The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1901-12-22

York and as to the part took in the
battle, Admiral Dewey said: I'VE do
| not want that We have ruled that
| out" The judge advocate then asked
| If the court had so ruled, and Admiral
Dewey replied: I'VE HAVE WE
HAVE KEPT THE NEW YORK OUT
OF IT"
See also page 4S1.
(D The court went so far as to rule
at page 1921 that Admiral Schley was
not in command during the battle. The
matter then before the court related
to the periods during which Admiral
Schley had been in absolute command,
and the judge advocate said: Mr..
Rayner you are combining yourself to
July 9rd, are you?"
Mr.. Rayner, in reply, acquiesced in
this view and the court ruled that "all
questions shall be confined to between
the 18th of May and the LIST of June,
relating to the organization, manage
ment and control of that squadron,
WHEN HE WAS ACTUALLY COM
MANDER-IN-CH Matters refer
ring to his alleged command of July
Bird were excluded
On page 1888 the court confirms this
decision.
90 All proposed questions on this
subject We're either rejected by the
court or withdrawn by the applicant.
VINO finally acquiesced in the decisions
of the court and gave up his efforts in
this behalf saying: Il bow respectful
ly to the decision of the court and 1
know exactly what it means"
Instances of the withdrawal of such
questions and of their rejection by the
court will be found in the record at
pages 1873, 157, 4S4 1856 and 1880.
(h) The minority opinion expressed
by Admiral Dewey in this matter is
at variance with all the rulings of the
court in this regard and directly CON
tradicts the letters wherein Admiral
Dewey, for the court, defines Admiral
SIMPSONS status.
The Navy Department in its precept
had justly provided that any person
interested" might be given an oppor-
tunity of appearing before the court in
person or by counsel and protecting his
rights.
AS counsel for the applicant ignored
at times the courts rulings and spread
upon the record arguments rejecting
upon Admiral Sampson, we, as his
counsel three separate times appealed
to the court asking for protection or for
permission to appear and defend Adj
mlral SIMPSONS rights. Each time our
request was denied and we were as
sured mat Admiral Sampson was not
involved and finally Admiral Dewey
dchHoWleuglng the receipt of one of our
letters in which we had appealed to
him on the ground of this very ques-
ton as to who commanded at San
tiago, says: Il have to state that
while the precept converting this court
gives it authority to permit any per-
son whom it may regard as CON
CERNED in the investigation to be
present, in which the court considers
that Admiral Sampson is not an in
terested party: and you are further
INFORMED that if circumstances arise
which in the opinion of the court rem
der 1t necessary for Admiral Sampson
to BE REPRESENTED, DUE NO
TICE WILL BE SENT HIM" Upon
that promise Admiral Sampson relied.
The notice came only in'the form of a
minority opinion by Admiral Dewey
discussing matters beyond the scope
of precept and nowhere included in
the facts found by the court
Very respectfully,
STATION, & CAMPBELL.
E. S. Theall, counsel for Rear Ad-
miral w. T. Sampson
To the Honorable Secretary of the
Navy.