The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1901-12-21
Who COMMANDED
SAMPSON DIsAGREES TO DEWEY's
FINDING.
ASSERTS THE HONOR is HIS.
CITES SCHLEY'S OWN STATEMENT
TO THIS EFFECT.

serts That This Question Was One
Already Decided i'm His Favor hs
the President and the Navy De-
pnrtment-That IL Was Not i'm the
Province of the Court of Inquiry
to Decide and Was in Fact Ex-
pressIy Excluded.
Washington, Dec. 20.-The objection
of Rear Admiral w. r. Sampson, to
that part of Admiral Dewey's findings
in which he says Admiral Schley was
in command at the battle of Santiago
and entitled to the credit for the vic
tory, was filed with Secretary Long to-
day. The document was brought to the
Navy Department by e. $. Theall of
counsel for Admiral Sampson, and
handed to the secretary. 1t is signeo
by Stayton and Campbell and e. s.
Theall, counsel for Rear Admiral
Sampson, and is addressed to Secetary
Long. 1t follows:
"Sir-As counsel for Rear Admiral
Sampson, we have the honor to reuqest
that the department. for the reasons
below stated, strike out on specifically
disapprove that portion of Admiral
Dewey's opinion filed in connection
with the proceedings of the Schley
court of inquiry, in which he stated
his view to be that Commodore Schley
was in absolute command at the ma
val battle of Santiago.
First. Commodore Schley was not
in command at that battle.
(a.) The disposition of the forces at
the beginning of the battle, according
to Commodore Schley's own statement,
places Admiral Sampson in command.
"The Brooklyn and Vixen were the
westermost ships of the fleet; the In
diana and Gloucester were the east
ernmost. The New York was nearer
both of the latter than was the Brook
| lyn, and notably at the time when the
Indiana was heavily engaged at the
| beginning of the action, and when the
| Gloucester was engaged with the Furor
| and Pluton. Commodore Schley says
the Indiana. and the Gloucester .
! We're closer to your flagship than to
| the Brooklyn. We have then the case
of a fleet in a regular formation. with
the commander in chief within signal
distance and closer TO a larger num-
] DeT OF SnlpS IMAM is Ine SECOND III cOIll~
| mand. 1t is true that the commander
! in-chief could not have reached the
most distant vessel by signals, except
! by causing them to be repeated by an
| intermediate vessel--an entirely un-
usual course-but it is equally true
| that the second in command could not
have reached the remote vessels of the
| fleet (namely, the Indiana and the
| Gloucester) without likewise repeating
signals.
"In this state of affairs, the regula.-
tions of the navy and customs of the
sea place the absolute command and
the full responsibility in the senior Off
Ger.
"(b) The Brooklyn's maneuver dur
ing the action destroys any claim that
Commodore Schley might have had to
the command. The facts as to the loop
are found by the court The finding
and opinion show that to avoid dan
ger to his own ship he maneuvered
without warning to the rest of the
squadron, and in disregard to the fleet
formation.
Second. The President of the United
States and the Navy Department had
decided that Admiral Sampson was in
command at that battle and Commo-
dore Schley second in command
This fact was before the court; for
y
dated Feb. 6, 1890 state that the Span
ish squadron was destroyed by our
fleet under his (Sampson's) command
and the advancement Of Commodore
Schley was proposed in recognition of
his services as next in rank at the VIC
tory of Santiago
WINS Not Before the Court.
Third The question as to who com
manded at Santiago was not referred
to the court for consideration. Evil
dence bearing on the point was ex-
cluded.
"(a). If Commodore Schley was i'm
command Admiral Sampson was not,
and If the question as to which was in
command was to be considered by the
court. surely Admiral Sampson became
an interested party and under the pre-
cept, was entitled to the hearing which
was repeatedly refused him.
"(b). The language of the precept eX-
cludes the question as to who COM
manded at that battle. 1t directs the
court to inquire into the conduct of
Admiral Schley-not into his status or
as to whether or not he was in COM
mand, and TO report its conclusions
upon his conduct in connection with
the events of the Santiago campaign
"(c). The judicial officers OF the court
maintained that this matter was out
side the scope or the inquiry. They eX-
pressed willingness TO go into 1t If their
view should be overruled, but were, I'm
every instance. sustained by the court
Thus, at page l57, the assistant to
the Judge advocate said: One further
word as to a suggestion just made as
to the intention TO show that Admiral
Sampson was not IN this battle. / wish
to say that We. do not underatand that
the question whether Admiral Samp-
son was or was not in the battle OF
Santiago Is before the court. II IL rs,
we shall be happy TO investigate H.
Until the case takes
that attitude 1t is improper TO spread
upon the record arguments and ques-
tions which proceed upon the theory
that he Is in the case Counsel for the
applicant withdrew the question.
|. "At page 400 of the record the same
matter being under discussion, Mr.
Hanna said: If 1t Is the desire OF the
court to go into these things, 1t would.
OF course. be proper that we should
also go into them. II would not only
be proper, but it would be necessary
. We are thoroughly pre-
pared to go into any discussion OF
them, provided the court desires to 50
enlarge and extend the scope Of this
inquiry Counsel for the applicant
again failed TO press the point and the
court made no objection to Mr.. Han
mas view.
at pages 15S and 1850 there we're
similar rulings 10y the Judge advocate.