The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-06-20

| Washington, Juno 19---The occurrences
on the bridge of the Brooklyn during the
battle of July having been the subject OF
| a controversy in the newspapers. the navy
department recently undertook an investi-
| cation OF the various allegations. Lieu-
! tenant Commander Hodgson and Leaten-
ant Commander Heilner, who have figured
in tho controversy, were both called on
for explanations Of the utteranoes attrib-
uted to them and the former was not dla-
posed to report for examination on this
point to Captain Chadwick. The depart
ment has now given out for publication
Captain Chadwick's report on the mat
ter. 1t Is not yet determined whether or
not the answer OF Lieutenant Commander
Hellner will be made public AZ this time.
1 Captain Chadwicks report is as follows:
In obedience 10 your order OF the 18th
| inst, have 30 report this as the state
1 ment by Lieutenant Commander Hodgson.
OF the conversation between Rear Admiral
schley aud himself during the action OF
\ July 8. 1888.
He states as follows! AS we were ap-
preaching the Spanish ships / heard Adj
miral Schley say port or starboard several
times to Captain Cook in the coming tow
er. the admiral being on the platform sur
rounding the coming tower. | had been
on the bridge above and was just coming
down TO report the position OF the ships
when | heard the admiral say Hard
aport The Maria Theresa was then haul
ing abaft our port beam. The Brooklyn
was heading about northeast. | told the
admiral, or at least suggested to MIN
that the Texas was very close ON our
starboard hand and that turning to star
board would bring us too close to her
] don't know that | used the word coils
ion | did not say You moan st1rboard,
intended him to understand there was
danger OF running into the Texas. lie
said: All right. or words to that effect
which can not repeat verbatim When
knew he was going to turn to starhoard
| suggested backing the starboard engine
In order to make a smaller circle and IN
order to givo the Texas a wider berth
He decided against that as decreasing tn'
speed OF the turn He did not say, thai
| know Of, We are near enough to then
(the Spaniards) already The only thnl
gathered from what he said was that Il
we turned to port We should get SO CLOSE
that we would expose ourselves to torpedo
attacks. / supposed he meant torpedo
boats and replied 10 him that had no.
seen them.
Lieutenant Commander Hodgson states
that he did not Intend TO convey in MI
note OF denial sent at the request OF Nd
miral Schley and published IN the Wash
ington Post. the idea that no such colloqu!
took place. He states regarding this a
follows. Admiral Schley wrote me, in
closing an editorial from a New York pa
per (of June u. asking me to write
denial of what he nhrased IAN oft repeated
calumny." He said he had no recollection
OF any such conversation. l wrote
lengthy letter OF explanation giving m.
recollection of the conversation as nearl.
as possible, Admiral sehley wrote me
0 saying There Is much In your lette
which should not like to use, as 1t woul
: provoke assault upon you. which ! woul
not like TO have happen. What | want Il
show is that the dialogue did not occur
| then wrote a denial of the colloquy. Ger
tainly not intending to say that no sucl
colloduy occurred. but that IL did not oe
cur as printed. At the same time | sen
with this an explanatory letter explain
ing to Admiral Schiey that the letter o
! denial was a denial OF the dialogue as l
appeared in print and that had told tn
correspondent OF the paper that the sub
stance OF the conversation was correct
In writing the letter I wished to refut
the fact of any controversy existing at
critical stage of the battle 1t tthe letter.
was denial OF tho words as they stood Il
the published article. a denial OF thel
, literal correctness and not denial OF tn
substantial correctness OF the statement
"A COPY of the letter has not been re
talned by him; he had a rough draft
3 which has been mislaid."