The daily morning journal and courier., 1901-09-24

regulation of the navy which require
 it of him, and that Admiral Sampson
 passed by the Colon at thirty minute
 after six o'clock on June 1 and saw he
 lying there, and never pretendted t
 attack. Do you mean that we have no
 any right to justify our conduct anC
 our actions by the conduct and actions
 of the commander-in-chief
 You will find you can't keep Samp son out of this. You cannot keep hin
 constructively from the presence of thi.
 court. You may actually, but not con
 structively It is impossible
 Mr. Raynor added that they further
 wanted to prove that on the morning
 of the third of July the Brooklyn hac her proper station in that blockade line under the orders of Admiral Sampson
 He did not know that these matters 1 could be proved by this witness. | Mr Raynor further said: T will say
 to the court that if we are to be exclud- | ed now we are to be excluded in all our | testimony. If Admiral Sehley comes on | the stand and we ask the question Were you on your station on July 3?' and he says, T was there because Ad-
 miral Sampson put me there are we to
 be prevented from asking that question | because we are putting Admiral Samp- son into the controversy"
 Judge Advocate Lemly-"That I did not say"
 l After some further sparring MT. Ray nor withdrew the question, saying that Judge Wilson wanted to argue it before the court and did not wish to take it up at this time. Judge Wilson said: "The reason I do not care to argue this case is because I regard it as one of exceeding importance, and I do not think we ought to precipitate this ar gument until I have fully considered it, and until some point is reached in the case where the court must pass upon the whole question. I maysjust as well indicate here first as Inst what I re- gard to be some of the Important feat ures of this case. Of course, your hon. ors know we propose to show, and I propose to show beyond4 all question, that Admiral Sampson from first to last was not in this fight at all and therefore Admiral Schley had thrust upon him the responsibility of this bat tie, but I am not going to argue 1t now. So I venture to suggest that when we come to a witness that knows some thing about these things and we ask him a question that will develop some thing in regard to it, if the court then deem proper that it will be the best time to argue it, and if 1t suits the con- veiences of the court and my friend on the other side and my associates, I pre- fer to take it up them
 The judge advocate-"That is per- fectly satisfactory"
 MT. Hanna replied briefly to MT. Rayner. saying: It is an impossibility to leave the record in this condition without word further. The sugges- tion made is that Admiral Sampson's blockade be taken as a standard as model, as type of perfect blockade, and if Schley's blockade comes up to that standard, it is to be accepted as We object to taking any imperfect blockade
 "One further word in regard to the just made as to the inten- tion to show that Admiral Sampson was not in this battle: wish to say
 
 Admiral Sampson was or was not in the battle of Santiago Is before the court. If 1t is, we shall be happy to investigate it. We are here to find out all the facts, but we do not care to roam around into outside matters, but If that question is led up to In any legi- mate way, or if any lines which this inquiry institutes will lead to Admiral Sampson and properly and legitimately bring him before this court, we shall offer no objection to the prosecution of such an inquiry. Until the case takes that attitude it is improper to intro- iuce dnto the examination questions 1 which proceed upon the theory that he ! s In the case. If the counsel can bring | 1im into the case fairly, squarely and | honestly let that be done and we will | oin them in such inquiries as may be | and proper in the pursuit of hat investigation. Until that is regu- | arly and squarely done or until the case | .akes such an attitude that it is neces- l 'ary in the fulflllment of the duty inn posed upon this court to make such an investigation, it is Idle, it is improper 1 md inappropriate to introduce argu- nents and questions which proceed up- 'n that false hypothesis.
 T have made these remarks not for he purpose of arguing the question, l )ut because the gentlemen on the oth- 1T side have argued and have pread their views on the record md then withdrawn for the second or hird time, I really forget which, this question. We are ready to meet if when l comes, and squarely and honestly"