Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-06-20
Lieut.. Commander, L. S. N.
To the Commander-in-C Chief.
HOdgsOn's Statement,

HOdgson's Statement.
Captain Chadwick also examined Lieu
tenant Commander Hodgson at Boston as
TO the part taken by him in the newspaper
controversy.
captain Chadwick's report is as follows:
United States Steamer New York
BOSTON Mass, June II, 1889.
Sir: In obedience to your order of the
lZth instant, l have to report the follow
ing as the statement by Lieutenant Com
mander Hodgson of the conversation be-
tween Rear Admiral Schley and himself dur
ing the action of July ), 1898. He states as
follows:
JAS We were approaching the Spanish
ships. l heard Admiral Schley say port or
starboard several times to Captain Cook in
me coming tower the admiral being on
the platform surrounding the coming tower
1 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 Teresa was then
hauling abaft our port beam. The Brook
lyn was heading about northeast | told
the admiral, or at least suggested to him
that the Texas was very close ON our star
BOARD nand and that turning to starboard
would bring us too c.ose to her. l don't
know that used the word Collision T
did not say You mean starhoard IN
tended him to understand there was danger
or running into the Texas He said All
right, or words to that effect. l cannot re-
peat verbatim. When | knew he was going
10 turn to starboaId / suggested hack ms
the starboard engine in order to make q
smaller circle and give the Texas a wider
oer.n, put ne decided against that as, de-
creasnS the speed of the turn He did not
say that know of, We are near enough
10 them Cthe Spaniards) already The
oiliy thins l gathered from what he said
w. was t'lat II we turned to port We should
get 50 close that we sh ould expose ourselves
10 torpedo attack. / supposed he meant
torpedo boats, and rep..ed to him that 7
had no. seen them"
Did Not Intend to Deny Co,,oon
Lieut.. Commander Hodgson states that
ne 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 co.loouy took
place.
He states. regarding this, as follows:
Admiral Schley wrote me, inclosiup an
editorial from New York paper (of June
u, asking me to write denial of what he
phrased AN oft-repeated calumny.' He
safd he had no recollection of any such
conversation. l wrote a lengthy letter of
explanation, giving my recollection of the
conversation as nearly as possible Ad-
mlrai Schley wrote me, saying There is
much in your letter which / should not
IKE to use, as 1T would provoke assault
upon you, which l would not like 20 hap
pen. What want to show is that the dia-
logue did not occur / then wrote a denial
OF the colloquy, certainly not intending to
say that no such colloquy occurred but
that 1t did not occur printed. l. at the
same time, sent with this second expan-
atory letter. explaining TO Admiral SchIey
that the letter of denial was denial of
the dialogue as 1t appeared in print, and
that l had told the correspondent of the
paper that the substance of the conversa-
ton was correct. In writing the letter. /
svcrsy existing at critical stage Of the hat
tie. 1t (the letter) was a--denial of the
words as they stood in the published arti-
cie-a denial Of their literal correctness and