The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-09-13
touch with the sentiment a.eons naval

touch with the sentiment alHonF naval uuiry from himself Admiral Hoy is2n had explained the absence of A mi al Samp- son from the scene of action wheE the ing: :sThe expianatIon Is there had been Jack of cooperation betw zen the land and naval forces and Sampson WAS trying to battle occurred was the last day "n earth when the Spanish fleet should tavs Teen expected to come out
 Raynor Examines Howison.
 Mir. Raynor asked Admiral Howison of Schley and Sampson.
 Mr' Raynor pressed his questions per- sistently, but the Admiral did not at any thSt nS he was sV Competent to sit sit as judge in this inquiry.
 MT. Raynor asked the Admiral con- (Howison) had said that Admiral Samp- son deserved the credit for winning the battle of Santiago. q want to know" he said whether or not you ever said that to Mir. Frost" "Maybe I did" the Admiral replied, refectively and continued: If he was ', solnnta somnot oniy to Mir. Frost but to others. | I am merely talking now of the navy orders and regulations. and the customs | of the service.
 cc ncerning MT. Spon's testimony the Ad- miral replied that he not only did not he had no recollection whatever of the l incident concerning which that witness | had testified. T tried while he was sit ting here,." the Admiral said "to remem- | and positively cannot remember ever seeiing him, nor do I remember the oc- currence of any such circumstances as he says did occur at a eertsin place on board the Minneapolis. 1 did come home on the Minneapolis, but 1t is not my custom to interfere with peoples talk MT. Raynor-And you have no recol- lection of your saying anything on that voyage to any one on the subject of the
 Rear Admiral Hcwison-f do not re- member what ! said:
 MT. Raynor-You do not recollect say | certain things he ought to have been | court martialed?
 Rear Admiral Howison-No: do not if some one for instance. should come to me and say a certain officer had done a certain thing, 1 might say that under | iect to court martial or discipline of some sort if he had done certain thing
 Denies Nicholls's Testimony. | Taking up the testimony of MT. Nich- oils, Mir. Raynor called Admiral Howl sons attention to the fact that in his
 
 ments of that witness. The Admiral said he had never said to Mir. Nichols that
 Schley had no business in the navy or
 that man could not remain in the Eng fish navy under such circumstances. "l
 never made any such remark as that in
 regard to Admiral Schley," he said. If
 was just as stated in my answer to
 you before; if he (Nicholls) had stated
 to me that Admiral Schley had positive
 ly disobayed orders or done somsthine ! he nn0bf n haXA wa .
 liable to discipline, would have said
 he should be brought before court
 martial"
 MT Raynor-He says "I expressed sur
 prise that he should feel that way to-
 wards Sckley; and he said: You would
 not If you were in touch with the sent
 iments among naval officers.
 Rear Admiral Howison-Well. how 1T ) the world could stranger to me, com , ing to my house on his own business get me to speak in such a way as tha
 unless it were in answer to some ques
 tcDs, or unless he misinterpreted mS
 answers to him? I have not the slight did not want to sit on it. It is no an agreeable duty for me. have nt g desire whatever to do it. and ! am n" ? making any excuses. for myself or fo t any of my private discussions with any 2 | one outside. think that is my own at d fair and nobody else Is asked about thes d objectionable man. I am perfectly will r ling to get out, as said in my letter. l. MT Rayncr-But are you Wfihn8 [ b ask the court to relieve you2 !, Would Not Ask Relief. d Rear Admiral Howison--I cannot as d have got to do that upon the merits r. MT. Raynor Now. you said just nov n that you have In conversations supstan n tially admitted that the credit of the bat d tie of Santiago was due to the command e er-in-chlef, and if Sampson were tn r.A -A hot md a IT any of the specifications of the precept d have you not made up your mind on r. very important question that Is to com t Rear Admiral Howison-No. sir. " MT. Rnynor-If you have come to tn IS mander-in-ohlef and m tnas s ns,n rne Treo hay
 ton that is bound to come before yo nov as judge judge G9oisonr5o 9f this triSSnal sir e MT. Raynor-Then why not? ;, n Rear Admiral observation-disclosures d B. not care what naval onlcer mas pee
 talking of in private, where It Is mean mean n ingless in more senses than one. NaVa l. officers are taught from youth np una tna Jf their oath of office is something dineren 1t from most peoples oath; and on )mce " can clear up his mind l honestly DO IS lieve. and judge from the testimony ths Id Is given before him.. without regaro st what he may have taken from ESWsnape ct reports or from other reports that nav l- sgMHr sMr HRaVnor-But if you have made u
 vour mind, would you not neceSsarll
 throw upon us the burden or reileNln d '1RR Bear Admiral Howison-Tf tSat cue .. ton came up at all 1t would nave of he hv evidence to you as vel: as 10 m In Mr Ravnor-Would we not have to prt -y duce sufficient evidence to satisIy ye st that you were wrong in the opinions th m you formed?
 1s le As to Commander-in-C Chief. C. Rear Admiral Howson-Why. thir N that where a man is known to De u
 commander-in-chief of the squadron tne IT, must be something brought forward Le show that he is not. ,, , It, MT Raynor-Then we would nave he bring forward proof which would satis ng you that he was not the comhah Ter Fl ne chief on that day? . ...,. s Rear Admiral Howson-I am not trViI ;t- | to nroVe who was and who was hnI U If commander ...,,, he The Judge Advocate-May ask "ni Se feature of the preccpt Is referred to vii
 regard to winning the battle Of Sanuas' le MT. Raynor--It is involved m lhr' Ut of the specifications, think, you " O. look at these specifications. the TIT le specification directs the court to enqaI !, G. into his conduct in connection with u
 events of the Santiago campaign. No lc if inc conduct of Admiral Schley at u Iy battle of Santiago is not an event m col
 nection with the Santiago calnpngA' F. would like to know what 1t is. ld The Judge Advocate-The conduct ,u Admiral Schley is in question, not on In at inc battle of Santiago, but in the who