New-York tribune., 1901-10-31

while the telegram was never sent this letter was
sent and returned"
Captain LenIy-How do you know that?
Mr.. Rayner-That is what want to prove.
Captain Lemly-The mark its face shows that
Mr. Rayner-We propose to show that that was
an error. That mariing done by Admiral
Schley's flag lieutenant.
Admiral Dewey-The letter has the same standing
as the telegram. We don't know WHY it was marked
as not sent" only that It was so mar mspke6 1,ds the
Admiral schley-Sfy secretary after I had re-
turned from the flagship New-York
HE OMITTED THE NETWORK.
After some further sparring by counsel Admiral
schley explained that the original preliminary re-
port OF the battle he took to the commander-in-
chief and then returned to the Brooklyn Admiral
Sampson then signaled for to come on board
again. he said. (which did. and he handed the
report back to me. There nobody but himselt
and myself in the cabin at the time
The Admiral then related his conversation with
Admiral Sampson, who, he said. handed the letter
back to him with the statement that he (Sampson)
was comrlander-in-chef and that he (Schley) had
omitted a very important detail in the report IN
that it failed to show the presence OF the New
York. II felt at that time" Admiral Schiey went
on. that the victory big enough for ALL and
I made this (hs report OF the battle tnat mas Deeh
pubIisheD out of generosity and because knew
that il the New-York had been present she "ouio
have done as good work as any other vessel
In to question ion he Ttness S6s Gdana the the
Texas the gloucester and the Iowa were obscured
if9V1 when s the Colon Surrendered why did you not
take Of + her and .I atent amTnfenGT 1 and
proceeding TO 40 that very t9ing % WAS was ali right
when 1hP efnf ieft qS 0r the am iIF ''
Where did you Obtain ,1eS yo4J Eight hundred yards
10 the southwark when the Brooklyns turn was
From the report of the board Of officers who
charted the courses of the ships ~ Hy dated May "a
was not delivered TO you until June 10
DO You know by what means that report
THAT would be difficult to state
RECALLS NO TALK WITH HoDGsoN.
The Admiral was asked what conversation he
had had with Lieutenant Commander Hodgson on
the Brooklyn just before the loop was made He
said he could recall single word on cohVersa-
ton with Mr. Hodgson beyond the latter remaTKs rem bf
response to go t9r the them s1eepIR R hid not now re-
call, and he never had been able 10 recall any
oDbi' Did you give out for publication Lieutenant
Hodgson's categorical denial;
Did you give out the accompanying letter Of
exPlaan'sstisG'" exp ma In
The witness stated that he S would stI Ma say bin that
self but he had done nothing in that direction oe-
q? pa GHpa femy an nshed his
examination Il have no further questGons' .,F ne
have have not r5f tGineH Single a. question:
The court has % G 6e% said Afmfo there was
placed In evidence the telegram sent by Admirsi "a mr.;
Schey TO the department on July 10 saying In SUD
stance that he did not desire to assume enIlre
credit the victory of July g. and that the victory
belonged TO the fleet under the command of Ad-
miral Sampson. In reply to question from cap
tain Parker ne said he had taken this dispatch 70
Admiral Sampson. who stated that he was very
glad !. had sent it and thought it was very gen
erous."
WHO generous?"
II, of course
The court then proceeded TO put the questions
previously given. -
The court having concluded fits questions. Cap
tain Lemly said he wanted to PROFOUND one or two
He asked
Did your chief engineer report to you at any
time that the Merrimac hopeleSSly disabled?
II think he said IT would depend upon the pos,
sibility of repairing her intermediate waive, ana
that they would determine whether they could
work her compound in the mean time
Did he not report more definitely than some
time long time the period necessary 10 re
PAR the Merrimac's engines
Il do not know that he reported exactly the time.
IL indefinite 10 not think he knew
himself when the repairs would be completed"
The examination OF Admiral Schley was con-
cluded at 3:0s D. m. and he was excused.
There being further witnesses present; the
court at S:l5 p. m. adjourned until ii CLOCK to-
morrow.