New-York tribune., 1901-10-12

outy- could she have the enemy coming out?
III the enemy kept close to shore, and we were
three miles off during most of the time could
not nave seen them; If the enemy had stood south
from the entrance. which would have placed them
ABOUT four miles off. could not have them
provided they kept reasonably dark and quiet"
MI. Rayner-What was the purpose of the picket
ooats being there If they could the enemy?
+ht they We're supposed to be there, presume. for
thaI purpose.
Then. If they were there for that purpose. what
was was Il that would have prevented them from ac-
The fact that they could not see a vessel II It
ran at distance of from two to two and half
Il How % far was the Vixen from the shore?'
What was the distance between your vessel and
II cannot say"
COULD NOT HAVE SEEN THE ENEMY.
Are you prepared to say. then that If the en-
emy had come of there, neither you nor the
Vixen could have seen him.
II answered the question put by the court
that the Marblehead could not have seen the
enemy coming out under the conditions l nave
named, first, in keeping close under the land and
What sort of nights were there?"
Il do not remember particularly do not remem-
Der any gales any particularly bad weather:
Lieutenant Boughter was still on the stand when
the court took its noon recess .,u,
his cross-examination of Lieutenant Boughter
The said that his 4PnSh & o-pd Gd tne Tn rn
land at Santiago was based on an estimate. ana
formed Captain McCalla, his commanding officer.
of any fear that the spaniards might escape ape pc pc
formed on that point as himself He had received
no general orders as TO the distance out Tor the @
distance from time to time.
on the New-York in 1895 called TO the stand.
arrived off sanaEo they found the Flying squad
ron there They stopped about seven miles directly
seen the Cristobai Colon in the harbor He said
also that almost Immediately afterward the vessel
moved O Smith,
last statement, however. was stricken from the
record. on the ground that such testimony Preyi-
Flying Squadron was at that time in irregular
Captain Lemly said that he had called Lieutenant
Bennett not only for his direct examination, but
precepts Mr. Rayner stated however. that he had
being followed bY Lieutenant Charles G. Marsh
who was flag secretary to Admiral Sampson in the
THE DEAR SCHLEY" LETTER.
Lieutenant Marsh testified concerning the for
warding of dispatches by the Dupont and the Iowa
from Key West May 20. These messages were
from Admiral Sampson Commodore SchIey, and
one of them was the memorandum by Captain Nc
Gala concerning the insurgents at Cienfuegos.
the witness said his mind was refreshed by the
records of the commander-in-chief to his cOrre-
spondence Every letter was, he said, press copied
as soon written. and he therefore considered the
order in which letters copied a certain
record OF what had transpired in the way OF letter
writing. Other records were produced which, he
said were corroboratiVe of this From these rec
ordS he found that the Dear SChley' letter had
been sent on the Dupont on May 20 He also found
from this record that dispatch of May 81 saying
mad been forwarded by the Marblehead This is
the dispatch dated at Key West in which Admiral
sampson said TO Commodore Schley: IF you are
satisfied that they (the enemy are not at Glen
fuegos. proceed to Santiago" etc. He also ldent-
fled a dispatch OF May H, dated Havana, and urg-
ing the commodore 10 get away from Cienfuegos
before daylight of May %. the Spanish would
probably be stll at Santiago" The latter dis
from Key West of the date.
Mr. Hanna asked: Would ii have been possible
that the Dear Schley' letter could have been
on an earlier date than this letter of May l9
mitting the McCalla memorandum?"
i should say not, the McCalla memora ndum
being press copied in the book a prior page"
In cross-examining the witness Mr.. Rayner said
that counsel for Admiral Schley would admit the
receipt OF one copy of the McCalla memorandum
Dut there was dispute to the other copies. He
tried TO get the witness TO say that the Iowa had
carried duplicate OF the Dear Schey" letter.
but he would not do He held. however to the
statement that the McCalla memorandum had been
carried IN duplicate by both the Dupont and the
Iowa. He had. however, written evidence that
either the Hawk or the Marblehead had carried
the memorandum We were likely 10 be on the
safe side In such matters" said the witness ''and
70 nave 'chucked in the memorandum, but the
9iarblehead had not been relied upon carry the
dispatch" ~
MIR Rayner questioned the witness at some
length this point saying: II want 10 call voI,r
attention 10 this: Dispatch No was received on
May q by the Hawk. II is In evidence here that
the tht. Hawk carried No to Commodore schley and
shlS Iettcr commences In reply to your letter No
$ would state and Then it saws Re
garding inclosed Information from McCaIla.' Now
uoh that refresh your memory upon the point
that when he received No. S from the Hawk he re-
.eiHed with II the inclosed information from Cap.
taln McCalla. which Is the memorandum -
lie probably did He might have received II
haIf dozen times That not the first time II
Hawk?' SUI II from tne
Il do not know that it necessarily does"
Chadwick was called. ''"4ii