Evening journal., 1901-09-24
TEXAS WAS In
GREAT DANGER
HeiIner Says BrOOkIyl'S Loop
Threatened His Ship
IRAYNAR'S INGENIOUS ATTEMPT
Contends Has Right to Show Thai
SchIey Maintained Such Blockade
As Did Sampson
.RAYNAR'S INGENIOUS ATTEMPT

Washington, Sept. 24.-The part |
played by the battleghip Texas in the
naval battle of Santiago July 2, 1895
IN which the Spanish feet under Ad-
miral Corvera was sunk, was the basis
Of the greater part Of yesterdays pro-
ceedings in tie Schley naval court of
inquiry or the four witnesses cxaniin-
ed during the day. three had been Of
ncers on board the Texas during the
battle and two of them were new wit
nesses. These were Commander George
c. Hcilaer, who was navigator on the
Texas. and Commander Alex b. Bates,
who was the chief engineer on the
battleship. Commander Harber, ex
ecutive officer and the chief surviving
officer of the ship since the death of
Captain Philip. was recalled. The
fourth witness was Commander Sea-
ton Schroeder, executive officer on the
Massachusetts, and governor Of the
Island Of Guam.
The testimony several times during
the day was somewhat exciting and it
was especially so when Commander
Heilner described the battle and the
part the Texas had taken in it. He said
that when the Brooklyn made it's loop
at the beginning of the battle it had
passed across the Texas bow at a dis
tance not to exceed 100 to 150 yards
and at the command of Captain Philip
the Texas had been brought TO a dead
UnH huN hr
starboard engines had been stopped and
said he thought this also had hap
pened to the port engines. Commander
Heinor expressed the opinion that
three miles had been lost by this
maneuvre and the fact that part Of the
machinery was deranged. He said he
considered that the Texas was in great
or danger when the Brooklyn crossed
her bows than at any other time dur
ing the battle.
Rayner's Ingenious Effort.
On cross-examination. Commander
Hcilner was asked did you see the
New York on the day of the battle?"
"Oh, yes. / think she was reported
coming up before the Viscaya went
ashore. She was the last ship" he re-
piled.
Here the Judge advocate interpOsed
to ask the purpose of this inquiry.
Mr. Rayner replied that 1t was ito
show when these ships went there.
1--WE are going to show" he continued,
'the position of the New York on the
day of the battle" He then proceeded
at some length to outline the position
OF the applicant, saying: I'VE have the
absolute right to show the situation
of the New York on the day of the
battle. ami we have the right to show
the connection of Admiral Sampson II
reference to the battle; we have ;
right, for instance. to show that Com
, modore Schley at Santiago maintained
p the same sort of blockade that Admira
4 Sampson maintained when he go
there on the 1st of June. So far a
distances are concerned I think w
have the right to show-hecause on
I of the specifications OF this precep
, statos-whether or not a close or ade
= quate blockade of said harbor to pre-
b vent the escape of the enemys vessel
therefrom was established.
"Wc are not here now for the pun
pose of condemning the fact. II
j. proves to be a fact. of the New YORK
a leaving on. the morning of the battle
d we are not here to critic Sc the blocl
e ade that Admiral SG~,psol had at Sar
j. tiago. but we are hcgo TO establish this
!. or under the specifications of you
T. precept memorandums to find on
Il whether the blockade at Santiago wa
e q close or adequate blockade. Now,
IF we can prove that It was, so far a
t. distances were concerned. the sam
, blockade that the commander-in-chi
& maintained there, then we can justif
q the course OF Admiral Schley. who wa
d commander-in-chief before Sampson
o arrival.
Al Is schley to Be censured2
'e In other words. would Admire
Schley be censurable for maintainin
c. the same character OF blockade ths
Sampson maintained? Would Admif'
C,l.I,,- d., ,.,-,.v,I,I, 60.