The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-09-21

ton, except 10 say that mis- manner was
that of a cOmmander-in-chef.
Why didn't you go in and destroy the
Ioioh IN the engagement on May 81.
Judge Advocate Lemly asked the witness.
Because We We're not ordered TO do so,
replied the witness.
Later on the witness volunteered the
statement, Il think the Colon could nave
that day
admiral Higginson stated in reply to
questions from Captain Lemly that there
We're no written orders and far as he
could recall, the only verbal orders were To
The Judge advocate then offered Admiral
Hlgginsons report of the fifth of August.
SAVING the report has been in line Of duty.
Judge Wilson. OF counsel for Admiral
Schley, said TO objection would be made.
out that counsel for the applicant did not
ueslre the unobjected acceptance OF the
report TO operate as precedent. Captain
Lehly announced that he had no further
questions to ask Of Admiral Higginson and
CcunSel Tor Admiral Schley stated that he
had no questions 10 put.
QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE COURT.
1t was then stated by Captain Lemly that
the court had some questions OF its own TO
ask. These were written, and the first was
concerning the elevation of the guns dur
ing the bombardment of the Colon on May
81. The reply was that at first they were
1900 feet, and latterly 5000 feet. The next
question was as. TO whether there was
any place of shelter near Santiago where
the flying squadron could have coaled after
its arrival at SantiagO?''
A0mlral HlgginSOn replied that Guam
tanamo was only forty miles TO the east.
The third question, coming il did from
the court. created something of a sensation,
which was added to by the reply. The
question was: WAS every effort made by
Admiral Schlsy TO destroy or capture the
Spanish steamer Colon as she lay at an
chor in the harbor at Santiago between
the 9th and $1st OF May"
Object" Object Object" came from
each of Admiral Schley's counsel. but be-
fore halt could be called the witness re-
piled. No. don't think it was
The question: and reply led 10 legal con-
troversy. Judge Wilson and Mr.. Rayner
both gave reasons for their objections
They contended that the question called
for the opinion of the witness, whereas
only facts were admissible. Judge Rayner
asked: May / ask the court If, according
to the method OF procedure here. the court
has ruled that we are not at liberty to OBJ
Ject TO any question at all that may be
asked?'
To this Admiral Dewey replied: while
this court is ordered TO investigate all the
facts. We have the right 10 ask any ques-
ton that will bring out the facts. One of
the charges against Admiral Schley Is
whether or not every effort incumbent upon
the commanding officer of the fleet under
such circumstances was made by Commo-
dore Schley to capture or destroy the
SpdillSn cruiser COiOn as SHe lay dl dhcIloi
in the entrance to Santiago harbor May
q to 81, inclusive. We have asked that
question, and we have his admiral Hig-
ginsons) opinion. This court, by the pre-
cept. is obliged to give an opinion upon the
conclusion of the investigation now in the
opinion of the court, and in order TO form
our opinion we want Admiral Higginsons $
opinion on that subject"
Judge Wilson, understand that precept,
reading it through from end to end, to be
simply this-that there shall be an investi-
cation TO get at the facts. And when you
have got at the facts then you express
your opinion. but you are not called upon,