The daily morning journal and courier., 1901-09-24
hot mullins, hot cakes, made with Royal Baking Powder may be freely eaten without fear of indigestion.

The day closed with another animat
 ed controversy between counsel as t,
 the policy of bringing Admiral Samp sons name into the trial. This hap
 pened during the examination of Com
 mander Heilner, when objection was
 made by Judge Advocate Lemly to tht
 questions asked concerning the position
 of the New York on the day of battle
 He demanded to know the purpose o1
 the line of cross-examination being pur-
 sued.
 MT. Raynor, for Admiral Schley
 said: We have the absolute right tc
 show the situation of the New York or
 the day of the battle, and we have the
 right to show the connection of Admiral
 Sampson in reference to the battle; we
 have right, for instance, to show that
 Commodore Schley at Santiago main- tained the same sort of blockade that
 Admiral Sampson maintained when he got there on the first of June. So far as distances are concerned, I think we
 have the right to show-because one of
 the specifications of this precept states |-whether or not a close or adequate
 blockade of said harbor to prevent the ]
 was established.
 We do not propose to bring the name of Admiral Sampson into this
 controversy any more than it is neces- l sary to do so. This is not personal i controversy. We are not here for the purpose of engaging in any personal
 controversy between Admiral Sampson
 or Commodore Schley or adherents of | either; we are not here for the purpose
 of at present. without knowing what | this case will develop, criticising the actions of Admiral Sampson, but 1t Is absolutely necessary for this court, in order to properly investigate this case under the specifications of this precept to let us prove what Admiral Sampson did, not that we condemned what he did, nor criticise what he did or cen- sure what he did. We are not here now for the purpose of condemning the fact, if 1t proves to be a fact, of the New York's leaving on the morning of the battle; we are not here to criticise the blockade that Admiral Sampson had at Santiago, but we are here to establish this, or under the specifications of your precept, memorandums to find out whether the blockade at Santiago was close or adequate blockade.
 Now if we can prove that it was, so far as distances were concerned, the same blockade that the commander-in- chief maintained there, then we can justify the course of Admiral Schley, who was commander-in-c chief before Sampson's arrival
 "In other words, would Admiral Schley be censurable for maintaining the same character of blockade that Sampson maintained? Would Admiral Sohley be censurable for maintaining on the 2sth, 2sth, 3oth and s1st of May the same character of blockade SO far as distances are concerned that Ad- miral Sampson maintained from the day he got ther on the list of June, un- til the day of battle?
 There is one other point, and this l is all done for the purpose of really not l delaying but property getting at the ] matter. We propose to prove that on | the 1st day of June the Colon was in | precisely the same position inside of the | harbor that she was on the 31st of May, l when Admiral Schley made the recon noissance with the Massachusetts and l the New Orleans. Now we propose to show that when Admiral Sampson came up with the ships, his ships saw the Colon in the same position, and in- stead of attacking it steamed by and | permitted her to go further inside the harbor. Now, wouldn't we be justified in not engaging in battle with the Colon and the shore batteries at San Cox same course?"
 The judge advocate at this point in- terposed an objection. He said: 'If the court please, object to this line of argument. It does not make one par 1 ticle of difference what any one else did. You might as well try to prove that else committed a murder and said, He committed it and my man is not to blame.' It Is simply a waste of lime. It is nowhere within the scope of he .precept. It is endeavoring to get beyond the precept This is not an in luiry between Admiral Sampson and Admiral Schley. It is a question be- .ween Admiral Schley and the morale if the service, and these comparisons lave absolutely no bearing upon 1t, ,ither in evidence or argument, and I object to this ingenious attempt to ex- end the scope of the precept."
 Mr. Raynor-"This is an important 'oint with us, and we are prepared with he authorities to maintain it. I am lot doing this ingeniously, but very rankly Notwithstanding the strenu- us efforts of the learned judge advo- ate to keep Admiral Sampson out of his case he can't keep him out I wish Q be understood as not saying one word n derogation of Admiral Sampson nor o censure him, but to show the court hat what we did was under the orders f Admiral Sampson, and that he did recisely the same things we did I do ot think laddressing Judge Advocate .emly) you have any right to interrupt le in an argument"
 The judge advocate-'I want to say ere, then, that as an officer of this ourt when I think there is an improper , rgument I deem it my duty at any me to interrupt, and the court must ule upon the fact as to whether I am , ght or not 1 MT. Raynor-"I have not concluded. , he court cannot decide until I have f oncluded. We propose to prove that