The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1901-09-24

CALIFORNIA FIG SYRUP GO.
SAN FRANCISCO. CAL
LOUISVILLE, KY. NEW YoRK, n. 2.
I aoE e6le bY all Druggists Pr ceFlo. per hosssa
-----z------s----=--
out TO sea in making its loop; that on that
point tho charL was also not accurate.
I At the Jime, ne said, the Texas was going
at the rate OF twelve knots an hour. Mr..
Raynor Questioned the witness concerning
signal lights at Cienfuegos and the latter
said that he had not been until after the
arrival. of Captain 4lcCana on the Marble
head on March "A, been informed that
there was to be q syste moi signals Tor
communicating with Cuban allies on the
shore. Nor had he known until then that
Cevera' feet vas not inside the harbor of
Cienfuegos.
washington, Sept. 28.-Continuing. the
witness said that if the New York had
flown any signals he had not seen them.
Did you see the New York on the day
of the batue?" was then asked.
The reply was: oh. yes. 1 think she
was reported coming up before the Vicaya
went ashore. She was the last ship"
Here the judge advocate interposed to
ask the purpose OF this inquiry.
Mr.. Raynor replied that il was "to show
when the ships went there, the position
of the New York on the day Of the bat
tie"
He then proceeded at some length to
outline the position Of the applicant. say
ing: 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 Samp-
son in reference TO the battle; we have
right. for instance. to show that Com
modore Schley, at Santiago. maintained
the same sort Of blockade that Admiral
Sampson maintained when he get there
on the first of June. So lar as distances
are concerned, I think we have the right
to shoW-because one Of the specifications
of this precept states whether or not
close or adequate blockade Of said harbor
10 prevent the escape of the enemy's YES
sells therefrom was established
I'VE do not propose to bring the name
of Admiral Sampson into this contro-
versy any more than it is possible TO do
so. This is not a personal controversy.
We are not here for the purpose Of en-
gaging in any personal controversy be-
tween Admiral Sampson or Commodore
Schley or adherents of either; we are not
here for the purpose Of. at present, with
out knowing what this case viii develop,
criticlsing the actions of Admiral Sau.p-
son. but it is absolutely necessary for
this court. in order to properly investi-
gate this case under the specifications of
this precept TO let us prove what Ad-
miral Sampson did; not that we condemn
v hat he did or criucise what he did or
concur in what he did not do. We are
here now for the purpose of condemning
the fact, il it proves TO be a fact. cf the
New Torks leaving on the morning OF
the battle; we are not here TO criticise the
blockade that AmdiraI Sampson had at
Santiago. but we are here TO establish
this or under the specifications of your
precept memorandums to find out
whether the blockade at Santiago was a
close or adequate blockade. now. if We
can prove that it was. SO far as distances
were concerned. the same blockade that
the commander-iu-chief maintained there.
then we can Justify the course Of Admiral
Schley, who was commander-in-chicf be-
fore Simpsons arrival
'In other words. would Admiral Schlev
DE censurable for maintaining the same
character of blockade that Sampson
maintaiaed2 Would Admiral SchIey he
censurable for maintaining. on the 18th.
29th. Soth and 3lst of May. the same char
acter of blockade. so far as distances are
concerned that Admiral Sampson main
tanned from the cay he got there on The
first day Of June until the day OF the
batGee
There is noe other point. and this is
All done for the purpose of really not de-
laying. bur properly getting at the mat
ter We propose 10 prove that oa the
frst day of June the Colon WAS in pre-
cisely the same position inside she harbor
that she was on .lhe 3lst day of 7Iay. when
Admiral Schley made the reconnaissance
With the Massachusetts and the New or /
learns.
Sow. we propose to show that when +
Admiral sampson came cip with the ships +
his ships saw The Colon in the same posi- {
tion. and instead of attaczirg il. steamed
by ana permitted her 70 go further in
side the harhor. Now. wouia not We be
Justified in not er@ging in battle with
tho Colon and the share batteries at san
uago II Admiral sampson took the same F
course
The 5adge advocate az this point inter +
posed an ohiectioa. Hc saic-
If the COURT please. object % this +
line ot ereuucnt X does not nske ones
particle az ai1erence Wn4r any one else
q Yen nsehr Ueu try to prove thss 4
somebody else couERtea q rruraer a-7 l
say, fie cormitteu lr. ana nv man is
uot r1 hlarre d f- ~rr-rst.- "a ,-ss. r