The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-12-21
SIMPSONS OBJECTION.
Text of the Submitted by
His Counsel to Secretary Long.

court OF inquiry, in which he says Admiral
Schley was in at the battle on
of Santiago, and entitled TO the credit OF
the victory. was filed with Secretary Long
to-day. The document was brought TO the
Navy Department by Z. S. Theall, Of coun-
sci Tor Admiral Sampson, and handed 70
the secretary. Il is dated 80 Broad street,
New York. Dec. 19," and follows in full:
'Sir-As counsel for Rear Admiral
we have the honor 10 request that
the department, for the reasons DeloW
stated, strike out or specifically dlsap-
prove that portion of Admiral Deweys
opinion. filed in connection with the pro-
ceedings Of the Schley court Of inquiry In
which he states mis- view TO be that Com
modOre Schley was in absolute
at the naval battle Of Santiago.
"Ffrst-CommOdore Schley was not In
at that battle.
"~Second-The President OF the United
States and the Navy Department had de-
cided that Admiral Sampson was in COM
mand at that battle, and Commodore
Schley second in command.
'Third-The question as to who COM
manded at Santiago was not referred 10
the court for consideration, and evidence
bearing on the point was excluded.
Commodore Schley was not in command
''(A)-The disposition of the forces at the
beginning OF the battle. according to Com
modore Schley's own statement, places Ad-
miral Sampson in m The Brooklyn
and the Vixen were the westernmost ships
Of the fleet; the Indiana and Gloucester
were the easternmOst. The New York was
nearer both of the latter than was the
Brooklyn, and notably at the time when
the Indiana was heavily engaged at the
beginning OF the action, and when the
Gloucester was engaged with the Furor
and PlutOn, Commodore Schley says: The
Indiana and Gloucester : : were closer
TO your flagship than the Brooklyn. We
nave then a case OF a fleet in the regular
formation, with the commander-in-ch1ef
within signal distance, and closer TO a
large number of the ships than Is the sec
ond in command. 1t Is true the commander
in-chief could not have reached the most
distant vessels by ignals, except by caus-
ing them TO be repeated by an intermediate
vessel-an entirely usual cOurse-but 1t is
equally true that the second in m
could not have reached the remote vessels
Of the fleet, namely, :he Indiana and
Gloucester, without likewise repeating sig
nails. In this state of affairs, the regula-
lions of the navy and the customs of the
sea place the absolute command and the
full responsibility in the senior officer.
"(B)-The Brooklyn's maneuver during
the action destroyed any claim that Com
mOdOre Schley might have had to the com
mand. The facts as TO the loop are found
by the court. The finding and the opinion
show that to avoid danger TO his own ship
he moved, without warning to the rest of
the squadron, and in disregard to the fleet
formation.
IL
1.-The President of the United States and
the Navy Department had decided that
Admiral Sampson was in at that
battle and Commodore Schley second in
command. This fact was before the court;
for the secretary's letter to the Senate
dated Feb. 6, 1899, states hat the Spanish
squadron was destroyed by our fleet un-
der his CSampsOn's) command, and the adj
vancement of Commodore Schley was pro-
posed in recognition of his services as next
in rank at the victory of Santiago"
III
The question as to who commanded at
Santiago was not referred to the court
for consideration. Evidence bearing on the
point was excluded.
"(A)-If Commodore Schley was in COM
mand, Admiral Sampson was not; and if
the question as to which was in
was to be considered by the court, surely
Admiral Sampson became an interested
party, and, under the precept, was en-
titled to the hearing which was repeatedly
refused him.
"B)-The language OF the precept ex-
cludes the question as to who commanded
at that battle. 1t directs the court to in
quire into the conduct of Admiral Schley-
not into his status, or as to whether or not
he was III command, and to report its con-
illusions upon his conduct in connection
with the events Of the Santiago campaign.
"(C)-The judicial officers Of the court
maintained that this matter was outside
the scope Of the inquiry. They expressed
Willingness to go in it if their view should
NC ONtlA uAtuf a h0ACS III tNGAJ 4lSldlNG,
sustained by the court. Thus at Page 157
the assistant to the judge-advocate said:
one further word as to a suggestion just
made as to the intention to snow that Ad-
miral Sampson was not in this battle. L
wish tC say that we do not understand that
the question whether Admiral Sampson
was or was not in the battle of Santiago is
before the court. If 1T Is we shall be happy
10 investigate il. . : Until the case takes
that attitude it is improper TO spread upon
the record arguments and questions which
prnoaa1 rr,o, The fhanpu thar ha l. - fha
case. Counsel for the applicant withdrew
the question. At Page 400 of the record, the
same matter being under discussion, Mr..
Hanna said: If IL is the desire of the court
to go into these things, it would, of course,
be proper that we should also go into
them. 1t would not only be proper. But IT
would be necessary We are thor
Oughly repaired to so into any discussion
Of them, provided the court desires to so
enlarge and extend the scope of this in
CURRY Counsel for the applicant again
failed to press the point and the court
made no objection to Mr.. Hanna's view. At
Pages 153 and 1850 were similar rulings by
the judge-adVocate. In the case OF all those
declarations there was acquiescence on the
part of the court.
"D)-The court uniformly rejected evil
dence as to who commanded. On all the
pages herein cited from the record the
court rejected such evidence. and Nowhere
was it admitted against objection.
'(E)-The court more than once specif-
cally ruled that this question was not be-
AAA0 H. &AaAIOACs ri Il = Ip-Or MlEI <
the question was as TO the position Of the
cOmmander-in-chief and of the New York
and as to the part they took in the battle.
Admiral Dewey said: We did 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 a kept the New York out of
it See also Page 4S1.
"F)-Ane court went so far as to rule at
Page 1852 that Admiral Schley was not in
command during the battle. The matter
then before the court related TO the peri
DDS during which Admiral Schley had been
In absolute command, and the judge-advo-
cate said: Mr.. Rayner, you are combining
yourself TO July 3, are your Mr.. Rayner.
I'm reply, acquiesced in this view, and the
court ruled that all questions . . " shall
be confined 10 between the 18th OF May and
the LIST OF June, relating 10 the organiza-
ton, management and control of the
squadron. when he was actually COM
mander-in-chief. Matters referring to his
alleged command on July 8 were excluded.
on Page 14$ the court confirmed his de-
cisiOn.
"(G)-All proposed questions on this sub
ject were either rejected by the court. or
withdrawn by the applicant, who finally
acQuiesced in the decisions OF the court
and gave I'D his efforts in this behalf. saw
ing. Il bow respectfully 10 the decision OF
the court. and l know exactly what il
such questions and Of their rejection by the
court Will be found in the record AZ PAGES
73S. l57. asa. 4S5 and 1850.
"CH)-The minofity opinion expressed by
Admiral Dewey. in this matter. is at varf-
ance with all the rulings OF the court in
letters wherein Admira Dewey. for the
court. defines Admiral SIMPSONS status.
The Navy Department. in its praceDt. had
justly provided that any person interested