New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-12-04
WOODS RULE In HAVANA.
had BELLAIRS RETAINED.
Baker Partially Discredits Rancse's
Story-A CubGn'S Charges.

~
Washington. Dec. 3.-The Senate Committee
Military Affairs to-day resumed Its hearings
% the charges against General Leonard WOOD
The first witness was Melville Z. stone genera
manager OF The Associated Press MT stone
was asked about the report that General "oou
had sought 10 retain E. G. Bellairs as the rep
resentAtive OF The Associated Press al havana
Fge submitted q letter written by Major huncle
20 Colonel Charles S Diehl assistant general
,,s-ecer Of The Associated Press which re-
,,,.s,es in behalf Of General Wood, the reten-
ION Of ReIairS saying il was important 10 have
man representing The Associated Press al He-
x-ana who was tn the confidence Of the Military
Governor. Mr.. Stone said the matter was then
under the charge Of Colonel Dehl. Bellairs VAS
retained. but his previous record was not known
10 the officers OF The Associated Press. When II
became known Bellsirs was discharged Mr.
stone wss also asked as to what knowledge
General Wood had Of BeIlairs's record. but on
this point he could give the committee little
information Il was decided that Colonel Dehl
should be subpenaed.
p s BAKERS EVIDENCE
Ray stannard Baker. the man Major Runcie
said was a. the dinner with General Wood and
himself when the proposed magazine article
cr5ticising General Brooke was discussed. was
the next witness. Nj. Baker confirmed some
portions OF the testimony Of Major Runcie ara
ooutradicted or qualified other portions OF it.
He denied that there had been any consultation
between himself and General Wood relative to
the publication Of Major Runcie's article
fecting on the administration Of General Brooke
he said. however. THAI he had talked with Gen
eral Wood regarding az article which was after
ward published over his own signature. When
asked whether he had talked with the President
about the Wood case he replied If the negative,
and made practically the same reply 10 a ques-
ZION 70 whether he had conferred with War
Department officials.
Concerning the article which published
over the signature OF Major Runcie, Mr.. Baker
said il had been given &c him by Runcie, but so
far as he knew General Wood had no know
ledge Of il before il was published He said he
had 6ined with General Wood and Major Runcie
several times at Santiago. but the publication
Of an article attacking General Brooke had never
been discussed.
Nj Baker was questioned closely by Senator
scott. q member Of the committee. and by Sen
ators Hanna and Teller. who were present. They
quoted Major Runcie's letter TO Baker suggest
ing that the tine was opportune for the publica-
tion Of the Runcie article in General Woods
interest, and asked him If the letter did not
show that there had been conferences on the
subject and a perfect understanding. Nj
-
that inference but insisted there had not been
any understanding 0Ir. Baker admitted that
ne Wood and Runcie had discussed General
Brookels administration OF Cuban affairs, but
said the discussion had been impersonal. and
that Brooks name had not been mentioned He
also said that General Wood had introduced him
10 Runcie when he first went TO Cuba
SAYS WOOD VIOLATED LAW.
A. The afternoon session the only witness was
Dr. Pablo Desvernenje who was Secretary Of
Finance under The administration of General
Brooke as Governor General and later attor-
ney for Major Rathbone DR.. Desvernenje's
testimony related entirely 10 the instructions
given 10 the court by General Wood He
charged that General Wood had changed laws
Of Cuba IN order 10 admit ex parte evidence in
the postal cases The modification Of the prfn-
ciples OF Cuban criminal proceedings. which
was said 10 have been particularly detrimental
70 the interests Of Major Rathbone, DR.. Des-
vernerje declared, was made in order issued
by General Wood on April 30 1900. The effect
OF the order. said the witness was 10 revert to
laws in force under the rule Of Spain thirty
years before.
According 10 the testimony Of DR.. Desver-
nenie the orders made by General Wood were
Issued 70 the Judge Of instruction, whom Wood
could remove al pleasure. The witness declared
that the order was in violation Of penal statutes
the rights Of persons interested in the postal
cases. AS an illustration Of the powers Of Gen
era Wood under the military government, the
witness said that General Wood in one case re-
moved d Judge Of first instance in one Of the
high courts and also three OF the associate
judges OF one section Of the court As a cause
OF removal, II was said, the judges had not
complied with the law as modified by General
Wood The removal, said Dr. Desvernenie,
was made against The protest Of the Bar As
ISOLATION, a corporation having specific official
powers. The association declared the removals
UuW-arra MED. ana. il consolation or 10 appeas4
its anger General Wood appointed the depose;
judges 70 places on the board Of trustees Of the
Bar Association
Dr. Desvernenie declared that under the law
u force the time General Wood became
Governor General ex uarIe evidence was not
sGUissi bic IN trials. but declared that General
Wood had made The amendment which abrO-
gated statutes and enacted new law. and said
THIS opened The door TO * psrte evidence.
Another charge made by DR.. DesveTnenIe
that some Of the judges who tried the postal
cases were not named 10y General Brooke in
the order crea ting the courts but that they
owed their appointments TO General Wood; that
pare evidence was TO be admitted in the trials
2nc that General Woods construction. even Of
MS amended Law, was in cOntraVentiOD Of exist
Ulg statutes. The witness declared that Cen
era Woods order 10 the judge Of first instance
had the effect OF controlling judicial powers and
made General Wood the court Of last appeal
unto himself. The witness also asserted that the
bond eXacted IN The RathboDe case was excess
sive and Unws rrauted by law. The committee