The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1901-10-08
on THE BOOK WHICH BROUGHT
ABOUT SCHLEY COURT.
CHART OF THE BATTLE
How the Thing Was Made and
Reason Why 1t Is Not
Correct.

New York, Oct. 7.-Colonel Robert
M. Thompson of this city, president
of the United States Naval Alumni as
sociation makes the following state
ment to the Associated Press in con-
nection with the Schley inquiry:
There is one story which l am
very anxious should be truthfully pre-
sented to the public. After MacLay's
book was published MacLay stated,
that the proofs had been submitted to
the commanding officers, including !
Admiral Sampson and they approved
his statements. A reporter calling
upon Admiral Sampson when he was
sick in bed obtained what purported |
to be confirmation OF this statement |
The admiral was asked if he had seen
| and approved a copy of MacLay's his
| tory and he said yes But unfortu-
nately he was too i'll to go into de-
tails and explain everything so the
public was so informed and today be-
lieve that Admiral Sampson entirely
approved the statement that Schley
was a coward and caitliff, which
was the gist of MacLay's charge
against Schley.
81 am in a position to state the
true facts and you may absolutely
rely upon them as the truth. The
| proofs were sent by Mr.. MacLay to
Admiral Sampson with the request
that they should be read and correct
ed. The admiral at the time was not
in good health and did not wish to
undertake the labor, but his secretary
pointed out that the MacLay history
was standard one and used at the
naval academy as a text book This
volume brought the navy down
through the period of the Spanish
war and it was desirable that there
should be no inaccuracies in it. The
admiral thereupon consented to read
them and he did correct certain
| part of them, but as soon as he arriv-
ed at the part which contained the
statement that Schley was coward
and a caitiff, he was very much an
gered and said the statement was
one the author had no right to make,
II that it was unjust and unfair to al
/ lude to any naval officer in such
II terms and declined to have anything
Y further to do with the proofs. His
II secretary, impressed with the great
4 desirability of having the statements
Il of facts accurate and not believing
II he was in any way responsible for the
j statement Of opinions did on his owl
Il account compare the book with the
Il records and make on the margins
K number of corrections. AS many o.
II these were in the same handwriting
u as when Admiral Sampson was Civ
ing his personal attention to the cor
rections, Mr.. MacLay was perfectl!
:. honest in his statement. The orde
Of the secretary of the navy forbid
ding officers of the navy making an.
statement for the public regarding
this controversy, issued after tn
above correction being made.
s'There is one other question whicl
has been brought up in which accu
sations of carelessness to say tn
least, have been made against tn
gallant Wayneright in connectio
with the chart of the battle of SAINT
ago. prepared and printed in the Sc
called appendix, yet anyone readln
the report accompanying the char
sees that there was no misrepresel
tation as to what it was. 1t did nc
claim to be and in the nature of thing
could not be absolutely correct.
the first half hour of the fight viii
the smoke of battle obscured all Ian
marks, and the excitement incident
the battle was affecting every min
how could men determine accurate
where they were at each particul
moment? At the best there cou
| only be an approximation, as the
was a general conference among Il
navigators, each putting down
ship where he thought it ought to
and where there were differences
opinion each had to testify what I
position was and so the board repo
ed. The chart in question Whl
II shows in a general way the positio
~ of the ships is as accurate as in