Evening star., 1901-11-04
Hr. Hanna Addresses the Court OF
Inquiry.
THE ADMIRAL CORRECFS TESTIMONY
Documentary Evidence Placed in
the Record.
WITNESSES r U LED OU 7


Schley He had testified during five days
and mis- testimony covered several hundred
pages of printed matter. His corrections
were mainly immaterial. in one or two in
stances being actual corrections additions
to statements that he made while on the
stand, most of them, however, being mere
corrections of errors in reporting, made in
order to correct ungrammatical sentences
He was reported to have said while on the
stand that at the reconnaissance May 81
over fifty shells had passed over his fleet,
and he corrected this to make it read "a
number of shells had passed over his fleet
Two witnesses were introduced by Mr..
Rayper in order to testify in relation to a
megaphone message that passed between
Capt Sigsbee and the press boat Premier
off Santiago, but this testimony being OBJ
jected to by the judge advocate, the court
ruled it out.
Several questions were asked Admiral
Schles and he made some additional state
ments in relation to testimony he had al
ready given. He was suffering from very
bad cold and his voice was very hoarse.
There was not very large attendance IN
the court room today. but among those pres
ent was Senator Heitfeld of Idaho.
Additional documentary evidence was
placed in the record, and this afternoon Mr..
Hanna, the solicitor in the office of the
judge advocate. began his argument He
will probably be not only during the ball
ance of the session today but a large part
of tomorrow in delivering his remarks. He
will be followed by Capt. Parker, and then
by MIR. Rayner of counsel for defense, the
judge advocate to conclude the argument.
1t is not likely that there viii be much in
terruptiOn of the remarks of counsel on
either side. except in the case of the judge
advocate, who being the last one to speak,
will probably be interrupted at times be-
cause there Will be no other occasion when
counsel for Admiral Schley will 1e able to
make any comment on his remarks.
Upon the reassembling of the court the
judge advocate announced that the signal
book of the Iowa, which counsel for Admi-
raj Schley had called for, had been re-
ceived, and he handed the book referred to
to Mr.. RaEner
The judge advocate explained that in
copying the log of the New Y ork one of the
dates in the original log was a mistake.
The 18th was used instead of the 18th. He
said that was merely an error of record,
which he had corrected
He also asked Mr.. Rayner whether he
would wish the originals of executive doc
uments c and d introduced Mr.. Rayner
replied that he did not want to trouble
any one in getting the originals that the
documents as printed and before the court
would be satisfactory to him.
Capt. Sissbee Recalled.
Capt. Sigsbee was then recalled, in order
to correct his testimony given on a pre-
vious occasion. He made a number of i'm
material corrections, after which he was
questioned by Mr.. Rayner in regard to
megaphone communication he had held
with the press boat Premier.
q. (By Mr.. Rayner)-Do you recall meg
aphoning to the Premier that the Spanish
feet was not in Santiago? A. No, l do not.
/ did not megaphone that
@ You had no megaphone communica-
ton? A did have megaphone commune
cation with them.
n nd "a Il
Spanish feet was not in Santiago, or say
10 any one on board the Premier that 1t
was not there? A. / had to be very eau
tious what l said to the press, but did not
say that.
The judge advocate wanted to know when
this megaphone communication took place,
and Mr.. Rayner replied that 1t was off San
tiago. Capt. Sigsbee added that in his di-
rect testimony he said that he had mega
phoned the Premier on the night of the
18th.
Mr.. Rayner then called Frank B. Rich
ards. who was on the press boat Premier
during the Spanish war, and who is now
connected with the editorial department of
the New York World. During the war with
Spain he was on the staff of the New York
Sun
q. BY Mr.. RayneD Did you at any time
meet Captain Sigsbee off Santiago? A l
did / was hailed by Captain Sigsbee on
the night of the 9th or the 2sth of May
Object of the Testimony Asked
The judge advocate prevented a further
question by arising and inquiring what
was the purpose of this testimony Mr.
Rayner wanted to prove what Captain
sigsbee said on that occasion.
DO you wish to impeach the evidence
of Captain Sigsbee?'' inquired the Judge
advocate
II asked Captain Sigsbee" said Mr.. Raw
ner, land he said he did not have a certain
conversation We want TO prove what con-
versation he had"
The judge advocate-"I object to this
testimony on the same ground that was
taken when the testimony relating to Lieu
tenant Sears conversation was sustained
by the court. This is not showing and |
suppose II does not intend to show. that
Commodore Schley was present on this oc-
casiOn. This is therefore a conversation in
the absence of Commodore Schley. 1t is
not material TO any issue in this case be-
cause it does not really matter what Cam
tain Sigsbee may have said to a press
boat. He may have for some express pur-
pose thought it not proper to give certain
information or thought II proper to give
other information. But even assuming
that he did give such information as corIn-
sci on the other side supposes, the case
would be exactly parallel to the case the
court has already ruled out in relation TO
the testimony of Lieutenant Sears
Mr.. Rayner said that the testimony of
Marble Graham, Scovel and Hare had been
admitted without objection.
Regarded Ms Extremely Important.
This is a material point of the case.
said Mr. Rayner. This conversation bears
directly upon one of the most importan
specifications, and relates to the statement
that Captain Sigsbee said he knew the
Spanish fleet was not in Santiago. When
Hare was asked about a conversation of
this kind no possible objection was made
When Scovel was on the stand for the mr.
pose of contradicting what Hare said
brought here for the purpose of proving a
megaphOne conversation, no objection was
/, made. This conversation is extremely al
most vitality, important in this case, be-
cause il is one of the strong grounds on
which the retrograde movement Is based
and We have a right to substantiate what
Captain Sigsbee said to any one when off
Santiago. Ii does not impeaeh his testi-
mony. / did not say anything about i'm
peaching his testimony. i did not intend to
lmpeach the credibility of Captain Sigsbee
but do intend to question his recollection
on this subject.
That is quite a different thing. This IS
one OF the witnesses to prove that he Is
mistaken. Potts and Grants conversation
was'decided upon as being immateriaI, and
the court decided that 1t was not relevant
but whether Captain Sigsbee said the Span