Missouri Valley times. [volume] (Missouri Valley, Iowa) 1874-1931, 1901-10-10
mot APPROVED BY.
ADMIRAL SAMPSON
Attack on schl.y in Mac|.y'. His
tory Net Sanctioned, a.
Supposed.
HIS ATTITUDE is MlsuaDERsIoo
"sn-nce" oeder has Prevented sampson
from Making AN Otncial Correction
Colonel H Il. Thompson Makes
Statement.

New YORK, oct. 9.--COlOnei Robert IL.
Thompson Of this city, president OF the
United States Naval Academy Alumni
association. makes the following state
ment to the Associated Press in regard
to the Schley inquiry:
There Is one story which am very
anxious should Ge truthfully presen ed
to the country. After Niaclay's book
proof had been submitted to the COM
manding officers, including Admiral
Sampson, and they approved his state-
ments. y reporter calling upon Ad-
msral Sampson when he was i'll in his
bed, obtained from the admiral what
appeared To be 4 confirmation of that
statement. The admiral was asked IL
he had seen and read the proofs OF
MaclaN's book, and he said Yes. But
unfortunately he WAS too i'll to go into
the matter at any length and explain
everything, and so the public was so
informed and today believe that Ad
mlral sampson entirely approved the
statement that Schley was a coward
and caitiff. which was the gist of
Maclay'S charge against Schley.
am In a position to state the true
facts, and you may absolutely rely up
on them as the truth. The proofs were
sent by Maclay to Admiral Sampson,
With the request that they should be
read and corrected. The admiral at the
time was not in good health and did
not wish to undertake the labor, but
his secretary pointed out that the Ma
Clay history was a standard one and
used at The naval academy as a text
book. This volume brought the history
down through the period of the Span
ish war, and it was desirable that there
should be no inaccuracies in 1t.
The admiral therefore consented to
read them, and he did correct a certain
part of them. but as soon as he ar
rived at the part which contained the
statement that Schley was coward
and caitiff he was very much an
gered, and said that the statement was
one the author had no right to make;
that it was unjust and unfair to speak
of any naval officer in such terms, and
declined to have anything further to do
With the proofs. His secretary, I'm
pressed With the great desirability of
having the statement of facts accurate,
and not believing that he was In any
Way responsible for the statements Of
opinions, did. on his own authority,
compare the book with the records and
make on the margins number OF cor
rections AS these We're in the same
handwriting rs those made when Adj
miral Sampson was giving his personal
attention to the corrections. Mr.. Ma
clay was perfectly justified in his state
ment.
The order of the secretary Of the
navy, forb.ddinS naval officers to make
any statement for publication regard
ing this controversy, issued immedi-
ately after this interview. prevented
the above correction being officially
made.
.'rhere is one other matter that has
been. brought up In which accusations of
carelessness, TO say the least. have been
made against the gallant Wainwright in
connection with the chart of the battle
of Santiago, prepared and printed in the
so-cailed appendix, yet anyone reading
the report accompanying the chart secs
that there was no misrepresentation as to
what 1t was. 1t did not claim to be. and
In the nature of things could not be- alb
solutclN correct In the first half hour OF
the tight. while the smoke of battle OBJ
scureu all landmarks. and the excitement
Incident to the battle was affecting
every mind. how could men determine
accurately where they We're at each par
only be. IS there was. 1, general discus
sion between the naviSators, each one
putting down his ship where he thought
1t ought 10 be. aud where there were diff
ferencos of opinion the majority had to
decide as tn which position was to be
chart in question, which shows In Il gem
eral way the positions of the ships, is as
accurate as in the nature of things we
can make it. anu in any event. it is an APP
Proclamation of the truth. This descrip-
ton stands true today, and all the criti-
c!s;a Of Wainwright and tie others is
entirely UNJUST