The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-10-10
Sampson Makes One More Effort
to Get LIN.
His Attorneys Write a Letter
to Admiral Dewey.
ASK PLACE IN COURT.
Reply Is That Their Client Is
Not a Party to Inquiry.
viii Let Them Know Whenever
He Is.

Washington, Oct 10.-Wm. H. 6. Stay
ton, the New York attorney who some
time ago asked to be allowed TO repre-
sent Rear Admiral Sampson before the
Schley court of inquiry and whose re-
quest was denied by the court, today
presented the following letter to the
court:
Navy Yard, Washington, D. c. Oct TO-
To Admiral George Dewey, U. s N,
President Naval Court of Inquiry
Washington, D. c.
Sir: 1 am instructed by Rear Ad-
miral 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 regard him as
party to the case before it and therefore
is unable to comply with his request
that he be permitted representation by
counsel.
2. I am further instructed by the ad-
miral to ask that whenever the circum-
stances arise, which entitIe him to rep
reSentatiOn, you will permit our adTnlS-
sion as counsel in his behalf
8. Mr. E. S. Theall, of Washington, d.
C.. who is my associate in this matter
and myself, have been present in the
cedure and one or both of US will en-
deavor to be present every day here
after.
4. We have not had facilities which
would permit us to hear the proceedings,
but we have been furnished with copies
of the courts record and beg leave to
refer respectfully to certain pages of
that record, which contain attacks upon
Admiral Sampson
8. Rear Admiral Schley for instance,
was permitted to say (see page y that
the principal parties to the present is
sue are Rear Admirals Sampson and
Schley"
6. Direct allegations have been made
against Admiral Sampson and ask
the court to refer to pages 152 and 156
of the record, where counsel repeatedly
accuse Admiral Sampson-frst, of con-
Quoting a blockade with his vessels 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.
Z. On page % of the record. counsel
was allowed to declare that despite Ad-
miral SIMPSONS official report, in
which he states that the battle of July
3. was fought under his command, that
as matter of fact, Admiral Sampson
did not command on that day an effort
was made by counsel in yesterdays
proceedings to Introduce into evidence
a signal made by Rear Admiral Samp-
son. which counsel stated in his argu-
ment, was intended to show that Rear
Admiral Schley was nmander-in-
chief of that battle. Surely these allie
cations involve the honor of a naval
officer.
g. The courts precept states that an
officer who is interested may be per-
mitted 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 will be made to deprive
him of his honors and even of his honor
and his good name end he is accused of
permitting an enemt's vessel to lie un-
disturbed in his presence, and all that
as naval officer he holds dear is in
vOlved and we ask you to decide mere
ly that he is interested
g. 1t is true the attacks upon Admiral
Sampson have been made covertly and
under the name of argument but the
statements have been nevertheless pub
lie; they have been given great cur
rency and they are en- bodied in the rec
ord to remain forever on the files of the
navy department. 1t is at least worthy
of comment that on every occasion in
which such an argument has been in
dulged in, the question at issue has
been voluntarily withdrawn, after full
opportunity had been taken to accuse
the admiral
10. Were we alone in our opinion that
these arguments are improper we
should hesitate to make such state
ments, but the judicial officer of the
court-the judge advocate-has repeat
edly characterized these arguments as
improper.
IL. We of course realize fully that the
intervention of new issues and new
parties might be improperly used to
cumber the record and prolong the trial:
but counsel are entirely under the con-
troll of the court and may always ba
suitably restricted. We therefore re-
quest that we now be permitted to an
pear before the court and be given ia
cilities which will enable us to hear the
procedure and be present to defend
Rear Admiral Sampson. when counsel
shall make upon him attacks of the ma
ture which they have already deemed
proper to make.
Very respectfully,
VIM H. STATION.
A reply was sent Mr.. Stayton to the
effect that Admiral Sampson was not n
party to the inquiry and that he would
be notified when the court considered
him as interested.
The courts reply in full was as fol-
lows:
''Sir-The court has received and con-
sidered your lstter of this date in
which you again request that Won he
permitted to appear before the court as
counsel for Rear Admiral samson
and given facilities which will enable
you to hear the proceedings and to de-
fend that officer from attack when
necessary.
In reply I have to state that
while the precept converting this
court gives it authority to per
NIT any person whom it may regard
as concerned in the inFestiea tion
to be present for the purpose of cross
examining witnesses, and Offering evil
dence, the court considers that Rear
Admiral Sampson is not an interested
not therefore, to be entitled to appear
oa much either I'm Darson or hr- oo.,,,