The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1901-09-24

ton, bat because the gentlemen on the
other side have argued It and have spread
their views on the records and then with
drawn for the second or third time, I
really forget which. this question. We are
ready to meet il when it comes. and
squareIy and honestly"
On redirect examination, Commander
HeiIner said that the squadron had made
no effort 70 destroy the Spanish fortifca-
tons on shore AT Cienfuegos. lie said
that bur for the delay OF the Texas in
the Santiago battle. caused by the Brook
lyii, the Texas would have been able 10
get further in and nearerlbe Colon and
ships that wer on her bow would have
been broadside one
Mr.. Hanna then asked Commander He'll
ner: Irrespective of any map. chart or
any other publication. how near did the
Brooklyn come to the Texas during the
loop?"
As state" he replied. ''betwen 100 and
$50 yards, is my estimate made while We
were in chase Of the Colon"
Allowing for the fact that a man IN
der such circumstances Is apt to place
a vessel nearer than she really is. and
making allowances for that. you still ad-
here to por answer"
Yes. sir. from 100 to 15O yards
Would any chart or aggregation of
charts that could be produced before you
now satisfy you that you are wrong?"
1T would not
Commander Harber was recalled and
Captain Phillips reports of the Santiago
campaign were ordered as evidence.
Counsel for Mr.. Schley consented 10 their
Introduction with the understanding that
that their admission would not be con-
sidered as a precedent for the acceptance
Of other official reports as evidence. Mr..
Rayner read from the report of Captain
Phillip TO show that the Texas had only
been four miles out when Commander
Harber had said that the distance was
seven or eight miles. Commander Harber
said. however. that ne did not desire to
modify his testimony.
Commander Alexander B. Bates, who
was chief engineer on the Texas during
the Santiago engagement on July 3. was
then called. He testified concerning the
work OF the engines on that day.
Il went to the engine room about $50
and found the engine going ahead" he
4
speed. perhaps. three-quarters speed.
There were bell commands mostly, as 1
ahead and sometimes, perhaps
ten minutes after. the engines would back
for several moments. 1t was backed by
signal from the deck"
DO you know whether or not the en-
gines were actually reversed?'
II was in the starboard engine room |
when the signals were given and the star
board engine was reversed; the port en-
CINE. am not sure. but I think, was re-
versed.
Did they continue to run astern the 1
engines for some time or not?"
We'll. I should say between $40 and I
:45; they were running three minutes /
astern. cannot say exactly"
Has this recalled particularly to your 4
mind anything that has occurred or pass /
ID through your mind at the time?''
Yes. in thinking matters owe ras to I
what might be going on outside the ship, |
thought perhaps a torpedo boat moght |
nave gotten ii our track and that We
we're backing to, spoil her aim.
At the instance of Captain Parker, the
witness examined the steam log book of +
he Texas and failed TO find there any !
mention of the reversal of The engine.
While he admitted that other matters
which Captain Parker characterized as
unimportaEt. were noted
hereon.
While Commander Bates was examining
he steam log OF the Texas, Lieutenant
Ienry b. Ward, of the bureau of naviga-
ion. approached and leaned over his
houlder Captain Parker demanded in
omewhat excited tones that ne be direc-
ed to go away, saying that he had no
business there and his presence was not
wanted. Admiral Dewey replied that
4ieutenapt Ward was there under the di-
ection of the navy department Lieuten-
mt Ward did not change his position
me court adjourned at o'clock.