The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-10-08


course Of the leading Spanish vessel ~
In making the turn did the Brooklyn
| turn rapidly and continuously or did
she have her head longer on some head
ing than on others?"
She turned rapidly and continuously"
Did any of the Spanish ships attempt
to ram the Brooklyn in the early part
of the battle of July 80"
ATTEMPT To RAM.
'The Maria Teresa evidently made
rank sheer to port toward the BROOKLYN.
| with the evident intention of getting into
close quarters or ramming''
Did you see the Texas at the COM
mencement of the engagement of July 8.
at about the time you say the Brooklyn
course was changed?"
Il saw her at the commencement of
the engagement. At the moment of MAX
ing the helm hard aport I did not see
her. I knew where she was I was down
on the platform at that time. Probably
L had seen her just an instant before
that. I did not see her while she was
turning
What effort was made to ascertain if
the Spanish squadron was at Cienfuegos
prior to the arrival of the MarbIehead?'
Outside having the quartermaster go
as far aloft as he could and look over the
hilltops, I know of none until after the
/ arrival of the Marblehead"
What orders were signaled by the
Brooklyn to the fleet July g. 1882"
I can only say from recollection that
my orders were clear ship for action
| and close up, or close in -
Did Commodore Schley consult in re-
gard to the feasibility of coaling the
| squadron at Cape Cruz or any other
point between Cienfuegos and Santiago?"
! Not unless he did it through his flag
lieutenant
hn oslo ~
falling in with the Marblehead near Kew
West, did you hear any report by mega
phone regarding the code of signals which
had been established with the insurgents
at Cienfuegos?''
Il heard none.''
DO you know of any plan of battle
having been promulgated by Commodore
Schley in case of falling in with the
Spanish squadron?'
81 do not
The court then asked Commander
Hodgson to report the conversation he
had with Commodore Schley during the
early part of the engagement of July s.
and he did so. Commander Hodgeon was
then excused, and Capt. Folger. who
commanded the New Orleans during the
Spanish war, was called.
CAPTAIN OF THE NEW ORLEANS.
He detailed his part in the campaign.
beginning with the New Orleans arrival
at Santiago as the convoy of the collier
Sterling. He also related that on Nav
81 the New Orleans had participated in
the bombardment of the CristobaI Colon,
then lying in the mouth of Santiago har-
Dor. He said that the shots of the New
orleans on that day had been fired at a
range of from 5000 to 10000 yards. and
that all had fallen short
what damage was done to the enemy
on that occasion?" asked Capt. Lemly.
L don't think there was any, replied
the witness.
Was there any further effort to can
ture or destroy the Colon?"
Not to my knowledge"
Were all the vessels available engaged
in that acton?''
No; the Texas and the Brooklyn were
in the rear"
was the fire of the enemy's batteries
heavy enough to seriously endanger the
attacking ships?"
81 did not so consider it."
What was developed as to the shore
batteries?"
THAT they had not strength enough
to do any material damage
Capt. Lemly asked in regard to the
developments concerning the lombard
ment of June A. but Mr.. Rayner oh
jected. The court-ruled that the ques-
ton was admissible, similar question
by Admiral Schley's counsel having been
admitted on a former occasion.
I'VE cannot blow hot one time and
blow cold the next said Admiral Dewey
on admitting the question
Replying to the last question Capt.
Folger said that he reconnaissance had
failed to develop that the batteries had
any material strength, as a single YES
sci had silenced them
Recurring to the bombardment of May
81, the witness expressed the opinion that
the shots which had fallen near the
fleet on that date were from Spanish
ships in the harbor fired over the HILL
and not from the shore batteries. For
this reason he had directed all the New
Orleans fire on that occasion at the
Colon instead of the land batteries.
sCHLEY's BLOCKADE.
Describing the blockade of Santiago
harbor maintained by Commodore Schley
the witness said that the distance oue
was from five to eight miles and that
at night the vessels steamed in column
back and forth across the harbor, some
what nearer in. He added that even
though the log of the New Orleans had
placed the vessels nearer the shore he
would not change his opinion. He did
not believe the vessels were more than
four miles from the Moro on May
| 81.
ME- 1NdyHer aSkeus what ulu you KNOW
| about the strength of the batteries. the
number of batteries or the strength Of
! guns before the reconnaissance on May
| 81? What actual knowledge did you
| have?
Witness replied: st had no knowledge
| whatever before the reconnaissance
| "Then on May 81, when this recon-
| Nuisance or bombardment took place, so
| far as you are concerned, you were alb
solptely in ignorance of the number of
| batteries or the strength of the guns?'
/ prior to the fire by the batteries,
| had no knowledge"