The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-09-27

/ te-EuSst,d very carefully ou this point,
! bGt iu .s-,d that hc could not recall the
| presence of amy picket boats inside tuc
. line.
Says Hnrber Was Wrong.
After concluding the reading. Mr. Ray
utv asked
/ Q.-Commander Harber was wrong,
. them
+ A-Y,s. h, was wrong about that. I
was within the line.
/ Nr. Rayusr read Commander Harber's
. corrected testimony in which No. still in
sisted that hc could NOT r,coIlect that
there were any picket boats employed at
CinuDcos.
\,ltu,ss-I am not surprised at Com
. Uauder Harhsrs statement. The torpedo
. boats are often forgotten
J Mr- EINu,r-He stat. d.
Witness continuing have seen i,t-
/ ter from the commauder-iu-chief Of the
. FAluE Squadron stating tnat there were
. TO picket boats at Cisufu,EoS. So that
. Jh. n, were some others that forgot il as
well as Commander Harder The letter
1 Is on file i'm the Navy Department row
Witness Reitcrates His Statement.
1 MI Bayncr here read letter from
. Commodore Sch'ey To the Navy Depart
mont in which he told what bo@ts were
maintained on the i'm shore line.
! Wituess-He does not state what the po-
SiuuU of the Dupont was. / still stand
( by my statement that the Dupont was
! AIr Euyu,r-What We are trying To get
/ 81 is this-that Commander Harber said
! there were no picket boats inside the
/ line at Cigufuogos Now YOU say that
I there were. and that YOU were one Of
/ them Is that correct
A.-Thdt is correct 1 was inside the
/ Captain LemIy-I desire TO say TO coun-
] sci that Commander Earher did not say
, that Ticktt line was not maintained.
/ What ne dld say was that he could not
! Mr.. Kayner-We are not trying to i'm
/ peach the vcracity Of Commander Harder,
but We are impeachinE his recollection
schIey Called ~The Accused"
Mr.. Hanua-CouuseI for the accused has
stated very positively that Commander
/ Iarb.r said that there were no picket
/ boats at CieufueEos. Now I wish TO bring
out the fact that Commander Harber was
i not wrong i'm his testimony. ] object to
1 that method of questioning the witness.
/ He has asked il Commander Harber was
not wrong, and ! object to that, as he
| has not said that the scouts were not
there He has only said that ne could not
/ r,c"llect II. ! am afraid we shall have
! t. object to such questions in the future.
/ Mr.. Hanna 10 the witness.
/ Q-N hat orders did YOU have in re-
{ gard 10 advising the fleet IN case Of
I sudden appearance Of the enemy2 Had
/ YOU any Instructions from the cOmman-
der-in-Chief2
! A.-None that remember now
! Q--What would YOU have dOne2
! Ave had our general instructions be
4 fore leaving Key West We would have
reported IT, Of course. az once. and run
/ as close TO them as possible.
/ Q.-What steps were taken to destroy
( the batteries while YOU were there2
/ A--None that ] know Of.
/ BY the Court:
/ Q.-Could YOU see the Texas from your
| and 80
! A-No sir
! 4 Statement by Mr.. Hanna.
! The witness was excused. While another
/ was being called. Mr Hanna took occa-
/ sion TO say that there had been some
/ que stiou raised as to the correctness Of
/ the despatch sent by Commodore SchIey
/ on May = 10 the Navy Department. as
printed in the Naval Appendix.
! He referred 10 the despatch in which
Schley said that. much 20 be- regretted
orders Of tine department could not be
l obeyed, though all had striven to that
end. and which does uo- exactly CORE
71ond with the despatch as printed iu the
/ appendix.
| He said he wished 10 announce that
/ they would enter into that matter later
as funny as the Court might desire 10 hear
/ IT, He wanted to make this statement.
/ he concluded, in order that it might show
upon the record
Lieutenant Hoods Testimony.
I Lieut. John Hood who commanded The
Hawk, was placed upon the stand. Ia
! answer To questions the witness said that
| he had come up 10 the Brooklyn on the
morning OF May .. and that he had
/ brought dispatches TO SchIey from Samp-
son, who was of Havana.
Captain Lemly asked him to describe
. the circumstances under which he had
received the dispatches.
III, witness said that when Sampson
gave him the dispatches the admiral had
a conversation with him in which that
I officer gave him some verbal instructions
/ for Schlsy. and also the official despatch
/ Is and written memoranda
Mr.. Eayuor objected TO the Introduction
OF verbal instructions, saying that. when
there were verbal and written orders
given, IL was SghIey's duty 70 disregard
I the verbal orders and act upon the writ
ten ones He also objected 20 the witness
mentioning the conversation which he
had with sampson while SchIey was not
present
These objections were argued at some
/ length by counsel for SehIev and the
judge advocate. The Court then retired
for about fifteen minutes to consider the
matter.
MIR. RHyner's Objection Sustained.
Upon returning Admiral Dewey said.
The Court sustaius the objection u
counsel IN 80 far as il relates to- the con-
yersation which the witness had with Ad-
niraI Sampson. but this ruling does not
affect any verbal orders which Admiral
Sampson directed the witness To convey
TO Schley."
BY Captain LeTnIy:
Q--What were IN, verbal Instructions
given you by Admiral Sampson 10 carry
u Commodore Schley2
A--Ihcy were included in the written
memorandum which was given me for
Commodore SchICy. ! also received some
verbal instructions regarding my own
movements
placed in evidence
Lieutenant Hood identified despatch No |
and accompanying memorandum. which
had been handed TO MIN for delivery 10
Conn. cdore SchIey on the 23d Of May. and
they were read to the Court by Captain
Lemly, who then questioned the witness
Q.-What other dispatches did you
carry2
Al had two envelopes. one OF which /
contained this sO-CaIlcd memorandum
and The other contained duplicates Of the |
dispatches which Admiral Sampson told I
mo had been sent by the MarbIehead. He /
did not tell me their contents.
Q--Were YOU instructed TO keep look /
out for the NesuviUs2
Al was, and ] was 20 turn tn des- |