The pioneer express. [volume] (Pembina, Dakota [N.D.]) 1883-1928, 1901-09-27

.. ]! II i !. |! son |:
HTS. SCHL|[Y
COURT OF INQUIRY RESUMES IT'S
z SESSIONS AT WASH
"a. INGTON.
FOUR POINTS AGAINST scnLfY
ADMIRAL NEVER GAVE ANY Or
DERs FOR A BLOCKADE
FORMATION.
FOUR POINTS AGAINST SCHLEY
COULD HAVE coALtD At SEA
DID NOT DO ALL THAT WAS POS
sIBLE TO DESTROY THE
COLON.

Washington, Sept. 81. - The Schley
court of inquiry resumed its sessions
yesterday, with Rear Admiral Ramsay
occupying the place held by Rear Adj
miral Howison in the first session. The
court proceeded to the inquiry before
1T, and during the day heard four wit
nesses. The judge advocate called
witnesses who were ready to present
damaging testimony to Admiral
Schley, but he was not able to develop
his testimony SO as to place it before
the court with great effect because
Admiral Schley's counsel was quick to
seet the danger to their cause and
raised objections to questions as to
opinions. which were sustained.
Rear Admiral F. T. Higginson, who
commanded the Massachusetts at San
tiago. was the first witness, and pre-
sented the
Most Damaging Testimony
against Admiral Schley. While Schley.s
attorneys were successful in having
ruled out the question and answer in
which the witness expressed the opin-
ion that Admiral Schley had not done
all that was possible to destroy the
Spanish cruiser Cristobal Colon, there
Schley. These were that he never gave
any written or verbal orders for block
ade formation either at Cienfuegos or
Santiago, but left the captains of the
ships under his command to follow his
flagship, SO that in the event of a fight
each captain would be obliged to rely
upon his own Judgment and select his
own antagonist: no effort was made by
Srh1PV a f1a wit, IN
discover whether Cervera's ships were
sachusetts had plenty of coal at Glen
fuegos and other
Ships Coalcd Mt Sen;
Capt. Chester, who commanded the
collier Cincinnati. developed the fact
that he had told Admiral Cchley where
he could coal at sea: there was no real
effort made to destroy the Cristobal
Colon as she lay outside the harbor at
Santiago, according to the testimony of
Admiral Higginson. That vessel could,
in his opinion, have been destroyed by
Admiral Schley's flying squadron. Adj
miral Schley was on Admiral Higgin-
sons ship during the engagements and
gave the orders for the long range. Ad-
miral Higginson was asked why he did
liOI Take the massachusetts In ana de-
stroy the Spanish ship. His reply was:
Because I was not ordered to do so.
Then he was ready and did express the
opinion that Admiral Schley, who was
in command, had not done all that q
commanding officer should have done
to
Destroy That Enemy,
but after much argument the question
and answer We're stricken out of the
record. The points made against
Schley were strong and dangerous, and
their strength was not destroyed by
striking out Admiral Higginson's an
swer to this question.
The witnesses yesterday were Rear
Admiral Higginson, who commanded
the battleship Massachusetts, during
the Spanish war; Capt. c. M. Chester,
who commanded the cruiser Cincinnati
ii: Maj. Thomas N. Wood, of the ma
rine corps, who commanded the ma
rines on the Massa chusetts, and Com
mander Giles B. HARDER, who was ex-
ecutive officer of the Texas, the latter
being on the stand when the court adj
journed. The attendance of the public
was small.