The weekly register. [volume] (Point Pleasant, Va. [W. Va.]) 1862-1909, 1901-10-16
AGAINST HIS WISHES.
Lieutenant SChuetz Signed Report Of
Navigation Board.
SAYS rHn CHART is INACCURATE.
Naval Court of Inquiry Continues Its
Grind OF Testimony to Determine
the Truth as to the SchIcy-
Sampson Controversy.


Washington, Oct 1o.-The Schlcy
naval court resumed business with
the recall of witness for correction of
their testimony and the addition OF
such points as might have been sug-
gested since their retirement from the
witness stand. These were Admiral
Taylor, Lieutenant Commander Potts
and Lieutenant Bristol They were
followed by Lieutenant Edward Il.
Leiper, who had begun his testimony
but had not concluded'it when the
court adjourned for the day. Lieuten-
ant Lieper was an officer on the New
Orleans and participated in the bonn
bardment or reconnaissance of the
Spanish steamer Colon, May 81, 1898,
the day before the arrival at Santiago
of COMMUNICATIVE Chief Sampson. He
was also on the New Orleans when
that vessel bombarded the Spanish
shore batteries of Santiago. His tes-
tfmony dealt with those events.
Captain Cook, who occupied the
same relative position toward Commo-
dore Schley that Captain GhaGw K
occupied towards Admiral Sampson,
was also present in the courtroom dur
ing the day, but he is not expected to
testify until Admiral Schley begins to
present his side of the case. he being
one of the most prominent of the ad-
miral's witnesses. Assistant Judge
Advocate Hanna was not present in
the court room. He was detained
at his home by illness and the entire
presentation of Tie case on behail OF
the government was conducted by
Judge Advocate Lemly.
Captain Parker, counsel for Admiral
Schley, was also absent, having gone
to his home in New Jersey.
Captain Lemly resumed the ques-
tioning of Lieutenant Lieper by ask
ing him concerning the blockade OF
Santiago by Commodore Schley. The
witness said that when the Now Or
leans Joined the blockade the vessels
were lying in column from six to
eight miles off shore, little to the
eastward of directly south of the
mouth of the harbor. At night they
steamed slowly back and forth in
front of the harbor 500 yards apart.
They were so far out, the witness said,
that 1t was impossible to distinguish
points on the shore or to determine
where the shore line met the water
line. He could distinguish tho vessel
nearest to him ahead. The first night
of the blockade he had not boon able
to distinguish the Brooklyn and the
Vixen. The Marblehead and the Vix-
en- had occupied places between the
blocade line and the shore, but he had
not been able to distinguish them.
Practically the distance of the main
vessels from the shore line was The
same in the day as at night He could
not say how far east or west of the
mouth of the harbor the fleet had
steamed as he could not see the har-
Dor. On cross-examination Mr.. Ray
ner called attention of witness to me
statement of Captain Folger who had
been in command OF the New Orleans
that the fleet was nearer the shore at
night than in the day time and asked
whether he agreed with his command
Ing officer. Witness replied: las a
fleet or squadron, l do not agree
that they moved closer to the shore at
night, / have an indistinct recollec-
ton that the New Orleans, the first
evening, was lying little further off
shore than the Brooklyn. When the
Brooklyn took up her course east, the
New Orleans had to go in probably
quarter or possibly half mile to get
her position in rear of the Brooklyn,
but 1t was no more than that 1t may
have been that that gave to captain
or commanding officer the impression.
that we were closer in at night"
Lieutenant Commander William H.
SchuetZ, who as lieutenant, was then
navigator of the battleship Iowa dur
ing the summer of 1898, and who Is
now superintendent of compasses in
the, navy department, was the next
witness. He was member Nf the
board of navigation which prepared
the official chart OF the positions OF
the vessels engaged on both sides in
the battle of July 3, and Judge Advo.
cate Lemly asked him concerning the
report made by the BOARD which ac-
companied the chart. Witness said
he had not been satisfied with the re-
port. Il protested" he said, against
signing that report as being inaccur-
ate, but was finally persuaded to do
so by the senior member of the board,
Commander Wainwright, who thought
that 1t was the best we could do even
II we stayed there until doomsday, and
l signed 1t under protest My first OBJ
lection was that the chart was mac
curate. That the position OF the Iowa
as plotted on this chart gave her too
much speed. In order to keep the
Iowa in relative position to the other
reports for certain distances, she APP
proximately appeared to be making
1S knots when she was making nine
to ten. Another objection had was
the initial position of the Brooklyn
when the Spanish ships first left
the harbor. contended that the
Brooklyn's position was too close to
the mouth of the harbor; that she was
not in her regular position. She was
south of it. 1 based that opinion upon
the fact that when 1 first discovered
the Spaniards coming out of the har-
Dor looked over toward the others
ships on our left and the Brooklyn
was nearly abeam OF the Iowa. The
Iowa was heading north directly in
the harbor"
Commander Schuetz was asked in
regard to his observation of the Brook
lyn in the battle of July 8. He replied:
81 saw the Brooklyn at the beginning
of the action about port abeam of the
Iowa l saw her some minutes after
wards when she appeared to be head
ed little to the eastward of north.