The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1901-09-13
yersation of that kind It would be unrea-
sonable."
DOES NOT REMEMBER
OF ARISING: SCHIEY

DOES NOT REMEMBER
OF ABUSING SCHLEY.
| Mr.. Raynor: And you have no recollec-
/ tion of your saying anything on that voy-
| age to any one on the subject of the Samp-
son-Schley controversy
| Rear Admiral Howison: 'T do not remem-
ber what said. I may have said some
thing on that voyage. I do answer any
| ones questions II they are asked politely.
| where 1t does not make any difference.
Mr.. Raynor: You do not recollect say
ing on that voyage to any one that II
| Schley had done certain things he ought to
l have been court-martialed?"
| Rear Admiral Howison: mo: / do not
remember making any such remark. But IL
| some one for instance. should come to me
and say that a certain officer had done
| certain thing, I might say that under the
navy regulations he would be subject to
court-martial or discipline Of some sort, IL
! he had done certain thing. I would not
hesitate to say that to you at any time or
to anybody else"
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.
Admiral Howison said he never said to Mr..
Nichols that Schley had no business in the
navy or that n man could not remain In
the English navy under such conditions.
81 never made any such remark as that"
he said. '1f anything Of the kind occurred
there. 1t was just as stated in my answer
to you before. II he (Nichols) had stated to
me that Admiral Schley had positively dis
obeyed orders or done something that he
ought not to have done that was liable
to discipline, / would have said he should
be brought before court-martial. That is
simply one OF the regulations OF the
service
myself on this court. / do not want to sdt
on IT. 1t Is not agreeable duty for me.
IS NOT PREJUDICED
AGAINST ANY OFFICER.
Mr.. Raynor: Now, you said just now that
you have in conversations substantially adj
mitted that the credit of the battle Of San
tiago was due to the Commander-in-Chief,
and II Sampson were the Commander-in-
Chief. II that reason comes under any OF
the specifications Of the precept. have not
you made up your mind on very i'm
portant question that Is to come before you
n0wr'
Rear Admiral Howison: mo, SIR
Mr. Raynor: "If you have come to TIE
conclusion that Sampson was the Com
mander-in-Chief and that the credit Of that
battle was due to Sampson, have you not
made up your mind on question that is
bound to come before you now as a judge
Of this tribunals"
Admiral Howison: No. sir.
Mr.. Raynor: Then. why not?
Admiral Howison: Because do not care
what nDgal officer has been talking in pri-
yate. where 1t Is meaningless in more sens
es than one. Naval officers are taught
from youth up tina. their oath of office Is
something different from most peoples
oaths: and an officer can clear up his mind
I honestly believe. and Judge from the
testimony given before him. without re-
gard to what he may have taken from
newspaper reports or others that have gone
before That Is what believe. and say
In my personal letter.
ADMIRAL SAMPSON
NOT BEING INVESTIGATED.
The Judge Advocate: 1.-The conduct Of Ad-
miral Schley is in question, not only at the
battle Of Santiago, but in the whole San
tiago campaign. But may as we'll say
here that the question Of Admiral Samp.
sons conduct upon these occasions is not
before this court in any way. This is not
a comparative question. as to whether
some one did or did not do better than
Commodore Schley. 1t is a question as to
whether Commodore Schley did his whole |
duty in the Santiago campaign. The gen.
eral question. whether some one of the J
officers of the navy is a better man than
Schley, or not so good a man, Is not in
any way before this court
Mr.. Raynor: THAT Is not the point. NAV 1t |
please the court, that i am addressing,
We intend to prove that Commodore Samp-
son was not at the battle of Santiago at
all: and 1t becomes question of who was
the commander-in-chief at the battle of
Santiago. II Admiral Sampson was not !
there. then Admiral Schley was the COM
mander-in-chief. And II Judge Of this tri- |
bunal has already made up his mind that |
Admiral Sampson. as commander-in-chief, |
won the battle. 1t becomes a very pertinent |
inquiry. under the specifications. as to what |
was the conduct Of Schley during the San
tiago campaign. That will be one Of the |
questions involved here-not a comparison |
between Schley and Sampson. but as to who |
was practically, legally officially and tech |
nically the commander at the battle Of San |
tiago-to whom credit is due. if, as the Ad- |
miral has said. credit is due to the officer |
who was in command. II there has been
an opinion expressed on that point. OF !
course. VIC want to know it. and we want |
to know II II is such an opinion as to throw /
upon us the burden Of proof
There was considerable sparring on this |
point, with the result that Admiral Howl |
son said any conclusion would depend ON |
ohicial reports. and then. In answer TO
further questioning, the Admiral said that