New-York tribune., 1901-09-24

( map inaccurate.
Mr.. Hanna interposed TO say that if the point
intended to be made was that the chart is in
accurate the government would concede at
| once that this was true
1T is great pity you never conceded that
before" said Mr. Rayner
We never had the opportunity" responded
! Captain Lemly.
Mr. Rayner then commented vigorously upon
the fact that the chart official document.
After careful inspection of the map Com
mander Heilner revised his statement say
ing that the distance about half mile. as
shown by the chart
Commander Heilner also said that the chart
made the Brooklyn go half mile out to sea in
making its loop; that upon that point the chart
also was not accurate. At the time, he said, the
Texas was going at the rate of about twelve
knots an hour.
A LOSS OF THREE MILES.
The witness stated that he had not in his
animation meant to say that the ship had lest
three miles in many minutes but that. in all.
that much time had been lost. "I a bright
smile on your face when I said it, added the
witness to Mr.. Rayner. "and thought you mis-
understood
Thereupon all laughed. the members of the
court included
The witness asked by Mr.. Rayner con-
cefiiiiiS the StDpDdSe or the leSaS Nnen tHe
Brooklyn appeared in front of her.
The signals" the witness answered, were
to SLOW stop and back right top of
the other. before 1 could say word in be-
tween"
Does anything appear your log about
that?" asked Mr. Rayner.
Nothing answered the witness. "It
not on the log. 1 can tell you why it was not
because Captain Philip said he did not like to
hot-1
cate of this court that l would not bring up
a dead man to substantiate anything said. and
that would not bring up this point-and l am
sorry l brought 1t up-but Captain Philip said
he would not put it in his official report.
hope can get some to substantiate me on
that point, because there another gentle
man In the cabin when he made his official re-
port"
DO you recollect as you brought up this
statement of CAPTAIN Philip, the statement he
made about the danger of collision?'
No. He spoke to hundreds of times
about it."
Mr.. Rayner-Here his own words.
Mr.. Hanna-Mr. President. object TO read
ing from magazines
Mr.. Rayner-I don't think "The Century Mag
azine' would credit any article to Captain
Philip that was not written by him. I not
going TO read from it. 1 do not intend to read
from the magazine except for my own informal
tion. Here is what Captain Philip says. Do You
recoect Captain Philip saying that 'the
collision which seemed to be imminent. if
ii was not, was averted"?
NO. / do not recollect it," replied the wit
ness
SHORE COMMUNICATION UNKNOWN.
Mr.. Rayner put many questions to the wit
ness concerning signal lights at Cienfuegos, and
the latter said that he had not known until
after the arrival of Captain McCalla the
Marblehead on May "a that there to be a
system of signals for communicating with
Cuban allies the shore. He had not known
until then that Cervera's fleet not inside
the harbor at Cienfuegos.
Referring again to the cruise to Santiago, the
witness said ne knew that the Eagle had i'm
peded the speed that trip. He also recalled
that that vessel had been sent away the next
Gay. He remembered also that the collier Merri-
mac had broken down after the tour to the west
ward from Santiago May 81
Continuing. the witness said that if the New
York had flown any signals he had not seen
them.
Did you see the New-York on the day of the
hattle?" asked. The reply was:
"Oh yes; l think she reported coming
up before the Vizcaya went ashore. She
the last ship"
the purpose of this inquiry.
PURPOSE OF sCHLEY'S COUNSEL.
Mr. Rayner replied that it was ito show when
these ships went there. We are going to show
he continued the position of the New-York on
the day of the battle" He then proceeded at
some length to outline the position of the ap-
plicant, saying:
We have the absolute right to show the sit
uation of the New-York the day of the
battle. and have the right TO show the con-
nection of Admiral Sampson in reference 20 the
battle. We have right. for instance. TO show
that Commodore Schley at Santiago maintained
the same sort OF blockade that Admiral Sampson
maintained when ne got there on June l.
80 far as distances are concerned. think we
have the right to show-because one of the
specifications of this precept states-whether
or not close or adequate blockade of said har-
Dor to prevent the escape Of the enemy's vessels
therefrom tabshed
we do not propose TO bring the name of Ad-
miral Sampson into this controversy any more
than 1t is possible to do so. This is a per-
sonal controversy. We not here for the
purpose of engaging In any personal contro-
versy between Admiral Sampson and Commodore
Schley or adherents of either: we are not here
for the purpose Of at present. without knowing
what this case will develop. criticisng the ac-
tions of Admiral Sampson. but it is absolutely
necessary for this court in order properly to in
vestgate this under the specifications of
this precept, to let prove what Admiral Samp-
son did Not that condemn what he did or
critcise what he did censure what he did
We are not here now for the purpose of condemn
ing the fact. if it proves to be a fact. of the
New-York's leaving on the morning of the bat
tie; not here criticise the blockade that
Admiral Sampson had Santiago. but we are