The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-09-24

The witness said he had been one OF the
board OF navigators who had prepared the
chart. He had testified that the Brooklyn
was only 80 yards distant when she crossed
the course of the Texas, but he stated that,
according to the chart, the distance was
about 1880 feet when the Brooklyn was
making her famous loop.
But" he said. Eve are going through a
lot of matter here which is worthless:
''Oh. ii is worthless. is it?' questioned
Mr.. RaynOr. According to the map. the
two vessels were never nearer than within
The witness replied that he considered
the map inaccurate.
I~NACCURACY CONCEDED.
Mr.. Hanna interposed TO say that If the
point intended to be made was that the
chart is inaccurate the government would
concede at once that this was true.
at is a great pity that you never con-
coded that before" said Mr.. Raynor.
1--WE have never had the opportunity"
responded Captain Lemly.
Mr.. Raynor then commented quite Wig
o-ously upon the fact that the chart was
an official document. After a careful in
spection of the map. Commander Heilner
revised his statement, saying that the dis
lance was about half a mile, as shown by
the chart.
Commander Heilner also said that the
chart made the Brooklyn go half a mile
out TO sea in making its loop; that on that
point the chart also was not accurate Al
the time, he said. the Texas was going at
the rate of about twelve knots an hour.
The witness stated that he had not. in
his eXaminatiOn-in-chief, meant TO say that
the ship had lost three miles in as many
minutes, but in all that much time had
81 saw q bright smile on your face when
| said it, added the witness TO Mr.. Ray
nor, land thought you misunderstood.
Thereupon all aughed, the members of
the court included.
The witness was asked by Mr.. Raynor
concerning the stOppage of the Texas when
the Brooklyn appeared in front or her.
were to Slow stop and To back one
right on top of the other, before l could
say a word in between"
Does anything appear in your log about
that?" asked Mr.. Raynor.
Nothing answered the witness. 1t
was not on the log. / can tell you why it
was not, because Captain Philip said he
did not like to have anything I'm II. |
swore to the judge advocate of this court
substantiate anything l said, and that L
would not bring up this point, and | am
sorry l brought IL up, but Captain Philip
SAID he would not put ii in his official re-
port. ] hope l can get some one TO SUBJ
stantiate me on that point. because there
was another gentleman in the cabin when
he made his official report"
DO you recollect, as you brought up
this statement of Captain Philip, the state
ment he made about the danger OF COLI
siOn?"
NO; he spoke to me hundreds of times
about it,"
Mr.. Raynor-Here are his own words.
Mr.. Hanna-Mr. President, we object to
reading from magazines.
Mr.. RaynOr-I don't think the Century
Magazine would credit any article to Cap
tain Philip that was not written by him.
l am not going TO read from IL. l do not
intend to read from it, except for my own
information. Here is what Captain Philip
says-do you recollect Captain Philip ever
saying that 1.-The collision which seemed
to be imminent, even if it was not, was
averted?'
mo, 1 do not recollect, replied the wit
ness.
AS TO THE NEW YORK.
did you see any signals from the New
York on the day of the battle?' asked Mr..
Rayner.
w did not receive any signals from that
vessel on that day until the afternoon, re-
piled the witness.
The witness also said that the New York
had not conn up until after the last Of the
Spanish. ships came out of the harbor..
Captain Lemly here interpOsed To ask
the purpose of the inquiries. and Mr.. Ray
ner stated that it was to be able to make
comparisons between Schley'S bloCkade and
Simpsons, 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 ii would be shown that
the Colon was visible when Admiral Samp-
Captain Lemly objected not only to the
line of questions, but to the line of argu-
ment.
Replying. Mr.. Reyner said that, notwith-
standing the strenuous efforts of Captain
LemIy TO keep Admiral Sampson out of
the controversy. he would inevitably be
brought into it. not for the purpose Of criti-
cism, but for the purpose of showing that
orders of his superior officer, who was Ad-
miral Sampson, in doing what he had done.
Continuing, Mr.. Rayner said that Admiral
Schley wanted TO prove three things. These
We're:
"First-It is maintained that the block
ade, as maintained by Commodore Schley,
concerned, as that maintained by Admiral
Sampson.
'second-The failure to engage the Colon
further on May 81 was in line with Samp-
sons policy as developed after his arrival
on June ], when the Colon was still in
sight.
'Third-That the Brooklyn still had her
place in the blockade assigned by Samp-
son when the Spanish fleet came out On
Having made this presentation, Mr.. Ray
ner. at the suggestion of Judge Wilson,
withdrew the question. Judge Wilson said
the subject would be brought up when
there was a witness on the stand who
could testify as to the facts.
We propose" he said, ito show that
Admiral SampSOn was never in the fight
off Santiago at all, and that on that &C
count Admiral Schley had the RESPONSE
bility of command thrust upon him"
Mr.. Hanna responded, saying there would
be no objection to any proper reference to
Admiral SIMPSONS connection with the
battle. but that so far all efforts were
clearly outside that description.
PHILIPS BATTLE REPORT.
Commander Harder was recalled and
Captain Philips reports of the Santiago
campaign were offered as evidence. Coun-
sci for Admiral Schley consented to their
Introduction with the understanding that
their acceptance should not be considered
as a precedent for the acceptance of other
official reports as evidence.
Mr.. Rayner read from the report of Cap
tain Philip to show that the Texas had
been only four miles out when Commander
HARDER had said it was seven or eight
miles. Commander HARDER said, however.
he did not care to modify his testimony.
Commander Alex. b.. Bates, who was
chief engineer on the Texas during the
Santiago campaign on July 3, was called.
He testified concerning the engines on
that day. He said they were operated on
signals and that the starbOard engine was
reversed. The port engine had also, he
thought, been reversed. He thought at the
time probably that a torpedo boat had got
into the track of the Texas.
At the instance of Captain Parker the
witness examined the steam log book of the
Texas and failed to find there any men
ton of the reversal Of the engine, while he
admitted other matters which Captain Par
ker characterized as comparatively unim-
pOrtant were noted thereon.
While Commander Bates was examining
the steam log of the Texas Lieut.. Henry
II. Ward, of the Bureau OF Navigation. APP
preached him and leaned over his shoulder.
Captain Parker demanded, in somewhat ex-
liz - a.. l. -