. He would in my opinion
nave emerged from the catastrophe with
out the bulk Of responsibility resting upon
his shoulders
The Case of Capt. Evans.
In regard to the argument that Admiral
Schley was not in command at the time
or the Santiago engagement, considerable
attention has been attracted to a passage
in the book recently published by Rear Ad-
miral Evans, captain Of the Iowa during
the Cuban campaign, entitled "A Sailors
Log. The section referred to bears upon
the general subject of command by a SUBJ
ordinate officer in the absence Of the actual
commander of a fleet or squadron, and the
situation described by Admiral Evans bears
close analogy to that existing at the time
of Admiral SIMPSONS absence from the
santiago ongdRement. The 90 10
with the blockade off Havana harbor, and
Is contained in chapter 35, page 412 Of the
Sailors Log" as follows:
shortly after we sighted the land a yes-
sci was seen well inshore, attempting to
escape to the eastward, and the New York
left her place in the column and gave
chase, chase at the same time flying the signal
Disregard movements of the comma ander-
in-chief. I, as next in rank to Sampson.
hoisted the guide fiag and, as senior officer
present, held the fleet to it's course direct
the harbOr Of Havana. The New York ran
out of sight, and 1 saw nothing more Of
her until about o'clock the next morn
ing"
The partisans of Admiral Schley point to
this section of Admiral Evans own writing
as evidence that when the commander-in-
chief Of the fleet hoisted the signal men
toned the command devolved absOlut aly
upon the next ranking officer. which in this
case was Admiral, then Captain, Evans
The fact that the same signal was hoisted
ny AOLuiTdl sampson Wnen the New York
separated from the other vessels of the
fleet just prior to the battle off Santiago is.
therefore, regarded by the Schley follow
ers as comforting similar authority upon
Admiral Schley at that time, placing him In
complete command and throwing upon him
all burden Of responsibility for the actions
Of the American ships. Admiral Evans. II
is claimed, admits In this writing that he
directed the movements Of the fleet upon
receipt Of the signal quoted: therefore. it
Is asked, why should not Schley have been
clothed with the same authority and con-
sidered as In actual command Of the fleet
at the time of the battle?
Position Of Partfsans Reversed.
The suggestion is made In discussion OF
the interview with Senator Burton that il
Cervera and his feet had escaped from
the American squadron the positions or
the Sampson and Schley advocates would
have been exactly reversed from those
which they now occupy. In other words,
the Schley men would contend that Samp-
SON was In practical command, and the
Sampson men would throw the burden of
responsibility on Schley. The Iatter's ad-
vocates would demonstrate against hold-
ing him responsible for the disaster. "He