The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-10-31


Commodore Schley went aboard the
Massachusetts for the purpose of max
ing reconnaissance and bombardine
the Colon, especially as to conversation
in which Lieut.. Sears, flag lieutenant OF
the Brooklyn, who accompanied Com
modore Schley on this occasion in which
the lieutenant was reported as urging
that no obstacles be put in the way OF
letting the bombardment go on because
as he was represented to have said, it
had been difficult enough to get the
commodore up to the point of undertake
ing it.
In reply to questions, Lieut.. Grant
said he had seen Lieut.. Sears on board
the Massachusetts during the lombard
ment or reconnaissance OF May 81, and
that he first saw him the quarter
deck about IL O'Clock of that day.
Il had been below" continued the wit
ness, Ito get the powder division ready
went with Lieut.. Sears into the navi-
gators room, while he was washing his
hands, previous to going into breakfast
in the ward room and I had conversa-
ton with him in that room and after
ward at the ward room table,
The witness said that the navigator
was present part of the time during this
conversation. AT the conversation he
practically the entire mess.
Il want you to state what the con-
versation was in the state room of the
navigator"
RAYNER OBJECTS.
At this point the testimony was
brought to a sudden stop by an en-
phatic remark by Mr.. Reyner.
Il object
Addressing the court. Mr. Rayner
made a vigorous speech charging that
the conversation in the ward room of
the Massachusetts was immaterial to
the case; that as it was irrelevant to the
issue and as Admiral Schley was not
present, the conversation was clearly
inadmissible. If this talk could be per-
mitted any remark made by Lieut..
Sears at any other place could be intro
duced.
Mr.. Rayner quoted several authori-
ties in support of his contention.
Mr.. Hanna contended that the testi-
mony was material and therefore, un-
der Mr.. Rayner's own authorities, adj
missible
Following Mr.. Hanna Capt. Lemly
quoted the remark which Lieut.. Sears
is alleged to have made as follows:
For Gods sake don't discourage him
(meaning Commodore Schley); it is all
that we have been able to do to work
him uD to this.
Capt. Parker followed with brief
speech in support of Mr.. Rayners con-
tention. If" he said, commanding
officers are to be judged by all the fool
ish and ridiculous things young officers
say in the ward room, don't know
what would become of them.
The court then retired to consider the
point raised
The members of the court We're in
consultation for fifteen minutes and
when they returned Admiral Dewey an
nounced the courts decision as follows:
THE objection as made is sustained
by the COURT
The witness was then excused and af-
ter a brief consultation between Capt
Lemly and Mr.. Hanna Capt. Sigsbee
was recalled.
When he had taken his seat Mr.
Hanna stated that the witness had beer.
called for the purpose of securing such
facts as he might be possessed of, that
the court or counsel might want to
elicit from him..
This statement brought Mr.. Rayner
to his feet with the question: you are
calling Capt. Sigsbee in rebuttal, of
course?''
Capt. Lemly: .I don't call it rebut-
tai; we called Capt Sigsbee because he
is wanted to testify
Apparently Mr. Rayner was surprised.
He said:
s.Have I'VE the right after we have
closed the case to recall witnesses, ex-
cept in rebuttal? That would lead to an
interminable case. The rule of law is
you can rebut anything new that we
witnesses to sustain former statements
they have made. There is no objection
to a witness in rebuttal-"
when he says closed the case. 1 did
not close it. I simply said, We rest
here and / propose to call further wit
n6SS6S L
call such witnesses the court thinks
necessary, in order to have the facts be-
fore it,
He contended that this is an inquiry
and not a prosecution. and that the
usual rules of opening and closing and
of rebuttal and sur-rebuttal followed in
courts of law were not to be
in this case.
The controversy between counsel con-
tinued for some time. Mr.. Hanna said
he had had a conversation with Mr.
Rayner in which the latter had prom
ised to be liberal in rebuttal testimony.
Replying Mr.. Rayner said that his
promise had only applied to rebutting
testimony proper.
Mr. Hanna then took up the question
of the treatment of the case. He took
and Capt. Lemly's conduct of the case
as prosecution
On this point he said:
LAS to the use of the language which
has been employed here that this is very
like a prosecution, I cannot allow the
saying word or two upon that point
If this case has in any manner ap-
preached that of a prosecution, it has
been due to the action of the applicant
and his counsel. Out of generous
to the applicant
we have allowed every technical rule
Of the law to be invoked in his in
terest- That is generosity. That is not
Everything that the law
and defend man who IS un-
der any sort Of charge has
been allowed to come in before this
court of inquiry. That was in favor of
the app icant, not against him. A naval |
court of inquiry has the absolute right |
to ask any question which 1t may
choose, of anybody and in any manner
in which it chooses to prosecute its in
auiry 1t will not do to lay down these
technical rules as absolutely binding. If
the court pleases to adhere to them, well |
and good, but we do not desire to have |
our proceedings here when applicant is
represented by able and skilled coun-
sell to have the stigma of a prosecution |
PLACED llraara the i1Idee adYnca te and his |