Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1901-09-26

Inc bombardnentH'a ,#r
At one time he was with me in the
coming tower. but most of the tilne he
was on the outside OF it. | was near
him most OF the time"
Describe the Admiral's manner In
this engagemept."
81 hardly know bow to answer that
question, except to say that his manner
was that Of a commandments chief, ~
The judge advocate then asked /:
what Impression did the Admiralis
manner in that engagement make upoI
yongn
Mr.. Raynor, Of counsel for Admiral
Schley, objected to this question, and,
after some contention, the question Twas
Withdrawn. Judge Advocate Lenly
stated before Withdrawing the question
that he considered the point as en-
braced 10 the precept, and said that.
while the task was a sagreeabls nnv,
he considered it his duty 10 press il,
aud intimated that he would do so at
another time.
why did you not go in and destroy
the Colon In the engagement on May
5lsty' Judge Advocate Lemly asked
the witness.
Baoause we were not ordered to do
poi rolliItu Lne WitDeHd.
Later on the witness volunteered the
statement II think the Colon could
have been destroyed where she lay at
anchor that day. -
Admiral higginson stated in reply to
questions frou Capt Lemly that there
were DO written orders. and 30 far as
he could recall the only verbal orders
were TO Ego inn
Az I a'nlooL- tI,a aon.e &aaI. . .s..a.
until 2 O'Clock.
Washington, Sspt. 81. AT the con.
e,lusion, yesterday Afternoon, Of the
direct animation OF Commander Giles
b. Hnrber, executive officer Of the
hattleship Texas, at the curt OF in
ouiry into the conduct OF Rrar Admiral
W. :. Sonley, x. +. Hanna, q ssistant to
Judge Advocate y. @. Lemiy, handed
him the p ecept cont ening the court
and ked him il there was ANYTHING
inoie that he could give which would
tend to throw light on any Of the mat.
tiers trea ed Of In the precept.
The aolion was Significant of the
days testii ony. Four witnesses had
been pr sented by Captain Lemly and
substantially nothing had been found
to Admiral Schley 8 discrsdit. WAS
there anything else which might he re-
yealed, was the anxious inquiry of
Mr. Hanna, for nothing was to he per-
lnitted to pass.
The day ended with counsel for Adj
miral Schley amply satisfied, not only
with the treatment accorded them by
the court, but with the testimony as
far as it has gone. Apparently the
most damaging testimony was an
opinion by Rear. ADMIRAL Il. J.
Higginson to the effect that Admiral
Schley had not done all THAT could or
should have tieen done to destroy tbs
Spanish cruiser Oristobsl Colon as she
ley in the mouth OF Santiago harbor on
May 3lst, 1893. but this was afterward
ruled out by the court and NOT admitted
as testimony.
This ruling out Of opinions of wit
nesses Is regarded as extremely i'm
portsnt to Admiral Schey g case. for
1t is we'll known that most of the testi-
mOny which the Navy Department was
prepared to present was expert testi-
mony, especially ia connection with the
famous ''loop'' executed by the Brook
Ign op the day of the battle. All that
CLASS of testimony will, under the ruling
Of this court, he excluded. The dufa
. tion of the inquiry will be shortened
materially by this action, as otherwise
Admiral Schley's counsel would have
been compelled to present a number of
expert Witnesses in rebuttal Admiral
Dewey expressed himself while the
argument was in progress to the effect
that it as a most important point.
The point was decided after the ex-
animation OF Admiral Iiigginson had
teen concluded. The court desired tc
ask several questions and among them
this one; WAS every effort made by
Admiral Schley to destroy or capture
the Spanish. steamer Colon as she lay
at anchor in the harbor of Santiago
between the 9th and 31st of May?''
Counsel for Schley promptly rose 70
object, but Admiral lligginson quickly
replied: No; | don't think it was. =
1t was delicate matter, the question
coming from the court itself, but
COUNSEL dared not let it pass unehal.
lenged, as IL opened the way for expert
every disputed point. Admiral Dewey,
as president Of the court, said he
thought the court had right to ask
any question it chose to elicit all the
iacta bearing on the case. judge Jere
Wilson of Admiral Schley's counsel,
admitted the right OF the court to ask
any question tending to elicit facts,
but he said this was intended to draw
nut an opinion. The investigation was
for the purpose of getting at the facts,
and when they had been secured the
court was to render an opinion. The
court, he commanded, was not called
upon nor permitted to take the opinion
of anyone else.
The court sustained the objection.
Admiral Higglnson's testimony and
that Of Commander HARDER we're con
Trajectory ID respect to the movements
OF the squadron after the discot cry that
the Spanish fleet was in Santiago,
Admiral Hieginson thought the lead
ing ship OF the tieot cruised within
mile or mile and half Of the harbor,
and that the fleet was nearer the bar bor
at night than during the day. Com
mHnder Harder, on The other hand, said
the feet cruised about seven to 10
miles away, aud was nearer in the day
time than at night.
Capt. Colby Nj. Chester of the Gin.
cinnati, gave some testimony to the
effect that he had met admiral Schley g
squadron en- route TO Santiago and nd
vissd him OF place at sea where they
might coal. HE testimony was unim-
portant
Major Thomas F. Ward, who com.
manded the marines on the battleship
Texas, was called to testify on the
reconnaissance, but his examination
developed nothing except that he was
between decks and saw little or moth
lug.
Commander Harher, now naval at
tauhe at Paris was the last witness.
I Commander HARDER said that when the
Yale was sighted off Santiago Can't