The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1899-06-23

7 tain Chadwiek's report of the matter.
1t is not yet determined whether or not
! the answer of Lieutenant Commander
Hielner will be made public It this
time. Captain Chadwick's report is as
/ follows:
"Sir:-In obedience 10 your order of
| the 18th instant, / have to report the
following as the statement by Lieuten-
| ant Commander Hodgson of the con-
| %versation between Rear Admiral Schley
and himself during the action of July
| Ord, 1898.
LAS we were approaching the Span
ish ships, 1 heard Admiral Schley or
| der port or starboard several times to
| Captain Cook in the coming tower,
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 I heard the admiral say
| hard aport.' The Maria Teresa was
| then hauling abaft our port beam. The
| Brooklyn was heading about northeast.
| told the admiral, or at least suggest
| ed to him that the Texas was very close
| to our starboard hand aud that turn
| ing to starboard would bring us too
| close to her. / don't know that I used
| the word collision l did not say you
| mean %starboard.' 1 intended him to
| understand there was danger Of rum
! ming into the Texas. He said all right
or words to that effect. I cannot re-
| peat verbatim. When I knew he was
| going to turn to ~starboard, I suggest
: ed backing the s%tarboard engine in Or
| der to make a smaller circle and give
! the Texas a wider berth, but he de-
| cided against that as decreasing the
| speed of the turn. He did not say, that
l n of, we are near enough to them
/ (the Spaniards) already The only
thing I gathered from what he said
WIS that if we turned to port, we should
get so close that we should expose our
selves to torpedo attack. I supposed
he meant torpedo boats, and replied
to him that l had lot seen them
Lieutenant Commander Hodgson
states that he did not intend to convey
in his note of denial sent at the request
of Admiral Schley and published in
The Washington Post, the idea that no
such colloquy took place. He states
regarding this, as follows: Admiral
! Schley wrote me enclosing an editorial
from a New York paper (of June 1st)
asking me to write a denial of what he
phrased IAN oft-repeated calumny.' He
said he had no recollection of any such
conversation. I wrote a lengthy letter
of explanation giving my recollection
of the conversation as nearly as posi-
BILE. Admiral Schley wrote me saying
there is much in your letter which l
should not like to use as it would pro-
woke assault upon you which I would
not like to happen. What ] want to
show is that the dialogue did not occur.
II then wrote a denial of the col
loquy, certainly not jnteding to say
that no such colloquy occurred, but
that it did occur as printed. l, at the
same time, sent with this a second eX-
planatory letter, explaining to Admiral
Schley that the letter of denial was a
denial of the dialogue as it appeared
in print, and that I had told the cor
respondent Of the paper that the sub
stance of the conversation was cor
rect. In writing the letter, l wished to
refute the fact of any controversy eX-
listing at a critical stage of the battle.
1t, (the letter. was a denial OF the
words as they stood in the published
article; a denial of their literal correct
ness and not a denial of the substantial
correctness of the statement
ga copy of the letter has not been re-
tanned by him; he had a rough draft
which has been mislaid.
Lieutenant Commander Hodgsor
appends his signature as a voucher fol
the accuracy with which the foregoing
is given.
"F. E. CHADWICK"