Morris tribune. [volume] (Morris, Minn.) 1880-2000, 1901-10-12
Is AGAIN DENIED
SIMPSONS ATTORNEY APPEALS
/, ONCE MORE TO scHLEY
IT, COURT OF INQUIRY.
CHARGES AGAINST HIS CLIENT

Mentions Several instances In the Rec
ords of the Court Where Direct Allie
cations Were Made Against the Con
duct Of Admiral sampson-No New
Points Brought Out In the Exanina
tion of Witnesses.
Washington, Oct. 11.-William H
S1ayton, the New York attorney who
some time ago asked to be allowed tc
represent Rear Admiral Sampson be
fore the Schley court Of inquiry and
whose application was denied by the
court, presented another letter during
the day, specifying several instances
in which the name Of his client was
mentioned and direct allegations
made against his (Sampson's) con
duct during the Santiago campaign.
A reply was sent to Mr.. Slayton to
the effect that Admiral Sampson was
not a party to the inquiry and that he
would be notified when the court con
Sidered him as interested.
Washington, Oct. 11.-At the open
ing of the morning session of the
Schley court of inquiry Captain Lemly
resumed the questioning of Lieutenant
Leiper by asking him concerning the
blockade of Santiago by Commodore
Schley. The witness said that when
the New Orleans joined the blockade
the vessels were lying in column from
six to eight miles off shore, a little to
che eastward of directly south of the
mouth OF the harbor At night they
steamed slowly back and forth in
front of the harbor, 800 yards apart.
They were SO far out, witness said,
that it was impossible to distinguish
points on the shore Or to determine
where the shore line met the water
line. He could distinguish the vessel
nearest to him ahead. On the FIRST
might Of the blockade he had not been
able to distinguish the Brooklyn end
the Vixen. The Marblehead and the
Vixen had occupied places between
the blockade line and the shore, but
them. Practically the distance of the
main vessels from the shore line was
the same in the day as at night. He
could not say how far east or west of
the mouth of the harbor the fleet had
steamed as he could not see the har-
Dor.
On cross examination Mr.. Rayner
called the attention of the witness to
the statement of Captain Folger, who
had been in command of the New Or
leans, that the fleet was nearer the
shore at night than in day time and
asked whether he agreed with his
commanding officer. The witness re-
piled:
Differs With Captain FoIger.
Gas O. fleet or squadron I do not |
agree that they moved closer to the |
shore at night. l have an indistinct |
recollection that the New Orleans, the /
first evening, was lying little fur
Their off shore than the Brooklyn.
When the Brooklyn took up her course
east the New Orleans had to go in !
probably a quarter or possibly a half
mile to get her position in rear of the I
Brooklyn, but it was no more than !
that. It was simply to stand in. 1t
may have been that that gave the cap
tain or commanding officer the impress
sion that we were closer in at night"
Mr.. Rayner called attention to the
fact that the log of the New Orleans
placed the distance of that vessel from
the MORO at 4 IL miles and the wit
ness said this was true.
Lieutenant Leiper said in reply to
question that his estimate of the dis
lance out was entirely due 70 visual
Observation. -~----zs1zzza:,.G la1,..-
Asked whether he agreed with Cap
tain Folger in stating that the recon
noissance of May 81, when the Colon
was bombarded, was a success in de-
veloping the strength and number of
the shore batteries, witness replied
that he thought it had been success
to that extent, but he could not agree
with Captain Folger in all that he had
said. He found that the fire of the bat
teries was slow. He also found that
the greatest calibre probably was a
6-inch gun OH the Zocopa battery; that
there appeared to be only two or three
guns there not of that calibre; that On
the battery east of the MORO there
to be four or five guns fred,
dlQ lIOm TIC fOluAIS VI SuOh0 Giuu
the range attained it appeared to me
that they we're light guns, less than
6-ineh calibre.
Lieutenant Leiper was then excused
and Lieutenant Bristol called for the
purpose of correcting his testimony OF
the previous day.
Iowa's Navigator Testifies.
Lieutenant Commander William Fl.
Schaetze, who, as lieutenant, was thel
navigator of the battleship Iowa dur
ing the summer Of 1898 and who is
now superintendent of compasses in
the navy department, was the next
witness. He was member of the
board of navigation which prepared
the official chart of the positions Of
the vessels engaged on both sides in
the battle of July 8, and Judge Ad-
vocate Lemly asked him concerning
the report made by that board, which
the chart. Witness said
be had not been satisfied with the re.
port
81 protested" he said, against sign