The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1901-11-07

pletely successful.
1t was intimated that the turn to the
southwark had been to get away from
| the enemy, yet it was an indisputable
fact that the turn had brought the
Brooklyn closer to the Spanish fleet and
she received 80 of the 43 shots which
struck the American ships. Capt.
Cooks testimony, he said, illumined
this maneuver and he planted himself
upon this testimony.
capt. Cook" he continued, told a
! thrilling story. He was an orator be-
cause he spoke the truth, and his words
will ring upon the pages of American
history; an orator because he was
speaking from his heart. However elo-
quent a man may be. If he tells an I'M
truth he is not an orator-he is a de-
ing story of this fight from the begin
ming to the end, and see nothing upon
the pages of this record that impugns
a single word he uttered"
| Mr.. Raynor then discussed the testi-
mony of Heilner and Hodgson and in
this connection ridiculed the chart pre-
pared by the navigators Of the ships
in the battle.
"That navigators' chart" said he "is
a thing of Joy forever. It is like the
obliterated epitaph upon an antiquated
tombstone. Six navigators met and
after three months OF unremitting la
Dor, they resolved to give to the world
a chart Of the battle of Santiago which,
for all purposes Of historical accuracy,
might as well be a chart Of the battle
of Thermopylae or of the field Of
Waterloo AS a disastrous failure the
chart is a magnificent success.
I'm his evidence" said Mr.. Raynor
Lieut.. Commander Heilner said the
Brooklyn passed across the bows of the
Texas less than 100 yards away, while
on the chart which he helped prepare
| the distance between the two ships Is
given as 2400 feet Whether the engines
of the Texas were stopped or backed
mattered little. This whole controversy
of the loop seemed to have been started
to prove that the Brooklyn ran away.
When this failed an attempt was made
to drag in the alleged danger to the
Texas
The testimony of Capt. Cook, he de-
clared, exploded both. The counsel on
the other side, he said, would have to
argue that Capt. Cooks testimony
could not be relied upon or abandon
the question of the loop and the danger
of colliding with the Texas.
Mr.. Raynor then took up specification
TO- concerning the Hodgson controversy.
He said he would not undertake the
! eeloh VI CANAlSSLblhB
Hodgson from his predicament He
read portions of Hodgson's testimony
and again fell back upon Capt. Cook 8
testimony as decisive of the point at
issue.
Capt. Cook had said, Mr.. Rayner
stated, that the danger Of collision had
never entered his head. Referring to
this testimony, he said: you cannot
impeach him. If had had my way,
| OF en- l.
this case when Capt. Cooks testimony
was done. 1 did not do so because the
admiral wanted to take the stand in
his own vindication."
No one, he said, had intended to at
tack Lieut. Commander Hodgson, but
the entire controversy was Hodgson's
own fault. There has been too much
magazine discussion and too much gos-
SIP" he said Imagine such CONVEX
sation between the commanding officer
of a great fleet and a subordinate off,
Ger at such a time"
Even if Commodore Schley had said
Damn the Texas" said Mr.. Raynor,
ut would not have been such a very
serious matter, as it could not have
been meant seriously. Down in Arun-
del County, Maryland, they use such
language in salutation, saying damn
you, how are you this morning.
But the trouble was" he said, chat
the public did not have the proper con-
ception Of the occurrence as reported,
| but had gathered the idea that the
Brooklyn was running away from the
scene Of conflict. Admiral Schley had
denied the reported colloquy." he said.
but not until after II had done him
great injury. The trouble about all
this" said Mr.. Raynor, lis that a
newspaper has been taken too serious
ly.
Never quarrel with newspaper"
he continued, unless you own one
yourself"
Mr. Raynor said he was a friend Of
| the American press and If he had had
the opportunity Of consulting Mr.
Hodgson he would have said to him,
BE little careful how you converse
with an enterprising newspaper re-
porter, and be extremely careful not to
qualify any statement he may charge
you with having made, no matter how
| innocent you may be-" 1t was a case
of confding innocence on one side he
said, and business enterprise on the
other.
Mr.. Raynor then took up the first
eciflcation-Admiral Schleys conduct
during the campaign
Now we come to Mr.. Woods and Mr..
Potts" he began. Mr.. Potts and Mr.
Woods; Mr.. Wood and Mr.. Potts"
daughter in the COURT
After reading the testimony of sew
eral officers as to the splendid bearing
of Admiral Schley Mr. Raynor read
the testimony of Mr.. Potts, to the eff
feet that the admiral appeared ner-
vous; that he got up and sat down"
Lieut.. Potts" went on Mr.. Raynor,
has covered himself with renown. His
name will echo through the ages of I'M
dying fame. When Manila shall be
forgotten and Santiago will be buried
in oblivion, the name of Potts shall
live. Whenever an admiral or a COM
modore or a captain is engaged in the
carnage Of mortal conflict, beware of
Potts Beware of your looks. Be care
full how you walk. Be careful how you
sit down. Be reserved and reticent in
your speech. Model your entire course
and conduct of action according to
Potts, that precocious child Of the kim
dergarten who confesses he was always
scared in battle, but who, unfortunate
ly, was never engaged in any battles
sufficient enough even to arouse his
timidity."
At this point Capt. Le1nly protested
against Mr.. Raynor's structures of
Lieut. Commander Potts, and his pro-
test led to dramatic scene in the
court room.
Capt. Lemly protested against this
language and a sharp verbal encounter
between the two occurred in which
Capt. Lemly said Mr.. Raynor was "un-
reliable"
YOU" replied Mr.. Raynor "are not
only unreliable, but you are offensive"
Admiral Dewey interfered to say the
court would hear all the testimony
that Lieut.. Potts had said relative to
being scared, but that Mr.. Raynor had
stretched the testimony a little. There