The Canton times. (Canton, Miss.) 1893-1906, 1901-12-27
Counsel for Rear Admiral Sampson
File Objections to Admiral
Dewey's Report.
WANT CERTAIN PARTS STRICKEN OUT.
Particular Stress is Laid Upon the
Fact That the Question of Who
was in Command During the Bat
ale Was Not Included in the Pre-
cept For the Court of Inquiry.

portion OF Admiral Dewey's report of
the Schley court of inquiry in which
he says Admiral Schley was in com
mand at the battle off Santiago and
entitled to the credit for the victory,
was fled with Secretary Long Friday.
The document was brought to the
navy department by Mr.. f. S. Theall,
of counsel for Admiral Sampson; and
handed to the secretary. 1t is as fol-
lows:
No. 80 Broad Street, New York,
Sir: AS counsel for Rear-Admiral Samp-
son, we have the honor to request that
the department, for reasons below stat
that portion of Admiral Deweys opinion
filed in connection with the proceedings
Of the Schley court of inquiry, in which
he states his view to be that Commodore
Schley was in absolute command at the
naval battle off Santiago.
I.-Commodore Schley was not in COM
mand at that battle.
1.-THE president of the United states
and the navy department had decided that
Admiral Sampson was in command at
that battle, and Commodore Schley. sec
IIl.-The question as to who command
ed at Santiago was not referred to the
court for consideration, and evidence
I.-Commodore Schley was not in COM
mand at that battle.
(A)-The disposition of the forces at the
beginning OF the battle according to Com
modore schleys own statement, places
Admiral Sampson in command.
The Brooklyn and the Vixen were the
westernmost ships of the fleet; the In
most The New York was nearer both OF
the latter than was the Brooklyn, and
totally at the, time when the Indiana was
|, -,xyilxr thn ncrin nf
action, and when the Gloucester was en-
gagged with the Furor and Pluton. Com
modore schley says The Indiana and and the ne
your flagship" than to the Brooklyn. We
have, then, the case of a fleet in a regu-
lar formation, with the commander-in-
a large number of the ships than is the
second in command. 1t Is true that the
in-chief could not have
reached the most distant vessel by sig
nails, except by causing them to be re-
peated by an intermediate vessel-an en-
tirely usual course-but it Is equally true
that the second in command could not
have reached the remote vessels of the
fleet namely the Indiana and the Glou-
cester) without likewise repeating sig
nails.
of the navy and the customs of the sea
place the absolute command and the re-
sponsibility in the hands of the senior Of
ticer.
B)-The Brooklyn's maneuver during
the action destroys any claim that Com
modore Schley might have had to the
command The facts S,,i as q to tn, the loop ar are
ion show that to avoid danger to his own
ship he maneuvered without warning to
the rest of the squadron, and in disregard
1.-THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIT
ED STATES AND THE NAVY De
HAD DECIDED THAT
MAND AT THAT BATTLE AND COM
SCHI.EY SECOND IN COM
MAND.
letter to the senate dated
February 9Th, 1S99) states that the Span
ssh squadron was destroyed by our fleet
under his (Sampson'sl command, and
was proposed in recognition of his serv-
ICES as next in rank at the victory of
iIf1THE QUESTION AS TO WHO
At SANTIAGO WAS
NOT REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR
CONSIDERATION. EVIDENCE BEAR
(A)-If Commodore Schley was in com
nand, Admiral Sampson was not, and if
he Question as to which was in COM
nand was 70 De CONSIDERED by the court
crested party, and under the precept was
entitled to the hearing which was repeat
,dly refused him.
Q3)-The language of the. precept ex-
dudes the question as to who command
ID at that battle. 1t directs the court to
INQUIRE into the CONDUCT OF Admiral
whether or not he was in command, and
o report it's conclusions upon his CON-
DUCT in connection with the events of |
(C)~The judicial officers of the court |
maintained that this matter was outside |
he scope of the inquiry. They expressed |
to go into 1t If their view
Instance sustained by the court. Thus, at |
age Isl, the assistant to the judge adj
ocate said:
ust made as to the intention to show
hat Admiral Sampson was not in this
atte / wish to say that we do not un-
erstand that the question whether Ad-
liral Sampson was or was not in the
attic of Santiago is before the court
F IT is WE SHALL BE HAPPY TO
ase takes that attitude it is improper to
pread upon the record arguments and
uestions which proceed upon the theory
p 1aI ne IS Withdrew the question. ior the
At page 400 of the record the same mat
II being under discussion, Mr.. Hanna
aid:
ito these things, it would, of course, be
roper that WE should also go into them
would not , only be proper; But IT
re thoroughly prepared to go into any
scussion of them, provided the court de-
res to so enlarge and extend the scope
this inquiry" Counsel for the appli-
mt again failed to press the point and
lie court made no objection to Mr.. Han
as view.
At pages 15S and 1850 there were similar
llings by the judge advocate. In the case
all those declarations there was ac-
liescence on the part of the court
(D)-The court uniformly rejected evil
snce as to who commanded
On all the pages herein cited from the
cord the court rejected such evidence | I
Id nowhere was it admitted against OBJ
ction.
(E)-The court more than once specific
ly ruled that this question was not be-
re il.
For example: At page 1856. where the |
.-l..r. - l