The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-10-08
Statement by Col. Robert vi. Thomp-
son That Refutes stories Sent
Out from Boston.
SAMPSON WAS VERY ANGRY
WHEN HE READ THE PROOF SHEETS
OF MACLAY's HISTORY.
said Ii Was Unjust and Unfair to Call
Any Naval Officer N Cow
ard and "a Caiti6.

NEW YORK, Oct. z-Robert NJ. ThOmp-
son, of this city. president OF the United
States Naval Academy Alumni Association,
makes the following statement in connec-
ton with the SchIey inquiry:
ihere Is one story which I am very
anxious should be truthfuly presented TO
the public. After Maclay's book was pub
lished Maclsy stated that the proof had
been submitted TO the commanding officers.
including Admiral sampson. and that they
approved his statements. \ reporter call
ing upon Admiral Sampson when he was Al
in his bed obtained from the admiral what
appeared TO be a confirmation Of this state
ment. The admiral was asked III he had
seen and read the proofs of Maclay's book.
and he said Yes But. unfortunately. ne
was too Ill 10 80 into the matter at any
public was informed and to-day believes
that Admiral Sampson entirely approved
the statement that Schley was a coward
and a c~aitiff. which was the gist Of Ma
clay's charge against Schley.
Il 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..
hIaclay to Admiral Sampson, with request
that they should be read and corrected. 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 a standard one and used at the
Naval Academy as a textbook. This vol
ume brought the history down through the
period OF the Spanish war. and IL was de-
sirable that there should be no inaccuracies
III IT, 4 Alg aAAAAA d. AAAAA1 ~
read them and he did correct a certain
part of them. but as soon as he arrived at
the part which contained the statement
that Schley was a coward ana a caltlH ne
was very much angered and said that
statement was one the author had no right
TO make; that il was unjust and unfair 10
speak of any naval officer I'm such terms,
and declined to have anything further 10 DO
with the proofs. His secretary. impressed
with the great desirabiiity OF having the
of facts accurate, and not be-
Heving that he was in any way responsible
for the statements OF opinions. did. on his
own account, cOmpare the book with the
records and make on the margins a number
of corrections. As these were in the same
handwriting as those made when Admiral
Sampson was giving his personal attention
to the corrections. Mr.. Maclay was per-
fectly justified in his statement. The order
Of the secretary of the navy, ~forbicdlng
naval OfTlcers 10 make any statement Tor
publication regarding this controversy. is
sued Immediately after this interview. pre-
vented the above correction being officially
made.
There is one other matter that has been
brought up, in which accusations Of care
lessness, to say the least, have been made
against the gallant Wainwright. in connec-
ton with the chart of the battle of san
tiagO, prepared and printed in the so-callcd
appendix, yet any one reading the report
accompanying the chart sees that there
was no misrepresentation as TO what il
was. 1t did not claim To be. and. in the na-
ture OF things, could not be absolutely corr
rect. In the first half hour Of the fight,
while the smoke of the battle obScured al
land marks ana the excitement incident 10
the battle was affecting every mind, how
could men determine accurately where they
were at each particular moment? At the
best there could be only. as there was. "A
general discussion between the naVigators,
each one putting dOwn his ship where he
thought il ought to be. and where there
were differences of opinion the majority
had to decide as TO which position was TO
be accepted and so the board reported. The
chart in question, which shows in a gem
eral way the position Of the ships. is IS
accurate as i'm the nature OF things we
can make it, and in any event Is an approx
imation of the truth. This description
stands true to-day and all the criticism
of Wainwright and the others Is entirely
unjust.
II was at the recent yacht races. and L
have learned how difficult il is TO determine
the position of a ship on the water from
one point of view. Time and time again
people on the yacht with me were convinced
that one or the other boat was gaining.
when the apparent gain or loss was due TO
our own motion. With no fixed standard
to guide one, IL is very difficult TO even
approximate the truth. With this I'm mind,
7 readily understand the difference Of Opin-
ion Of the several officers who, during the
battle. observed the Brooklyn from vary
ing positions. There is not the least doubt
that each one reported the truth as he
saw it. The exact truth can be arrived at
only by combining all the points of view, or
perhaps the exact truth can now never be
determined"