Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1901-09-28
N CALAIS SIGNAL CODE
WAS GIVEN TO SAMPSON,
THRouGH CAPTAIN CHADWICK. BUT
WAS NOT GIVEN TO
SCHLEY.
SAMPSON MAKES A REQUEST
TO HE ALLOWED REPRESENTATION.
BUT THE COURT re-
FUSES.


time in bringing the Schley court,to
order
One of the regular attendants. Mr..
William NJ Stayton, the attorney. said
yesterday that so long as Admiral
Sampson was kept out of the case he
would have nothing to say.
Lieut.. Spencer 8. Wood, who COM
manded the dispatch boat Dupont dur
ing the war. was called and continued
his testimony. begun yesterday.
MIR. Rayner resumed his cross-eNam-
nation, The witness said that
while of Clenfuegos he had been on
picket duty two miles from shore on
the night of May 90 and had been In.
structed to signal the squadron with
two red lights in case the enemy's
torpedo boats came out OF the harbor.
Mr. Rayner then read from the testi-
mony Of Capt. HARDER, of the Texas.
saying that there had been no picket
vessels within the line of the fleet of
Cienfuegos. The witness said that the
statement was wrong,
Capt, Lemly said Capt Harder had
testified that there were no pickets so
far as he could recall" to which Mr..
Rayner responded: I'VE are not I'M
peaehlng Capt. Harber's veracity. We
are impeachlng his recollection. not
his integrity"
Mr. Rayner-Capt. Harder has stated
that there were no picket boats at
Cienfuegas. He was wrong, was he
not?
"lIe was" replied the witness.
"As | have seen since, the command
er-in-ehief also reported that the Du-
pont was not there. | have written
the department that | was there.
Other people forgot about It, too"
You are trying now to Justify Capt
l1arbers want of recollection by stat
ing that the commander ln-chief wrote
letter that there was no picket boats
there"
lie did not mention their presence,
and | corrected IL.
DO you recollect any statement
made by the commander-in-chief when
he had a picket boat line that he had
arranged n signal from the picket boat
to the flagship"
"He did not mention any and +
have a letter on file in the department.
calling attention to the omission In
that report.
II call your attention to the report
of the commander-fn-c chief, in which
he states. The line OF blockade, etc.
Il wish to bring 1t out that the Du-
pont was inside the line and that is
the report | made to the department
| still stand on the point that he Is
not bringing out where the torpedo
boat was"
you are perfectly right about that,
but you are not asked in reference to
any criticism you may have made upon
the report of the commander-in-chief.
The question is this: Capt Harder
has definitely stated that there was no
picket boat inside the line at Cienfue-
COS You say there was and that the
Dupont was one of these boats?"
81 was inside the line; inside tho
Castine."
By the Court-Could you see the
Texas from the Dupont during the
nights of May 20 and May 90?
mo. sir
Lieutenant Wood was then dismiss
ed, and as he was leaving Mr.. Hanna
took occasion to say:
81 will make an announcement while
we are waiting. There has been intro
duced before the court question OF
the correctness or the identity of % GER
tain very important dispatch sent by
the Harvard May 81 from off Santi-
ago by the commanding officer Of the
flying squadron. 1t appears that in the
process of translation from the COM
mander-in-chef to the department
some changes in the language of that
dispatch occurred. | do not desire at
this moment to interrupt the proceed
ings by any discussion of that point,
but I shall merely make the announces
ment here that we do intend to enter
into that matter as fully and complete
ly as the court may desire before we
leave"
Lieutenant John Hood. who COM
manded the Hawk, was the next wit
ness He said that on May % he had
delivered dispatches from Admiral
Sampson to Admiral Schley when the
latter was off Cienfuegos. He related
that he had oeen called aboard the New
York, Admiral SIMPSONS flag ship, on
May 81 when the officers on board
were preparing dispatches. He spoke
of the presence of Admiral Sampson.
Mr.. Rayner objected 70 the introduce
ton of conversation or verbal orders,
saying that the orders would speak for
themselves and must necessarily sup
persede any verbal instructions. The
question was argued at some length by
Mr.. Rayner and Captain Lemly. In
closing his response the judge advo-
cate said:
IAN objection of this character is
almost equivalent to Withdrawing the
request for an investigation. He has
asked to have the judgment of his
brother officers In this matter Let us
have it. and don't put technical obsta-
cles in the way of having the investi-
cation.
Mr.. Rayner responded briefly:
81 only desire to state that while this
is our investigation, these are your
specifications under the precept. We
asked for this investigation and in
stead of letting us give the precept I'M
der which we would like to have the
inquiry take place you form a precept
of your own. Here is an applicant who
asks for court of inquiry under spec
Continued on sixth Page