The Washington times., 1901-09-13

Mr.. Rayner quoted from Mr. Nichols
navY reSyihohy' ny III he were In the Ensiis
less cause than there is in this case"
mat Is entirely mistake Admira
hoWison answered. L never maze an
Schley"
MT Rayner (again quoting Nichols
| ItestlInony)-l expressed surprise that h,
Shouid feel this way toward Schley. Anc
ne said; You would not if you were il
touch with the sentiments among nava
officers"
Admiral Howison-Well. how in the
world could stranger to me come into
my house on his own business, get me
to speak in such way as that unless II
| was n answer TO some questions or un-
| less he misinterpreted my answer tc
him? l have not the slightest desire t.
| force myself on this Court. l do not
want to sit on sit- 1T is not agreeable
duty for me. / have no desire whatever
to do 1t. and / am not making any ex-
| cuses for myself or for any of my private
discussions with anyone outside. l am
perfectly willing to get out, as l say in
| my letter.
Mr.. Rayner-But are you willing to ask
the Court to relieve you?
| Admiral HowiSon-I cannot ask the
| Court to relieve me because they have
| case.
Mr.. Rayner-Now, you say Just now
| that you have in conversation substan-
| TALLY admitted that the credit of the bat
]
| mander-in-c chief and If Sampson was the
| commander-in-chief-
Admiral Howison- Well, if he were the
n-chief--
| Mr.. Rayner-Nbw, IL that comes under
| any other specification of the precept-if
that question is incidentally or principally
or collaterally involved-have not you
made up your mind on very important
question that is to come before you now? ?
Admiral Howison-No, sir.
mr.. Rayner-One minute, If you please.
III 81 e ttas.N
sampson was the comma mander-in-chief and
shat the credit of the battle was due to
sampson nave you not made up your
mind on a question that is bound to come
bunal?
Admiral Howison-No, sir.
MI Rayner-Then why not?
admiral Howison-Because do not care
Wnat naval officer has been talking in
private where 1t Is meaningless in more
senses than one. Naval officers are taught
from youth up that their oath of office is
something different from other peoples
oaths, and an officer can clear up his
,hind. mn | honestly believe, and judge from
the testimony that is given before him
wlthout regard to what he may have
taken from newspaper reports or from
other reports that have gone before. That
III my letter-that personal letter.
MT kayner-But if you have made up
your mind would you not necessarily
throw upon us burden of relieving your
Z
70 the conclusion that Admiral Sampson
won that battle as the communicating
chiei on that day, would you not throw
upon our side the burden of proving to
your satisfaction that YOU were not right
ana that he was not the commander-in-
chief. and that he did not win the battle?
20 you not put on US the burden of prov
ing that fact?
Admiral Howison-If that question came
up at all 1t would have to be by evidence,
to you as well as to me-
produce sufficient evidence to satisfy Won
formed
Admiral Howison-why. 1 think that
where man is known to be the com
mander-in- chief If he is known to be the
commander-in-chief of a SQUADRON there
must be something brought forward to
Mr. Rayner-Then we would have to
bring forward proof which would satisfy
you that he was not the commander-in-
chief on that day?
Admiral Howison-I am not irving sto
prove who was and who was not the
comriander-in-chief
Just here one of the most interesting
features of the day occurred Judge Adj
vocate Lemly asked Mr.. Rayner what
feature of the precept dealt with winning
the battle of Santiago and Mr.. Rayner
said the paragraphs directing the Court
to examine into all the circumstances
and TO enquire into Admiral Schleys con-
duct in connection with the events of the
Santiago campaign.
Eow, added Mr.. Rayner ''if the con-
duct OF Admiral Schley at the battle of
Santiago is not an event in connection
with the Santiago campaign l would like
to know what is
The judge advocate responded with
considerable emphasis. THE conduct of
Admiral Schley, he said, lis in question
not only at the battle of Santiago but in
as well say here. MIR. President and mem
bers of the Court, that the question of Ad- |
miral SIMPSONS conduct upon those oc- |
casions is not before this Court in any |
way. This is not a comparative question !
as to whether some one did did not |
do better than Commodore Schley. 1t is |
a question as to whether Commodore |
Schley did his whole duty in the Santiago |
and at the battle of Santiago. |
The general question as to whether some |
other officer of the navy is a better man |
than Commodore Schley or not so good a |
a man is not In any way before this |
Court.
Mr. Rayner. in response, showed that
part OF Admiral Schiey's defence will be /
actual commander n-chier at Santiago. |
we intend to prove" he said. that
Commodore Sampson was not at the bat
lie of Santiago at all, and II becomes a
question of who was the commander-in-
chief at the battle of Santiago. If Ad-
niral Sampson was not there. then Ad-
niraI Schley was the cOmmander-in-ch chief.
md if judge of this tribunal has already
made up his mind that Admiral Sampson,
Is commander-in-chief,w won that battle,
[ becomes a very pertinent enquiry un-
Ter the specification as to what was tie
conduct of Schley during the Santiago
That Will be one of the ques-
ions involved here.
Admiral Howison-Well that is the gen.
'ral official understanding-tha he was
he commander-in-chief: and the com
nander-in-chief is ordered by the Presi-
lent of the United States through the
Secretary of the Navy. And if he was
hp he /
he commander-in-chief and should have
he credit.
Mr.. Rayner-That is your view. then,
he understanding throughout the country
nd the service that the man was appoint
d as commander-in-chief there.
Mr. Rayner-Your view is. then. that
ie was officially the commander-in-chief?
Admiral Howlson-Of the North Atlant-
C Squadron.
Mr. Rayner-In this letter you use this
anguage: 1T is no news to the navy to ,
ay that where all do their duty the first
onors for success go to the officer chief
n command.
Admiral Howison-That is so.
Mr.. Rayner-I will ask you who was the
fficer in chief command at Santiago.
Admiral Howison-it is generally under | Z
TODD that Admiral Sampson was. s
In response to further pressing by Mr.. {
sayner Admiral Howison said that by :
he officer in chief command he meant
admiral Sampson. if he was there and !
'as doing his duty; If he was not there c
c was not doing his duty"
This ended Admiral Howison's eXami- /
alton and Mr. Rayner made an argument /
D show that Admiral Howisons mind
'as in such a condition that the burden s
f proof to remove his prejudice was Q
laced on Admiral Schley. He reviewed a
ne statements of the three witnesses who :
.stifed to having heard Admiral HowisoD g
lake remarks antagonistic 10 Admiral |