The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-10-06

in his dear schley" dispatch of May Goth
has been in no wise abatad by the tenta-
tive agreement as to his being summoned.
Counsel on both sides this morning had
before them copies of the dispatch and
each was trying strenuously to bring the
other to their view OF the case.
The first of the witnesses of previous
day who were recalled to correct testi-
mony was Lieutenant Doyle, who was
on the Brooklyn during the battle off San
tiago. He made a number of changes in
phraseology. His attention was called 10
an error in his former testimony in stat
ing the distance the Brooklyn stood Dub
from tbs Moro at Santiago, in reply to
question Of the court He had formerly
placed this distance at two or three miles.
but had enormously based his statement
on the log for June %, instead OF May
%. Looking at the. log for May e, he
found only one estimate of the distance
out, placing it at seven miles.
DEAR SCHLEY LETTER.
When Lieutenant Doyle was excused
Captain Lemly again brought up the cues
ton of difference Of construction OF the
last paragraph OF the Dear schiey. let
ter He produced the original copy.
Captain Lemly then said: IL the court
please was yesterday requested py
counsel for the applicant to produce the
j original of the letter from Admiral
Sampson to Commodore Schley, dated
! May 20, 1898, the question beng as the
final name at the end of the hrst para
graph whether it should be "Cienfuesos
or Santiago" have the original, anu
the name appears Santiago and APP
pears over an erasure. l invite atten-
| ton to the fact that in the press copy
| book it is Santiago, which shows that
| the change was made before the letter
was press-copied and sent. 1 will add
| that the punctuation is as 1 stated yes
| terday in the press copy
II WAS SANTIAGO.
Ee also, at the request OF Admiral
schley's counsel. produced another copy
! in which he said: You will see there was
! no correction. 1t appeared originally
as Santiago.
The court examined the original papers
! ard the press copies with care. and 1t
| was agreed that the papers should again
| be printed in the record.
CAPTAIN Lemly then requested that all
! the papers in Admiral SctMey's possession
| bearing upon the case be supplied, anc
| Mr.. Rayner replied for the Admiral that
| he admiral Schiey) had no moro papers.
Lieutenant Commander Albon G. Hodg-
| son was then called to continue his tes-
| timony of yesterday. He was asked by
CAPTAIN Lernlv about his correspondence
!
Judge Advocate denominated a newspa-
per ..collouuy." The witness took eXcep-
| ton to the use of the word "colloquy' and
| CaDtain Iemly, replied that this was the
| witnesses own characterization. me
| letters were then. read by the Judge
Advocate.
While the reading OF the letters be-
! tween Admiral Schley and Lieutenant
| Commander Hodgson and newspaper
| articles, bearing upon the correspondence
| was in progress. Mr.. Rayner objected to
| the reading of one of the newspaper
statements as irrelevant. The reading
| had required considerable time.
Admiral Dewey said: Those things
| could all have been printed. You are
| taking valuable time here. We want
! facts-facts. We don't want newspaper
| articles We have rulet. these out. Can
| not these matters be printed?'
| Captain Lemly-'Then they would be
| in evidence. Do you mean you don't
| want them at alp
| Could not they be printed like other pa
| pers?"
NO EDITORIALS.
| Mr.. Rayner: I'VE want everything that
! passed between Lieutenant Hodgson and
! Commodore Schley that appertans to this
| controversy, but We would not like this
| record to contain editorials against Com
| modore Schley. L do not think there
! ought to be printed in the record an edi-
! torial against Admiral Schley any 9TH
| er admiral, or in favor of him, which
! was never seen by Admiral Schley at ALL
! That article was not sent in any letter
! to Admiral Schley. He says not
| CAPTAIN Lemly: '.It is really part
/ or correspondence and referred to. We
| do not contend for one moment that any
| allegations that may be made in that edi-
| torial against Admiral Schley are proof
| OF what those allegations are, but this
| is a part of the correspondence and neces-
! sary in determining as to what was the
| proprety Of Commodore Schley's con-
| duct in the prtmises.
| 1IMr. Rayner: would you take a state
| ment from Ne now that Admiral Schley
| saws he never saw it and never received
| it?'
Judge Advocate: You have made that
| statement.
| Mr. .Ravnor: AZ do not think this rec
| ord ought to be stained with these cal
/ umnies against Admiral Schley.
| y CONSULTATION.
! The court then retired for consultation
| and after few minutes, returned. max
| ing the following announcement through
| Admiral Dewey:
| The court decides that any clipping
! from newspapers which form apart Of
| the correspondence between Z Admiral
! Schley and Lieutenant Commander Hodg-
/ son should properly, be read,
| Mr. lRayner.-"May it please the cour-,
| there is no evidence to show that this par
| .icular editorial forms a part Of the cor
rcspcnderce Or that it was ever$received
| by Admiral Schley.
Admiral Dewey Under that ruling it
ought not to be read. .. r
| After +he further2readins of letters and
before. the entire correspondence mad been
| exhibited. the court, at / o'clock adjourned
until Monday.
Dinwiddie Democrats.
Especial Dispatch to The Times.)
| DINWLDDIE C. H.. VA, 1Oct. 5.--The
Democrats OF: tDinwiddies Courthouse pre-