The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1901-09-24

Notwithstanding the strenuous efforts of
the learned judge advocate to keep Ad-
miraI Sampson out of this case. he can
not keep him out. 1 wish to be under
stood as not saying one word in deroga-
ton Of Admiral Sampson, nor 70 censure
him, but to show the court that what we
did was under the orders Of Admiral
/ Sampson, and that be did precisely the
/ same things we did: do not think (ad-
dressing Judge Advocate Lemley2 you
lhave any right to interrupt me in an ar
gument."
The judge advocate-'I want to say
/ here, then, that as an officer OF this court,
when think there is an improper argu-
ment, I deem It my duty at any time 10
interrupt, and the court must rule upon
the fact as to whether 1 am right or not
Airq Rayner-"I have 1T concluded The
court cannot decide until have conclud-
ed. We propose 10 prove that when Ad-
miral Schley withdrew from the recon-
noisance against the Colon and did not
come in contact with the shore batteries,
be did it under a general regulation of
the navy, which required it OF him, and
that Admiral Sampson passed by the
Colon ct thirty minutes after s o'clock on
June /, and saw her lying there and never
pretended to attack her Do you mean
that we have not any right to justify oul
conduct and our actions By the conduct
and actions of the commsnder-in-chief?
You viii find out you can t keep Samp-
son out of this. You cannot keep him
constructively from the presence of this
court. You may actually. but not con-
structively. It is impossible
Mr.. Rayner added that they further
wanted to prove that on the morning of
the third of July the Brooklyn had her
proper station in that blockade line under
the orders of Admiral Sampson. He did
not know as those matters could be
proved by this witness. Mr.. Rayner fur
ther said:
i VIII say to the court that if now we
are to be excluded in all our testimony,
if Admiral Schley comes on the stand and
We ask the question, 'eWre you on your
station on July 9d? and he says 7 was
there because Admiral Sampson put me
there, we are TO be prevented from ask
ing that question because we are putting
Admiral sampson into controversy"
Judge Advocate: THAT did not say"
<A-tA- cbl-t AG4 Ll4-L SlSda1lllEs MT. Ray /
ner withdrew the question, saying that /
Judge Wilson wanted to argue it before /
the court and did not wish to take it up
at this time.
Judge Wilson said: "The reason I do |
not want 10 argue this case now is be /
cause 7 regard it as one of the exceeding (
importance, and DO not think we ought (
TO precipitate this argument until / have I
fully considered it and until some point +
is reached in the case where the court I
must pass upon the whole question. / 4
may just as well indicate here first as
last what 7 regard to be some of the inn
portant features Of the case. OF course,
your honors know we propose to show, !
and 7 propose TO show beyond ali cues
tion that Admiral Sampson, from first to
last. was not in this fight at ALL and,
therefore, Admiral Schley had thrust~up-
on him the responsibility of this battle,
but / am not going to argue it now. So
1 venture to suggest that when we come
TO a witness that knows something about
these things We viii ask him question
that win develop something in regard to
it If the court deem proper that that
would be the best time TO argue it, and
IL Al suns lilt tbitN ttAltllNt VI LllE t1Qlt a
and my friend on the other side and my
associates. 1 prefer to take it up then"
The Judge Advocate: THAT is perfectly
Mr.. Hanna replied briefly to Mr.. Rayner
saving: 1t is an iipossibility to leave
the record in this condition without
word further. The suggestion made is
nat Admiral SIMPSONS blockade be taken b
rs standard as a model, as a type Of
perfect blockade and if Admiral Schley's
blockade comes up to that staendard, it
is to he accepted as satisfactory. We OBJ
iect TO taking anv imperfect blockade"
"One further word iu regard TO the sug-
gestion just made as to the intention
10 show that Admiral Sampson was not
In this battle. ! wish to say 7 do not un-
ierstand that the question whether Ad-
niral Sampson was or was not in the
battle Of Santiago was before the court.
If it is. we shall be happy TO investigate
t. We are here to find out all the facts,
lut we do not care to roam around into
outside matters, but if the question is led
lp to in any legitimate way, in any line
which this inquiry. institutes will lead to
ADMIRAL Sampson and properly and legit-
hall offer no objection TO the prosecution
IF such an inquiry. Until the cose takes
hat attitude it is improper to introduce I
nto the examination questions which pro- I
,eed upon the theory that he is in the I
.ase. If the counsel can bring him into {
he case fairly. squarely and honestly. Z
ct that be done and we VIII join them in I
uch Inquiries as may be necessary and E
Proper in the pursuit of the investigation. I
NTH that is regularly and squarely done, c
II until the case takes such an attitude
hat it is necessary, In the fulfllment Of
he duty imposed on this court to make
uch an Investigation. IL is improper and &
Inappropriate TO Introduce arguments and
estimony which proceed upon that false
hypothesis. I have made these remarks I
lot for the purpose Of arguing the cues
j. Ann q nnARH0