The daily morning journal and courier., 1901-09-13

Iie teSllIleu, AQfnlral EOWlSOH WeIl LII to say that Sampson's standing as an officer and as a man was greatly su- perior to that of Schley.
 What he said" pursued the witness inclined me to the belief that he had
 no use for Admiral Schley."
 The witness also gave in detail the circumstances leading up to the publi- cation. On cross-examination he was shown the precept and was asked by
 Solicitor Hanna if Admiral Howison had expressed an opinion on the points
 of the precept. The witness thought
 he had not, as many points In the pre-
 cept were not involved in the conversa-
 tion. The witness adhered strictly to
 his first statement. On redirect ex-
 animation MT. Raynor asked: What
 was Admiral Howison's manner during
 his conversation with you?"
 'Ie spoke of schley in what I would
 call a sneering manner" replied the
 witness.
 Occasionally during the examination
 of this witness there was slight issue between counsel, but on the whole there was little or no objection to the lines on
 which the evidence was developed.
 There had been no announcement of
 the names of witnesses who would be
 introduced to substantiate MT. Frost s testimony as to Admiral Howison's at titude toward Admiral Schley, and con- siderable interest was manifested when the next witness, William E. Spon, of the firm of Spon & Chamberlain, book sellers and publishers in New York and London, made his appearance. MT. Spon testified that he had been pas- senger on the steamer Minneapolis, which sailed from London for New York on the 11th of October, 1900, and that Admiral Howison also had been a passenger on the same vessel on this voyage. The witness related that one day during the voyage the Sampson Schley controversy came up, and one gentleman expressed himself as favor able to Admiral Sampson. MT. Spon had taken the opposite side, and in his effortr to show that Admiral Sampson was not fit man for that position had remarked that the admiral had been the last member of the board of ord nance to agree to the use of smokeless powder by the navy.
 Continuing, Mir. Spon said that Ad miral Howison came within hearing of the conversation at this point, and, walking up to the group said:
 q correct you; this is not so. You men do not know what you are talking about. You don't know anything about it. Sampson is very much respected and looked up to, especially by the younger members of the navy"
 CnntiOI1inp tba uitnpcc sofd that some colloquy had followed, after which Admiral Howison said
 Anyhow, Schley should have been court rt-martialled. He was the main cause of all this controversy in the newspapers
 MT. Spon added that Admiral Howl son had seemed much excited during his conversation and that the other members of the party had listened in silence to what he had to say. From his whole manner'' the witness went on, q infer that he was a very violent partisan of Sampson and correspond ingly prejudiced against Schley He was not content to correct me as to Admiral Sampson, but seemed willing to say bitter things almost vindictive- ly against Admiral Schley."
 MT. Spon was Immediately succeeded by Foster Nichols of Yonkers, ". Y, which is Admiral Howison's place of residence. MT. Nichols is interested in naval publications and in this capacity called upon Admiral Howison July 1 last for the purpose of securing from him notes for a biography of the ad- miral He stated that the day on which the call was made was very hot and on this account the admiral had asked to be excused from granting an MT. Nichols said that after this conversation he had produced copy of the work which his house was getting out, containing sketches of the leaders in the Spanish American war and containing pictures of Sampson and Schley. The witness said that at the sight of Schley's picture, Howison said Schley has no business in the navy and added that if Schley were in put out for less cause than there is in his case.
 "I asked" the witness continued, "the reason why Schley should have been put out. Admiral Howison re- piled: For disobedience of orders.' Il asked why if he disobeyed orders he was permitted to remain. The admiral replied Because he gave the excuse he had to go to port to coal yet everybody knows that coaling at sea is possible 7"
 The witness said he had expressed surprise at Admiral Howison's attitude and that in reply the admiral had I said:
 You would not be surprised if you were in touch with the sentiment among naval officers"
 Witness said that in response to an Inquiry from himself Admiral Howison had explained the absence of Admiral Sampson from the scene of action when the Santiago naval battle occurred by saying:
 "The explanation is that there had been lack of cooperation between the | and and naval forces and Sampson l vas trying to harnlonize them. The ! lay on which the battle was fought l vas the last day on earth when the Spanish fleet should have been expect | d to come out"
 At the conclusion of the testimony 1 Admiral Howison said he would make | written rejoinder, which he did at ! ,nce as follows: