The San Francisco call., 1901-12-21
BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN,
MILES MAY POSE AS ARMY MARTYR
While Secretary Root Is Waiting to Hear From
the Commanding General the Champions of
SchIey and Sampson File Protests and Reports
Special Dispatch to The Call.

tie and Commodore schley second in com
mand.
III The question as to the command at San
uago was not referred to the court for con-
sideration and evidence bearing on the point
was excluded.
/. Commodore schley was. not in command
(a) The disposition of the forces at the
beginning OF the battle, according to Conmo-
dore Schley's own statement, places Admiral
Sampson in command
The Brooklyn and the Vixen were the west
ernmost ships of the fleet; the Indiana and
gloucester were the easternmost. The New
York nearer both OF the latter than was
tHe 94KIsh, TSia ana notaDiy at the time when
ginning of the action and when the Gloucester
was engaged with the Furor and Pluton
Commodore Schley says:
The Indiana and Gloucester were
lyn- We have then The case of a. fleet in a.
regular formation with the Commander in
cnleI within signal distance and closer to a
large number of ships than is the second in
command 1t is true that the commander
in chief could not have reached the most dis
stant vessel by signals, except by causing
an entirely useless course-but it is also
true that the second in command could not
have reached the remote vessels Of the fleet
namely the Indiana and the Gloucester-With-
out likewise repeating signals.
Senior Officer Is Responsible.
II this state of affairs, the regulations Of
the navy and the customs of the sea place
the absolute command and the full RESPONSE
Cb) The Brooklyn's maneuver during the
actlen destroys any claim that Commodore
facts as to the loop found by the court.
The finding and opinion show that to avoid
danger to his own ship he maneuvered with
out warning to the rest OF the squadron, and
in disregard of the fleet formation.
IL The President OF the United States and
the Navy Department had decided that Ad-
miral Sampson was in command at that bat
tie and Commodore Schley second in command.
This fact was before the court; for the Sec
raTa a-z-1- fe+Fn r.,
., 1920 states that the Spanish squadron was
destroyed by our fleet under his (Sampson' 81
command" and the advancement of Commo-
dore Schley was proposed in recognition of his
services as next in rank at the battle of San
tiaSo-
Santiago was not referred to the court for
consideration Evidence bearing on the point
(a) If Commodore Schley was in command
Admiral Sampson was not. and if the question
as to which was in command was to be con-
sidered 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 excludes
the question as to who commanded at that
the conduct of Admiral Schey-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
Cc) The Judicial officers of the court main
tained that this matter outside the scope
Of the inquiry. They expressed willingness
to go into it if their view should be over
ruled, but were in every instance sustained by
the court.
Court Proceedings Quoted.
Thus at page 15T 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 under
stand that the question whether Admiral Samp-
son was or was not in the battle of Santiago
to s be9Fe taf court . is T shall 4ba be happy
that attitude it is improper to spread upon the
ceed upon the theory that he is in the case"
question.
At page 400 Of the record the same matter
being under discussion. Mr.. Hanna said; III
II is the desire of the court to 60 into these
would not be necessary p1ves We are tn thor II
oughly prepared to go into any discussion of
them provided the court desires SO to enlarge
and extend the scope of this inquiry"
Counsel for the applicant again failed to
press the point and the court made no objec-
ton to Mr. H2nnas view.
At pages 153 and 1850 there were similar
rulings by the Judge advocate. In the case
Of all those declarations there was acquiescence
the part of the court
I'D The court uniformly rejected evidence
as 10 who commanded On all the pages herein
cited from the record the court rejected such
evidence and nowhere was it admitted against
objection.
Ce) The court more than once specifically
ruled that this question was not before it,
For example: At page 1856. where the ques-
ton was as to the position OF the commander
in chief and of the New York ard to the
part they took in the battle. Admiral Dewey
said: We do not want that We have ruled
the court had so ruled and Admiral Dewey
piled: I'VE have. We have kept the New
York out of it,
See also page 4s1:
How the Court Ruled
CD-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.
Itayne7. you are confning yourself to July
Rsyner in reply, acquiesced in this view
and the court ruled that "ail questions
shall be confined to between the 18th
Of May and the 1st of June, relating to the
squadron. when he was actually commander
in-chtef. Matters referring to- his alleged CONT
mand on July were excluded"
On page 1873 the court confirms this deci-
(gJ-An proposed questions on this subject
were either rejected by the court withdrawn
decisions Of the court and gave up his eff
forts in this behalf. saying: I bow respect
fully 70 the decision of the court and know
exactly what IL means"
Instances Of the withdrawal of such ques-
tions ard Of their rejection by the court Will
ls5 and 1880
(h)-The minority opinion expressed by Ad-
mirsi Dewey IN this matter is at variance with
directly ccntradicts the letters wherein Ad-
miral Dewey for the court defines Admiral
SampsOn's status.
The Navy Department, in it's precept had
justly provided that any person interested
might be given an opportunity of appearing
before the court in person or by counsel and
protecting his rights. As counsel for the ap-
picant ignored. at times the courts rulings
and spread upon the record arguments reflect
ing upon Admiral Sampson, we, as his counsel
three separate times appealed to the court
asking for protection or Tor permission to aD-
pear and defend Admiral Simpsons rights
Each time request denied and we were
assured that Admiral Sampson in
vclved and finally, Admiral Dewey, acknowl-
edging the receipt Of one of our letters in
which we had appealed to him on the ground
Of this very question as to who commanded
at Santiago, said: Il have to state while
the precept convening this court gives it
Lhority to permit any person whom it may
regard as concerned in the investigation to
be present the court considered that
Admiral Sampson is not an interested party
" and you are further informed that il
circumstances arise which. in the opinion OF
the court, render it necessary for Admiral
Sampson to be represented due notice will be
sent him.
Upon that promise Admiral Sampson relied
The notice came only in the form of a minor
ity opinion by Admiral Dewey discussing mat
ters beyond the scope of the precept and
I'D