The Savannah morning news., 1901-09-26
Iissing Dispatch.


At this point Capt Parker remarked
that this dispatch would not be found.
To this remark Capt. Lemly took
exception, saying that it was out of
place for counsel to make such COM
ment.
Admiral Dewey sustained the objec-
ton.
The order of Admiral Sampson, which
is the letter known as the Dear
Scniey letter. was then read.
Mr.. Rayner was eross-examining
Admiral Cotton regarding dates of de-
livery of dispatches when the court
adjourned for luncheon.
Wnen the court reconvened Mr.. Ray
ner resumed his cross examination of
ADMIRAL Cotton. His first effort was
10 reconcile certain dates, saying that
IT was most important that they should
De correct. He would admit the deliv-
cry or one dispatch on the 9th, but
the contention was that the other dis
patches were delivered on the 31st He
called the Admiraps attention to the
fact that one of the dispatches which
ne mad said he delivered on May % had
been dated at Washington as of that
day. This is the dispatch in which
secretary Long had instructed the
commander as to the importance of de-
termining explicitly whether Cerveras
heet was in Santiago harbor. The 1Ad-
miral said that if he had said that this
dispatch was delivered on the 9th he
had made mistake-that it was de-
livered on the S1st after his return
from Kingston. u~,ns
Admiral Cotton said, however. that
he was certain that he had delivered
more than one dispatch to Commodore
| Schley on the 9th. He said:
Il delivered to Commodore Schley
two dispatches on the morning of May
u. l think it probable that among the
| dispatches which l spoke of having
handed him on that date there may
have been some which were addressed
to me and not to him, which contained
| information such as / thought he
should have. OF the two dispatches adj
| dressed to him. one was from Admiral
| Sampson and the other from the Navy
Department"
| Recurring to the conversation with
| Admiral Schley concerning the coal
supply of the fleet on the 9th, Admiral
Cotton said that Admiral Schley had
expressed great anxiety on that point
| such as any commander would have
| felt, he said. under the circumstances.
At this point Mr.. Rayner referred to
the previous remark concerning coal
ing in the open sea on the 9th. He
said:
| after reading dispatches the Commo-
dore made signals inquiring the
amount of coal. Did you see the an
swering signal?"
Il did not" responded the witness.
You stated you could have coaled
from the Merrimac On that day. Why
didn't you do SOP"
I'm the first place, 1 had no author
| ity to COAL In the second place, I was
rrnf TIM f<K- ~ 7
within twenty-four hours, and in the
third place, coal was more needed by
the fleet than by the Harvard"
did you ask the Commodore for
permission to coal?"
II did not
Lieut.. BeaIl's Proposition.
Mr.. Rayner attempted to have Admit
raj Cotton say that his conversation
with Admiral Schley concerning Lieut..
Beall's proposition to go ashore and
communicate with the insurgents had
occurred on the 31st, instead of the
9th of May. The witness said that this
might possibly be the case, but that to
| his best recollection the conversation
occurred on the 27th. Mr.. Rayner ex-
| planned that Admiral Schley had on
the .31st sent another man ashore TO
communicate with the insurgents,
which would explain Admiral Schley's
declination of Lieut.. Beall's PROPOSE
ticn.
The witness said that up to May "a
he did not know of the presence of
the Spanish fleet within the f1arbor at
Santiago, nor did he know of any other
officer who had that information at
that time.
On redirect examination Admiral Cot
ton said he was satisfied that he had
told Admiral Schley of Lieut.. Beall's
proposition on May 81, because he
would have considered that he was re-
miss in his duty if he had not given
the information at the fra opportun-
| ity. He had then had before him the
order of the department to Commodore
| Schley to ascertain the facts concern
| ing the presence of the Spanish fleet in
| the harbor.
Mr.. Hanna asked Admiral Cotton
| concerning dispatches received by him
on May %. He said he had received
a dispatch on that date from Admiral
Sampson telling him that the Spanish
squadron was at Santiago and to pro-
| coed there and communicate with Adj
miral Schley. The witness read copy
of the dispatch, which he had retained,
and said that If he had ever given it
| to Admiral Schley it I'd been on May q.
An Unpublished Dispatch.
This dispatch was written May 70
and received May rs and has not here
| tofore been made public. 1t reads:
1.-The Spanish squadron at Santiago;
| if previous to May 10 scout off Santi-
ago. Communicate with Schley. If he
| (they) moves west. Sehley is expected
| May "a at Santiago from Cienfuegos.
| Telegraph me from Nicholas Mole to
| Key West If he (they) move east and
leave letter for Schley. Then go to
| Santiago to meet him. 1 shall be st
| Cay Francis with squadron. If two
| scouts are available one should keep
track of the Spanish squadron"
Mr.. Rayner here raised the point
| that the document read was copy
and not the original He also called
attention to the fact that the document
had not been printed in the official re-
ports of the Navy Department.
An animated controversy followed,
in which Mr.. Rayner commented upon
the inaccuracy of the department re-
ports, in his opinion. He demanded the
original dispatch, saying
This is an inquiry and not prose-
cution, and you are here to protect and
vindicate Admiral Schley as much as
| we are"
Ultimately the original cipher dis
patch was found, and Mr.. Raymer
then said that he would accept the
copy which Admiral Cotton said had
been made by Lieut.. Beall.
At 1925 o'clock Admiral Cotton was
! excused and Capt. William G. Wise,