The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-10-12


the picket boats being there if they could
not see the enemy?
They were supposed to be there,
presume, for that purpose"
Then, if they were there for that pur-
pose. what was it that would have pre-
vented them from accomplishing this OBJ
ject?''
1.-The fact that they could not see a
vessel if it ran at distance of from
two to two and a half miles off at
night
How far was the Vixen from the
shore?"
1T do not know"
What was the distance between your
vessel and the Vixen?"
II cannot say
Are you prepared to say then that
neither you nor the Vixen could not have
seen him?"
II answered the question as put by the
court that we on the Marblehead could
not have seen the enemy coming out UNI
der the conditions l have named-hrst, In
keeping close in under the land, and, sec
cndly, in steering due south from the
harbor.'
What sort of nights were there?'
IT do not remember particularly. I do
not remember any gales and particularly
lad weather.
Lieut.. Boughton was still on the stand
when the court took its noon recess.
When the afternoon session of the court
began. Mr.. Rayner continued his cross
examination of Lieut.. Boughter. The
lieutenant said his estimates of the dis
lance his ship was out from the Moro
or from land at Santiago was
BASED ON AN ESTIMATE,
and not on measurements. He said he
mad not informed Capt. McCalla, his
commanding officer, of any fear that the
Spanlards might escape, for the reason
that ne considered Capt. McCaIla as well
informed on that point as himself He
mad received no general orders as to the
distance out for the Marblehead. the can
tain of the vessel fixing the distance from
time to time.
When Lieut.. Boughter was excused.
Lieut.. Ernest Bennett, who was flag lieu
tenant on the New York in 1898, was call
ed to the stand
He said that when the North Atlantic
squadron arrived off Santiago they found
the lying squadron there. They stopped
about seven miles directly south of the
harbor. and the witness said he had seen
the Cristobal Colon in the harbor. He
also said that almost Immediately after
wards the vessel moved to the westward,
back Of Cay Smith. This last statement.
III ;" a. SLAAShOA 1iOHu Tie record on
the ground that such testimony previous
ly had been excluded.
Witness said the flying squadron was
at that time in irregular formation.
Capt Lemly said that he had called
Lieut.. Bennett not only for his direct ex-
animation, but for full cross-examina-
ton, in accordance with the precept. Mr..
Rayner stated, however, that he had no
questions to ask, and the witness was ex-
cUsed, being succeeded by Lieut.. Charles
Z. Marsh, who was flag secretary to Adj
m1ral Sampson during the Spanish war
Lieut.. Marsh testified concerning the
forwarding of dispatches by the Dupont
ard the Iowa from Key West on May 20.
These messages were from Admiral
Sampson to Commodore Schley, and one
OF them was the memorandum by Capt
McCalla concerning the insurgents at
Cienfuegos. Questioned as to the correct
ness of his memory, witness said that his
mind was refreshed by the records of the
commander-in-chief as to his correspond
ence.
LETTERS ALL COPIED.
Every letter was, he said, press copied
as soon as written, and he therefore con-
sidered the order in which letters were
copied as certain record of what had
transpired in the way of letter writing
Other records were produced, which, he
these records he found that the Dear
Schley" letter had been sent on The Du-
pont, May 20 He also found from this
record that a dispatch of May q, saying
The Spanish squadron was probably at
Santiago, had been forwarded by the
Marblehead. This is the dispatch dated
at Key West, in which Admiral Sampson
said to Commodore Schley: eff you are
satisfied that they (the enemy are not
at Cienfuegos, proceed to Santiago" etc.
He also identified dispatch of May 81
dated at Havana, and urging the commo-
dore to get away from Cienfuegos before
daylight of May g, as the Spanish
would probably be still at Santiago" The
latter dispatch, he said, had been written
after the dispatch from Key West of the
same date.
Mr.. Hanna asked: 'FWould 1t have been
possible that the Dear Schley' letter
could have been sent on an earlier date
than this letter of May 10. transmitting
the McCalla memorandum"
IT should say not, the McCalla memo
randum being PRESS copied In the book on
a prior page
On cross examining the witness Mr.
Rayner said that counsel for Admiral
Schley would admit the receipt of one
copy of the McCa1la memorandum, but
that there was dispute as to the other
copies. He tried to get witness to say
that the Iowa had carried a duplicate Of
the Dear Schley" letter, but he would
not do So He held. however, to the state
ment that the McCalla memorandum had
been carried in duplicate by both the
Dupont and the Iowa.
He had, however, no written evidence
that either the Hawk or the Marblehead
had carried the memorandum. I'VE Were
likely to be on the safe side in such mat
ters," said witness, land to have chucked
in the memorandum but the Marblehead
had not been relied on to carry the dis
patch.'
Mr. Rayner questioned witness at some
length on this point, saying: 81 want to
call your attention to this: Dispatch No.
s was received on May % by the Hawk.
Il is in evidence here that the Hawk
carried No. to Commodore Schley, and
this letter commences: In reply to your
No letter, would state, and so on
Then it says: Regarding inclosed in
formation from McCalla' Now, don't
that refresh your memory upon the point
that when he received No. from the
Hawk he received with 1t the inclosed
information from Capt. McCalla, which is
the memorandum
He probably did. He might have re-
ceived it half a dozen times. That is not
the first time it was sent
Does not that settle it that he got 1t
from the Hawk?"
st do not know that 1t necessarily
does.''
Lieut.. Marsh was then excused.
At p. M, with Capt. Chadwick on the
stand the Schley court adjourned.