The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-11-04
SURPRISING RULING MADE
Contradiction of Sigsbee's Testi-
mOny Barred by the Court.

Legged " urCrCGm EptsOdc-A a ul raj
SchIey Again on the Stand-7Ir.
Hanna BEGINS the Argument.
The chief fsat.f, of today.s session uf
tho Court of Enquiry was "a decision
which the Court rendered iu regard %
the admission OF ,vidcrce- it was prac-
tjcaIly the first material decision which
has been adverse To- Admiral Sch!cy
since the enquiry began It excluded vyi-
dence of the utmost Importance Co Jha ap-
pIicant The testimony. had IL been ad-
miJtod. would have shown concIusively
the reason for the r,trcsradc movement
upon which Sampson based his charge of
reprehensihle conduct
In substance the decision Of the Court
IS this: That the statement of witness
as TO a conversation he may have had
cannot be contradicted by another wit
ness provided Admiral S,hley did not
hear the conversation
Testimony OF this character has upon
several occasions been admitted. notably
in the cases OF Mr.. Graham. Mr.. Hare
Mr.. Scovel. and large number of others,
declaration that the Spanish fleet was not
in Santiago. but also affecting other con-
versations. While this testimony remains
upon the record the testimony Of a simi-
lar character offered today was excluded.
Frank B. Richards was the witness upon
the stand when tho decision was rendered.
Captain Sigsbee had preceded him upon
the stand as a witness for the Govern
ment side" and had denied that he ever
told anyone on the press boat Premier
that Cervera was not I1 Santiago. Ny
Richards was called TO testify to the fact
that Captain Sigsbee had informed him
that the Spanish fleet was not IN SAN
tiago, that upon this statement the Pre-
mier had gone to Key West and that sew
eral Of the correspondents had been held
in disgrace. because they had Withdrawn
from Santiago when Cervsra was in the
harbor.
Mr.. Richards evidence was not admit
ted. The Court ruled it out on the same
ground that it ruled oIt the rebuttal res-
timony offered by Ii .utonant Grant and
others 10 contradict a statement alleged
tc have been made in the wardroom Of the
Massachusetts bv Lieutenant Sears, Com
modore Schley's flag secretary. The lat
ter conversation had no bearing upon the
precept. but the S.gsbee conversation had
a most important bearing on the most
vital point in the precept. yet both were
excluded uDon the same grounds
When the Court convened this morning
Captain Lemly arose and announced that
he had received the signal record book
OF the Iowa, accompanied by a letter from
the commander Of that vessel which he
did not deem it necessary 70 put into the
record at this time.
Captain SigsBee Questioned
Captain Sigsbee was then recalled to
correct his testimony. lie made several
minor changes Before he was excused
Mr.. Rayner said that he had a few ques-
tions which he would like 10 ask the wit
ness.
He enquired Of Captain Sigsbee whether
or not, while of Santiago, he had had
conversation by meEaph0ne with the press
boat Premier. and If he had informed any
one on that boat that the Spanish fleet
was not In Santiago Harbor.
Captain Sigsbee said that ne remem-
bered having some talk with such a press
boat, but that he had not told any one on
board II that Cervera was not in Santa 20
HarbOr. He said he had 10 be very care
ful what statements ne mCde 20 the press
boats. He remembered having spoken 10
the boat on the evening Of May 2S he
thought 1t was. He was then excused.
Captain Lemly then stated that ne had
no more witnesses TO CALL but that he had
some documentary evidence which he
would Ike 20 offer. He asked If counsel
would require him 10 produce the originals
Of executive documents &C" and I'D, D."
which were sent TO the Senate.
Mr. Rayner said that he would accent
them as printed.
Captail Lemly said that AT the request
Of Captain Parker, the log OF the Colon.
which had been omitted when the other
documents were printed would be printed
Mr. kGyuer-WC have a couple Of wit
nesses We would like 90 call
Captain Lemly-Oh, yes; 1 viii cali
them now.
To Dispute SiEsbee's Testimony.
Frank B. Richards. Of the editorial staff
Of the New York World" then took the
stand His examination was begun by
Mr.. Rayner.
Q.-What were you doing during the
Spanish war and where were y0u2
Al was correspondent for the New
York Sun" and had charge Of the press
boat Premier.
Q.-Did you at any time meet Captain
Sigsbee on SantiagoZ
Al did. I was hailed by Captain Slgs-
bee on the night Of May q or 2S
Captain Lcmly-I would like TO ask the
purpose Of this evidence.
Mr. RayueT-Why. 90 show q couver-
saton ~ tlch the witness had with Cap
tain Sigsbee at that tins
Captain LcmIy-We object. We object II
the Court please.
Mr. Rayuer-ANeIl. Of course I will vy9ft
until I hear what IN. objection is
Captain Lemly-I object upon the same
ground that the objection was made and
sustained when Lieutenant Grant was
upon the witness stand 90 testify To- th,
IS not shown. nor is IL intended 90 be
shown. that Commodore Sghlcy was pres
cut when this conversation was had IL
g not material 20 the issue. because ir
does not really matter what Js. plain Sigs-
bee may have said 70 the press boat He
may have expressed what he thought
proper cor the express purpose Of not iu-
forming the members Of the press cor
rectly as 20 tho WhereIhOu Of Car1-rrst rg
fleet, even assuming that he knew. 'THrra-
Tore, We object and We believe thai il i=
parallel case with that upon which the
CJUr- has ruled.
Mr.. Rayner-I cannot see how that
comes within the ruling OF the Court AT
all The testimony Of Graham TF4r,
and ScOVel has all been admitted upor
this point This is a very material point
in our case. This Is not a wardr0om
conversation. II comes directly under one
or the specifications Of the preceDt Can
al HH inst .Ielr..