The Washington times., 1901-09-24
FIGHT TO SHIELD SAMPSON.
tcontinued From Eirst PAGE, /,

mile, or about eco yards THE witness was
asked why the map did not show the
ships as close as the witness had SAID
they were, and MIR. Heifner expressed the
opinion that the chart is worthless Tor
the purpose.
That's just what LIN trying to get at
exclaimed MIR. Rayher. this chart is
worthless"
Il don't mean to say absolutely worth
less, but 1t is inaccurate Mr.. Heilner re-
marked quickly but Mr. Rayner cut him
short with. but you have said it. This
caused laughter and a smile went around
the court room.
l. IN tell you what I'm after" said Mr..
Rayner. The chart, instead of putting
you $50 feet. put you at no time less than
200 feet from the Brooklyn"
Value of the Chart.
Here Mr.. Hanna arose and said that If
| the purpose was to show that the chart
was inaccurate the judge advocate would
concede at once that this was so.
It's great pity you never did that be-
fore, responded Mr.. Rayner with en-
phasis 1T is a Government appendix
| and comes to us signed by Government
officials, and with the stamp of the Gov
ernment approval. 1t is supposed to be
the only authentic map TO proceed on and
| is understood to be as nearly correct as
possible"
MIR. Rayner brought up the question Of
signals from the New York on the day OF
the battle. He asked the witness If his
| ship got any from that flagship.
Il don't know, was tae response. we
| didn't get any until the afternoon-until
after L o'clock"
Q. Did you see the New York during
the battle?
| A. oh, yes.
| 9. When?
| A. / don't remember, but ! think 1t was
| when the Viscaya was going ashore
| Captain Lemly interrupted here with
| tions
u want to show the positions of the
| ships, said Mr.. Rayner.
| You want to show the positions OF the
! ships by the position of the New York,
asserted the judge advocate.
Mr.. Rayner said he did not want to ar
| que then. but he would again bring up
| this question when he had witness who
| did know and would show where the New
York really was His side had right to
| show it, he contended! 1t had the right
| to show that Commodore Schley main.
| tanned the same sort of a blockade at
| Santiago as Sampson maintained
Trying to Shield Sampson.
| The Judge advocate objected heatedly
to the question and to the argument, but
| Mr. Rayner persisted in stating his posi-
ton and said:
| notwithstanding the strenuous EFFORTS
of the judge advocate to keep Admiral
Sampson outside of the case he will not
| do it. l do not propose to censure or crit
| icise Admiral Sampson. but to show that
what Commodore Schley did was done un-
der the orders of Admiral Sampson We
propose to prove that when Schiey with
drew from the reconnaissance against the
| Colon and did not come In contact with
| the shore batteries he did it under gen.
eral regulations of the navy
| Judge Wilson added to what Mr. Ray
| lraar hph -ni n q
| the matter until he had witness VINO
did know something about the case
! There were some more exchanges and
| the examination of the witness was about
TO proceed when Mr.. Hanna interrupted
with: Are you going to leave the subject
| here and now?
we Withdraw the question now,' said
Mr.. Rayner. but You may rely on 1t that
we are going to bring ii up again
Mr.. Hanna said he wanted to answer
one or two suggestions made by the other
side, One of these was that sampson
blockade be taken as a model of perfect
| blockade. f5NJ
.'oh, no; not that" interposed Mr., Ray
| ner
.'Then we don't care to look into an
imperfect blockade, responded Mr.. Han
ma. If there is any way to bring Admi-
raj Sampson properly and legally before
| the Court, We will make no objections. but
until then. we viii object to any such at
tempt. Admiral Sampson is not in this
case. but we would not object If he could
be brought fairly and squarely into It
II I've a6se reaaaS ms question v wned sed
| squarely."
| Re-examined by NE. Hanna, Mr. He'll
ner said that if the Texas had not been
| Obliged to back out of the way of the
| Brooklyn she would have been three miles
nearer the action. This was his estimate.
| he said. He explained that his estimate
| as to the 100 and $50 yards distance be-
tween the Texas and the Brooklyn when
the former backed to avoid collision had
been made after taking everything into
consideration. and .partculiriy the faet
that man was inclined to underestimate
| distance.
After having examined the navigator s
| chart do you wish to modify your sworn
| testimony to distance?
{! mo, sir" responded Lieutenant Com
mander Heilner.
Then why did you sign that report on
| that chart?" asked Judge Wilson
Our duty was to reconcile; as far as
| possible all discrepancies. and was as
| sured by the senior member tCommander
| Wainwright and others that We might
| go on forever and never get 1t absolutely
| correct This chart is not absolutely cor
rect. We don't claim it.
This concluded Lieutenant Commander
HciIners testimony. He was told to come
Commander Harber, who had a little
tiff on Saturday with Mr.. Rayner while
| being cross-examined by MIN, was re-
| called to correct verbal errors in the re-
port of his testimony. He shook hands
with Mr.. Rayner.
Commander Alexander B. Bates, who
| served as chief engineer of the Texas
during the war with Spain, was the next
witness. He testified as to the evolutions
| of that vessel on the day Of the fight.
He said he remembered that the star
board engine of the Texas was reversed
| during the battle of July 3, and while he
did not know of his own personal knowl-
edge he felt sure that the port engine
! was reversed. Between $40 and 9:i5 a.
! m the engines were reversed for about
three minutes.
| der Bates stated that there was nothing
| in the log book of the Texas as to the re-
| versal of the engines. and counsel com
mented on the fact of the omission of
| that item, which was characterized as i'm
| portant while other uuimportant matters
| were recorded in the log book. The wit
ness stated that Notwithstanding such
omissions he was sure the starboard en-