The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-09-24

I1IO W1tIISSS was dShGU IIdy
concerning the. stoppage of the Texas
when the Brooklyn appeared in front of
her. 1.-The signals" witness answered,
Were to slow. stop and back, one right
word in between.
LOG INCOMPLETE.
docs anything appear in your log
about that?' asked Mr.. Rayner.
Nothing" answered the witness. "It
was not on the log. 1 can tell you why
1t was not, because Capt Philip said he
did not like to have anything in it.
swore to the judge advocate of this court
would not bring up a dead man to sub
stantiate anything l said, and that I
sorry 1 brought it up, but Capt. Philip
said he would not put it in his official
report. hope l can get someone to
substantiate me on that point, because
there was another gentleman in the cabin
when he made his report
DO you recollect as you brought up
this statement of Capt. Philip, the state
ment he made about the danger of col
lision?"
mo, he spoke to me hundreds of times
about it,
Mr.. Rayner-Here are his own words.
Mr.. Hanna-Mr. President we object
to reading from magazines.
MI. Rayner-I don't think the Century
Magazine would credit any article to
Capt. Philip that was not written by
him. / am not going to read from it.
do not intend to read from the magazine,
except for my own information. Here is
what Capt. Philip says. Do you recollect
Capt Philip ever saying that 1.-The COL
l1shon which seemed to be imminent even
If 1t was not, was averted?''
mo, do not recollect it," replied the
Witness
Mr.. Rayner questioned the witness at
length concerning signal lights at Glen
fuegos. and the latter said he had not
known until after the arrival of Capt Nc
Gaia on the Marblehead on May "a that
haTn to
communication with Cuban allies on the
shore. Nor had he known until then that
Ceryera's fleet was not inside the harbor
at CienfuegoS
tiago, the witness said he knew that the
Eagle had impeded the speed on that
trip lie also recalled that that vessel
had' been sent away the next day. He
remembered also that the collier Merri-
mac had been broken down after the tour
to the westward from Santiago on May
Did you see any signals from the New
ork on the day OF the battle?' asked
Mr.. Rayner.
We did not receive any signals from
that vessel on that day until the after
noon, relied the Witness
The witness also said that the New
YORK mad not come up until after the
last OF the Spanish ships came out of
the harbor.
Capt. Lemly here interposed to ask the
purpose of these inquiries, and Mr., Raw
ner stated that it was to be able
TO MAKE COMPARISONS
between Schley's blockade and Sampson's
because If 1t could be shown that Schley's
blockade was equal to SIMPSONS he
could not be considered censurable He
also said that it would be shown that
the Colon was visible when Admiral
Sampson came up. Capt. Lemly objected
not only to the line of questions, but
to the line of argument.
RRnlVinp
understanding the efforts Of Capt Lemly
to keep Admiral Sampson out of the
controversy he would inevitably be
brought into it, not for the purpose of
criticism, but for the purpose of show
ing that Admiral Schley had merely
obeyed the orders of his superior off,
Ger, who was Admiral Sampson, in do
ing what he had done.
Continuing, Mr. Rayner said that Adj
mlral Schley wanted to prove three
things. These were:
ffrst-t is claimed that the blockade
as maintained by Commodore Schley was
the same, so far as distances were con-
cerned, as that maintained by Admiral
Sampson.
Second-The failure to engage the Colon
further on May 81 was in the line of
SIMPSONS policy developed after his ar
rival on June l, when the Colon was
stllI in sight.
Third-That the Brooklyn held her
place in the line of blockade, as assigned
by Sampson, when the Spanish fleet came
out July g. 9>'---O
Having made this explanation. Mr..
Rayner, at the suggestion of Judge Will
son, withdrew the question. Judge VIII
son said the subject would be brought
up when there was a witness on the
stand VINO could testify as to the facts
we propose, said Judge Wilson, Ito
snow that Admiral Sampson was never
an the fight off Santiago at all, and that
on that account Admiral Schley had
the
RESPONSIBILITY OF COMMAND
thrust upon him.
Mr.. Hanna responded that there was
no objection to any proper reference to
battle, but that so far all efforts were
clearly outside that description.
The witness said the squadron had
made no effort to destroy the Spanish
fertilization on shore at Cienfuegos. He
SAID that but for the delay to the Texas
on order from the Brooklyn the Texas
would nave been able to get farther in
her bow would have been broadside on.
The witness said that regardless of the
chart he still adhered to his opinion that
the Brooklyn was only 100 or $50 yards
distant from the Texas when the loop
was made, but said that as a member
of the board which prepared the chart
he had consented to the distance shown
by 1t In order to reconcile differences
on the part of members of the board
Commander Heilner was excused at $3.50
o. m.
Commander Harder was recalled and
Capt. Philips reports of the Santiago
campaign were offered as evidence.
Counsel for Admiral Schley consented to
their introduction, with the understand
ing that their acceptance should not be
considered as a precedent for the ac-
ceptance Of other official reports as evil
dence.
Mr.. Rayner read from the report of
Commander Philip to the effect that the
Texas had only been four miles out when
Commander Harder said she had been
seven or eight miles out. Commander
aarner said, however, that he did not
desire to modify his testimony.
ENGINEER ON THE TEXAS.
Commander Alexander B. Bates. who
was chief engineer on the Texas during
the Santiago engagement on July 8, was
then called.
He testified concerning the work of the
engines on that day.
i went to the engine room about $3.50
and found the engine going ahead" he
SAD II think not more than half speed,
perhaps three-quarters speed. There
were bell commands mostly, as I recol-
lect, ahead and some times, perhaps.
ten minutes after the engine would back
signal from the deck
| do you know whether or not the en-
g1nes were actually reversed?"
Y was in the starboard engine room
when the signals were given and the
starboard engine was reversed the port
engine I am not very sure, 1 think was
reversed"
did they continue to run astern the
| engine for some time or not?"
We'll, / should say between $40 and
s.46 they were running three minutes
aStern. l cannot say exactly"
Has this recalled particularly to your
mind anything that occurred or passed
| through your mind at that time?'
Yes. In thinking matters over as tn
what might be going on outside the shin
I though perhaps a torpedo boat might
have gotten LII our track and that 40