The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1901-10-13

dispatch. but she, OF course. did not ar-ive
there until Commodore Schley had left TO,
Santiago. and l do not remember VIVA,
those dispatches were
Was that the Wasp"
Yes"
What date"
My impression is she left by the ole
bahama Channel May Is
ihen l understand that between the
TIME that the Hawk carried this infOrma-
ton TO Commodore Schley at dusk on the
evening Of May u and the time when this
dispatch was sent from the Bahama Chan
mel on the 18th. there was no communica.
lion between Admiral Sampson and Com
modore Schley in reference to the Spanish
squadron at Santiago. Was there"
Il thought / replied that there was no
opportunity for any"
After further effort on Mr.. Rayner's par;
TO elicit information as to correspondence
between the two commanders. and objec-
ton on the part of Mr.. Hanna TO bringing
in dispatches which had no immediate bear
ing upon Commodore Schley's conduct. Mr..
Rayner said there was no communication
between them between May q and May n.
He then quoted the dispatch of May q as
the first positive knowledge conveyed to
Commodore Schley of the presence OF the
fleet at Santiago. This dispatch was as fol-
lows:
SAMPsON'S OFFICIAL
OTTO To SCHLEI.
United States Flagship New York. st.
Nicholas Channel. May p. 1sss.-Sir: Every
I'Dort. and particularly daily confidential
reports. received at Key West rom HaSa1a
state that Spanish squadron has been in
Santiago - Cuba from the 18th TO III.
18th instant. inclusive. the 18th being me
date Of the last report received. You Will
please proceed with all possible dispatch TO
Santiago to blockade that port. II. or ar
rival there. you receive positive informa-
ton Of the Spanish ships having left. you
will follow them in pursuit. Very resrect-
fully.
,SagneD WILLIAM T. SAMPSON"
Mr. Hanna: What is the first positive or
der"
Mr.. Rayner: May 9th"
Mir. Hanna: did he receive 1t on the
g7th?'
Mr.. Rayner: He never received it on the
9th (after being prompted by Admiral
He got 1t on June 10"
Mr.. Hanna: How Is il possible that he
can be affected by an order after all that
of timer"
Mr.. Rayner: That is just what We want
to prove-that he had no orders. except
those contained in dispatches numbers :
and s."
offer the dispatch Of May q in evidence.
and after colloquy between MIR. Rayner and
Judge Advocate Lemly. Mr.. Hanna re-
marked that there was no objection to put
ting It in except that it was obviously in
ended to reflect on a person who is not
under inquiry"
To this Mr.. Rayner responded that 1t was
intended to reflect or any one. but that
was intended ito prevent a reflection on
Schley.' II was decided that
he dispatch was already in evidence, and
,Ir. Hanna took the witness for redirect
examination. He began by asking IL he
inew the reason for the lapse of five or six
lays between the sending of dispatches by
he Hawk and the Wasp. |
To this inquiry Mr.. Rayner objected. and
here was quite a spirited argument on the
of the counsels on both sides as to
he admissa bil,ty OF the question. Mr.. Ham
IA stated In the course Of his argument
hat the matter could be fully explained. |
tut said that II the court objected he would I
lot press the matter, whereupon Admiral |
remarked: You better not ask that |
uestion." |
The incident was closed by the withdrawal |
I the question.
At this stage of the proceedings Can
ain Lemly introduced as a part OF The /
ecord two letters from Commodore Schley
0 Admiral Sampson. both dated Nav "a.
ses. the first saying he was by no means
that the Spanish squadron was
OF at Cienfuegos. and the second telling