The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-10-11
DEWEY SAYS HIM NAY
GO AWAY BACK AND SIT
DOWN
SAMPSON IS NOT ON TRIAL
His Counsel Is Notified by President
OS SchIey COu-t That sampson
VIII Re Called When
Needed.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10.-William H.
Slayton, the New York attorney who
some time ago asked to be allowed to
REPRESENT Rear Admiral Sampson be-
fore the Schley court of inquiry, and
whose application was denied by the
court today presented the following let
ter:
STATIONS PLEA.
Navy Yard, Washington. D. c.. Oct. 10.
l9Ol..To Admiral George Dewey, L. S. N,
President Naval Court of Inquiry Wash
mgton, d. C.-Sir: l am instructed by
Rear Admiral Sampson to acknowledge
for him the receipt of your letter of the
Zth OF september, 1901, stating that the
court does not at this time regard him
as a party to the case before it, and is
therefore, unable to comply with his re-
quest that he be permitted to repre-
sentatlon by counsel.
Second-I am further instructed by the
admiral that whenever circumstances
arise that entitle him to representation,
you will permit our admission as counsel
in his behalf
Third-Mr. H. S. Then, of Washington.
ID. C., who is my associate in this mat
ter and myself, have been present in
the court room nearly every day of the
procedure, and one or both of us will en-
deaVor to be present every day hereafter
Fourth-We have not had facilities
Wnlch would permit us to hear the pro-
ceed1ngS but we have been furnished
copies OF the courts record, which contain
attacks upon Rear Admiral Sampson.
Rear Admiral Schley, for instance. was
permitted to say (see page y, that "tne
principal parties to the present issue are
Read AdmlralS Sampson and Schley"
SlXth-Direct allegations have been
maze against Admiral Sampson, and we
ask the court to refer to pages 1872 to
156 of the record, where counsel reDeat-
edly accused Admiral Sampson. first. of
conducting blockade with his vessels
at Instance as great as that which was
6T71i1 -q1 Son1
ade, and second, of permitting the Colon
TO remain for an indefinite time after his
arrival in full sight of the squadron
without making an effort to destroy her
Seventh-On page % of the record conn
sci was alIoWed to declare that DESPITE
Admiral SIMPSONS official reDort in
when ne states that the battle of July 8
was fought under his command, that as
matter of fact Admiral SAMPSON did
not command on that day, and an effort
was made by counsel at yesterdays pro-
signal made by Rear Admiral SAMPSON
which counsel stated in his argument
was intended to show that Rear Admiral
Scnley was commander-in-chief at this
battle. Surely these allegations involve
the honor of a naval officer
Eighth-The courts precept states that
an officer who is interested may be per
mitted to appear and defend himself and
while we fully realize that Admiral
Sampson is not a party to the case. as
the court states in its letter of the 2Tth
OF september, yet notice has been given
tnat an effort will be made to deprive
MIN of his honors and even of his honor
ana good name, and he is accused of per
mlttlng an enemy's vessel to lie undis-
a naval officer he holds dear is involved
and we ask you to decide merely that
he is interested
Ninth-It is true that the attacks uuon
Admiral Sampson have been made CO.
verify and under the name of argu-
ment, but the statements have been ney-
ertheiess public; they have been given
great currency, and they are embodied
in the record to remain forever in the
files of the navy department 1t is az
least worthy of comment that on every
f occasion on, IN whlch SUCH an argument has
peen INDUCED In, the question a issue
has been voluntarily Withdrawn after
full opportunity had been taken to accuse
the admiral.
Tenth-Were we alone in our opinion
that these arguments are proper we
should hesitate to make such statements.
but the judicial officer of the court-the
Judge adVocate-haS repeatedly charac-
terized these arguments as improper.
Eleventh-We, of course, realize fully
that the Intervention of new issues and
new parties might be improperly used
to cumher the record and prolong the
trial, but counsel are entirely under the
control of the court and may always be
suitably restricted. We. therefore, re-
quest that we now be permitted to ap-
pear before the court and give facilities
which will enable US to hear the pro-
cedure and be present to defend Rear
Admiral Sampson when counsel shall
make upon him attacks of the nature
which they already have deemed proper
to make. Very respectfully,
William H. Stayton.
SAMPSON NOT IN IT.
The court replied as follows:
"Sir-The court has carefully consid-
cred your letter of this date in which
you again make request that you be per-
mitted to appear before the court as
counsel for Rear Admiral Sampson and
given facilities which will enable you to
hear the procedure and defend that Off
Ger from attack when necessary. In re-
ply 1 have to state that while the order
convening this court gives it authority
to permit any person whom it may re-
gard as concerned in the investigation
to be present for the purpose of cross
examining witnesses and examining wit
nesses, the court considers that Rear nd
miral Sampson is not an interested party
in the case now before it, and is there
fore not entitled to appear either in
person or by counsel before the court,
and therefore you are informed that
when the court considers anything has
arisen in the court to make it necessary
for Rear Admiral Sampson to be repre-
scented due notice will be sent him.
George Dewey,
Admiral U. S. N, President of the
Court.