The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1901-09-28
Court of Inquiry Declines to Permit Admiral to be
Represented by Attorneys.
Testimony Going Show That Schey Was Informed That Spanish
Fleet Was at Santiago.

I scented from Rear Admiral Sampson
asking to be allowed to be represented
in the court by counsel. but the court
refused to grant the request on the
ground that the court does not al this
time regard you as party to the
case"
The principal witnesses of the day
were Lieutenant John Hood, who com
manded the dispatch boat The Hawk
during the Spanish war. and Captain
b. H McCalla, who was in command
of the Marblehead. The testimony Of
both these officers dealt with the de
livery of dispatches from Admiral
Sampson to Commodore Schley, and
both related to conversations with the
! latter.
Captain McCalla gave in detail his
part in arranging a code of signals
| with the Cuban insurgents and his COM
municatiOnS with them near CienfuegOs
on May "A, 1898. when il was learned
definitely that Cervera's feet was not in
| the harbOr there. He said that Captain
] Chadwick. who was Admiral Sampson
[ chief of staff, was the only person at
/ Key West to whom he had COmmuni-
| Gated the signal code.
! Captain McCalla expressed the Opin-
! ion that cOahng was feasible of San
/ tiage at the time Schley began his ret
! rOgrade movement
| Captain Lemly estimates that he viii
/ be able to conclude the presentation Of
! the government side of the case by
/ the close of next week. He says he
/ will have about fifteen or twenty more
/ witnesses to introduce.
Wise Alters His Testimony.
Today's session began with the re-
] call of Captain Wise to make verbal
changes in the official copy of his tes
timony He altered his previous state
ment concerning the order of the navy
department Of May 20, 1898, in which
he was directed to inform every yes
sci off Santiago that the flying squad
ron is off CienfuegOs,' saying that he
desired to correct his response to the
courts inquiry as to why this order
was not carried out, by stating that II
had been carried out
The flying squadron was ordered TO
proceed with all possible dispatch" he
said, and added; Il did not desire to
inform the commodore of the flying
squadron of his own movements. The
ordeE was to inform commanders of
the movements of the flying squadron"
The court then asked: Did you di-
rect Captain SigSbee to give .Commo-
dore SchIey the information contained
in the dispatch from the navy depart
ment regarding the whereabouts of
the Spanish squadron
Il did not"
Lieutenant Spencer S Wood. who
commanded the dispatch boat Dupont
during the Spanish war, was then
called and continued his testimony be
gun yesterday. Mr.. Raynor resumed
his crOss-examina ton. The witness
said that while off CienfuegOs he had
been on picket duty two miles from
shore on the night Of Nav % and had
been instructed to signal the squadron
with two red lights in case the enemy's
torpedo boats came out of the harbor.
Mr.. RaynOr then read from the testi-
mOny of Captain HARDER of the Texas.
saying that there had been no picket
vessels within the line of the fleet off
Cienfuegos. The witness said that the
statement was wrong.
Captain Lemly said Captain HARDER
had testified that there were no pick
cts so far as he could recall" to
which Mr.. RaynOT responded: We are
not impeaching Captain Harber's YER
acity; we are impeaching his recollec- /
ton, not his integrity"
Tries to Defend HARDER.
The witness continued: LAS I have
seen since, the commander in chief also
reported that the Dupont was not
there. I have written the department
that I was there. Other people forget
about it, too.
You are trying now to justify Cap
tain Harber's want Of recollection by
stating that the commander in chief
wrote a letter that there were no pick
ct boats there"
He did not mention their presence,
and 1 corrected it."
DO you recolIect any statement
he had picket boat within the picket
line that he had arranged a signal from
the picket boat to the fagship2"
He did not mention any, and I have
a letter on file in the department call
ing 9ttention to the omission in that
report
Il call your attention to the report of
the commander in chief in which he
states the line of blockade
Il wish to bring it out that the Du-
pont was inside the line. and that is
the report I made to the department
1 still stand on the point that he is
not bringing out where the torpedo
boat was
You are perfectly right about that.
but you are not asked in reference to /
any criticism you may have upon the
report of the commander in chief The
question is this Captain HARDER has /
definitely stated that there was no /
picket boat inside the line at Cienfue- /
Cos. You say there was and that the /
Dupont was one Of those boats2
u was inside the line, inside the /
Castine."
By the court: could you see the /
Texas from the Dupcnt during the /
nights of May p and May 2S?"
mo, sir"
Objects to Raynor's Methods.
Mr. Hanna objected to Mr.. Raynor's i
methods of questioning and especially
to his characterization of Captain Har- L
ber's testimony as wrong when Captain
HARDER had said distinctly that he only
spoke from his best recollection.
This" he said, sis an indirect i'm
parchment of the Witness"
Mr.. Raynor again insisted that he
had only intended to bring out the
facts.
Mr.. Hanna asked if steps had been
taken while the flying squadron was /
off Cienfuegos to ascertain if the Span-
ISL fleet was inside the harbor there.
Not that I know of" was the re- ]
Spouse.
Was there any effort to destroy the
shore batteries there2''
The witness replied that he knew of
more. He said, replying to another
question by Mr. Ravnor' that vesseIs
IN the inside harbor could not have /
been discerned from the outside.
Lieutenant Wood was then dismissed
and as he was leaving the court room. |
Mr.. Hanna took occasion to say: