The Savannah morning news., 1901-11-01
rebuttal? That would lead to an in

rebuttal? That would lead to an in
terminable case"
Capt Lemly: Counsel is wrong
when he says l closed the case. / did
not close it. l simply said We rest
here, and l propose to call further
witnesses hereafter. / am only going
to call such witnesses as the court
thinks necessary in order to have the
facts before it,"
No "Prosecution," Said Hanna.
Mr.. Hanna took especial exception
to the Characterization of his and
Capt. Lemly's conduct of the case as
prosecution" On this point he said
"As to this use of the language which
has been employed here, that this is
very like a prosecution, 1 cannot al
low the record to stand in that shape
without saying word or two upon
that point. If this case has in any
manner approached that of a prose-
cution, it has been due to the action of
the applicant and his counsel. Out of
generous consideration to the applicant
we have allowed every technical rule
of the law to be invoked in his inter-
est. That is generosity That is not
prosecution. Everything that the law
has devised to screen and protect, and
OF a charge, has been allowed to come
in before this court of inquiry. That
was in favor of the applicant, not
| against him."
Court Wants All Light Possible.
Replying, Mr.. Rayner said that he
| had never spoken of the inquiry as a
prosecution, but said that he had re-
ferred to it as a trial" and had so
considered it. He also refused TO con-
cede that any special generosity had
been displayed in the case.
When the court reconvened, after re-
cess, Admiral Dewey announced the
decision of the court, holding that "the
court is required to examine all wit
nesses who may have any knowledge OF
| the matters brought to it's attention,
and is not bound by any technical
laws regarding evidence or procedure,
and to this end witnesses may be call
| ed at any time or they may be re-
| called to make corrections and addi-
| tionS in the nature of correction to
their testimony, that the facts of the
case may, if possible, be placed clearly
before the court, but no witness shall
| reiterate former statements"
Capt. Sigsbee then said:
Il have carefully, since my last testi-
mony, gone over all of my official doc
uments, all of my private letters and
the records of the st. Paul. 1 have no
correction to make in the testimony 1
then gave so far as it was given, ex-
| cepting that / said l could not recol-
| lect whether there were one or more
assemblages of commanding officers
aboard ship off Santiago before the
arrival of the Flying Squadron there
on the 26th and that if there were two
visits one must have been on board
the Yale. My log shows there were two
| assemblages, both on board the Har-
| ward, and that l went on the second
! visit with the captain of the Yale, and
| from that had come to the conclusion
that the second visit was on board the
| Yale.
II desire to state that I informed
Commodore Schley on the occasion OF
| my visit to him on the 26th. first. that
thought that the st. Paul had been
chased by a torpedo boat on the night
of her arrival or the subsequent night;
second, that detailed to him the COM
| muniCation between Capt. Goodrich OF
the st. Louis and myself on board the
St Paul as we passed each other.
when 1 was bound from Cape Haitien
Ito Santiago and the st. Louis was
bound from Santiago to Cape Hal
tien."
The witness said that since he was
! formerly on the stand he had recalled
that he did not see the press boat
Somers N. Smith on May Is. and he
also recalled, he said, that on that
evening he had seen the press boat
| Premier and he warned those aboard
against remaining where they then
were because of the danger of being
attacked by torpedo boat destroyers.
Continuing, he said that in his inter-
/ view with Commodore Schley on board
| the Brooklyn he was told by the Com
| modore that the st. Paul (Sigsbee's
boaG was to go with the Flying Squad
ron to Key West, and on the following
day was to take the Texas in tow.
The witness testified There was al
most no catechism at that time on the
part of Commodore Schley. / volun-
teered everything that 1 said about
Santiago and the Spanish fleet. His
whole conversation was on the subject
| of coal and nothing but coal, and so
| far as I could judge he already had
made UP his mind to return to Key
West. He told me that he was going
| to Key West"
Sigsbee Is Inconsistent.
On cross-examination Mr. Rayner
| asked about the statement that the
Premier had been warned against tor
pedo boat destroyers and the witness
said that he had given this warning be-
| cause uC DcucNcQ lIOLl HIS
| from the Navy Department that the
| Spaniards were in the harbor.
You believed they were there not
withstanding that on the 29th YOU
thought as you have heretofore testi-
fled that they were going in there? Is
that correct?"
Quite so. 1 thought it possible they
might not have gone in"
Mr.. Rayner: Let me get that right
ha
be there, although on the goth, in your
official report you say you thought you
saw them approaching that port?'
THAT is quite so. They might
have been out or they might have
been in. 1 was prepared for either
event"
Capt Sigsbee was then excused and
Machinist Alfred B. Claxton, who
served in the engine room of the Texas
on the day of the battle of Santiago,
was recalled. He said he still adhered
70 his former statement, that to the
best OF his belief the engines OF the
Texas were reversed on that day.
Tnh al