Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1901-09-28

meet OIL ClenIuegOS. The witness said
that the statement was wrong.
Capt. Lemly said Captain Herber
had testified that there were no pick
cts, so far as he could recall" to
which Mr.. Rayner responded: We are
not impeaching Captain Harbers YER
acity. We are impeaching his recol-
lection. not his integrity"
Mr.. Rayner-''Captain Harder has
stated that there We're no picket boats
at Cionfuegos. He was wrong, was he
not?"
He was" replied the witness. AS
| have seen since. the commander-n-
chief also reported that the Dupont
was not there. / have written the de-
partment that l was there. Other peo-
pie forgot about it. too
You are trying now to justify Cap
tain Harber's want of recollection by
stating that the COMMUNICATIVE chief
wrote a letter that there were no pick
It boats there"
He did not mention their presence
and 1 corrected it. / wish to bring it
out that the Dupont was inside the line
and that is the report ] made to the
department. | still stand on the point
that he is not bringing out where the
torpedo boat was
You are perfectly right about that,
but you are not asked in reference to
any criticism you may have upon the
report of the COMMUNICATIVE chief. The
question is this: Captain HARDER has
definitely stated that there was nc
picket boat inside the line at Cienfue-
Cos. You say there was and that the
Dupont was one of those boats.
Il was inside the line, inside the
Castine.'
BY the court: Gould you see the
Texas from the Dupont during the
nights of May % and 23?''
No, sir"
Mr. Hanna objected to Mr.. Rayner's
method of questioning, especially to
his characterization of Captain Har-
bers testimony as wrong, when Cap
tain HARDER had said distinctly that he
| only spoke from his best recollection
| This he said, lis an indirect i'm,
peachment of the witness"
Mr. Rayner again insisted that he
| had only intended to bring out the
| facts.
\ MT, f1dHIld dSheu Nldt slcPS
been taken while the flying squadron
| was off Cienfuegos to ascertain the
| Spanish fleet was inside the harbol
there.
None that / know Of" was the re,
Spouse.
| Was there any effort to destroy thu
shore batteries there?'
| The witness replied that he knew o
| none.
| Lieut. Wood was then dismissed. ant
as he was leaving the court room Mr.
! Hanna took occasion to say:
| Il will make an announcement while
we are waiting. There has been intro
duced before the court a question o
| the correctness of the identity of a Ger
| tain very important dispatch sent b,
| the Harvard May p. from of Sanu
| ago by the commanding officer OF tn,
| flying squadron. 1t appears that il
process of translation from the com
| mander-in-chief to the department
| some changes in the language of tina
| dispatch occurred. l do not desire a
| this moment to interrupt the proceed
| ings by any discussion of that point
| but | shall merely make the announce
| ment here that we do not intend L
| enter into that matter very fully an'
| completely: that is to say. as fully an.
as completely as the court may desire
| before we leave"
| Lieut. John Hood. who during tn
| war commanded the Hawk. was tht
| next witness He said that on May 2
he had delivered dispatches from Ad
| miral Sampson to Admiral Schley WheI
the latter was off Cienfuegos. He re
lated that he had been called aboard
the New York. Admiral SIMPSONS tlae
| ship on May u. when the officers or
! board were preparing dispatches. IL
spoke of the presence of Admira
| Sampson.
! Mr.. Rayner objected to the introduc'
| ton of converse ton of verbal orders
saving that the orders would speak fol
| themselves and must necessarily su-
persede any verbal instructions. The
question was argued at some length
by Mr.. Rayner and Capt. Lemly. In
closing his response the judge advo-
cate said
AN objection of this character is al
most equivalent to withdrawing the
request for an investigation. He has
asked me to have the judgment of his
brother officers in this matter. Let us
| have it. and don't put technical obsta-
cles in the way of having the investi-
CATION
Mr.. Rayner responded briefly: II only
desire to state that while this is our in
vestigation, these are your specifica-
tions under the precept. We asked for
this investigation and instead of let
ting us give the precept under which
we would like to have the inquiry take
place, you form a precept of your own.
Here is an applicant who asks for a
court of inquiry under specifications
framed by others and not by himself.
The court retired to consider the OBJ
lection. remaining out longer than on
any previous occasion. Admiral Dewey
read the courts decision as follows:
The court sustains the objection of
counsel so far as it relates to CONVEX
sations that took place on board the
New York. but this ruling does not APP
ply to any verbal orders which the
commander in chief directed witness to
convey TO Commodore Schley.
Replying to a question put in accord
ance with this decision. the witness
said that his instructions were con-
tanned in the memorandum handed
him to be delivered to Admiral Schley,
which were read to him. The witness
.,.o,, rood d;Sna+rh No from Samp-