The age-herald., 1901-09-24

top of the other, before I would say a word in between"
 Does anything appear in your log about that?'' asked MT. Raynor.
 "othing," answered the witness. It was not on the log. I can tell you why 1t was not, because Captain Philip said he did not like to have anything in it. I swore to the judge advocate of this court that would not bring up a dead man to sub stantiate anything I said, and that I would not bring up this point, andI am sorry I brought 1t.
 Referring to the cruise to Santiago, the witness said that he knew the Eagle had impeded the speed on that trip He re- membered also that the collier Merrimac had been broken down after the tour to the westward from Santiago on May 17.
 Did you see any signals from the New York on the day of the battle?" asked MT. Raynor.
 ''We did not receive any signals from that vessel on Monday until in the aft ernoon," replied the witness.
 New York Flew No Signal.
 Continuing, the witness said that if the New York had flown any signals he had not seen them.
 Did you see the New York on the day of the battle?' was asked.
 "Oh, yes. I think she was report ed coming up before the Viscaya went ashore. She was the last ship
 Here the judge advocate interposed to ask the purpose of this inquiry. MT. Ray nor replied:
 we have the absolute right to show the situation of the New York on the day of the battle and the connection of Admiral Sampson in reference to the bat tie. We have a right for instance, to show that Commodore Schley at Santi- ago maintained the same sort of block ade 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 be- cause one of the specifications of this precept so states-whether or not a close or adequate blockade of said harbor to prevent the escape of the enemy's vessels therefrom was established.
 We do not propose to bring the name of Admiral Sampson into this contro- versy any morethan it Is possible to do so. We are not here for the purpose of engaging in any personal controversy between Admiral Sampson and Commo- dore Schley or adherents of either; we are not here for the purpose of, at pres ent, without knowing what this case will develop, criticising the actions of Ad- miral Sampson but 1t is absolutely neces- sary for this court, in order to properly investigate this case under the specifi- cations of this precept, to let us prove what Admiral Sampson did; not that we condemn what he did or criticise or con- sure what he did We are not here for the purpose of condemning the fact, if 1t proves to be a fact, of the New York 8 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. un- der the specifications of your precept memorandums, to find out whether the blockade at Santiago was a close or ade- quate blockade. Now, if we can prove that it was, so far as distances were concerned, the same blockade that the commander-in-chief maintained here. then we can justify the course of Ad- miral Schley, who was commander-in- chief before Sampsons arrival.
 Would Admiral Schley be censurable for maintaining on the 2S. 29, 90 and 31st