The Cape Girardeau Democrat. (Cape Girardeau, Mo.) 1876-1909, 1899-06-24
snpt. Chndwick's Report



Capt. Chadwick's report is a fol.
lows:
L. :. :. New York.
Boston. Mass. June -. Io39.
Sir-In obedience to YOUR order Ut
the 18th inst. | have to report the fol-
lowing as the Stat"mentof L~inI.truau5-
Commander IioGgSun OF III" couvcr~a-
ton between Rear Admiral >chlry and
himself during the action 0i July ..
1>9>. He states a. follows:
Commanded II"dGsou's statement.
AS we We're approaching in" Span.
i~h ships. | heard admiral Schlcy say
Port or "S~rarhoard" several times to
Capt. Cook in the coming tower. the
admiral being on the platform sur
rounding the coming tower. | had
been on the bridge above. and was iuSt
coming down to report the position of
the ships when | heard IN" admiral
say: Hard a-port." The Maria Teresa
was then hauling abaft our 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 StarbOar.l would
bring us close To her. | don't know
that ! used the word "cOlli~iGn.' |
did not say "Iou mean s~tarbuard." |
intended him to understand there was
danger of running into the Texas. He
said "All right" or words 10 That rt-
feet can not repeat verbatim. When
knew he was going to turn 10 star
board ] suggested backing The star
board engine in order 70 make Il small
er circle and give the Texas Il wider
berth, but he decided against that a.
decreasing" the speed Of the lurn. He
did not. that | know of. say We are
rear enough to them (thr Spaniar,!>y
already" The only thing ] gathered
from what he said was that if W.
turned to port we should re. 80 clos,
that we should Nposc our>rly,~; l..
torpedo attack. | supposed h" meant
torpedo boats, and replied THAI | Lad
not seen them.
Did vat Intend to Convey thai Idea
Lieutenant = Commander IIndr>nn
states in his note that he did MOI in
end TO convey in his note al denial
sent at the request of Admiral SchIcv
and published in the Washington Post
the idea that no such c%oilnquv took
place. He states r"gardin" hi, as fol.
lows:
Z grrgS nO nNCn NffI, 4 -
admiral Schlcy wrote m" inrloSinp
AN editorial from a New York pl,,r
Of June /. asking me To writ" Il drriai
OF what he phraScd AN 0~f:-rcpca1rI
r;'iumny.' lie said he had no rrcnI,nc-
ton of any such conversation. 7
wrote a lengthy letter of r~xp!auatipI
giving my recollection Of The CONVEX
sati"n as nearly a. possible. admiral
SchI".y wrote me. saving: 'TLcr. :
much in your letter which | should NOT
Ink" I" Use as it would provokr IN as.
Sault upon you which / would not Iih,
to happen. What | wan to show :
that In" dialogue did not occur.
What Ills Denial Did M,.mn.
ih'H ! wrote Il denial OF the eel
i"quN. certainly not intending to s.,
that no such ~colloqUy occurred, bat
that 1t did not occur as printed. Al
tn" same time | sent with this an py.
Pianat"ry letter eNplainin" to Admiral
Schlcy that the letter of denial WAS p,
denial of the dialogue as il appearrI
in print and that | had told the cor
respondent of the paper that the Srb.
stance oi the conversation WAS coz:
rect. In writing the letter | wished
to rcfutc the fact of any controversy
existing at a critical stage of the bal.
tie. Ii. the letter. was a denial of The
words as they stood in the published,
article, a denial of their literal cor.
RICHNESS of the statement"
\ copy of the letter has not been re-.
tanned by him; he had a rough draft
which had been mislaid. Lieutenant
Commander Hcdgson Ippcnds his sig
nature as a voucher for the accurace
with which the foregoing is given.
Very respectfully.
f. +. CHADWICK.
Captain I. :. y.
\. g.. Hodgson. Lieutenant-Com-
mander. L. :. ", TO the secretary of
the navy.