The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-09-29
YOUNG'S
DEFENSE
Witnesses of Govern
ment Are Not
Strong.

VALLEJO, September 1s.-The open
ing of the court-martiaI of Comman
der Young on charges of neglect OF
duty in Connection with the Bennington
disaster, at the Mare Island Navy
Yard, ended today with honors dis
tinctly in favor of the accused officer
The most biased observer must have
admitted as much. The sensation OF
the day was sprung when Emil Fred
eriksen, water tender on the Ben
nington and the first material witness
called by Captain West for the prose
cution, tangled himself up under cross
examination in a maze of contradictory
statements and lapses of memory, dis
played unmistakable symptoms of an
linus toward the accused commander
and finally wound up with an admis-
sion that he had lied while testifying
under oath before the naval board of
inquiry at San Diego. After showing
that the witness had been a deserter
from the Navy, and in addition had
been twice put in confinement by
Commander Young for breaches of
naval discipline, Judge Gear turned
him loose, thoroughly discredited.
| TESTIMONY AGAINST YOUNG.
Four witnesses were called by the
prosecution, and, almost without ex-
ception, under the cross-examination
of Civilian Counsel Judge Gear for the
accused, their testimony toned down
considerably the harshness of the
charges made upon direct examina-
ton. The prosecution endeavored to
snow that Commander Young had been
habitually negligent in the matter of
engine-room inspections, and indorse-
aments of engine-room logs, resulting
IN the sentinel and safety valves on
the boilers not receiving the care pre-
scribed by the Navy regulations, and
that the deck gear for controlling the
safety valves had been out of order
for an extended period.
The net result of the day for the
prosecution was a fairly strong show
ing that Commander Young had never
made a practice of visiting the engine
room nor of indorsing the engine-room
log at the end of each month, as re-
CURED by Navy regulations, and that
so far as any witness examined could
testify, the safety valve on boiler B
had not blown off nor given warning
prior to the explosion. For the defense
the net results of the day, as gained
by the witnesses for the prosecution
on cross-examination and in addition
to the Impeachment of Frederiksen,
We're that the sentinel valves, forming
the basis of charges 4 and 5 by the
Secretary of War. were obsolete and
had never been used by the engine !
room crew, and that the deck gear for |
lifting or mechanically operating the |
safety valves while the vessel was in |
port had never been used regularly, |
but that the safety valves had been |
lifted by bar by hand in the engine |
room.
VALVES OUT OF GEAR.
After the steam logs had been iden- |
titled and offered in evidence, Freder-
iksen was summoned by the judge-ad |
vocate. The witness testified that he |
had been on the forecastle deck just |
prior to and at the time of the explo- |
sion, but that he had not heard the |
safety valve give any warning. He |
stated that the deck gear for lifting |
the safety valves was corroded and |
and threw in a vicious |
aside that failed to help his case, Just |
the same as they have been since"
Concerning the hand-lifting gear on |
the lower deck, witness testified that !
he had not seen it operated for eight |
cen months. Asked as to whether the |
cocks and valves were moved once a |
week according to routine, the witness |
answered no. He recalled very dis |
tinctly the dates of the overhaulin |
of boilers C and D as of June or July, |
but had no recollection of boiler B, the |
exploded boiler. On cross-examinat on |
the witness began to develop irregu- |
larities in memory and a general lack |
of intelligence on the things he at |
tempted to criticise.
CONFESSES THAT HE LIED.
The wind up came when, in an en- |
deavor to impeach the witness mem |
DRY, Judge Gear asked him question |
the overhauling OF boilers |
C and D to which he had answered in |
the negative to the board of inquiry. |
The question was as to whether the |
boilers had been overhauled during |
June and July The witness answered |
yes. Asked if he had answered so at |
the board of inquiry. he stated that he |
did not remember, and, when shown |
that he had answered directly con- |
trary, fioundered about for moment !
helplessiy and then announced def |
antly that he must have lied
Boyd Seavey, engineer of the second |
class. was called by the prosecution |
and testified that the lifting gear was /
out of order: that the safety valves |
were not lifted once a week, and that |
the sentinel valves had been continu-
allv ont of order. On cross xamina-
ton he admitted that the sentinel |
valves were obsolete and had not been |
used since he was on the Bennington. |
He further stated that, by orders of |