Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1901-10-15
lie IS. ALMOST PASSED.
Lively Dispute Between Judge
Advocate Lemly and Sehley's
Chief Counsel.
the MATTER is PATCHED Up FINALLY
Evidence Saturday Tendins 60 Snow
Information Was withheld from
6chlsv Capt. Chaawseh Asked in,w
pesAsat 0oes4f0ns-0Mess VeseseR
Aansxer Boe kaAes HeAEo ~ Up.


Washington, Oct. tA-1ast befoFe
the Schiey court Of inquiry adjourned
Saturday Judge Advocate Lemly made
remarks about the conduct OF Mr.. Ray
ner, Admiral Schley's chief counsel.
which the latter resented. Mr.. Reynsr
had attempted to introduce state
ment prepared in regard to tho speed
of the vessels of the flying squadron
and Capt. Lemly objected, saying that
some of the statements OF Mr.. Rayner
were inaccurate. To this Mr.. Rayner
Responded: IF counsel makes that
statement outside of court it Is false"
Before the court adjourned an ex-
PLANTATION was made on both sides
which Admiral Dewey said was salts
factory.
Short Session Saturday.
Washington, Oct. 14.-Capt. F. 3.
Chadwick, who was Admiral SIMPSONS
chief of staff during the war with
Spain, continued his testimony before
the Schley court of inquiry Saturday.
He was under cross-examination at the
hands of Mr.. Rayner when the court
adjourned Friday, and that gentleman
continued his interrogatories when tho
court convened at II o'clock Saturday
morning. Other witnesses Of the day
were Lieut.. Sidney A. Staunton, who
was Capt. Chadwick's principal assist
ant, and Lieut.. Nathan C. Twining,
who was aboard the battleship Iowa as
an officer during the Santiago cam
paign. Most Of Fridays witnesses
were recalled for the purpose Of cor
recting their testimony.
There was only one session OF the
court Saturday, decision having been
reached Friday to adjourn at one
o'clock Saturday until next Monday. IN
order to give the members Of the
court and counsel an opportunity for
recreation and recupera ton.
Capt. Lemly said Saturday that he
had made such progress during the
present week that he expected to be
able to conclude the presentation of
the government side of the case by the
close of the session on Monday. It's
understood that Mr.. Rayner will be
prepared to Immediately begin the IN
PRODUCTION Of Admiral Schley's wit
nesses and it is his present intention
10 press the case forward as rapidly
as possible.
The Evidence in Brief.
When Capt Chadwick took the stand Mr..
Rayner formally addressed the court, re-
guessing permission to ask the witness
called attention to his question put TO Capt.
Chadwick Friday concerning telegram
of congratulation which Admiral Sampeoh
had sent to Commodore Schley on May g.
He had asked the witness If he remembered
that message, and the witness had replied
that he did remember 1t very we'll and
adding: Because protested against his
congratulations" Mr. Rayner said that
this last expression was purely voluntary
on Capt. Chadwick's part and was not nee
essary In response To the Inquiry. The
questions which he stated to the court were
ms follows:
'Flrst-When did you FIRST isarn OF the
existence OF dispatch Number 81"
"Second.-Did you then. 10 protesting
against the sending Of this congratulatoIS
dispatch. refer 70 his blockade q Ctscf-
fueges IN dispatch Number ST.
Admiya4 Dewey stated the court had no
objection TO the questions and Capt. Lam
~ said he would not object. provided he
could cross-examine on the points raised.
before the point was decided Mr. Rayner
asked his first question. as previously given
to the court. After reading the dispatch
In question the witness said:
II was informed of it, purport at the
time 1t was sent to the Marblehead'
Ibid you see II when 1t was sent to the
Marblehead?"
II did not read It,"
S'When did you first read it?''
81 did not read the original dispatch un-
til the answer was received from Com
modore Schley. brought by the Hawk"
WAS not that on May &c. when your ship
was at point between Havana and Cape
Francis. In the vicinity of Cape Fedras7"
YES"
Ibid you have the blockade Of cl.nfusgos
sending of the congratulatory dlspateh7"
May ask II you mean ! had that only
in mind?"
81 do not mean that. mean whethes
you had It in mind at ALL
/, 81 can say I had It partially"
Tears Up Written Answer.
After M. Rayner had formally asked
his second question. Capt. Chadwick Of
fered written reply. but Mr.. Rayner OBJ
tected. saying: "Imust first read what ne
has written before he answers. II might
be something very objectionable. Suppose
he did protest. How does that affect the
case? What we wanted 10 the congratu-
iatoFy dispatch Now he brings In some
thing entirely different. II the witness In
answer to my second question says 'yes'
or mo- won't object. but II he says any
thing else would like to have the oppor-
tunity OF seeing what he has written"
Capt. Chadwick then tore up his written
reply and answered verbally: II had X
partly In mind"
stanton ON the stand.
Capt. Chadwick was then excused and
Lieutenant Commander Sidney A. Staun-
ton was called Before the witness took
his seat Judge Advocate Lemly asked and
received permission to put in as evidence
Admiral 6ampson's official report made at
guantanamo Bay. August 8, 1898
Lieutenant Commander Staunton related
the particulars Of his securing information