The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-10-09

| to us than the Colon. The Oregon
/ was closer than the Brooklyn,
| so that the Brooklyn was leading as re-
/ cards the distance from us that she was
! out on our bow.
In response to questions by Mr. Rayner
chart because Of his interest in the battle
and that he's had prepared il a few days
! after the battle. He had started the work
/ the day after the engagement and
had depended partly on memory
the witness if his chart was
not wrong. except in the first positions as
signed. Mr.. Hanna objected to this method
, oil eliminating and spirited collOQuy
CURED between counsel.
Il should like TO know where YOU were
when the witness made his statement,
said Mr.. Hanna.
Mr. Rayner-I was here and heard what
Mr. Hanna think il is outrageous for
YOU To ask the witness: rs your map
Mr. Rayner-I Will make the style as
pleasant as possible. | think my style is all
right.
Mr. Hanna-You have good opinion Of
Mr.. Rayner-I viii say. 'Is the map right
except in reference To the FIRST postions?''
Do YOU object To that?
Mr.. Hanna-That is very much better.
Captain Lemly-That il not what You
mean. is IL?
mean il is wrong. But want the witness
The witness-To the best of my lnowi-
edge and belief
HODGSON WRONG.
Mr. Rayner called attention TO the fact
that the witness had said at the beginning
of the battle the Brooklyn was heading
north and east. while Lieutenant Comman-
der Hodgson. VINO had been aboard the
Brooklyn. had said the vessel was heading
north and west
(which is right D. he asked
81 believe ! am right the witness re
piled
You can't both be right
THAT is right. too
In response TO further questions Lieut..
Bristol said his chart had been stored away
for some time but that previously he had
had several blue prints made of il.
Al Mr.. Rayners request the witness made
measurements showing That according 10
his chart at the beginning of the fight off
Santiago the nearest Spanish ship 10 the
BROOKLYN was $500 yards.
Mr. Rayner-How can YOU reconcile that
with the statement of Lieutenant COmman-
der ttodgson that the range az the time of
the turn of the Brooklyn was LOO?
Il cannot reconcile my statement with
that of Lieutenant Commander Hodgson"
Then those two statements are perfectly
1 irrecOnCiable?"
"A range of ] 400 yards at the time of
the Jura OF the BROOKLYN Is absolutely
lrreconcllable. Ny idea is that with a stadi-
Instrument, and that is what they state
they took the measurements with. Also i'm
smoke Of battle il is almost impossible To
take ranges accurately. II was a good deal
of estimate Also / have heard do
not know how true IL is-the ranges on
board the Brooklyn We're taken bv am en-
listed man. l do not question the enlisted
man accuracy except that ! would think
mat an omcer accuracy would be greater
than that of an enlisted man"
Mr.. Rayner-And those are tho reasons
You give now Tor accounting for this wide
divergence. You do not think the stadi-
meter Is as accurate as II ought be?
Those are the reasons ] have ALWAYS
had in my mind for reconciling those two
statements. Another reason for thinkina,
myself right was the speed of the SniD
which was given 10 me as half speed. TAKE
II at full speed, her initial position-and
she could not arrive at "a certain Doint
which would give her that range i 100
yards"
Mr.. Rayner-Then the stadimeser is NOT
TO be relied on at all in compa rsion with
your observations, as 1 understand il in
this instance?
The stadimeter at 4.OoO yards and over
IS well known among officers of the navy
TO be inaccurate for measuring distances