The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-06-20
THE SCHLEY CONTROVERSY.
What Really Took Place on the Brook.
lyn the Day of the Battle.

!
Washington. -. c., June 19.-The
Navy Department has given out an Of
hcial statement rs to the alleged colo
guy between Admiral Schley and Lieu
tenant llodgson on the day of the battle
of Santiago. The statement is as fol-
lows.
AS we were approaching the Spanish
ships, | heard Admiral Schley say port
or starboard several 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
heard the Admiral say 'Hard-a-port.
The Maria Teresa was then hauling
abaft our port beam. The Brooklyn was
heading about northeast. j told the Adj
inirai. or at least suggested to him, that
the I'exas was very close to our star
board hand and that turning to star
board would bring us too close to her.
don't know that | used the word COLI
sion' did not say you mean star
board l intended him to understand
there was danger of running into the
Texas. He said All right or words to
that effect. / cannot repeat
verbatim. When j knew he was going
TO turn to starboard, / suggested back
ing the starboard engine in order to
make smaller circle and give the
Texas a wider berth, but he decided
against that as decreasing the speed of
the turn. He did not say, that | know
Of we are near enough to them ttho
Spaniards) already. The only thing |
gathered from what he said was that If
We turned to port, we should get so
close that we should expose ourselves to
torpedo attack. / supposed he meant tor
pedo boats, and replied to him that / had
not 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. rs follows:
'''Admiral Schley wrote me enclosing
an editorial from New York paper
(of June 1st), asking me to write de-
NAL of what he phrased AN oft-repeated
calumny.' He said he had no recollec-
ton of any such conversation. ] wrote
lengthy letter of explanation giving m;
recollection of the conversation as near
ly as possible. Admiral Schlev 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 that the dialogue did
not occur. / then wrote a denial of the
colloquy, certainly not intending to say
that no such colloquy occurred, but that
it did not occur as printed. /, at the
same time. sent with this a second cx-
planatory letter, explaining 10 Admiral
Schley that the letter of denial was a
denial of the dialogue as it appeared in
print. and that ] had told the CORE
spondent of the paper that the substance
of the conversation was correct. In
writing the letter, l wished to refute the
fact of any controversy existing at a
critical stage of the battle. It. the let
ter. was denial of the words as they
stood in the published article; denial
of their literal correctness and not. a
denial of the substantial correctness Of
the statement
"A copy of the letter has not been re-
tanned by him: he had a rough draft
which has been mislaid.
Lieutenant Commander Hodgson APP
ponds his signature as a voucher for the
accuracy with which the foregoing is
given.
"Very respectfully,
(SigneO IF. e. CHADWICK,
captain, U. s. Navy.
ga. G. Hodgson,
Lieutenant Commander, q. S. N.
$40 the Secretary of the Navy"