New-York tribune., 1901-09-28

Jne session began with the recau OF captain
Wise to make verbal changes in the official copy
of his testimony. He altered his previous state
ment concerning the order of the Navy Depart
to inform every vessel off Santiago that the
Flying Squadron is off Cienfuegos," saying that
he desired to correct his response to the courts
question to why this order was not carried
out, by stating that it had been carried out.
THE Flying Squadron was ordered to proceed
with all possible Dispatch he said, and then
he added: Il did not desire to inform the COM
modore Of the Flying Squadron of his own move
ments. The order to inform commanders
of the movements of the Flying Squadron"
The court then asked: Did you direct Cap
tain Sigsbee to give Commodore Schley the In
formation contained In the dispatch from the
Navy Department regarding the whereabouts
of the Spanish squadron?'
II did not"
WOOD CONTRADICTS HARDER.
Lieutenant Spencer s. Wood. who commanded
the dispatch boat Dupont during the Spanish
war was then called and continued his testi
mony, begun yesterday. Mr.. Rayner resumed
his cross-examinatlon, The witness said that
while off Cienfuegos he had been on picket duty
two miles from shore on the night of May -
and had been instructed to signal the squadron
with two red lights in the enemy's torpedo
boats came out of the harbor.
Mr.. Rayner then read from the testimony OF
Commander Harber. of the Texas, saying tnat
there had been pickle: vessels within the lne
of the fleet off Cierfuegos. The witness said
that the statement wrong.
Captain Lemly said Captain Harber had testl-
fed that there We're pickets so far as ne
could recall" to which Mr.. Rayner responded:
I'VE not impea ching Captain Harber's We
racity. We are impeaching his reconectlon, not
his integrity"
Mr.. Rayner-Captain Harber has stated that
there were no picket boats at Cenfuegos. He
was wrong. was he not?
He was" replied the witness. LAS have
seen since the comma nder-in-chief also report
ed that the Dupont was not there. ! have writ
ten the department that 7 was there. Other
people forgot about it, too
You trying now to Justify Captain Har-
ber's want of recollection by stating that the
commander-in-chief wrote a letter that there
We're picket boats there?"
He did not mention their presence ana
corrected it"
"Do you recollect any statement made by the
mander-in-chief when he had picket boat
within the picket line. that he had arranged
signal from the picket boat to the fagship?
He did not mention any. and have a letter
file in the department calling attention TO the
omission in that report
"I call your attention to the report OF the
commander-in-chief. in which he states. The
line of blockade etc"
"I wish to bring IT out that the Dupont was
inside thu line and that Is the report made
to the department. I still stand on the point
that he is rot bringing out where the torpedo
boat was"
"you arc perfectly right about that but you
are not asked in reference to any criticism you
have upon the report of the comma nder- in
chief The question is this: Captain Hsrber
has definitely stated that there was no picket
boat inside the line at Cienfuegos. You say
there was. and that the Dupont was one OF those
boats"
II was Inside the line: inside the Castine."
BY the Court-Could you the Texas from
the Dupont during the nights of May - and
May 23?
mo sir"
COUNSEL CROSS SWORDS.
Mr Hanna ohtected 70 Mr. Ravner's method
OF questioning especially to his characterize
ton Of Captain Harber's testimony wrong
when Captain Harber had said distinctly that
he only spoke from his best recollection This.
he said. 'is indirect impeachment Of the
witness"
Mr. Rayner again insisted that he had only
intended to bring out the facts.
Mr.. Hanna asked what steps had been taken
while the Flying Squadron was of Cienfuegos
TO ascertain II the Spanish fleet was inside the
ha rbor there
None that know Of" was the response;
''Was there any effort to destroy the shore
batteries there"
The Witness replied that ne knew Of none. He
said. replying to another question by Mr.. Ray
ner. that vessels IN the inside harbor could not
have been discerned from the outside.
Lieutenant Wood then dismissed. and as
he was leaving the courtroom Mr.. Hanna took
occasion to say:
'T will make announcement while we are
waiting. There has been introduced before the
court a question of the correctness OF the iden-
tity of a certain very important dispa tch sert
Harvard = from
by the commanding officer Of the Flying Squad
ron It appears that in the process OF trans
lation from the commander-in-chef to the de-
partment some changes In the language OF that
dispatch occurred. I do not desire at this mo-
rnent TO interrupt the proceedings by any dis
cussinn Of that point. but shall merely make
the announcement here that do intend to en-
ter into that matter very fully and completely;
that IL 10 say, fully and 20 completely as
the court may desire, before we leave
COURT sUsTAINs AN OBJECTION
Lieutenant John Hood who during the war
commanded the Hawk. the next witness.
He said that on May 23 he had delivered dis
patches from Rear Admiral Sampson to Rear
Admiral Schley, when the latter was off Glen
fuegos He related that he had been called
aboard the New York, Rear Admiral Simpsons
flagship. on May 81 when the officers board
were preparing dispatches. He spoke of the
presence OF Rear Admiral Sampson. Mr.. Ray
ner objected to the introduction Of conversation
verbal orders saying that the orders would
speak for themselves and must necessarily su-
persede any verbal instructions. The question
argued at some length by Mr. Rayner and
Captain Lemly. In closing his response the
Judge advocate said:
AN objection of this character is almost
equivalent to withdrawing the request for an
investigation. He has asked to have the 1udg-
nent OF his brother officers in this matter. Let
us have It, and don't put technical obstacles In
the way of having the investigation"
Mr. Rayner responded briefly: 81 only desire
TO state that while this is our investigation,
these your specifications under the precept.
We asked for this investigation, and instead OF
letting US give the precept under which
would like to have the inquiry take place you
form precept of your own. Here is appl-
can't who asks for a court OF inquiry under
specifications framed by others and not by him
SELF
The court retired to consider the objection,
remaining out longer than on any previous
casion Admiral Dewey read the courts de-
csion as follows: THE court sustains the OBJ
lection Of counsel so far as it relates 10 conver
sations that took place on board the New-York,