The Savannah morning news., 1901-09-24
INQUIRY WAS LIVELY.


that vessel on that day until the af-
ternoon,' replied the witness.
Inc witness also said that the New
YORK had not come up until after the
last OF the Spanish ships came out of
the harbor.
To Compare the BIockades.
Capt. Lemly here interposed to ask
the purpose of these inquiries and Mr..
Rayner stated that it was to be able
to make comparisons between Schley's
blockade and SIMPSONS, 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 Samp-
son came up.
Capt. Lemly objected. not only to the
line of questions, but to the line of
argument.
Replying, Mr.. Rayner said that not
withstanding the strenuous efforts of
Capt. Lemly to keep Admiral Sampson
out of the controversy he would inev-
itably be brought into it, not for the
purpose of criticism, but for the pur-
pose of showing that Admiral Schley
had merely obeyed the orders of his
superior officer, who was Admiral
Sampson, in doing what he had done.
What SchIey Proposes to Prove.
Continuing, Mr.. Rayner said that
Admiral Schley wanted to prove three
things. These were:
First. 1t is maintained that the
blockade as maintained by Commodore
Schley was the same, SO far as dis
tances were concerned, as that main
tanned by Admiral Sampson.
Second. The failure to engage the
in the
line of SIMPSONS policy as developed
after his arrival on June /, when the
Colon was still in sight.
Third. That the Brooklyn had her
place in the line of blockade assigned
by Sampson when the Spanish fleet
came out on July g."
Sampson Never in the Fight.
Having made this presentation, Mr..
Rayner, at the suggestion of Judge
Wilson, withdrew the question.
Judge Wilson said the subject would
be brought up when there was a wit
ness on the stand who could testify as
to the facts. 1--WE propose he said,
ito show that Admiral Sampson was
never in the fight off Santiago at all,
and that on that account Admiral
Schley had the responsibility thrust
upon him.
Mr.. Hanna responded, saying there
would be no objection to any proper
reference to Admiral Simpsons con-
nection with the battle, but that so far
all efforts were clearly outside that de-
scription.
On redirect examination Commander
Heilner said that the squadron had
made no effort to destroy the Spanish
fortifications on shore at Cienfuegos.
Commander Alex B. Bates, who was
chief engineer on the Texas during the
Santiago engagement on July 8, then
was called. He testified concerning
the work of the engines on that day.
He said they were operated on signals
and that the starboard engine was re-
versed. The port engine had also, he
thought, been reversed. He thought at
the time that probably a torpedo boat
had gotten into the track of the Texas.
While Commander Bates was
examining the steam log of
the Texas, Lieut.. Henry H
Ward of the Bureau of Navigat ton,
approached him and leaned over his
shoulder. Capt. Parker demanded in
somewhat excited tone that he be di-
rected to go away, saying that he had
no business there and his presence was
not wanted.
Admiral Dewey replied that Lieut.
Ward was there under the direction of
the Navy Department. Lieut.. Ward
did not change his position.
The court adjourned at 4 o'clock.