The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-10-31
REPORT
WAS SENT BACK
cided the events of that day. =
Continued From First Page.)

llolio, Lllat he had not 5mentlOueu tue 1ooP
IN his ship Of the battle. 1t was an incl
dent Of the battle which he had no idea
ever would come into controversy. Cap
tam Cook had given the order without or
defs from him, except under his general
instructions to close in. and keep some
Where about 900 yards away, outside OF
Droadslde torpedo range. When the time
came for the turn, Captain Cooks con-
ception Of the movement conceded with
his own. Although Captain Cook gave the
order he would have done SO in moment
mad the captain of the Brooklyn failed to
do So.
"Doeyouu assume full responsibility for
the turn?'
Absolutely. If I did not give the or
der approved it," replied the Admiral.
Did the Brooklyn stand in and attempt
to sink the Spanish fleet in the chan
ned ?''
Captain Lemly introduced the following
paragraph from Admiral Schleys report
OF the battle, dated at Guantanamo, July
6, 1898:
Since reaching this place and holding
conversation with several of the captains,
viz: Captain Eulate, of the Niscaya, and
the second in command of the Colon.
Commander Contreras, I have learned
that the Spanish AdmiraIs scheme was
to concentrate all fire for awhile on this
hopes that if they could destroy her the
chance of escape would be increased, IS
it was supposed she was the swiftest ship
of Your squadron. This explains the
heavy fire mentioned and the Viscaya
action in the earlier movements of the
engagement. The execution of this pur-
poso was promptly defeated by the fac1
that all the ships of the squadron al
vanced into close range and opened an
tow, fro
the enemy's squadron as it was coming
out of the harbor.''
Admiral Schley identified this paragraph
as part of his report.
THE REAL REASON.
You stated in your eXamination-lll-
chief that on making the turn you did
not see the starboard side of the Texas
st did say SO, absolutely" stated the
witness.
Admiral Sclley in response to a ques-
ton. said he never heard of the Texas
incident until six months after the bat
tie. His attention was: called to a let
ter of June 18th, written from the South
Atlantic Station, i'll which the Admiral
was quoted as saying that the turn was
made to avoid the last attempt of
the Eiscaya to RAM but as the letter could
not be produced at the time. he was not
questioned upon it His attention was
which he said the turn was made to avoid
blanketing the fire of his own ships, and
also to his statement in eXamination-ln-
chief that he had not turned to port he
cause to do SO would have brought the
ship into dangerous proximity to the enc
mv's vessels and exposed her to possible
torpedo attack or ramminS.
Now said Captain I.emly, there APP
pears to be three reasons why you made
l:,5 ,,,1-.a !, 1sys,,.b'
Gas already stated in my direct testi-
monv. there is Il. much more important
reason which you have, not asked, and
ibat was, that the ship might continue
in the action and beat the enemy, as we
did That was the controlling one OF
ALL
Did You mention that maneuver in
your report?
NO
Did you have each Of these various
reasons in mind ut the time
.Proha b,y all of them. and others"
CAN READILY EXPLAIN.
The Judge Advocate then took UP Ad-
miral Schley's report of the battle, made
"a +he Department, dated Guantanamo,
July 1C. 1885. and lie was. questioned con-
corning the statements made therein, at
tention being called to the statement that
aferE the sViscaya hal struck her cclors
the signal was made to cease nrlnS, anu
then the following sentence: Ihe oregon
having proved vastly faster thah INC
other battleships she and the Brooklyn,
together with the Texas and another
vessel which proved to be your flagship.
continued westward in pursuit OF the
Colon. which had run close in shore, EVIL
IDENTIFY seeking some good spot 20 oeach
| il she should fail to elude her pursuers.
.sYou wrote that?" asked captain
Lemly.
..Yes.,, replied Admiral Schley, land
I can explain the whole thing IL you VIII
permit me to Introduce a preliminary
report made that was returned
Captain Lenlly: II have no objection 10
your preliminary. report, unless IL comes CONES
under the rule that it was not sent.
| WAS SENT AND RETURNED.
Adnira! Schley: It was sent alln re-
turned
to know now and not have them insert
other evidence at this time.
A long discussion ensued over the ad-
mission OF this report. Mr.. Rayner con-
fencing for its admission. and Captain
Lemly charging that Mr. Rayner,s pur-
pose was to Interfere with the cross-eN-
animation.
After recess Captain Lemly submitted
the report and the court, decided It couiu
not be read aloud. 81
The Admiral then recounted his con-
versation with Admiral Sampson, who,
he said, handed the letter back to MN
with the statement that he (Sampson)
was comma nder-in-chief. and that he
(schIey) had omitted very Important
detail in the report, in that 1t tailed 10
show the presence OF the New Y ork. Il
felt e the time Admiral Schley Went
on chat the victory was hi g enough
for all. and made this latter report OF
the battle Chat has been published) out
of generosity and because knew that
il the New York had: been present she
would have done as good work as any
OF the other vessels. -
After few more questions,s Captain
Leniy announced the closeeof the cross
examination. He turned to Mr. Rayner
md said: I'VE have not ia single Dues
ton
..,rhe court has a few said Admiral
$500 VERY GENEROUS
At the conclusion OF the cross xan1ina-
ton there was placed In evidence the tel
egram sent by Admiral schleysto the de
partment, dated Jul Nth. saving in sub
lance It hat he did not desire to assume