The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1901-10-11
HIS SECOND REBUFF
SAMPSON AGAIN REFUSED REP
REsENTATION.
REPLY IS VERY POSITIVE.
NOT AN INTERESTED PARTY, SAYS
PRESIDENT DEWEY.

Represented Notice VIII BE Sent
Him-AttOrney Stayton's Long and
Very AdrOitly Worded Request Is
Promptly Turned Down-He and
His Associate Are in Daily Attend
ance, However.
Washington. Oct. 1O-William H.
Stayton, the New York attorney who
some time ago asked to be allowed to
represent Rear Admiral Sampson be-
fore the Schley court of inquiry and
whose request was denied by the court.
to-day presented the following letter
to, the court:
Navy Yard Washington, Oct. 10,
1901 Admiral George Dewey, U. S. N,
President Naval Court of Inquiry,
Washington. Sir: I am instructed by
Rear Admiral Sampson to acknowledge
for him the receipt of your letter of
the 9th of September, 1901, stating
that the court does not at this time re-
gard him as party to the case now
before it, and is therefore, unable to
comply with his request, that he be
permitted representation by counsel
1.-TWO. 1 am further instructed by
the admiral to ask that whenever the
circumstances arise which entitle him
to representation you will permit our
admission as counsel in his behalf.
Three. Mr.. E. S. Theall of Wash
ington, D. c.. who is my associate in
this matter, and myself, have been
present in the courtroom nearly every
r. V.f 4.
of us will endeavor to be present every
day hereafter.
Fourth. We have not had facilities
which would permit US to hear the
proceedings, but we have been furnish
ed with copies of the courts record
and beg leave to refer respectfully to
certain pages of that record, which
contain attacks upon Admiral Samp-
son.
Fifth. Rear Admiral Schley, for
instance, was permitted to say (see
page y that the principal parties to
the present issue are Rear Admirals
Sampson and Schley.'
Sixth. Direct allegations have been
| made against Admiral Sampson, and
we ask the court to refer to pages 152
to 1856 of the record, where counsel re-
peatedly accuse Admiral Sampson,
| first, of conducting a blockade with
his vessel at a distance as great as
| that which was selected by Admiral
Schley for his blockade, and. second,
of permitting the Colon to remain for
an indefinite time after his arrival, in
full sight of his squadron, without
making an effort to destroy her.
SIMPSONS Honor Involved.
Seventh. On page 23 of the record
counsel was allowed to declare that,
despite Admiral SIMPSONS official re-
port, in which he states that the bat
tie of July was fought under his
| command, that as a matter of fact,
! Admiral Sampson did not command on
that day. An effort was made by coun-
sci in yesterdays proceedings to intro
| duce into evidence a signal made by
| Rear Admiral Sampson, which coun-
! sci stated in his argument was intend
ed to show that Rear Admiral Schley
was commander in chief at that battle.
! Surely, these allegations involve the
honor of a naval officer.
Eighth. The courts precept states
| that an officer who is interested may
| be permitted to appear and defend
| himself, and while we fully realize that
Admiral Sampson is not a party to
the case, as the court states in its
/ letter of the 9th of September, yet
notice has been given that an effort
4
honors and even of his honor and his
good name, and he is accused of per-
mitting an enemy's vessel to lie undis-
| turbed in his presence, and all that as
a naval officer he holds dear is in
volved, and we ask you to decide mere
| ly that he is interested
Attacks Made COvertIy.
Ninth. 1t is true that the attacks
upon Admiral Sampson have been made
covertly and under the name of argu-
ment, but the statements have been
nevertheless public; they have been
! given great currency and they are
embodied in the record to remain for
ever on the files of the Navy Depart
ment 1t is at least worthy of COM
ment that on every occasion in which
such an argument has been INDUCED in
! the question at issue has been volun-
tarily withdrawn after full opportunity
had been taken to accuse the admiral.
Tenth. Were we alone in our opin-
ion that these arguments are improp-
| er, we would hesitate to make such
statements, but the judicial officer Of
the court, the judge'advocate, has re-
peatedly characterized these argu-
ments as improper.
Eleventh. We, of course, realize
fully that the intervention of new is
sues and new parties might be i'm
and prolong the trial; but counsel are
entirely under the control of the court
and may always be suitably restrain
ed We. therefore, request that we
now be permitted to appear before the
court and given facilities which Will
enable us to hear the procedure and
he present to defend Rear Admiral
SAMPSON when counsel shall make up
on him attacks of the nature which
thew have already deemed proper to
make. Very respectfully,
william H. Stayton."
nexvey's Positive Reply.
The court replied as follows:
"sir. The court has received and
considered YOUR letter of this date. in
which YOU again request that you be
,ormitted to appear before the court
&c counsel for Rear Admiral sampson,
ard Given facilities which will enable
,,o,, 10 hear the procedure and to de-
fend that officer from attack when nee
essary. . A.. ...t.,,o
.hn nrecept conVening this court gives
a. outhority TO permit any person whom
a. nav regard as concerned in the IN
,,astioation TO be present for the pur-
,sa ~ cross.examining witnesses and
nnfsoriy,o evidence. the court considers
49, pear Admiral Sampson Is not an
,nterested party in the case now before
4. ard As not. therefore, emitted 10
a,,oar as such. either IN person or by
aeprrnsei and you are further informed
49, az circumstances arise Whlch' IN
10 ..a o,inton of the court render II nee
essarv for Rear Admiral sampson 70 pe