The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-09-24
drawn temporarily. The court then TOOK
recess until two o'clock.
The Afternoon Session.

"Oh. 1t is worthless, is it, ques-
toned Mr.. Rayner. According to the
map the two vessels were never nearer
than within 240O feet OF each other
The witness replied that he considered
the map inaccurate.
MIR. Hanna interposed to say that if the
point intended to be made was that the
chart is inaccurate the Government would
concede at once that this was true.
NOT IN THE TEXAS LOG.
The witness was asked by Mr.. Rayner
concerning the stoppage of the Texas
when the Brooklyn appeared in front OF
her. 1.-THE signals" witness answered,
''were to SLOW STOP and back, one
right on top of the other, before l could
say word in between"
Does anything appear in your log
about that?" asked Mr.. Rayner.
Nothing answered the witness. 1T
was not on the log. / can tell you why
it was not, because Captain Philip said
he would not put it in his official re-
port"
do you recolleet, as you brought up
this statement of Captain Philip, the
statement he made about the danger or
collision?'
"No. He spoke to me hundreds of times
about it,
Mr. Rayner: Here are his own words.
Mr.. Hanna: Mr. President. we object
to reading from magazines"
Mr. Rayner: 81 don't think the Century
magazine would credit any article to Cap
tain Philip that was not written by him.
do not intend to read from the maya
zine except for my own information. Do
you recollect Captain Philip ever saying
that The collision which seemed to be
imminent, even if it was not, was avert
ed'?''
mo. l do not recollect it," replied the
witness.
Ibid you see any signals from the New
York on the day of the battle?" asked
Mr.. Rayner
1--WE did not receive any signals from
that vessel on that day until in the af-
ternoon," replied the witness.
PURPOSE OF RAYNER'S QUESTION.
The witness also said that the New
York had not come up until after the
last of the Spanish ships came out of the
harbor. Captain Lemly here interposcd
to ask the purpose Of these inquiries and
Mr.. Rayner stated that it was to be able
to make comparisons between Schiey's
blockade and SIMPSONS, because If it
could be shown that Schley's blockade
was equal to SIMPSONS he could not be
considered censurable.
He also said that it would be shown
that the Colon was visible when Admiral
Sampson came up.
Captain Lemly objected not only to the
line of questions. but to the line of argu-
ment
Replying Mr.. Rayner said that notwith-
standing the strenuous efforts of Captain
Lemly to keep Admiral Sampson out of
the controversy, he would inevitably be
brought into it, I not for the purpose of
criticism but for the purpose of showing
that Admiral Schley had merel obeycd
the orders of his superior officer, who
was Admiral Sampson, in doing what he
had done.
WHAT SCHLEY WOULD PROVE.
Continuing, Mr. Rayner said that Ad-
miral Schley wanted to prove three
things. These were.
First-It is maintained that the block
AIDE as mainta aimed by Commodore Schley
was the same, so far as distances were
concerned, as that maintained by Ad-
miral Sampson.
Second-The failure to engage the
Colon further on May 31st was in the line
of Simpsons policy as developed after
his arrival on June 1st when the Colon
was still in sight.
Third-That the Brooklyn had her
place in the line of blockade assigned by
Sampson, when the Spanish fleet came
out on July 3rd.
do &c ion
Rayner, at the suggestion of Judge Will
son, withdrew the question. Judge Will
son said the subject would be brought up
when there was a witness on the stand
who could testify as to the facts.
THE RESPONSIBILITY SCHLEY'S. (.
1--WE propose" he said, ito show that
Admiral Sampson was never in the fight
off Santiago at all and that on that ac-
count Admiral Schley had the response
bility of command thrust upon him.
| Mr.. Hanna responded, saying there
would be no objection to any proper ref
erence to Admiral Simpsons connection
! with the battle, but that so far all efforts
were clearly outside that description.
! On redirect examination Commander
| Heilner said that the Squadron had made
no effort to destroy the Spanish fortifica-
lions on shore at Cienfuegos.
+ CHIEF ENGINEER BATES.
Commander Alexander B. Bates. who
was chief engineer on the Texas, during
the Santiago engagement on July Bird,
| then was called. He testified concerning
the work of the engines on that day. He
said they were operated on signals, and
that the starboard engine was reversed.
The port engine had also, he thought.
been reversed He thought at the time
that probably a torpedo boat had gotten
into the track of the Texas.
While Commander Bates was examin-
| ing the steam log of the Texas, Lieuten-
ant Henry H. Ward, of the Bureau of
Navigation, approached him and leaned
over his shoulder. Captain Parker de-
manded in somewhat excited tones that
| he be directed to go away saying that he
| had no business there and his presence
was not wanted. Admiral Dewey replied
| that Lieutenant Ward was there under
the direction of the Navy Department.