Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1901-10-08

the northward and westward had she
turned with starboard heinz
"She would have gained a position OF
about 600 or 200 yards nearer the Span
ish line"
Would that distance have been re-
duced by reversing the port engineer"
"If you turned the port engine the
tactical diameter would have been
shortened but the speed of turning
would have been reduced
II understood you TO say you sug-
gested the reversal of the starboard en-
CINE at the time this turn was made
but that that was rejected 10y Commo-
dore Schley after consideration and dis
cussion Are you clear that the star
board engine was not reversedY'
II am very clear on that fact
A number Of questions were then
asked by the court as follows. What
was the distance of the Brooklyn from
the nearest Spanish vessel when Com
modcre Schley said to Capt. Cook,
Look out, Cook, they're going to ram
you?'
~ should say the distance was about
1000 or 200 yards
Did you observe the whole move
llltHl VI lut llblH All1 Univ
Commodore Schloy gave the order,
was steadied on her course to the west
ward parallel to the Viscaya?'
81 did"
"Did you hear any order given while
the Brooklyn was making the turn to
ease or steady the heinz"
Not until II was eased TO parallel
che annpco nf fha loo dino SpaniQh NQc-
SELL
"In making the turn did the Brook
Ign turn rapidly and continually or did
she have her head longer on some head
ing than on others?
"She turned rapidly and continuous
ly,"
did any OF the Spanish ships at
tempt to ram the Brooklyn In the early
part OF the battle Of July 3?''
1.-THE Maria Teresa evidently made a
rank sheer 10 port toward the Brook
Ign with the evident intention Of get
ting into close quarters or remming.
What orders were sgnaled by the
Brooklyn to the fleet July 3. 1S9S2'
II can only say from recollection that
my orders were clear ship for action
and close up, or close in
"Did you know of any plan of battle
having been promulgated by Commo-
dore Schley In case OF falling In with
the Spanish squadron
II do not"
CAPT. FoLGER CALLED.
Commander Hodgson was then ex-
cused and Capt. w. NJ. Folger, who
commanded the cruiser New orleans
during the Spanish war, was called. He
detailed his part In the campaign be-
ginning with the New Orleans arri-
val at Santiago, as the convoy of the
collier Sterling He also related on
May 81 the New orleans had par
ticlpated in the bombardment Of the
Colon. then lying OFF Santiago har-
Dor.
what damage was done to the en-
envy on that occasion?" asked Capt.
Lemly.
Il don't think there was any" replied
the witness.
What was developed as to the shore
batteries?"
THAT they had not strength enough
10 do any material damage.
Capt. Lemly asked In regard TO the
developments concerning the lombard
ment Of June II, but Mr. Raynor OBJ
jected. The court ruled that the ques-
ton was admissible, a similar question
by Admiral Schley's counsel having
been admitted on a former occasion.
I'VE cannot blow hot one time and
blow cold the next" said Admiral Dew
ey, on admitting the question.
Replying TO the last question Capt.
Folger said that the reconnaissance had
failed TO develop that the batteries had
any material strength as a single yes
sci had silenced them.
Recurring TO the bombardment OF
May 81, Capt. Folger expressed the
opinion that the shots which had fallen
near the feet on that date were from
Spanish ships In the harbOr. fired over
the hill, and not from the shore bat
teries. For this reason he had directed
all the New Orleans fire on that oc-
caslon at the Colon instead OF the
land batteries.
Describing the blockade Of Santiago
harbor maintained by Commodore
Schley, the witness said the distance
during the day was from FIVE 10 eight
miles. and az night the vessels steamed
In column back and forth across the
harbor somewhat nearer In. He added
that even though the log OF the New
Orleans had placed the vessels nearer
the shore he would not change his po-
sition. He did not believe the vessels
were more than four miles from the
Moro on May 81.
Mr.. Raynor asked: What do you
know about the strength OF the bat
terIss, the number Of batteries or the
strength OF the guns before the recon-
naissance on May 81? What actual
knowledge did you have?"
Witness replied; II had no knowl-
edge whatever before the reconnas-
sance."
Then on May 81, when this recon-
Nuisance or bombardment took place.
so far as you were concerned, you were
absolutely In Ignorance OF the number
OF batteries or the strength Of the
glIns2'