The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-10-08

to change some of the language of his
previous testimony. One of these
changes was made in response to the
questions asked yesterday as to why he
had designated a liar and a black
guard the editor of a newspaper which
had originally printed the alleged
colloquy between himself and Commo-
dore Schley. He said he desired to
alter the reply that he had yesterday
given to this interrogatory. He then
said:
Il of course, am very sorry that L
ever so far forgot myself as to write 4
letter containing such Incorporate
language. 1t was written exactly for
publication, but under great provoca-
tion at the time. In that letter / did
not accuse this newspaper of lying for
printing that statement In fact, 1t was
to absolve it from lying that / gave the
paper authority to use my name for the
correctness of the gist of that state
ment. The lying was on the matter
of the fact that the commodore dis
played such trepidation and cOWardlce
on the Brooklyn on the day of that bat
tie, that he ran from the Spaniards and
took the Brooklyn to the southwark
and away from the fight, in order to
detract from the credit of the fame of
the commodore in that battle; that they
wished also to detract from the credit
of all the officers of the Brooklyn, on
account of the glorious part she took
in that days fight 1t was the words
to that extent, that I characterized as
lying. There was no lying in that col
loquy, unless man stuck to the verbal
correctness of the words. So did not
characterize the paper as a liar for
printing that colloquy."
WAINWRIGHT GOES ON.
Lieutenant Commander HOdgson be-
ing excused, Commodore Wainwright
was called. Captain Lemly began his
examination by drawing from the wit
ness the fact that he had been a MEM
Der and latterly senior member of the
board, which had officially acted in
making the chart showing the positions
of the American and Spanish ships at
Santiago. The witness told how con-
clusions were reached by the board.
He said: when / reported as senior
m ember of the board the board of navi-
gators had a sketched chart before
them, with the number of the positions
sketched on it, which had been determ-
ined by them, starting at different per-
iods, first when the ships came out and
afterward when they went ashore Each
navigator as near as possible, would
put the position of his ship at that
time. Then there was a great deal of
discussion as to the relative positions
OF course it was impossible to get any
position by bearings and there was
nothing known about the relative POSI-
tions. We also knew that the distances
on the chart were somewhat incorrect
and the final decision of the board, was
to reconcile each one as near as posi-
BILE, but none of the positions was con-
sidered exact positions. The impossi-
bility of getting bearings, even if we
had had correct chart, was apparent,
but it gave a general idea of the posi-
tions of the vessels during different
periods of the BATTLE"
Mr. Rayner asked if it was true as
had been officially stated in the report.
that the positions were assigned from
known bearings"
The witness replied that that state
ment was incorrect, that they We're es-
tablished by estimated bearings. Most
of the positions were, he said, hxed by
discussions among the navigators con-
stituting the board, although Captain
Chadwick was before the board. The
navigators had done the best they could
in plating the vessels and had made IL
as nearly correct as possible, so long
after the engagement, as h<ad been sta
ted by the board.
Asked by Mr.Rayner about the places
assigned to the Brooklyn and the Tex
as, while the former vessel was making
her loop, Commander Wainwright said
he did not consider them correct.
NOBODY WAS SATISFIED.
For myself" he said, 81 was never
satisfied with the places assigned"
He said further that while the board
had done the best that they could at
the time, as a board, it had not done
the best it could to satisfy any mem
ber of the board. 1T was the best we
could do to get all the members of the
board to sign the report" he said.
''Who in addition to yourself was
not satisfied?' asked Mr.. Rayner.
81 would not like to say" responded
the witness. II know the navigator of
the Texas was not, for one. 1 think
none was satisfied except the navigator
of the Brooklyn, and I don't know that
he was
but Notwithstanding you were all,
- <<.- - A<.lr-
lyn, dissatisfied. you signed the re-
port %
THAT is correct"
On redirect examination Commander
Wainwright said that in making the
chart all the members of the board
were at liberty to contribute whatever
data they had, or make whatever ar
guments they might desire He also
said that the chart was a compromise
of opinions
In response to further questions, the
witness said he did not see the Brook
lyn on the day of the battle off San
tiago.
Questions were put by the court and
answered as follows:
Were the positions of the ships, as
shown in the chart in question, OBJ
tanned from testimony taken by the
board, or from general discussion by
the members of the bOard2"
almost entirely by general discus
sion by the members of the board Cap
tain CnaQWlck ana captain COOK dp-
peared and discussed the matter with
the board"
From the position of the Gloucester
at the commencement of the battle of
July 3, could you see both the Brooklyn
and the Texas?"
''I do not remember seeing the Brook
1yn and Texas at the commencement
of the battle"
What orders, if any, were signalled
by the Brooklyn to the fleet during the
engagement of July 80"
81 saw none.''
Mr. Rayner: This does not mean
that no signals We're displayed, does
it?''
NO it does not
BY the court: Did any one of the
Spanish vessels change her course to
the southwark. as If intending to ram
one of the fleet ?''