The times., 1899-06-20

Boston, Mass, June Ia, 1879.
Sir: In obedience 10 your order of the 18th
instant. / have to report the following as the
statement OF Lieutenant Commander Hodgson Of
the conversation between Rear Admiral Schiey and
himself during the action of July ), 1895 He
states follows:
..As we were approaching the Spanish ships, l
heard Admiral Schley say port starboard sew
eral times to Captain Cook in the coming tower,
the admiral being ON the platform surrounding
the coming tower. | had been on the bridge
above, and was Just coming down to report the
position Of the ships when l heard the admiral
say, Hard a-port.' The Maria Teresa then
hauling abatt port beam. The Brooklyn was
heading about northeast. ! told the admiral or
at least suggested to him that the Texas was very
close on our starboard hand and that turning
to starboard would bring us 100 close TO her.
don't knows shat used ;he word collision.
did not Szg, You mean starbOard i intended
him TO understand there was danger of running
into the Texas. He said, All right. words
to that effect.. cannot repeat verbatim. When
l knew he was going TO turn TO starboard
suggested backing the starboard engine in order
to make smaller circle and give the Texas a
wider bertl but he decided against that de-
Creasing the speed Of the turn. He did not say,
that l know of. We enough to them
1.-THE Spaniards) already. The only thing | gath
cred from what he said that if ls, turned
to port, should get close that should
expose ourselves to torpedo attack. supposed
| he meant torpedo boats, and replied to him that
l had not them.
Lieutenant Commander Hodgson states that he
| did not intend to convey in his note of denial
4 sent at the request Of Admiral Schley and pub
/ lished in the Washington Post" the idea that
/ such colloquy took place. lie states regard
| ing this as follows:
Admiral Schley wrote me enclosing an edi-
I to:Ial from the New York sun (of June y ask
! ing me 10 write denial of what he phrased an
/ oft-repcated oalumny.' He said he had no recol
! lection Of any such conversation. ] wrote a
4 lengthy letter Of explanation, giving my recol-
lection of the conversation nearly as possible.
! Admiral Schley wrote me saying there is much
in your letter which should not like to use, as
/ it would provoke assault upon You, which
would not like to happen. What ] want to show
! IS the dialogue did not occnr.' ! then wrote
I denial OF the colloluy, certainly not intending
! to say that no such colloquy had occurred, but
| that Il did not printed. At the same
/ time sent with this second explanatory letter,
| explaining 10 Admiral Schley that the letter of
denial denial of the dialogue as it appeared
| in the Sum- and that | had told the Sun cor
I respondent that the Substance of the conver-
s1tiOn correct. In writing the letter wished
/ 10 refute the fact OF any controversy existing
at 4 critical stage of the battle. 1t (the letter.
was denial OF the words as they stood in the
published article-a denial of literal correctness
and not a denial of tine substantial correctness
OF the statement"
A copy of the letter has not been retained by
him; lie had rough draft. which has been mis-
laid. Lieutenant Commander Hodgson appends
his signature a voucher Tor the accuracy with
which the foregoing is given.
Very resDertfully