The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-09-13

Sampson deserved the credit for winning
the battle or Santiago. Il want 10 know,
he said. whether or not you ever said
Maybe 1 did" the admiral replied. re-
nectiVely, and continued: If he was coIi-
mander-in-chief l probably did say SO
not only 10 Mr. Front but 10 others. am
only talking now of the naval orders and
regulations and the customs and COM
mander OF the service"
Being questioned as to his statement con-
corning Mr.. SpOn's testimony the admiral
replied that he not only did not remember
Mr.. Spon's face, but said he had no recol-
Minneapolis, concerning which witness hau
testified. Il did come home on the Mime
apolis," he said, but it is not my custom
TO interfere with peoples talk when they
are talking outside"
Mr.. Raynor-You do not recollect saying
if schley had done certain things he
ought to have been court-martialed:
Rear Admiral HowisOn-No, L don't re-
member making any such remark But IL
some one, for instance, should come 10
me and say that certain officer had done
certain thing, 1 might say that
under 57r the navy Regulations, rti ne
or discipline Of some sort if he had done
certain thing, l would not hesitate to say
that to you at any time, or to anybody
NEVER MADE THE REMARK.
Taking up the testimony of Mr.. Nichols.
Mr.. Raynor called Admiral Howison's at
tention to the fact that in his formal reply
he had not denied the statements of that
witness. The admiral said he had never
said to Mr.. Nichols that Schley had no bust
ness in the navy or that man could not
remain in the English navy under such
circumstances. Il never made any Such
remark as that in regard to Admiral
Schley" he said "If ANYTHING of the kind
w Il
my answer to you before: If he (NlchoIs(
had stated TO me that Admiral Schley had
positively disObeyed orders or done some
thing that he ought not to have done,
that was liable to discipline, l would nave
said he should be brought before court
martial. This is simply one of the regula-
tons OF the service If people come to
you and tell you that officers are guilty OF
such and such things, it is natural for you,
who know the regulations and laws or the
service perfectly, to say: If he is guilty or
those things, he should be cOurt-martialed
for it And still say so as to anybody"
Mr.. Raynor-He says: 81 expressed sur
prise that he should feel this way towards
Schley; and he said: You would not II
you were in touch with the sentiments
among naval officers "
Rear Admiral Howison-Well, how in the
world could a stranger to me, coming
10 my house on his own business get me
to speak in such a way as that unless IL
were in answer TO some questions or unless
he misinterpreted my answers TO him? L
have not the slightest desire to force my
l.
it. 1t is not agreeable duty for me. have
no desire whatever to do it; and l am not
making any excuses for myself or for any
of my private discussions with any one
outside / think that is my own affair; and
nobody else is asked about these private
discussions 1t is only this one objection
able man. 1 am willing TO get out, as
said in my letter.
MIND NOT MADE UP.
Mr. Raynor-Now. you say just now that
you have in converse lions substantially
admitted that the credit of the battle of
Santiago was due to the conmander-in-
chief and If Sampson were the commander
in-chief, If that comes under any of the
specifications of the precept, have you not
| made UP your mind on a very important
question that is TO come before you now?
Rear Admiral Howison-No, sir.
Mr.. RaynOr-If you have come to the
conclusion that Sampson was the comman-
der-in-chief and the credit of that battle
was due to Sampson, have you not made
up your mind on a question that is bound
to come before you now as judge of this
| tribunal.
Rear Admiral Howison-No, sir.
Mr.. RaynOr-Then, why not?
| Rear Admiral HowlSon-Because l don
| care what naval officer has been talking
| in private where IT is meaningless in more
| senses than one. Naval officers are taught
| from youth up that their oath OF office is
| something different from most people $
| oaths and an officer can clear up his mind,
| l honestly believe, and judge from the
| testimony that is given before him, with
| out regard to what he may have taken
| from newspaper reports, or from other re-
ports that have gone before. That is what
| L believe and that is what l say in my
! personal letter.
| Mr. Raynor-But If you have made UP your
| mind, would you not necessarily throw upon
| us the burden of relieving your mind? If
| you, in conversations, have come TO the
| conclusion that Admiral Sampson won that
! battle and was the commander-in-chief
would you not throw upon our side the
burden of proving that you were not right,
| and that he was not the COMMANDMENTS
| chief and that he did not win that battle.
DO you not put on US the burden Of proving
| that fact?
| Rear Admiral Howison-If that question
| came up at all 1t would have to be by
| evidence, to you as we'll as to me.
| Mr.. Raynor-Would we not have to pro-
| duce sufficient evidence to satisfy you that
you were wrong in the opinions that you
| formed?
Rear Admiral Howison-why, 1 think
| that where a man is known to be the COM
mander-in-chief. if he is known to be the
| commander-in-chief of the squadron there
must be something brought forward to
| show that he is not
Mr.. Raynor-Then we would have to bring
! forward proof which would satisfy you
that he was not the commander-in-chief on
| that day?
| Rear Admiral Howison-I am not trying
| to prove who was and who was not the
cOmmander-in-chief.
The judge advocate-May I ask what
| regard TO winning the battle of Santiago?
| Mr.. Raynor-It is involved in three of the
| specifications, I think. If you will look at
| these specifications. The first specification
| directs the court TO inquire into This con-
duct in connection with the events of San
| tiasO campaign" Now if the conduct OF
! Admiral Schley at the battle OF Santiago
| is not an event in connection with the San
| tiago campaign, l would like to know
| what is.
| THE REAL ISSUE.
The Judge Advocate-The conduct OF Ad
miral Schley is in question. not only at the
battle of Santiago, but in the whole San
tiago campaign. But 1 may as we'll say
| here, Mr.. President and members of the
| court, that the question of Admiral Samp
sons conduct on those occasions is no
| before this court in any way. This is not
! comparative question, as to whether some
| enc did or did not do better than Commo
dore Schley. 1t is a question as to whether
| Commodore Schley did his whole duty il
| the Santiago campaign and at the battle
! of Santiago. And the general question a:
/ TO whether some other officer of the navy
is q better man than Commodore Schley
l Sc in Y,o