New-York tribune., 1901-11-01

to have the facts before it
He contended that this is an inquiry and not
prosecution and that the usual rules OF opening
and closing and of rebuttaI and surrebuttal FOL
lowed ordinary courts OF law were hot u pe
followed in this case.
The, controversy between counsel continued loF
some time Mr.. Hanna said he had had con-
versaton with Mr.. Rayner IL which the latter had
promised to be liberal in rebutting testimony. MI
Rayner said that his promise had only appileo 10
rebutting testimony proper
M Hanna took especial exception to the chaf-
acterization of his and Captain Lemlys conducl ol
the case as a prosecution. On this point ne salo'
AS to the use of the language which has o been
employed here that this ord Is Tef Stand in that
shape without saying word or two on hS tliaS
tion of the applicant and his counsel Oui o. seH-
Iopad eVeTv techncai rule of the law to be evoked
in his interest That is genefo5bbe b law has de-
vised to screen and protect and defend man VINO
is under any sort OF charge has been alIoMeu 40 ~
come in before this court of inquiry That was IN
favor Of the applicant. not against hlnl a naEal
court inquiry has the absolute right TO ASK any ~
any in which it chooses to prosecIlIe li1 III
inquiry. 1t will not do 10 lay down me, ines tn
rules as absolutely binding If the court pIeasts 10
adhere to them Vel and gCeo bere ge' When the ap
nlicant is represented by able and skilled counsel
70 S h9yS S the {acae Ttsma Gf ana m f5t ssocae It
outrageous and unwarranted use OF the word
Mr.. Rayner said he had never spoken Of the in
oliry as a prosecution but had referred to II as
trial" and had considered IL he also feluSeu
TO cuncede that any special generosity i4''- '
displayed in the case.
cartain Parker ca He'd the attention Of the court
to the naval regulations for 1900 IN whlch le VIZ
prosecution is used in connection with courts VI
inquiry. .,.
The court took q recess until o cioch Ni'1oN'
deciding the point raised
COURT RULES OK REBUTTING TESTIMONY
When the court reconvened Admiral Dewey an
,7ol,,,.sl the decision the question OF Fepu'ls
testimony holding that witnesses may ne cali'o
AT any tin. or recalled for the purpose OF mahlis
corrections Of former testimony or additions III 'lle
nature OF corrections They cannot however relt-
crate former evidence. The language ot 'Ae coui'
was follows:
The court has considered the matter which was
f@iioTz 6Si0IS II ''' '''' ''''F '- IN
Admiral Schlev requested the department to take
such action bring under dlscussloh ailG i Ie
view of mis- brothers arms certain CRITICISMS
sired the department TO order a court OF inquiry
Investigate the portions o1 ms ar S,-srance of
this request the department ordered a couIt %
inquiry thoroughly inquire INTO an H. aif fs.
lion directed the attention of the court to certain
iInportant points and ordered the court 10 report
III Th@ pertfnent facts which il may deem estab-
lished The court Is Therefore requliep aSe@ NJ Of
inc all Witnesses who may have any ho" { i not ~
the matters brought to its attention ana Is no. ~
bound by any technical laws regardg M Il
procedure and this end witnesses IlsiH o' -
at any time or they may he recalled 10 MAKE cor
10 thair testirony the facts Of the case may:
If possible, be placed clearly peloT IT, t., Vents
no witness shall reiterate former s'aielileH's'
sIGsBEE STICKS TO HIS STATEMENT
The latter part of this decision was read oy Cap
tain Iemly TO witness, in order that ne ilsli'
confne his answer in accordance there"lth- ne
rben asked him TO make such corrections oil ms
testimony or such additions in the nature OF cor
rections as he might desire Captain Sigsnee an
swered follows:
7 have carefully. since my last tes9lm2ny. gone zone
over al! @L ny d ib, records of the St Paul
hive no correction make in the testn9h! I'M
faco c,,I9 IA not recoect whether there We're one or
Two asse5n6lages fore SI the rTiva OF the Flying
SnTadron there on the 18th. and that II there Were
TWO visits one must have Deen on SIat both on
hoard the Harvard. and that went on lle secpiIu I
! bas come to the conclusion that the second visit
on board the l&-e I''a' = ~ '
tion 1 desire to make u
f,a,tair Ienlv-You will find that you are like
-isa ,,-yf1eged at this time make addition in the
aat,,r. of corrections your testimony This
say not for the purpose Of suggesting anythlis'
hut merely for the purpose OF giving you the op-
norr7I,itv which the court intends you shall have
Captain Sigsbee-I desire TO state that informed
Commodore schey on the occasion Of my visit TO
him on the Goth first. that thought that the St
Paul had been chased by a torpedo boat on the
night Of her arrival the subsequent night: sec
ond that detailed TO him the communication be
tween CAPTAIN Goodrich. of the St. Louis, and
myself en- board the Paul passed each
other. when bound from Cape Halfien 10
Santiago and the St. Louis bound from San
Iiago 10 Cape Haitfen-
He said that since he was formerly on the stand
he had recalled that he did See the press boat
Sorners y Smith on May 2S, and he also recalled
that on that evening had the press boat
Premier and had warned those aboard against re-
manning where they then were because of the
danger of being attacked by torpedo boat de
stroyers In his interview with Commodore Sch1ey
on board the Brooklyn he was told by the Com
rnodore that Paul (Sigsbee's boat) was to
go with the Flying Squadron to Key West and on
the following day to take the Texas in tow.
The witness remarked:
There was almost no esteghisn at that 9 tims on on
most everything that l said about Santiago and
the Spanish feet. His whole conversation
the subject of coal and nothing but coal and. 80
far as i could Judge. he already had made up his
mind return to Key West He told me that he
going to Key West
On cross-examination Mr.. Rayner asked about
the statement that the Premier had been warned
against torpedo boat destroyers. ana the witness
said that he had given this warning because he be-
lieved from his information from the Navy Depart
ment that the Spaniards were in the harbor.
You believed they were there notwithstanding
that Il the 18th you thought you have hereto
fore testified that they going in there. Is
that correct
quite So 1 thought II quite possible they might
not have gone in
Mr Rayner-I.et me get that right-you thought
on the 2S'h they might be there. although. on the
18th your official report you say you thought
you them apiI oaChing that port?
That Is quite So They might have been out or
they might have been in. / was prepared for
either event