The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1901-11-05
OF THE BlTTLE0 OF SANTIAGO REFUSED
BY ADMIRAL SAMPSON.
NO MENTION OF THE NEW YORK
AS Taking Part in the Battle the cause
of It's Rejection by the Admiral.
Given to the Public as Amended-The
Original Report Never Published.
SchIey's Cross Examination Con-
Guided Questions Asked by the
Court

Washington, October 30.-The long or
deal to which Admiral Schley has been
subjected since Monday morning ended
this afternoon when his cross examiua-
ton was concluded and he was allowed
to leave the witness stand.
When the judge advocate finished the
cross examination shortly after 3
o'clock the court ~propounded to the ad-
miraI a number of questions prepared
by the members of the court. These
questions touched many points of the
campaign of the flying squadron, but
mainly centered about the difficulties
encountered in cOaling and the reasons
for the ~retrOgrade movement. Not one
of them related to the battle of Santa
60. The judge advocates cross exami-
nation today covered the ~retrograde
movement, the reconnaissance of May
31st, the loop of the Brooklyn and the
alleged colloquy with Lieutenant Hodg-
son about the Texas.
One of the most interesting features
of the day was the development of the
fact that the report of the battle writ
ten by Admiral Schley July 6, 1895, was
not the original report. The original
epOrt never has been published and,
in accordance with a previous decision,
the court today declined to allow it to
go into the record. admiral Schley was
allowed TO explain, however, that Adj
miral Sampson declined to receive the
first report because it did not mention
the presence of the New York.
Il felt that the victory at that time"
said Admiral Schley, in explaining the
matter, was big enough for all, and
1 made this change out of generosity
and because l knew if the New York
had been present she would ave done
as good work as anybody else"
Captain Thomas Borden, of the ma
rine corps. who was aboard the Brook
Ign, will be the last witness called for
Admiral Schley. After he t~estifieS to-
morrow the judge advocate will put on
the stand the witnesses in rebuttal, of
whom there are understood to De about
fifteen and it is probable that Admiral
Schley'S counsel Will call several wit
neSSeS in S~urrebuttal.
Among Captain Lemly's first quas-
tiOns was one asking Admiral Schleys
opinion of the circular blockade.
The admiral replied that he thought
q circular blockade where all the YES
sells charged to the center would pro-
u confusion and inevitably cad to Il
different arrangement according as the
enemy moved east or west. 1.-The out
come said he, could only be more or
less confusion. such as did actually
occur later"
a NUMBER Of questions were asked
regarding the reconnaissance of May
31st. Captain LemIy inquired: In
your report of June 1st to the depart
ment concerning the reconnaissance
you did not mention II purpose to
Cinl or lnct~ " tho Colon -
II did not"
But in your Geographic report you
did say that your purpose was to de-
strOy the ColCn?"
Incidentally yes"
The judge advocate hen asked the
admiral 20 tell exactly what his pur-
pose was on that occasion and what
instructions he had given.
Admiral Schley replied the signal in
structed the ships to use their heavy
guns against the Colon. The New Or
leans. with her lighter battery, was di-
rected to fire at the shore batteries.
L directed the ships to follow the flag,
to operate against the Colon and fire at
the forts to develop them and I think
the reconnaissance, so far as IL went,
was eminently successful. The batter
les were developed and the fact was
demonstrated that the enemy was IN
port. With a squadron of only five or
80 AA-t NANS WY ~
strongest military necessity would have
justified me in risking the loss Of a
vessel that might have reduced our
squadron to n numerical inferiority
with the enemy. If one or two or our
ships had been crippled the enemy
might have come out and engaged us
with disastrous results. The develop
ment of the facts as to the batteries
and ships was. in my opinion, sufficient
The enemy'S ships could not get away
Captain Lemly asked why the mouth
of Santiago harbor had not been en-
hladed and all the ships used on May
31st.
mi Schley replied that he had
not done so simply because the batter
les would have been safe while the
ships used thus would have been plac-
ed in greater danger.
Why did you not steam more slow
~ as you passed the mouth of the har-
bor?"
The witness replied. in a deliberate
We'll that is a technical err
ror that might have been remedied if
some one else had been in
Possibly the firing would have been
more effective if we had gone in closer,
but if We had steamed more slowly
there would have been no gain as the
range would have been narrower. II
was a case of ~tweedledee on the one
hand and of tweedledum on the other
QUESTIONED AS TO THE BATTLE
Captain Lemly at his point, passed
to the battle of July, stopping to ask
one or two incidental questions about
the circumstances of the evening OF
July End.
On July End when the suspicious
movements were seen in the harbor OF
Santiago, the witness said he talked
with Captain Cook about the advisibil-
1ty or coupling up the engines. 1t was
decided not to do So. He supposed the
ship was always ready for a sortie.
The cross examination Of Admiral
Schley on the battle Of Santiago begari
with questions as to the Brooklyn's
turning movement.
You regarded that turn as very i'm
portant did you not?'
81 think it vas the movement that
decided the events of the day"
The admiral said in response to Ques-
tions that he had not mentioned the
loop in his report Of the battle. Tt was
an incident Of the battle which he had
no idea ever would come into contro-