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

An Admission by HeiIner.
On cross-examination Commander
ueilner admitted having taken part
in the preparation of the official navy
department chart showing the posi-
lions at different times of the ships
which participated in the battle. He
said that according to this chart the
two ships never were nearer than GOO
yards of each other. But, he contend
ed, the chart was inaccurate, and he
said he had only consented to it as a
compromise. Commander Bates adj
mitted that the official steam log of
the Texas contained no record of the
signal to reverse the engines. Com
mander Schroeder testified concern
irg the coal supply of the Massachu-
setts, which, he said, would have been
sufficient for blockade of from 16
to 20 days.
The day closed with another ami
mated controversy between counsel
rs to the policy of bringing Admiral
Simpsons name into the trial.
During the examination of Heilner,
Rayner at one point asked:
did you see the New York on the
fay of the battle?"
The reply was:
ooh, yes, | think she was reported
coming up before the Viseaya went
ashore. She was the last ship"
Here the judge advocate interposed
to ask the purpose of this inquiry.
Mr.. Rayner replied that it was ito
show when these ships went there.
We are going to show" he continued,
'the position of the New York on the
day of the battle" He further said
in part:
We have the absolute right to
show the situation OF the New York
on the day OF the battle, and we have
the right to show the connection of
Admiral Sampson In reference to the
battle; We have right, for instance,
tc show that Commodore Schley at
Santiago, maintained the same sort
OF blockade that Admiral Sampson
maintained when he got there on the
Est OF June. So far as distances are
concerned, l think we have the right
to show-because one Of the specifi.
cations of this precept states
whether or not close or adequate
blockade OF said harbor to prevent the
escape of the enemy's vessels there
from was established.
Not a Personal Controversy.
I'VE do not propose to bring the
name of Admiral Sampson into this
controversy any more than it is posi-
BILE to do SO. This is not personal
controversy. We are not here for the
purpose of engaging in any personal
controversy between Admiral Samp-
son or Commodore Schley, or adj
herents of either; we are not here for
the purpose of at present. without
knowing what this case will develop
cr1hcising the actions of Admiral
Sampson, but it is absolutely neces
sary for this court in order to properly
investigate this case under the speci-
ncations OF this precept, to let us
prove what Admiral Sampson did:
NOT that we condemn what he did or
tlltlclse what he did or censure what
ne dld We are not here now for the
purpose OF condemning the fact. If il
proves to be a fact, of the New Yorks
leaving on the morning of the battle:
we are not mere to criticise the block
ade that Admiral Sampson had at
ndhtlaso, out we are here to estab-
Esh this, or, under the specifications
ol your precept memorandum to
IND out whether the blockade at San.
laso was a close or adequate block
ade. Now, if we can prove that Il
was, so far as distances were con
cerned, the same blockade that tba
commander-in-chief maintained there
then we can justify the course of Ad.
miral ScfSey, who was commander.
ln-chief before SIMPSONS arrival.
I'VE propose to prove that on the
drst day of June the Colon was in
precisely the same ~osition inside OF
The harbor that she WAS on the 3lsr