Daily new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1897-1906, 1901-09-24

N May, when Admiral Schley made
the reconnaissance with the Massar
chusetts and the New Orleans. Now,
We propose to show that when Ad-
niral Sampson came up with the
ships his ships saw the Colon IN the
same position, and instead Of attack
ing it steamed by and permitted ner
to 10 further inside the harb0r. Now,
wouldn't we be justified in not engag-
ing in battle with the Colon and the
shore batteries at Santiago If Adj
miral Sampson took the same
course?'
The judge advocate at this point
interposed an objection. He said:
IF the court please, object to this
line OF argument. It does not make
one particle of difference what any
one else did. You might as well try
to prove that somebody else commit
ted murder and say he committed
it and my man is not to blame. Ii IS
simply waste OF time. 1t is no
where in the scope Of the precept.
1t Is endeavoring to go beyond the
precept. This is not an inquiry be-
tween Admiral Sampson and admiral
Schley II is question between Adj
miral Schley and the morale OF the
service, and these comparisons have
absolutely no bearing upon It, either
in evidence or argument, and | oh.
ject to this ingenious attempt to ex-
tend the scope Of this preeept."
MIR. Rayner replied In part:
Ills =, s.a4 III 9i ee.Ht point with US
and we are prepared with the author
tiles to maintain it. | am not doing
this ingeniously, but very frankly.
notwithstanding the strenuous efforts
of the learned judge advocate to keep
Admiral Sampson out of this case,
he can't keep him out. | wish to be
understood as not saying one word in
derogation of Admiral Sampson, nor
to censure him, but to show the court
that what he did was under the orders
Of Admiral Sampson, and that he did
precisely the same things we did
After some further parrying Mr..
Rayner 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 Will
son said in part:
10 onew Sampson Wasnt There.
"Of course your honors know we
propose to show, and propose to
show beyond all question, that Ad-
miral Sampson. from first to last,
was not in this fight at all, and there
fore Admiral 6chley had thrust upon
him the responsibility of this battle,
but | am not going to argue it now,
50 | venture to suggest that when we
come to witness that knows some
taing about these things, and we ask
him question that will develop some
thing in regard to it, if the court then
deem proper that will be the best
time to argue it, and if it suits the
convenience of the court and my
friend on the other side and my as
sociates, | prefer to take 1t up then"
The judge Advocate-That is per
fectiy saIIsl acGofy.
Mr. Hanna replied briefly to MIR.
Rayner, saying in part:
1t is an impossibility to leave the
record in this condition without
word further. The suggestion made
is that Admiral Sampsons blockade
be taken as standard, as model.
as type of perfect blockade, and if
Schley's blockade comes up to that
standard it is to be accepted as salts.
factory. We object to taking any i'm
perfect blockade.
one further word in regard to the
suggestion just made as to the in
tention to show that Admiral Samp-
son was not in this battle. | wish to
say we do not understand that the
question whether Admiral Sampson
was or was not in the battle of San
taaso IS bsfoTo this court ii it 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 legitimate way. or
II any line which this inquiry insti-
tutes will lead to Admiral Samson
and properly and legitimately bring
MIN before this court, we shall offer
no objection to the prosecution of
such an inquiry"