Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1901-10-30

apart at any time during the fight. and
that it would be Impossible TO state
whether the Brooklyn or Oregon led in
the chase. First one appeared TO be in
the lead and then the other.
DIR. De Valin said he had observed the
battle from the forecastle of the Brook
lyn, and had seen Schley's bearing dur
ing the whole engagement.
His conduct" he said, was all that
could be expected. He seemed to know
all that he was about, and was doing all
he wished to do. He was in perfect con
troll of the situation"
The witness added that he had heard
Schley give the order. Hard helm
aport," and had not heard the words spo-
ken by anybody else. In answer TO a
question from Captain Lemly, he denied
he had ever told anybody he had heard
a controversy concerning this order.
Chief Engineer Hannum said that at
no time was the Brooklyn in such a
condition that the lighting of her fires
could have been much delayed.
Lieut.. Carter, past assistant engineer
aboard the Brooklyn at the time of the
battle, said that at no time during the
fight were her engines stopped or re-
versed.
Ensign Cronin, who served as signal
officer aboard the Brooklyn, testified CON
corning the voyage from Cienfuegos to
Santiago and gave some interesting evil
dence about the engagement of July 3.
He watched the 'loop" maneuyer of the
Brooklyn, and just before it was ordered
he saw the Viscaya turn out from shore.
the impres - -reated in his mind being
that she was going to try to ram the COM
modore's vessel.
After Machinist Hanley had testified
briefly concerning the slowing down of
the port engine of the Texas during the
battle and Carpenter Warford had declar-
ed he had heard the order, Stand by to
ram" and had seen the Viscaya turn as
if with the intention of ramming the
Brooklyn, Lieut.. Ryan was called to the
stand. He testified that he had been
standing beside Yeoman Ellis when the
latter was killed, and that Admiral Schley
was cool throughout the engagement.
Pressed further ON this point, he said the
admiral was en- the fighting side of the
coming tower all the time, apd he con-
sidered his bearing admirables
rwenty-eighth Day.
Admiral Schley admitted before the
court of inquiry through his attorney,
Mr.. Rayner, that he had received the
Dear Schley' letter from Admiral
Sampson a day earlier than he had said
in his report to the United States Sen
ate. In that report he put the time OF
receiving the letter as May 23. 1898,
When confronted with references to it
L. l, II haI writ ha.a d.
mitted that he had received it May p.
This happened while Lieut. b. W. Wells,
Jr. who was Admiral Schley's flag lieu
tenant on the Brooklyn, was on the
stand.
Lieut.. Wells occupied the stand most
of the day, and his testimony was not
finished when the court adjourned. Be
fore he was heard, several witnesses were
recalled for the correction of their testi-
mony. Among them were Capt. Francis
A. Cook, Capt John l.. HaDaum, Lieut..
Thomas f. Carter, Ensign w. T. Cronan
and Chief Machinist j l.. Hun1ey.
Lieut.. Wells testimony began with
questions concerning the battle of July 3.
on the lines commenced last Friday Re-
garding the voyage of the flying squadron
from Key West to Cienfuegos the wit
ness stated that he knew of no delay in
its pros ress. When the question of dis
patches was taken up number of let
tiers and dispatches received by Admiral
Schley were shown the witness. They
Were from Admiral Sampson and from
the Navy Department dated late in May,
and urging Admiral Schley to stick to
the Santiago blockade. a chart with no.
tations concerning the strength of the
shore batteries. at Santiago was also eX-
hibited. Respecting the correspondence
while the flying squadron was at Cienfue-
Cos, the witness stated that no special
book of letters was kept. He said the
letters, as received, were briefed, stamp
ed and filed. He never had any trouble
under this system in finding any letter
the commodore wanted. The witness also
stated that never to his knowledge was
single paper lost.
Mr.. Hanna exhibited to the witness
letter dated May 30, 1893, and written
by Commodore Sch ", which contained
reference to the d ,atches that had been
brought by the Dupont, and giving
general account of the operations of the
flying squadron. He sought by this let
ter, as stated by him. to show that the
No. dispatch, known as the Dear
Schley letter." was receive on the 22d of
May and not the 23d.
The witness said: TIE conjunction of
this letter and the changed Endorsement
in lead pencil ON the back of one of the
dispatches would seem to indicate that
the dispatch might have been received on
the odd"
After the examination had proceeded
along this line for some time Mr.. Rayner
addressed the court as follows:
MAY it please the court, we admit that
we got Nc. Z by the Dupont (Which joined
the flying squadron off CienfuegOs on May
%, 1899, and we admit that we got No.
s by the Hawk and the Marblehead. Now
the trouble is about the other No. Z.
Where did the duplicate Of No. Z go? We
cannot admit we got it by the Iowa, but
we agree upon three propositions: The
Dupont carried NJ. Z, the Hawk No. )
and the Marblehead No. S. We admit the
receipt of this memorandum from Capt.
McCalla by the Hawk, but what we have
not been able to find out and cannot ad-
nit is that the Iowa carried No. T."
Mr. Rayner turned 70 Admiral Sehley
and asked: lyon admit that, don't you,
Admiral?' To which the Admiral re-
piled: Certainly. we admit it
In reply TO questions 10y Mr.. Hanna
Lieut.. Wells said that while he could not
repeat actual conversations with Commo
dore Schley concerning the retrograde
movement, he was sure that the move
ment was made because of the Commo-
dore's anxiety about the coal supply Of
the vessels of the feet He knew. said
the witness. that the Spanish feet was