Evening star., 1901-09-23

coming into collision with her.
Capt. Heilner wes asked to make an es-
innate from the map that was before him
and which bore his signature of the distance
Texas on making the turn, estimating the
speed OF the Brooklyn at sixteen Knots and
the Texas at twelve knots.
"According to that" said the witness
roughly speaking and according to this
chart, the Texas should have been just
half mile from the Brooklyn, roughly
speaking"
Mr. Rayner-"Twenty-six hundred feet?"
"a little more than that-3OO0 feet
Mr.. Rayner-"Then according to your
recollection they were one hundred and
fifty yards apart and according to this
chart 1900 feet"
He said that estimating from this chart
and according to the speed given the
Brooklyn went one thousand yards. OF half
mile beyond the Texas out to sea.
The Alleged Loss in Time.
The witness explained, in reply to ques-
tions by Mr.. Rayner, that he did not mean
by his earlier testimony that the Texas lost
three miles in three minutes. but that the
delay incident to seeing the Brooklyn loom
up before them put them behind three miles
from what they would have been otherwise.
Mr.. Rayner questioned the witness in re-
gard to whether there was anything in the
log Of the Texas showing the signals to
slow down and back water. The witness
replied:
Nothing 1t was not on the log of the
Texas because Capt. Philip did not want 1t
there. I swore that would not bring up
a dead man to substantiate anything said
but Capt Philip would not put 1t in his
official report, and / am very sorry that
this matter has come up here. hope can
get some one to substantlate 1t.
The Signals Near Cienfuegos.
Mr. Rayner started to read a magazine
article by Capt. Phillips regarding the sig
nails at Cienfuegos.
Assistant Judge Advocate Hanna object
ed to the introduction of any literature, as
| he termed it.
Mr. Wilson spoke up and said that his
side had no literature, and that the Htera-
ner did not read the article, but asked
question regarding the time the witness
saw the signals at Cienfuegos. He replied
that 1t was on the morning Of the 22d and
that he did not know whether the signals
! were made by the Spaniards or by the in
Surgents
Mr.. Rayner asked him in detail about the
arrival of the Marbiehead and the Eagle,
| knew anything about communication be-
ing given to Admiral Schley from the Mar
blehead regarding the signals.
Many questions were asked on this point,
but the witness said he knew nothing about
it. He told of the formation of the squad
ron and it's departure from Genfuegos
| after dark on the morning Of the 2sd. j..
He was given the log of the Texas and
found that the signals had been seen first
on the morning of the 21st. Mr.. Rayner
said however, that his side had no knowl-
edge of signals being seen until the 22d.
The witness said, however, that this
could easily have been the case as they
were near enough on the morning Of the
| 21st to see them. .
The Sail to Santiago.
The witness said that the weather during
| the voyage from Cienfuegos to the rendeZ-
vous twenty-five miles from Santiago was
moderate. There were fresh winds and the
sea was moderately rough practically until
they got to the rendezvous. -. 80
He knew that the Eagle retarded the
progress of the fleet on this voyage, and
he knew that on the retrograde movement
later the Merrimac broke down. but he did
not know the. cause Of it. He, thought
there was some trouble with the machin-
cry.
Asked If there were any picket boats jp7
side Of the line at Cienfuegos he said he
was inclined to think the Dupont was
there.
Mr.. Rayner's Contention.
The Judge advocate having objected to a
question by Mr.. Rayner, who asked the
witness in relation to the location Of the
New York on the day Of the battle off San
tiago Mr. Rayner proceeded to argue that
the time would come when it would be alb
solutely essential to establish this fact.
He did not propose to go into personalities
nor to criticise Admiral Sampson so far as
his present inclination was concerned, but
the time would come when 1T would be
necessary to institute comparison between
the blockade maintained by Admiral Schley
before Admiral SIMPSONS arrival and the
blockade maintained by Admiral Sampson
from June I until the time Of the battle.
If 1t could be shown that SO far as the
distances of the vessels were concerned
Admiral Schley maintained the same sort
of blockade was maintained by Admiral
Sampson, then he could not be criticised
for the character Of that blockade.