The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-10-31
SCHLEY CONCLUDES
 HIS TESTIMONY
A Number of Questions PrOpOundcd to the Admiral by the Court.
 Borden to Give Evidence.

to which Admiral schley has been sub jected since Monday morning ended this afternoon when his cross-examination was concluded. When the Judge Ad- ycate finished the cross examination shortly after o'clock the court pro pounded to the Admiral a number of questions prepared by the members of the court. These questions touched many points of the campaign of the flying squadron. but mainly centered about the difficulties encountered in coaling and the reasons for the rctrograde move ment. Not one of them related to the bat tie of Santiago. The Judge Advocates cross-examination today covered the movement. the reconnaissance of May s1, the loop of the Brooklyn and the alleged colloquy with Lieutenant Hodgson about the Texas.
 One of the most interesting features Of the day was the development of the fact that the report of the battle written by Admiral Schley July 6. 1898 was not the original report. The original report never has been published and in accordancs Wtln nEGtioub oNStoAS&ts esaS ~N~-- day declined to allow it to go into the records. Admiral schley was allowed to explain, however, that Admiral sampson declined to receive the first report be- cause 1t did not mention the presence of the New York. "I felt that the victory at that time," said Admiral Schley. in explaining the matter, was big enough for all and made this change out Of generosity and because l knew 1T the New York had been present she would have done as good work as anyDody eIse.''
 Captain Thomas Borden of the Marine Corps, who was aboard the Brooklyn will be the last witness called for Admiral schley. After he testifes tomorrow the Judge Advocate will put on the stand the witnesses in rebuttai of whom there are understood to be about fifteen and 1t is probable that Admiral schiey's counsel will call several witnesses in sur-re- buttai.
 A Story of the Day.
 with the opening of the Schiey court of inouiry today, Admiral sehiey began the fifth day of his testimony and the third day of his cross-examinaton.
 The prospect then was that he woulo continue on the stand throughout the dav Judge Advocate Lemly still had a long list of typewriter questions DeIore him and the different members or -tne court have been industriously preparlns oucG ticns to be presented to tne Aohni ai for his consideration when his exaininA- .... oo,,,,aaI Ia concluded,
 The testimony began today where n loft off yester6ay, taking up different nhes see of the blockade off Santiago ana ,,ass,,,1 from that question into the re- connoisance of May 3l. when the Spanish cruiser Cristobcl Solon was bomoaraeo. The battle of July 3 was left for the last subject to be considered.
 When the Iowa Came.
 The first question Captain Lemiy asseo was whether the Iowa was with the nyinB .cuadron at Hampton Roads when ne gave the captains of the ships the verDai orders as to attacking the enemys neet.
 Admiral Schley replied that she was not a...
 In response to questions, he saio ne lesst fell in with the Iowa of Cienfuegos. Cap tain Evans was then i'll; Commandant Rogers was in command. He did not rec ollect whether he had communicated the verbal orders to the latter. He nrst saw Captain Evans on May 29.
 He was then questioned as to his con versation with Captain Folger when the latter sugg rested circular blockade, sucn as existed at Wei Hal Wei. The witness said he thought the fleet was larger than his at Wei Hai Wei and that there were flanking vessels in that fleet.
 He was asked whether he did not con- slider A circular blockade with the vessels pointing in as mobile as the other form, in that ships could move either way py turning with the same helm.
 The Admiral replied that he thought a circular blockade where all the vessels charged to the center would produce con fusion and inevitably lead to different arranRement according as the enemy moved east or west.
 .'The outcome" said he, "could only be more or less confusion, such as did ac@ tually occur later."
 schley's Idea of Blockade.
 The AdmiraPs attention was called to Captain Folger's statement that the lat ter had advised him to go in closer at Santiago and his own statement in chief that on the next day Captain Folger had signalled him that they were within range of the batteries The Admiral in reply changed the date of the signal to day later. He read Folgers signal, "I think the forts may open at this range"
 He said when Folger received the signal the squadron was in practically the same position as on the day Folger testified he had asked the Admiral to go in closer.
 Witness's attention was then called to his statement that neither at Cienfuegos nor Santiago had any vessel entered or departed and he was asked how he knew this.
 He replied that he only knew it because he never heard of any ship getting in. On the north Cuba blockade when a Frenchman succeeded in getting through the blockade line into Havana, the fact had been widely advertised as great accomplishment. His conclusion, there fore, was that none had entered.
 Coming to the reconnaissance of May 31st when the Spanish ship Colon was bonn barded as 1t lay in the harbor at Sam SchIey when he first received notice that the commander-in-chief would be at San tiago.
 When Sampson Came.
 The witness replied that the notice had come in the dispatch brought to him by Captain Cotton, which was dated May 29th. This telegram was. he said. not re- ceived until May S1st. Possibly. too, the New Orleans might have brought inform ation of Admiral Sampson.
 "Why did you wait two days after the discovery of the pres nee of the fleet in the harbor before undertaking your re- connoisance%
 For the reason had used those two