Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1901-09-24
SCBLLY | COUNSEL DIES
Judge Jere Wilson, Senior coun.
sci for Schley, Suddenly
Stricken Dead.
The Court of lnquiry's Proceed.
ines Are Interrupted by
His Death.
Admiral schley Greatly Shocked
Over His Demise-.Tod Today's
Developments.


court of inquiry was brought to sud
den termination for the day eighteen
minutes after convening this morning
by the announcement of the sudden
death of Judge Jeremiah Wilson. senior
counsel for Schley. The announcement
was made to the court by Hon. Isidor
4 Rayner. assistant counsel. Admira
Dewey Immediately adjourned court
until tomorrow. Raynor said, SO far as
he could now see, counsel for Schley
would be able to proceed tomorrow.
The announcement of Wilson'S death
created CONSERVATION among the mem
1 bers of the court and spectators. and
some minutes elapsed before the people
generally would accept the report. The
judge had been present in the court all
day yesterday. and while he had not
iparticipater to any great extent in the
proceedings, had appeared physically
active.
The announcement of Wilson'S death
was made by Assistant Counsel Raynor
and court Immediately adjourned until
i tomorrow. Wilson'S death occurred at
11:oS at the shoreham hotel, due to
acute indigestion and kidney affection.
The proceedings of the court very very
brief. Commanders Bates and Schroe-
/ der were recalled to listen to the read
ing of the official report of their testi-
mony given yesterday. First Class Ma
chinist Claton. who had charge of the
port engine of the Texas on the day OF
the battle of Santiago, had just taken
the stand when the announcement OF
Wilson's death was received.
1t had been expected by the govern
ment that Claxton would confirm the
statement of Engineer Bates concern
1 ing the reversal of the engines of stha
4 Texas. During the short time Bates
was on the stand he was asked few
| questions.
He said the steam log had been writ
ten up the day after the battle, AMI WAS
positive the coal supply of the Texas,
4 May 26th, as reported on hand. was cor
\ rect; that the machinery OF the Texas
was in efficient condition for service
| May 81, to the best of his srecollect:on.
| All members of the court, including
counsel, expressed the utmost surprise
and sorrow over the news of the death
4 of Wilson. Admiral Schley said:
The news is SO shocking eau not
trust myself to give expression to mT
estimate of the man. can only say !
have lest not only clear headed and
| I,ryI 1;n, o1e n 4
much beloved friend. am shocked be.
! yond measure"
/ Mondays testimony closed with an
other animated controversy between
counsel as to the policy OF bringing Ad-
mira1 Sampson's name into the trial.
Lieut.. Commander Heilner, who was
navigator of the Texas in the Santiago
campaign, was being questioned.
How many signals did the New
York make TO the Texas on the day Of
the battle?" asked Mr.. Rayner.
| The witness replied that II the New
York had flown any signals he had not
seen them.
"Did you see the New York on the
day of the battle?"
| "Oh. yes. think she was reported
looming up before the Vizcaya went
iashore. She was the last ship.
| Here the judge advocate interposed
to ask the purpose of this inquiry.
| Mr.. Rayner replied that 1t was ITO
show when the 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
1 outline the position of the applicant,
saying:
I'VE have the absolute right to show
the situation of the New York on the
day of the battle, and we have the right
\ to show the connection of Admiral
Sampson in reference to the battle I'VE
have right, for instance, to show that
Commodore Schley at Santiago main
tanned the same sort of blockade that
Admiral Sampson maintained when llo
got there on the first day of June. We
do not propose to bring the name of
Admiral Sampson in this controversy
any more than it is necessar to do so.
We are not hero for the purpose of at
present, without knowing what this
case will develop, criticsing the actions
of Admiral Sampson, but it is abso-
lutely necessary for this court, in order
/ properly lIlNSSllSdle lIliS CuSe uIluSI
the specifications of this precept, to let
| us prove what Admiral Sampson did,;
| not that we condemn what he did, or
criticise what he did. or censure what
he did We are here to find out
whether the blockade at Santiago was
| a close or adequate blockade. If we
can prove that it was. so far as dis
tances We're concerned, the same block
| ade that the commander in chief main
/ tanned there, then we can justify the
course OF Admiral Schley, who was
commander in chief before Sampson's
arrival In other words, would Adj
mirable Schley be censurable for main
ltainlng the same character,of blockade
lthat Admiral Sampson maintained? ?
1--WE propose to prove that on the 1st
lday of June, when Admiral Sampson
got there, the Colon was in precisely the
same position inside the harbor that
she was on the 1st day of May, when
/ Admiral Schley made the reconnais-
ance with the Massachusetts and the
New Orleans. We propose to show
/ that when Admiral Sampson came up
Iwith the ships he saw the Colon in the
same position. and. instead of attack