Evening star., 1901-09-24

this question. We are ready to meet it
when it comes and squarely and honestly =
Alleged Delay to the Texas.
On redirect examination Commander
Heilner said that the squadron had made
no effort to destroy the Spanish fortifica-
tions on shore at Cienfuegos. He said
that but for the delay of the Texas in the
Santiago battle, caused by the Brooklyn.
the Texas would have been able to get
further in and nearer the Colon, and ships
that were on her bow would have been
broadsde on.
Mr.. Hanna then asked Commander He'll
ner: irrespective of any map, chart or
any other publication. how near did the
Brooklyn come-to the Texas during the
loop?'
LAS 1 stated" he replied. between 100
and $50 yards is my estimate made while
we were in chase of the Colon
ALLOWING for the fact that man under
such circumstances Is apt to place vessel
nearer than she really is, and making al
lowances for that, you still adhere to your
anSwer?'
Yes sir, from 100 to $50 yards"
would any chart or aggregation Of
charts that could be produced before you
now satisfy you that you are wrong?'
"It would not"
Commander Harber was recalled and
Captain Philips reports of the Santiago
campaign were offered evidence Coun-
sci for Admiral Schley consented to their
their acceptance should not be considered
as precedent for the acceptance of other
official reports as evidence. Mr.. Rayner
read from the report of Captain Philip to
show tnat the Texas had been only four
miles out when Commander Harber had
said that the distance was seven or eight
miles. Commander Harber, however, said
that he did not desire to modify his testi-
mony.
Chief Engineer bates Testimony.
chief engineer on the Texas during the
Santiago engagement on July ), was then
called. He testified concerning the work
Of the engines on that day.
Il went to the engine room about 9:30
and found the engine going ahead" he
said, Il think not more than half speed,
perhaps three-quarters speed. There were
bell commands mostly, l recollect,
ahead and sometimes perhaps ten min
uteS after the engine would back for sew
eral moments. 1t was backed by signal
from the deck.
DO you know whether or not the en-
gines were actually reyerSed?'
Il was in the starboard engine room
when the signals were given and the star
board engine was reversed The port en-
gine, l am not very sure, l thinl was re-
Did they continue to run astern the en-
gines for some time or not?'
We'll. 1 should say between $40 and 9:45
they were running three minutes aStern.
l cannot say exactly"
Had this recalled particularly to your
mind anything that occurred or passed
through your mind at the timer"
'Yes. In thinking matters over as to
what might be going outside the ship
thought perhaps a torpedo boat might
have gotten in our track and that we We're
backing to spoil her aim
AT the instance Of Captain Parker the
witness examined the steam log book of
the Texas and failed to find there any
mention of the reversal of the engine, while
he admitted other matters which Captain
Parker characterized as comparatively un-
important were noted thereon.
While Commander Bates was examining
the steam log Of the Texas Lieutenant
Henry H. Ward Of the bureau Of naviga-
ton approached him and leaned over his
shoulder.
Captain Parker demanded in somewhat
excited tone that he be directed to go
away, saying that he had no business
there and his presence was not wanted
Admiral Dewey remarked that 1euten-
ant Ward was there undef the direction
of the Navy Department. Lieutenant
Ward did not change his position.
The court adjourned at o'clock