Evening star., 1901-10-28

embraced within the investigation as one
! OF the specifications such questions would
put the applicant in awkward position
| In not being able to prove a thing that
had never entered into the inquiry. He said
| the court had not been called to pass upon
that question. and that fact was the test as
/ to whether the witness could be examined
on 1t. He said that bringing such a ques-
ton In when almost the last witnesses were
| appearing would make II necessary, IL It
were pursued, for his side to call witnesses
| to establish facts on that point.
The Judge advocate said they were not
| trying to point out anything new, and that
very matter. They had referred repeatedly
| TO these orders regarding the trip from Key
| West to Cienfuegos
| Mr. Hanna said there were many things
| now specifically set forth in the speciica-
| tions that have been inquired into and this
| was among them.
| Mr.. Rayner again insisted that this line
OF INQUIRY was distinct and entirely new
| TO counsel on his side He was sure that
no other witness except Captain HArber
| had been questioned that matter. So
| Tar as his side was concerned they had
NOT asked single witness In regard to the
voyage from Key West to Cienfuegos.
Allowed by the Court.
| Admiral Dewey then announced that the
court would take recess. and the court re-
tired to its consultation room and remained
out for five or six minutes. Upon return
| ing Admiral Dewey announced the courts
decision on this matter, as follows:
The court is OF opinion that this ques-
| ton Is IN compliance with it's decision of
| TINS morning, coming between the dates of
| May 10 and June l. The court Is also of
| opinion that this witness occupies a differ
| ent position from other witnesses on the
stand and that he is better qualified thar
any other witness. II it Is asserted that
| there has been delay on that trip from Key
| West to Cienfuegos the witness now on the
stand Is better qualified to give reasons
than any one else. So this decision is a
| renewal Of the decision of this morning"
| The judge advocate did not at once con-
| tinue his questions regarding the movement
from Key West to Cienfuegos. but asked
| other questions relating to the arriva, of
| the collier at Cienfuegos
Admiral Schley volunteered a further ex-
| pianatlon In regard to why he had not al
lowed Capt Chester to join the flying
| squadron when he met him going from Key
west to Cienfuegos. He said that he con-
| sidered at that time that he had no power
| to take any ship on the station with him.
| He had no right. he thought, to take a.
ship off its station to which it had been as
| signed.
The Judge advocate then questioned the
witness In regard to the receipt of letters
while he was at Ciefuegos The .'Dear
Schley letter, the witness said arrived on
the Dupont. When he wrote his letter to
the United States Senate he did not recall
tne iact tnat there had been duplicate of
| that letter which he apparently received on
the I'd. and In that way he was led to the
statement he had made in the executive
document.
| OF CfenfuegOs.
| Asked when he first came to believe that
| the Spanish fleet was in Cienfuegos he said
| that there was a general impression to that
| eject, and that when he heard the guns fir
ing and saw what was regarded as an un-
usuai amount of smoke lowering over the
| harbor. he felt that it was additional eyi-
hot thn
| was there.
Q. (by the judge advocate) Did YOU,
when on Cienfuegos, make any effort to
| communicate with the Insurgents or inhab
| itants on shore? A. l made the best effort
| on the I'D in allowing the Adula to go in
| l thought that was the best effort that
could be made. This was especially so as
the Adu!a was to come out on the follow
| ing day.
The judge advocate questioned the wit
ness In regard to the receipt OF various
letters at Cienfuegos. to which he had tes-
| tlneu IN MS direct examination.
The Order No. g.
Asked by the judge advocate why he did
not proceed to Santiago on the receipt of
the letter known as No. s from Admiral
Sampson, the witness replied:
| Because the order was a conditional one,
not to proceed until 1 was satisfied that
the fleet was not In Cienfuegos."
| The judge advocate asked the witness to
| look at his letter dated off Cienfuegos MAY
| ., In which he stated that he was by no
| means satisfied the fleet was not in the
harbor there. and then asked him IL that
letter contained all his reasons for not pro-
ceeding at once to Santiago.
| Il may have had other reasons" replfed
Admiral Schley; 81 don't remember"
Admiral Schley then read dispatch
| which he had sent on the 23d to Admiral
Sampson. in which he concluded with the
words: Il think 1 have them here.
These dispatches, he said. were both sent
on the same day by the Hawk
The judge advocate asked the witness
Spanish fleet being at Santiago. he did not
proceed there. He replied because he
thought 1t unnecessary to chase up only a
probability.
Intention to Remaining
Q. What was your intention as to re-
naming of the port Of CienfuegosP A 1t
was my intention to remain until some
thing definite was ascertained.
| Q. What other steps had you in mind to
| ascertain whether the enemy's fleet was in
the harbor at Cienfuegos other than send
| ing In the Adula? A. should probably
| have sent another vessel.
| Continuing, Admiral SchIey explained that
| the insurgents were migratory and could
| not be found in the same positions from
| day to day.
Whether Schley went within 1900 or
| 1000 yards of the entrance to Cfenfuegos
| harbor on his first visit to that port was
| questioned by the Judge advocate, who
stated that both 1000 yards and 1900 yards
had been given as the distance of the fleet
| from the harbor when it arrived there.
The location Of the new batteries on the
| banks Of the river at Cienfuegos was gone
| into with great detail, and the witness was
! requested to mark the location Of thfs bat
! terry chart.
Now is that where you intend to put 1t.
| admiral?' said the judge advocate after
the witness had marked the chart
| Then turning to Mr.. Rayner he asked
him whether he would like to see where the
witness located the battery.
w. II. VermiIye & Co. Fail.
| NEW YORK October 28.-washington X.
| Vermilye, James E. Carter and George f..
| Newcomb. who advertised as brokers un-
der the firm name Of w. r. Vermilye 4
| 10 with of6ces at h2 Wall streo+ an6