The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1902-01-29
Continued From First Page)

have been facts fully and entirely estab-
lished during the enquiry. Briefly given,
this statement follows:
That on the morning Of July 3. Sampson
in the New York. left the bIockadirg line
and sent up a signal. "DisregarG move
ments commander n-chief"
That mis- signal was formal notice that
Sampson was about TO absent himself
from his command. which made Schley
the commanding officer present
That Sampson was too far away 70 COM
municate with the other ships except one.
That the naval regulations provide that
in the absence of an officer in command
the next in rank assumes command.
That Schley did actually assume com
mand as shown by signals cited in the
appeal
That the battle was over before the
New York appeared.
That the admission of testimony by
the court in regard to the question Of
command did not make Sampson an in
terested party before the court or entiue
him to a hearing.
Admiral Schley adds: In the case OF
Admiral Sampson. the resumption Of
command would date from the moment
he returned to a position whence he could
exercise his authority as the regular
chief"
Compared With Army Practice.
u is further maintained that Schley was
actually in command. for a number Of
reasons set forth. among them that Samp-
son, being under the orders Of the Navy
Department to 90 to Siboney. could not
resume command OF the feet until after
he had complied with these orders The
petitioner supports his contention with
this example:
THE status OF Comm odore Schley at
the battle Of Santiago may properly be
compared to the status Of a senior briga-
der general attached to a division which.
during the absence from the scene Of &C
tuaI combat Of the major general com
handing the division, and in the event Of
his inability to communicate with any
portion OF his division. during the actual
conflict. might fight a battle In such a
case the senior brigadier general would
command; he would actually command
his division during the battle and would
report the engagement as the senior Of
hcer present and participating. the re-
port being addressed TO the major general
comma nding the division.
Reference in such a report 10 the
force. under your command. your com
maud, etc. Quotations from Schleys re-
port OF the battle to SAMPSON. could not
be construed as meaning that the ma or
general actually and practically com
manded the division during the battle
but would refer to the division to which
though absent and not officiating At the
time OF the battle. the major general was
regularly assigned as ranking officer"
A. TO "CnptaTn's Battle"
Admiral schley takes mp Secretary
Longs statement in his letter TO the Sen
ate Committee on Naval Affairs that the
hattie Of Santiago was a captains battle,
and holds that this statement is untena-
bic for the reason that as Admiral Schley.
in mis- exercise CT command On the Brook
lyn. was superior to Captain Cook, Cook
could not be included as one OF those -sh0
contributed toward making the engss'e-
uent a captains battle; and, further
more. THAT neither Cook nor Clark OF the
Oregon. who were present at the surran-
der Of the Colon, presumed 10 act IN lis
Individual capacity. but each recognized
she seniority Of Schley.
II il maintained also by Admiral Schley
that n his status al she battle Of san