The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1901-11-07

the Morning Session Correcting the
Printed Record of His Evidence.
Two Correspondents Called to Tes.
tify in His Behalf Ruled Out on an
Objection by Captain LemIy.
Washington, Nov. 5.-Two new wit.
nesses were before the Schley court
of inquiry during the day and both OF
them were called in the interest of Ad-
miral Schley. They were Frank B.
Richards and George Lynch, both of
whom went through the Cuban cam
paign as newspaper correspondents.
Mr.. Richards was on the press boat
Premier and testified concerning the
interview with Captain Sigsbee while
the latter was in command of the st,
Paul off Santiago in May, 1898. Mr..
Lynch was On the Somers N. Smith
and was called to relate his recollec-
ton of Captain Sigsbee's communi-
cation to that boat, concerning which
Photographer Hare and Correspond
ent Scovil already have testified.
Captain Sigsbee was called to cor
rect his testimony and while he was
on the stand Mr.. Rayner asked him if
he had megaphoned or otherwise COM
municated to the press boat Premier,
while off Santiago, the fact that the
Spanish fleet was not in Santiago.
Witness replied that he had not done
10, although he would have been justi.
fed in saying so if he had thought it
proper under the circumstances OF
war. When Captain Sigsbee was ex
cused Captain Lemly said that he had
no more witnesses to call. Frank B.
Richards was then sworn.
Mr.. Richards stated that he was on
the dispatch boat Premier during the
was hailed by Captain Sigsbee on the
Lemly objected to this line of evidence
on the ground that Commodore Schley
was not present during the converse
ton; also that it was not material to
the issue. Captain Lemly referred to
the ruling of the court regarding the
Potts-SearS conversation which had
been ruled out and claimed that this
was exactly a parallel case.
Mr.. Rayner commended that this al
legged conversation with Captain Sigs-
bee is one of the vital points of the
case; that it bears directly upon one
of the most important specifications of
the precept. Mr.. Rayner said he did
not desire to impeach the credibility
of Captain Sigsibee, but will endeavOr
to impeach very strongly his recollec-
ton. After a short argument by Mr..
Hanna in support of Captain Lemly's
objection, the court retired to cOnsld-
er the point raised.
Testimony Ruled Out.
The court was absent but a short
time. When it returned Admiral Dew
ey announced that "as the testimony
of this witness is not considered by
the court as material to the case the
objection is sustained in accordance
with the courts previous ruling"
Under this ruling neither Mr.. Rich
ards nor Mr.. Lynch could testify and
Admiral Schley took the stand for the
purpose of correcting his testimony.
The admiral was suffering from a
cold and his voice was quite hoarse.
He began his correction at the very
first of his testimony. Most of these
corrections were of typographical er
rors or the changing of words to make
sentences read more smoothly.
In referring to his testimony regard
ing the arrival of the Harvard on May
81 with a dispatch from the secretary
of the navy informing him that all
the departments information indicat-
ed the presence of the Spanish fleet at
Santiago" which dispatch he declared
had never reached him and therefore
he had never seen it or heard of it I'M
til recently. Admiral Schley corrected
this portion of his testimony by stat
ing that neither his flag lieutenant nor
his secretary had ever seen the dis
patch nor remembered it. He had pre-
viously included his first lieutenant in
this statement.
Referring to his testimony regarding
the reconnaissance of May 81 the ad
miral changed his statement that
fifty, if not more, shells passed over
the feet" to read that number of
shells passed over the fleet" He also
changed his evidence concerning sus-
picious movements in sthe harbor of
Santiago, July 2, to read that before
dark ] noticed in the harbor a good
deal of smoke coming up" The Off
cial record, he said, made him say that
he saw the smoke after dark.
Coming to his answer to a question
in reference to his order sent below
during the early part of the battle to
"stand by to ram" Admiral Schley en-
phasizsd his former testimony by stat
ing that there was a distinct move
ment to ram on the part of the Marie
Teresa, Admiral Cervera's flagship,
and the Viscaya." He also reiterated
his confidence in the Brooklyn's speed
by Sitting that with one engine and
all the boiler power" she could have
gotten up all the speed that was need
ed. As to the passing of the flying
suuad1on by the Eagle on the morning
of May 10 and the latter's conveying
the information that there was mo
news Admiral Schley corrected his
testimony where he said he was not
mistaken in this by stating that he
hight have been mistaken.
His Report of the Battle.
Admiral Schley also corrected his
statement regarding his visit to the
flagship New York, when he had made
his preliminary report of the battle of
July 3 to Admiral Sampson. The rec
ord, he said, did not make the matter