The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-12-20

he was in command to report its conelu-
sicns upon his conduct in connection with
the events Of the Santiago campaign.
Sustained by TIE Court.
The judicial officers OF The court main
tained that this matter was outside tae
scope OF The enquiry. Tney proposed
witnesses 20 go into it If their view woulz
be overruled- but we're, In every instance
sustained by the court
Thus, al pagc I57, the assistant 10 the
judge advocate said: One further word
as TO a suggestion Just made as to the
intention 70 show that Admiral Sampson
vas not il this battle I wish to say
that We 90 not understand the question
whether Admiral Sampson was OF was
not at the battle CT Santiago IS before tie
court. # it is We shah be happy TO in
vestisate it Unless the case
takes that attitude 1t Is improper to spread
upon the reeo-d arguments and Questions
which proceed upon the theory that he
vas not in command At the battle
At page $50 CT the record the same
matter being under consideration, XT.
Hanna said: If it is the desire Of the
court to 90 into these things, IL would, OF
course. he proper that He should also go
into them It would not only be proper,
but it would be necessary We
are thoroughly prepared to 20 into any
discussion providing the court is willing
Rejected by the Court.
The court uniformly rejected evidence
as TO who commanded. On ali the pages
here cited the court rejected such evi-
dence and nowhere was it admitted
The court more than once ruled that
this question was not before it. For ex-
ample at page 1856, when the question was
asked as 10 the position Of the com
mander-in-chief and CT the New York
and IS to the part they took il the bat
tie, Admiral Dewey sad: We do not
want that: we have ruled that out
The New York Out Of 1t.
The judge advocate then asked if the
court had so ruled and Admiral Dewey
replied; We have. We have kept the
New York out of it The court went so
far as to rule at page 1421 that Admiral
Schley VAS not in command during the
battle.
The matter then before the court re-
lated tc the periods during which Admiral
SchIcy had been in absolute command and
he Judge advocate said: Mr. Rayner,
you are confning yourself TO July 3, are
you?'
Mr. Rayner's reply aequiesced in this
view ard the court ruled that all ques-
UCns shall he confined TO be-
tween the 18th of May and the 1st OF
June, relating to the organization. man
agement, and control of that squadron
when he was actually commander-in-
chief. Matters referring to his alleged
command on July were excluded
"On page 1888 the court confirms this
decision.
Bowed TO VIII of Court.
"All proposed questions on this subject
were rejected by the court or Withdrawn
by the applicant, who finally acquteseed
in the decisions Of the court and gaye up
his effort in this behalf, saying: I bow
respectfully to the decision OF the court,
and 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 19S. 157. 1884, 4s5. and 1856.
4 ne HliiofttJ OPi4iaoLi - ~ SSStU bS All
miraI Dewey in this matter is at vari-
ance with all the rulings OF the court N
this regard and directly contradicts the
letters wherein Admiral Dewey. for the
court, defines Admiral SIMPSONS status
The Navy Department in its precept
has justly provided that any peyson in
! rsrested' might be given an oppc-raity OF
i appearing before the court in persp1 or by
counsel and preseating his ris1ts.
"As counsel fer the applicant. We, as
counsel for Admiral Sampson. three sep
i arate times appealed to the court asking
for protection or for permission TO appear
and defend Admiral SIMPSONS rights.
The Requests Denied
Each time our request was denied. and
We were assured that Admiral Sampson was
not involved, and finally Admiral Dewey,
acknowledging the receipt Of one of orr
/ letters. in which we had appealed to him
on the ground Of this very question as 10
who commanded at Santiago, said: I