The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-10-13
LEMLY AND RAYNOR
 IN A CONTROVERSY
Opposing Counsel Before the Schley Court of Inquiry Have a
 Misunderstanding.


 mony and Lieutenant-C t-Commander Sidney A. Staunton, who served on the New York as an assistant to Captain Chad wick as chief of staff for Admiral Samp. son, and Lieutenant Nathan c. Twining formerly of the Iowa, were introduced a. new witnesses. Commander Staunton'i testimony dealt largely with dispatches forwarded by Admiral Sampson to Com modore Schley. and while he was under examination Mir. Raynor outlined con tention in behalf of Admiral Schiey te the effect that the dispatch written or May H was the first notice that Com mander-in-Chief Sampson had given Com. modore Schley of the presence of the Spanish fleet in the harbor of Santiago.
 Lieutenant Twining said in his testi mony that while the flying squadron co cupied a position of from three to five miles out from Cienfuegos during tht daytime. the distance was increased te from seven to nine miles at night. He was in charge of the S-inch guns dur. ing the bombardment of the Cristoba Colon on May 31, and he said that all the shots from the American fleet fell short of the mark.
 Near the close of the days session Judge Advocate Lemley and MT. Raynor became engaged in a controversy over the admissibility at that time of Q chart showing the speed of the vessels of the flying squadron. and when Mir. Raynor made a statement concerning the matter to be introduced the Judge Advocate took exceptions to its reception, saying Mir. Raynor's summary might be inaccurate, as other statements made by him refer ring especially to the contents of docu- ments presented had been. Mir. Raynor resented the expression, and replied te the effect that if uttered outside of the court room he would say that 1t wal false. Before the court adjourned botf Mir. Raynor and Captain Lemley mads statements concerning the incident to tn' court, and Admiral Dewey expressed th' opinion that Captain Lemley's explana ton should be satisfactory to Mr. Ray nor.
 Captain F. E. Chadwick, who was Ad miral sampson,s chief of staff during tn war with Spain. continued his testimon' before the 6chIey court of inquiry today
 He was under rohs-examination at tiAa hands of Mir. Raynor when the court ad io,,rned yesterday and that gentleman continued his interrogatories when thu court convened at Il o'clock this morn ing.
 Other witnesses of the day were Lieu tenant Sidney A. Staunton. who was Cap tain Chadwick's principal assistant, and lieutenant Nathan C.. Twining, who was aboard the battleship Iowa as an omcer during the Santiago campaign. Most of yesterdays witnesses were re- called for the purpose of correcting their testimony. There was only one session of the court today, a decision having been reached yesterday to adjourn at o'clock until next Monday, in order to give the members of the court and coun- sel an opportunity for recreation ana re- cuperation. Captain Lemly said today that he had made such progress during the present week that he expected 10 pc able to conclude the presentation Of the Government side of the case by the close of the session on Monday. It Is under stood that Mir. Raynor will be prepared to immediately begin the Introduction or Admiral Schley's witnesses and 1t Is his present intention to press the case tor- ward as rapidly as possible.
 When Captain Chadwick took the stand, MT. Raynor formally addressed the court requesting permission to ask the witness two questions which he outlined. He call ed attention to his question put to Cap tain Chadwick yesterday concerning the communication which Admiral Dewey had sent to Commodore Schley on May 2S. He had asked the witness if he remembered that message and the witness had re- piled that he did remember 1t very we'll and added:
 Because I protested against his con- gratulations."
 MT. Raynor said that this last expres- sion was purely voluntary on Captain Chadwick's part. and was not necessary in response to the inquiry.
 The questions which he stated to the court were as follows:
 "First-When did you first learn or the existence of dispatch No. 8?
 "Second-Did you then. in protesting against the sending of this congratula- tory dispatch, refer to his blockade of Cienfuegos in dispatch No. S?'
 Admiral Dewey stated the court had no objection to the questions and Captain Lemly said he would not object, provided he could cross-examine on the points raised.
 MT. Raynor did not concede this right but before the point was decided, MT Raynor asked his first question as pre- viously given to the court
 After reading the dispatch in question the witness said:
 q was informed of its purport at tht time 1t was sent to the Marblehead."
 Did you see it when 1t was sent to tht Marblehead?"
 "I did not read It."
 'When did you first read it?'
 "I did not read the original dispatch un til the answer was received from Com modore Schley, brought by the Hawk"
 Was not that on May 26. when you ship was at point between Havana anC Cape Francis. in the vicinity of Cap Pedras?"
 Yes"
 Did you have the blockade of Cienfue gos in mind when you protested against the sending of the congratulatory dis patch?"
 May I ask if you mean if had it In my mind?''
 q did not mean that I mean whether YOU had 1t in mind at all"
 ''I had partially"
 After Mir. Raynor had formally asked his second questions, Captain Chadwick offered written reply, but MT Raynor said:
 q must first read what he has written before he answers. It might be some thing very objectionable Suppose he did protest. How does that affect the case! What we want is the congratulatory dis hatch. Now he brings in something en- tirely different. If the witness in answer to my second question says ''yes, or mo- I won't object but if he says any thing eIse I would like to have the oppor-