New-York tribune., 1901-09-24
the shore batteries at Santiago II Admiral samp-

son took the same coUrse?"
OBJECTION OF JUDGE ADVOCATE.
The judge advocate at this point interposed
an objection. He said: IF the court please.
object to this line of argument. II does not
make one particle OF difference what any one
else did. You might we'll try to prove that
somebody else committed a murder and say:
He committed it and my is not to blame
1t is simply a waste of time 1t is nowhere
within the scope of the precept 1t is endeavor-
ing to go beyond the precept. This is not an
inquiry between Admiral Sampson and Admiral
Schley. 1t is a question between Admiral
Schey and the morale of the service and these
comparisons have absolutely no bearing upon
it, either in evidence argument and object
to this ingenious attempt to extend the scope
of this precept.''
TRYING TO BRING IN SAMPSON
Mr.. Rayner-This is an important point with
us. and prepared with the authorities to
maintain it. I not doing this ingeniously.
tut very frankly. Notwithstanding the siren
uous efforts of the learned Judge Advocate 10
keep Admiral Sampson out Of this case. he can't
keep him out. l wish to be understood not
saying one word in derogation of Admiral
Sampson or to censure him. but to show the
court that what we did was under the orders
of Admiral Sampson, and that he did precisely
the same things did. / do not think tad-
dressing Judge Advocate Lemly) you have any
right to interrupt me in an argument.
The Judge Advocate want to say here. then.
that officer of this court, when 1 think
there is an improper argument 1 deem ii my
duty at any time interrupt. and the court
must rule upon the fact to whether l am
right or not.
Mr. Rayner-I have not concluded The court
r bau Ind ad We
pose TO prove that when Admiral Schley with
drew from the reconnaissance against the Colon
and did not in contact with the shore
battery, he did ii under general regulation OF
the navy which requires 1t of him, and that
Admiral Sampson passed by the Colon at o;So
o'clock on June |. and saw her lying there and
never pretended TO attack. Do you mean that
we have not any right to justify our conduct
and our actions by the conduct and actions of
the communicative chief? You will find you
can't keep Sampson out of this. You cannot
keep him constructvely from the presence of
this court You may actually. but not con-
structively. 1t is impossible.
PLEA OF SCHLEY's COUNSEL
Mr. Rayner added that thew further wanted
to prove that the morning of July B. the
Brooklyn had her proper station in that block
ade line under the orders of Admiral Sampson
proved by this witness. Mr.. Rayner further
said:
81 will say to the court that if TO be
excluded now. are TO be excluded in all
our testimony. If Admiral Schey comes
the stand and ask the question. Were you
on your station on July 50 and he says
there because Admiral Sampson put me there
are to be prevented from asking that ques
ton because we are putting Admiral Sampson
into the controversy"
Judge e-Advocate-That did not say.
After some further sparing Mr.. Rayner with
drew the question, saying that Judge Wilson
wanted to argue it before the court, and did
not wish to take it up at this time. Judge Will
son said:
The reason do not care argue this
now is because I regard it one of exceeding
Importance. and 1 do not think we ought to
precipitate this argument until 1 have fully
considered it. and until point is reached
in the where the court must pass upon the
whole question
PLAN OF TRIAL MARKED OUT.
II may just as we'll indicate here first as last
what l regard 10 he some of the important
features of this case OF course your honors
know we propose to show. and I propose to
show beyond all question. that Admiral Samp-
son from first TO last was not in this fight at
all, and therefore Admiral Schley had thrust
upon him the responsibility of this battle. but
am not going to argue it now. So I venture
to suggest that when come to witness that
knows something about these things and ask
him a question that will develop something I'm
regard to it, if the court then deems proper that
will he the best time to argue it, and if it suits
the convenience of the court and my friend on
the other side and my associates 1 prefer to
take il up then"
The JudgeAdvocate-That is perfectly salts
factory
Mr. Hanna replied briefly to Mr. Rayner,
saying:
1T is impossibility 20 leave the record in
this condition without word further. The
suggestion made is that Admiral SIMPSONS
blockade be taken a standard as a model as
a type of perfect blockade and if Schley's block
ade comes up 10 that standard, it is 10 be ac-
cepted satisfactory We object to taking
any imperfect blockade.
ALLEGED DUTY OF INQUIRY
'One further word in regard to the suggestion
just made to the intention to show that Ad-
miral Sampson not in this battle.
Il wish to say We do not understand that
the question whether Admiral Sampson was or
was not in the battle of Santiago is before the
court. If it is. shall be happy to investigate
it. We are here to find out all the facts. but
We do not care to roam around into outside
matters; but if that question is led up TO in any
legitimate way. if any line which this in
quiry Institutes will lead to Admiral Sampson
and properly and legitimately bring him befor.
this court. shall offer objection to the
of such an inquiry
Until the case takes that attitude il is i'm
proper to introduce into the examination ques-
lions which proceed upon the theory that he
Is in the II the counsel can bring him into
the fairly, squarely and honestly let that
be done. and will join them in such in