Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1901-10-17
THE SCHLEY INQUIRY
PROCEEDINGS oF TIE TRIAL AS
1T PROGRESSES.
STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES
Evidence Drawn From Participants
in Santiago Campaign For
Benefit of Court.

Washington, Oct 1.-THE Schley
court of inquiry began business Thurs
day with the recall of yesterdays wit.
nesses for the correction OF their tes-
timony. They were followd by Lieu
tenant Edward f. Lieper, who begun
his testimony yesterday. Lieper was
an officer OF the New Orleans. ard par
ticipated in the bombardment and re-
connoissance Of the Colon May 81 the
day before the arrival at Santiago of
Sampson; he was also on the New Or
leans when that vessel bombarded the
Spanish shore batteries at Santiago
His testimony today dealt with those
events. The witness said that when
the New Orleans joined the blockade
the vessels were lying in a column
from six to eight miles off shore. They
were SO far out it was impossible TO
distinguish points on the shore or de-
termine where the shore line met the
water line.
Lieper said his estimate of the dis
lance out was entirely due to visual
observation.
Colon Bonn bardment.
Asked whether he agreed with Fol
ger in stating the reconnaissance of
May 81, when the Colon was lombard
ed, was q success in developing the
strength Of a number of shore batter
les, the witness replied he thought 1t
a success to that extend, but could
not agree with Folger in. all he had
said. "As compared with the strength
of the ships of the squadron, or as
compared with the strength of the
guns OF any ship in the squadron, the
batteries were weak" Lieper was
then excused.
Lieutenant Commander SchuetZe,
navigator of the Iowa, during the war.
was the next witness. He was a mem
Der of the board Of navigation which
prepared the official chart OF the posi-
tons of the vessels engaged on both
sides in the battle July 3. The wit
ness said he was not satisfied with
the report Of the board. II protested,
he said. against signing the report as
being inaccurate. but was finally per-
suaded to do so by the senior member
Of the board, Commander Wainwright.
who thought that it was the best we
could do, even If we stayed there until
doomsday, and | signed it under pro-
test"
signed inaccurate Chart.
On cross-examnation Rayner asked,
why did not you state this chart was
wrong and | won't sign IT,"
Il did"
Then why did you sign it?'
Because ] was persuaded by they
other members of the board that it
was the best we could do, and they
wanted to come to an agreement. That
was a compromise
Would it not be better to have
made no chart at all then to have
made chart that appears to be as
radically wrong as this chart appears
10 be?"
NO. it would not have been better
in nay mind"
Then you think 1t Is better to
make chart incorrect and wrong
than to make no chart at all?"
Il did not say that. | said this is a
compromise chart. II was the best We
could do SO long after the battle"
How did you determine the dis
lance of the Iowa from the shore while
blockading Cienfuegos?"
I'VE did not determine the distance
at all, except simply by bearings occa-
sionally. There was not any regular
effort made to maintain any particular
position"
We're the vessels nearer to or
farther from the shore at night than
at oantiago?"
About the same distance day and
night, about eight miles