The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-12-21
0zXH4zzZ2ag1ga
@zNs 9 A0Z{,@ZzzzzzzRs

!. @z4s 9 g0z{ {5zzzz
IF Commodore scllley was in command
Admiral Sampson was not, and II tue
question as to which was in command
was to lie considered blythe court, surely
Admiral Sampson became an Interested
party, and, under the precept. was entlt1-
ed to & hearing, which was repeatedly
refused him. The, language OF thes pre-
cept excludes the question as 70 Niioiii
commanded at that battle IL oiree'.
the court to inquire into the c0huucl "
Admiral Schley-not into his status-ot
as to whether or not he was in CONF
Rand, and to report its conclusions upon
hS conduct in connection with the events
of. the Santiago campaign. The judicial
officers of the court maintained that TINS
matter was outside the scope OF the IN
uuiry They expressed Willingness to go
INTO it if their views had been over
ruled, but were in every Instance sHs-.
1ained by the court.
THUS. at page ISL, the ASSISTANT 10
the judge-advUcate said: one fuTtner
:'ord as TO a suggestion just hlaoe, aS
TO the intention to show that Admiral
SAMPSON was not in this battle. wish
to say that we do not understand tilat
Tho. uue.lion whether Admiral Sampson
was or was not in, the battle of Santa so
IS before the court. If 1t is, we Shall no
happy to investigated. = Until the
/ case takes that attitude, it IL improper
20 spread upon the record arguments
ard question: which proceed upon TIE
theory that he is in the case. Counsei
for the applicant withdrew. the question.
At page 400 OF the record. the same mat
ter being under discussion. Mr.. Hanna
said If it is the dsire of the court TO so
into them. we are lhoiouSiAls
prepared to go into any discussion OF
them. provided; the court desired to SO
enlarge ard extend the scope Of. tins IN
u,lirN' Counsel for the applicant again
| failed to press the point, and the court
| made no objection to Mr.. Hannt.s view.
| At pa ges 49, and 1850 there were Similar
rulings by the judge-advocate' III tlle
case of all these declarations. there was
| acuuiesccIlce on The Dart of the c'ure.
.s:rhe court uniformly rejected evidence
| as to who commanded On all the pages
! ereint cited from the record. the court re-
/ iected such evidence, and nowhere Was IL
| admitted against objection.
1 1.-The court more than. once speclhcaliy
| ruled that this question was not peloie
lit For example, at page l9eo. "ilelx. .he
| question was as to the position OF the
! ccmmander-in-c chief and; OF the. New YORK
| and as to the. part they took. in the battle,
Admiral Dewey said: We 10 not want
! that. We have ruled that out, The
| Judee-Advocate then asked II the court
| had SO ruled. and Admiral Dewey reilileo
We have. We nave kept tiie -Se" "
] out of it.
/ ..rhe court went so far, as to rule at
mage 1921 that Admiral Schleys was: not
in command during the battle. Tine mat
ter then before the court related TO- me
! periods during which Admiral schlev mao
/ been in absolute command ana tht
dse-Adrocate said: 'Mt,. RayyIhcr. Seu
are con1fning yourself to July ."d' are
this view, and tho court ruled that-'al
i questions I. $ =. shall be confined &c
| between the 19th. of May and the 1sty OF
1 June, relating to the organization, man
s; agement and control of that squadron
5. when he was actually commandment
ichief.' Matters referring to his aileset
I. command on July Sd We're excluded.
All proposed questions on this subjec
4 were either rejected by the+court or with
drawn by. the applicant who finally &C
ou;esced in the decisions of. the. cour
and gave up his efforts in this behalf
4 saving: Il bow respectfully; to the decls
ion of the court and L know eNactl.
what it means z.o.-
THE MINORITY OPINtCN.
'.The minority opinion eSpressedtpy AZ
mirfa Dewey in this. matter IS ct Eari
s ance with ali the rulings OF the cour
in This regard and directly contradict
i the letters wherein Admiral Dewey, forth
4 count defines ADMIRAL SIMPSONS statu:
1,b, Navy Department in its precept ma
4 ;ustIv provided that any person lates
Il ested,4 might be given an opportunity
: annearine before the court III person
i hz. counsel and protecting his NShts
Il AS counsel for the applicant ignored q
Il times the courts rulings ana iaeau -tal'o
Il tho record arguments rejecting npo
III Admiral. Sampson, we, as MS coulise
: three separate times arpeaIea- 70 I!
court asking for, protection or 10Y Eel
81 mission to- appear and delelld S s {
i SaEDson's. rights. Each time our isiaes
4 was denied. and we We're assured tAe
/ 1niral Sampson was not iilSoiScu' az
finally Admiral Dewey, acklloM W IS,
Il tho ,receipts Of one of our letters. III. Whic
,,,e h,Ss nr,oealed to him on the sroun
: az this very question as to who CON
handed Mt Santiago, said: = have I
s+ata while the preccpt converting th
L .o,,,t Gives it authority to- permit an
e,erss,,s whom il. may regard ass concerns
y in the Investigation to- De- present. = ::
.,,a Court considers that. admiral SamE
). son,,ss not an Interested party; o = . II
! ,,o,, are further inforned that, it circup
! stances arise which, in the opinion Of T.
= court, render it necessary for An!nlr;
1 Sampson to be represented. due motto
: | will be sent him. Upon that promls
Admiral Sampson relied. The notii
came only in the form Of q ninofa1
o,,inion by Admiral Dewey, discussin
!, matters beyond the! scope Of tho precel
: and nowhere included in the facts four
/ {1,n o,,,eftb }