The sun., 1901-10-08
SAMPSON CENSURED MACLAY.
UNFAIR To CALL SCHLEi COW
ARD AND CAITIFF, HE SAID.
Statement ef Got. u. VI. Thompson. Who
Also says That ss,np-on Refused.
AFTER seeing Epiihrts, To Have An,-
thing Further to Do with the Proofs.

Also says Ihht >etnp-on Hefttsed.
Aner seeing Epiib~ts. To Have AM.
thing Further te Do win the Proofs.
Col Robert NJ Thompson Of this CITY. -
tho President of the United States Naval
Academy Alumni Association. and IN that
capacity he naturally takes great inter
est IN all things relating 90 tho navy
When asked regarding th" present in
auiry in progress at Washington. Col
Thompson said
Il am Interested In the so-called Samp-
son-Schley controversy. say '-o-called.
because II Il hsd no, been for the politicians
and unwisa civilian friends therc would
never have h,s.n any controversy between
Sampson and Schl-y
There IL one story which I arm very
anxious should 10 truthfully presented 10
the public After Maclsy's book was pub
lshed. MIR Maclay said that his proofs had
been submitted 10 the commanding ON
Gers. including Admiral Sampson. and that
they approved his statements. A reporter
calling upon Admiral Sampson. when he
was ~ In his b"i, obtained from the
Admiral what appeared to be conhrma-
tion Of his statement. The Admiral was
ask.d II h. had seen and read the proofs
hl hNfiAN = iHphs anu Nv Nbut W. bUs
unfortunately. he was too IN 20 20 into the
matter at any length and explain every
thing. and sn the public were informed
and to-day heliave that Admiral Sampson
entirely approved the statement that Schley
was n coward and caitif. which was the
gis, of MaclaY's charge againsi S'hloy
i am IN "a position 10 stat" the facts. and
you may absolutely rely upon them a. the
truth The proofs were sent hy Mr. Ma
"A
they ba read and corrrctcd. Tn. Admiral
al the time " as not I'm good health and did
not wish to undertake tn" labor, hut his
secretary Pointed out that the Maclay
history Wa standard one, and u-.Sl az ~"
Naval Academy ~ textbook This
volume brought m" history down through
the p"-iod 81 the spanish war, and u Was
desirable that there should be no uAOura
cie- Ia Il The Admiral Therefore consented
90 read them. and he did corr"t a certain
part ~ them, but A. soon ~ b" arrived
at the part which contained IA" statement
that Schley Wa "a coward and n CaitIh he
wa very much ang,r',i. ami said the state
ment was one the author hal uo night to
make. that ~ was un ItIS' and unfair Ia speak
nf anv naval officer IN such terms. and
d.Clned TO have anything further to do
with the proof- His -ssrr"tary, impressed
with the great desirahlty Of having this
statement 81 facts accurate. and otbeheving
that he was IN any way r-Spon~lhl" Tor
the statements Of opinion. did, on has own
account compare the book with the records
and make ON the margins numb-r ~
corrections As these we're ia the same
handwriting n tho-. made when Admiral
Sampson wa- giving his personal a't"n-
'ipu 80 N" corrections, hr MaClav was
,.rf"'flv il-tirci 10 hl- statement
The order Of tho Secretary OF the Nayv
forhliding naval officers 10 make anv
statement for publication regarding This
controversy. ISSUED immediately after
this interview, prevented ~" above cor
rrrtipn bcing officially mad" Fortu-
uatcly am Ia "a position Ia learn accurately
tine fact. and II giN"- mo great pleasure
TO make them public, Just ~ " gives IN"
great Measure TO II, able To not" that the
Statement that Admiral Schley. ~hl"
hockading Santiago, ran out at night 20
diStancs ~ twenty or twenty-five miles,
thus leaving the port entirely open, has
bcsn proved To be untrue
NV interest In the-e matters, and
believe " " the interest OF every good
American. u 20 learn the truth. and TO Us
able Co believe that our naval officevs are
tn. manly, generous, courageous men We
hav. ways believed them To be
There II ona oth.r matter that has been
brought up, in which accusations of caro-
la-sn,,--, to -ay the least, have been made
against the gallant Wainwright In con-
r.~tion with the chart Of the battle % San
tiago. prepared and printed IN the So
called Aptsndlr, vet any one reading tho
report accompanying the chart sees that
there was no misrepresentation a. 10 what
~ was II did not claim to ho and ia the
nature OF things could not he absolutely
correct Ia th.. first half hour of tho fght, ,
while the smoke of battle obscured all
landmarks and the excitement incident
To- the battle was affecting every mind,
how could men determine accurately whor"
thew wen. al each particular moment
A. tho brst. there could only be. As there
WAS. "A general discussion between the
navigators. each one putting down his
shin wh.r, he thought II ought To be, and
wlr,re there were differences OF opinion
the majority had To decide a. 90 which
p,-ition was to b. accepted. and 80 the
beard reported The chart In question,
which shows in a general way the position,
Of the ships l. as accurate a. In the natur"
of things Va can make II and IN any event
H. an approximation to the truth. lhls
description stands true to-day, and all
IA" criticism Of Wainwright and the others
ls entirely unjust
4 was at the recent yacht races, and
have learned how exceedingly disfcul,
u IL to determine the position OF "a ship
on the water from one point OF view Time
aud time again people on the yacht With mo
wer. convinced that one or the other boat
was gaining. when the apparent gain or
loss was due To- our own motion. With
no fixed standard to guide one u II very
difficult ~ even approximate the truth
With this In mind ] readily understand
the difference Of opinion OF the several
oricrrs. who, during the battle, observed
m. Rrooklvn from varying Positions
There ~ not the least doubt hut tina, each
one reported the truth as he saw II. Tn"
erac, truth can be arrived st only by com
bining all the points 81 view. or perhaps