The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-09-24
SIMPSONS NAME
 CAUSES ARGUMENT
(continued form Rage ons.)


 Continued form Page ons.)
 tinued the cross examination of Con,- mander Heilner. He asked him especially concerning the official chart of the battle of Santiago. exhibiting the chart. The of navigators who had prepared the chart, and that he considered the map inac- chrate.
 Chart of Battle Incorrect.
 Mir. Hanna interposed to say that if the point intended to be made was that the conc concede s tVsti at once that this was true.
 that tt before" ,s a s"sss said IN Ir. Raynor:
 Mir. Raynor then commented quite vis- orously upon the fact that the chart was an official document. The witness vas asked by MT. Raynor concerning the stoppage of the Texas when the brook- lyn appsared, in itnsss fr9ns OF ana%ered were to Slow Stop, and Back. one right on top of the other, before could say q word in between"
 Does anything appear In your log about that" asked MT Raynor.
 '.Nothing' answered the witness. t was not on the log l can tell & y1n wng niy 1t was not; because Captain, 1ninp saiJ swore to the judge advocate or this court that I would not bring up dead man 70 substantiate anything l said ana taai am ~ed sorry T [ brought it up, but Captain Philip said he would not put It m ms oi-
 Referring to the cruise to Santiago the witness said he knew that the Eagle had impeded the speed on that trip. He re- mernbered also that the collier Merrimac had been broken. down after the tour 70 the westward from santiag9 & on Mss pahs S1sa NsG York on the day of the battie? askeo MT. Ragnor that vessel on Monday until ill the after- noon" replied the witness.
 ' Continuing, the witness said that 1T the New York had flown any signals ne nad 'os "Did yo,r see the New York on the day of the, battle?' was asked.
 "Oh, yes. think she was reported coming up before the Viscaya went ashore. She was the last ship.
 Connection of Sampson.
 Here the judge advocate interposed to ask the purpose or this inquiry. MT nay
 I've have tho absolute right to. show the situation of the New York on the day of the battle and the connection pL .tsa Ao we have a right for instance, to show that Commodore Schley at Santiago man. tained the same sort Of blockade tnat Admiral Sampson maintained when ne got there on the 1st of June. So far as distances are concerned I think we have the right to show-hecause the specihca- tions of this precept so states-wnstherr said harbQr to prevent the escape or the enemy's Vessels therefrom was estao- lished
 We do not propose to bring the name of Admiral Sampson into. this controversy any more than it is possible to do so. We are not here for the purpose or en- gazing in any, personal controversy oec Schley or adherents of either; we are not here for the purpose of, at present without knowing what this case will de- velop criticising the actions Of Admiral Sampson, but it is absolutely necessary for this court, in order to property lh- lvestigate this case under the speclnca- tions of this precept, to let us prove what Admiral Sampson did; not that We condemn what he did or criticise or cen- sure what he did. We are not here Tor the purpose of condemning the fact, 1T it proves to be fact. of the New York s leaving on tine morning of the battle; we are not here to criticise the blockade that Admiral Sampson had at santiago, put we are here to establish this, or under the specifications of your precept memoran- dums, to find out whether the blockade at Santiago was a close or adequate blockade. Now, if we can prove that 1t was so far as distances were concerned the same blockade that the commander in-chief maintained there, then we can justify the course of Admiral Schley. who was commander-in-cbief before Samp- sons arrival.
 Would Admiral Schley be censurable for maintaining on the 18th. 29th. 3oth and 31st of May the same character of blockade so far as distances are con cerned that Admiral Sampson maintained from the day he got there, on the lst Of June until the day of battle? We propose to rrove that on June 1 the Colon was in Irccisey the same position inside the harbor that she was on the 3lst Of May, wben Admiral Schley made the re ,onnoissance with the Massachusetts
 n-IA Nnu to show that when Admiral Sampson came up his ships saw the Colon In the same position and instead of attacking it, steamed by and permitted her to go TUT ther inside the harbor. Now, wouldn't t Schley be justified in not engaging Ill battle with the Colon and the shore bat teries at Santiago if Admiral Sampson took the same sourse?
 Judge Advocate Objects.
 The judge Advocate at this point inter posed an objection. He said:
 If the court pleose, object to thls line of argument. It makes no difference what any one else did This is not an inquiry between Admiral Sampson ana Admiral Schley. 1t is question between | Admiral Schley and the morale Of the service and these comparisons nave aD- solutely ID bearing on H. if eitneF in Tn eb tbis ingenious attempt to extend the scope of this precept.
 MT. Raynor-This is an important point W1Jn us anu we gre authorities to maintain it. I am not do- | ing this ingeniously but very frankly: Notwithstanding the strenuous enorls or the learned Judge Advocate to keep Ad- | miraI Sampson out of this case, he can not keep him out. l wish to be under stood as not saying one word in dero- | gation of Admiral Sampson, nor to cen | sure him, but to show the court that what we did was under the orders or | Admiral Sampson and that he did pre- cisely the same things we did. l do not | think (addressing Judge Advocate Lem Va. ,ferhf fp nj