The Scranton chronicle. (Scranton, Miss.) 1897-19??, 1901-12-28
SIMPSONS OBJECTIONS.
Counsel fer 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-
ccpt 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 of Santiago and
entitled to the credit for the victory,
was filed with Secretary Long Friday.
The document was brought TO the
navy department by Mr.. L. 5. Theall,
of counsel for Admiral Sampson; and
handed to the secretary. 1t is as fol
lows:
No 80 Broad Street, New York, ,oo,
Sir: As counsel for Rear-lldmiral samp-
son, we have the honor 10 request that
the department, for reasons below stat
ed, strike out or spoclhca1y disapproNe
that portion of Admiral Dewey opinion
| filed In connection with the proeeeAinss
| OF the Schley court OF inquiry IN Wnlen W
| he states his view to be that Commodore
| Schley was In absolute command at the
naval battle OF Santiago.
l.-Commodore Schlcy 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 az
that battle, and Commodore Sehley, sec
ond in command.
III.-The question as 10 who command
ed at Santiago was not referred 20 the
court for consideration, and evidence
bearing on the point was excluded.
L-Commodore Schley was not IN COM
mand at that battle.
(A)-The disposition Of the forces at the
beginning of the battle, according 10 ON
modore Schley's own statement, places
Admiral Sampson In command
The Brooklyn and the Vixen were the
westernmost ships Of the fleet, the IN
diana and Gloucester were the eastSfhs
most. The New York was nearer both ol
the latter than was the brooklyn uha
totally at the time when the Indiana W.
heavily engaged at the beginning OF lne
as.I hon hn
gagged with the Furor and piuton. CON-
modore schley says Tae Indiana oioaer ane 'io to
your flagship" than to the Brooklyn. We
have then the case OF fleet IN a fesu-
lar formation, with the commanoef-lh-
chief within signal distance anu eioaef 70 y
a large number of the ships than - the
second in command. IT Is true lhat tilt
commander-in-ch chief could not. nave
nails, except by causing them to be re
peated by an intermediate Nessei-.hh en-
firely usual course-but IL Is equally true
| that the second In command eoula ny
feet (namely the Indiana and the 6iou-
cester) without likewise repeating sig
In this state of affairs, the regulations
/ of the navy and the customs OF the sea
| place the absolute command ana the re-
| sponsibility in the hands OF the senior OF
CBj-The Brooklyn's maneuver during
| the action destroys any. claim thal COM
|
| command The facts as to the loop are
found by the court. The finding ana oppl-
| ion show that TO avoid danger TO MS own
| ship he maneuvered without warning 10
| the rest OF the gGradron, and in uisregafd
| of the fleet formation ,,v,,, ,.,,,,r
| 1.-THE PRESIDENT. OF THE UNIT
Pf;htRTMENT f;t # HAD DEGIDED- THAT
| ADMIRAL SAMPSON WAS IN COM
| MAND AT THAT BATTIE AND CON
MoDoRE scHLEY SECOND IN COM
/ MAND
This fact was before the court; for the
secretary's letter to the senate tdated
| February 9Th 1880 states thai the Span
! ish squadron was destroyed by our fleet
under his fSampsons( command, ana
the advancement OF Commoaore SehIey
was proposed In recognition of his servS
| ices as next in rank at the victory OF
I'll IIf'@TIIE QUESTION As TO WHO
| NOT REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR
CONSIDERATION. EVIDENCE BEAR-
ING ON THE POINT WAS EACL,u JED, Jh,l.,
mand, Admiral Sampson was not, ana II
the question as To which was IN com
surely Admiral Sampson became an in
| terested party and under the precept.Was
| entitled to the hearing which was repeat
evlS nSS,IThe LANGUAGE Of the precept ex-
/ cludes the question as TO who comman nd
/ ed at that battle. II directs the court 20
inquire into the c2NDLGr OF Admirai a.
| whether or not he was in command, and
| TO report its conclusions upon his CON-
| DUCT I'M connection with the events OF
| the Santiago campaign.
(C)-The judicial officers Of the court
maintained that this matter was outside
| the scope of the inquiry. They expressed
| Willingness TO go into it If their view
should be overruled but were In every
instance sustained by the court. Thus. AZ
page. l5l. the assistant to the judge ad-
Zone further word as to suggestion
just made as 10 the intention to SHOW
that Admiral Sampson was not IN this
| battle. 1 wish 10 say that we DO not un-
derstand that the question whether Ad-
miral Sampson was or was not in the
battle of Santiago IS before the court
| IF IT is WE SHALL BE HAPPY TO
| INVESTIGATE 1T. Until the
case takes that attitude IL Is improper 70
spread upon the record arguments ana
/ questions which proceed upon the theory
| that he is in the case. Counsel Tor the
applicant withdrew the question.
| At page 490 of the record. the same mat
ter being under discussion, Mr.. Hanna
III it is the desire of the court to go
| into these things. it would, of course, be
proper that WE should also 20 into them:
WoTLp TIuI9 BE hs' NGEc.lEssA Gs.l Ky Yp. We
discussion Of them. provided the court de-
| sires TO so enlarge and extend the scope
| of this inquiry" Counsel for the appli-
| cant again failed 10 press the point and
the court made no objection 10 Mr.. Han
At pages 15s and 1850 there were similar
| rulings by the Judge advocate In the case
/ of ali those declarations there was ac-
| quiescence on the part Of the court.
| fD)-The court uniformly rejected evil
dence as to who commanded.
On all the pages herein cited from the
| record the court rejected such evidence
and nowhere was It admitted against OBJ
09-The court more than once specific
| ally ruled that this question was moi be-
| fore it,
For example: At page 1856. where tht
anestiOn was as to the position OF the
/ cornmander-in-c chief and Of the New
| York and as to the part Of the battle
| Admiral Dewey said We do not wani
| that. We have ruled that out Ths
| had so ruled and Admiral Dewey re.
| piled: I'VE HAVE WE HAVE KEPT
| THE NEW YORK OUT OF IT,
| See also page 4s1.
/ fF1--yhe court went so far as 10 rule
| at page 1871. that Admiral SchIey was not
| ter then before the court related 10 fl1s
| periods during which Admiral Schcy hat
| been In absolute command and the Judge
| advocate said Mr.. RayneF. you are con
fning yourself % July %. are your
| Mr.. Rayner In reply acquiesced IN fhls
tons ehqil be conined 10 BE-
tween the issh Of May and dhe lst of J ,Ine
/ relating 70 the organization laanaxeinena
| and control Of that squadron. WHEN HI
/ WAS ACTUALLY COMMANDMENTS
| CHIEF Matters referring 10 bin alleged
/ command oa 5lly 80 were excluded,
2a psss liss 80 sSgFf qpHaFnas ifis GO