The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1901-09-24

| the latter said he had not known until aftei
| the arrival of Captain McCalla ON the Mar
blehead. OIL May q. that there was to be
| system of signals for communicating will
Cuban allies on the shore. Nor had he
| known until then that cervera's fleet was
| not inside the harbor at Cienfuegos.
| "Did you see any signals from the New
\ orK on the day of the battle?" asked Mr..
Rayner..
We did not receive any signals from tina;
| vessel on that day until in the afternoon,
| replied the witness.
| The witness also said that the New York
had not come up until after the last Of the
Spanish ships came out of the harbor. Cap
! tain Lemly here interposed to ask the pur-
| pose of these inquiries and Mr.. Rayner
stated that It. was to be able to make COM
parisons between SchIey's blockade and
| Sampson's. because If It could be shown
| that Schley's blockade was equal to Samp-
sons, he could not be considered censurable.
| He also said that it would be shown that
| the Colon was visible when Admiral Samp-
| son came up. captain Iemly objected. not
| only to the line of questions. but to the line
of argument.
DETERMINED TO DRAG IN
| ADMIRAL SIMPSONS RECORD.
Replying. Mr. Rayncr said that. notwith-
standing the strenuous efforts of Captain
Lemly to keep Admiral Sampson out of the
into 1t. not for the purpose of criticism.
but for the purpose of showing that Ad-
miral Schley had merely obeyed the or
ders of his superior officer. who was Adj
miral Sampson. in doing what he had DONE
Continuing. Mr.. Rayner said that Ad-
miral Schley wanted to prove three things.
These were: First-It is maintained that
the blockade as maintained by Commodore
Schley was the same. SO far as distances
were concerned. as that maintained by Ad-
miral Sampson: second. the failure to en-
gage the Colon further on May 81 was In the
line of SIMPSONS policy as developed after
his arrival on June l. when the Colon was
still in sight: third, that the Brooklyn had
her place in the line of blockade assigned
by Sampson when the Spanish fleet came
out on July 3.
Continuing, Mr.. Rayner said:
You will find you can't keep Sampson
out of this. You cannot keep him construct
lively. from the presence of this court. You
may actually. but not constructively. 1t Is
impossible
Mr.. Rayner added that they further want
ed to prove that on the morning of the Sd
of July the Brooklyn had her proper station
in that blockade line under the orders Of
Admiral Sampson. Mr.. Rayner further said:
'I will say to the court that II We are to
be excluded now We are to he excluded in
all our testimony. II Admiral Schley comes
on the stand and we ask the question. Were
You on your station on July 50 and he says
L was there because Admiral Sampson put
me there We are to be prevented from ask
ing that question because we are putting
Admiral Sampson into the controversy"
Judge Advocate: THAT did not say
After some further sparring, Mr.. Rayner
withdrew the question, saying that Judge
Wilson wanted to argue 1t before the court
and did not wish to take 1t up at this time.
Judge Wilson said:
SIMPSONS PART
CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL.
''The reason 1 do not care to argue this
case now Is because I regard 1t as one of
exceeding Importance, and / do not think
we ought to precipitate this argument until
I have fully considered 1t and until some
point Is reached in the case where the case
must pass upon the whole question. 1 may
Just as well indicate here, first as last. what
1 regard to be some of the important fea-
lures Of this case. OF course. your Honors
know We propose to show, and I propose
10 show. beyond 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 battle. but I am not going to argue It
now. SO venture to suggest that when