The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1901-10-11


Scheutze, who was the navigator Of
the battleship Iowa during the sum-
mer of 1898, and who was q member
of the board of navigators which pre-
pared the official chart of the positions
Of the vessels engaged on both sides
in the battle of July 8, 1898, said on
the stand that he had not been salts
fled with the report
Il protested" he said, against
signing the report as being Inaccurate,
but 1 was finally persuaded to do so
by the senior member of the board,
Commander Wainwright, who thought
that was the best we could do, even
If we stayed there until doomsday, and
I signed it under protest. My first
objection was that the chart was in
accurate. That the position of the
Iowa as plotted on this chart gave
her too much speed.
In response to a question by the
court, he said that he had determined
the position of the Iowa at Z 40 o'clock
a. m. on May %, and that its distance
out was seven miles. He also said
that the bombardment of May 81 had
developed that the Spanish shore bat
teries were extremely weak. He had
seen no evidence of a disposition on
the part of any of Cervera's ships to
ram any of the American vessels.
By the court-When you say that the
Iowa was seven miles from the en-
trance to Santiago at 7:40 May %, was
that the distance at daylight, or had
the ships steamed off shore after day
light?
My impression is we had headed a
direct course for that position during
the night or early morning"
Commander Schuetze was then ex-
cused, and Lieut.-Commander Albert
w. Grant, who was senior watch Off
Ger on the Massachusetts during the
war with Spain, was called.
Asked by Captain Lemly concerning
the blockade of Cienfuegos, Command
er Grant said there were no directions
giving an order of battle there, but
that there was upon arrival a signal
from the flagship that Cienfuegos was
to be blockaded. He had on the occa-
sion of the manoeuvre off Cienfuegos
seen the Spanish earthworks there and
the masts of one vessel lying in the
harbor but nothing to his knowledge
had been done to destroy those works.
Commander Grant said that he re-
membered a signal from the Brooklyn
before starting from Cienfuegos say
ing the fleet was bound for Santiago,
and would rendezvous at Gonaives
Bay. The progress on that cruise was,
he said, slow, because the lighter YES
sells were affected by the weather.
None of the fighting ships had de-
tanned the squadron. He said that on
the first night out from Cienfuegos a
suspicious vessel which had erroneous
" been supposed to belong to the en-
envy had been sighted. The Brooklyn,
which had been steaming just in front
of the Massachusetts, changed its
course and turned to port. The wit
ness said that as soon as he observed
no he
chusetts, so as to protect the ship fol-
'Then." he said, "as I knew I was
going to clear the Brooklyn, I went
ahead with port engine full speed and
shifted the helm and gave the whistle
signal"
"Were the ships in formation Of
column" Capt. Lemly asked.
The witness replied: They were
not. There was a mixup."
Commander Grant also described
the retrograde movement of the flying
squadron toward Key West as well as
the blockade of Santiago. He placed
the distance of the blockading fleet
from the mouth of the harbor at from
six to nine miles. and said it was about
the same day and night.
Commander Grant was excused and
Lieut.. ]. H, Holden, who was watch
officer on the Scorpion during the
Spanish war, was called.
Capt Lemly only asked Lieut.. Hol-
den concerning the Scorpions mission
as a dispatch bearer from Commodore
Schley to the Harvard off Santiago on
Nav o. He then stated that Lieut..
Holden was the writer Of the log of
the Scorpion in which an entry was
made concerning the message con-
veyed to Commodore Schley through
the Eagle and the Scorpion from Capt.
McCalla. when the flying squadron
was en- route to Cienfuegos.
Following is Admiral SIMPSONS re-
quest for permission to be represented
by counsel in the Schley court:
Admiral George Dewey, United States
Navy, President Naval Court Of
Inquiry, Washington:
Sir-I am instructed by Rear Ad-
miral Sampson to acknowledge for
him the receipt of your letter of the
27th of September, 1901, stating that
the court does not at this time regard
him as a party to the case now being
tried. and it is therefore unable TO
comply with his request that ne be
permitted representation by counsel
2-I am further instructed by the Ad-
miral to ask that whenever the cfrcum-
stances arise which entitle him to rep
resentatiOn you will permit our adrnls-
sion as counsel in his behalf.
3-NIr. E. S. Ethel of Washington D.
G.. who is my associate in this matter