Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1901-11-13
SCHLEY STORY TOLD.
REAR.ADMIRAL CONCLUDES HIS
fiS TESTIMONY,
Com ma ander at the Battle of Santiago
Tells of the Fight-Explains the Ret
Vograde Witness Subject

Rear Admiral Schley, under cross-ex-
animation, explained the retrograde
movement and dispatches sent by Schley
and received by him during this period OF
the campaign. Sehley's three reasons for
the westward movement We're first that
Captain Sigsbee, who was scout and
placed in front of the harbor for the ex-
press purpose of securing information,
advised Schley that he did not belleye
the Spanish squadron was in the harpor-
The second reason was that Edouard M
nez stated that he did not believe the
squadron could enter the harbor. and the
third reason was that a dispatch froJ1
the department, accompanied by men-
orandum from Sampson, minimlzed me
Importance of the squadron being Il ere.
The witness also said that the depart
ment's dispatch of May %, saying all It's
information indicated that the Spanlards
were in Santiago. was ambiguous. lie
said the ambiguity Of the departments
dispatch was manifest at once because II
stated that it's information indicated that
the Spanish feet was in Santiago, then
it pointed out place for coalng winch
at the time was inaccessible, and, finally,
it stated that the department looL ed TO
Schley to determine and report whether
or not the enemy was in Santiago har-
Dor.
Captain Lemly asked Schley why he
had reported to the department that II
was impossible to coal the Brooklyn OH
Santiago, inasmuch as he had testhed
that the Brooklyn did not need coal and
no attempt had been made to coal that
ship. The witness replied tLaC ME..c 1t
was true no attempt was made TO coal
the Brooklyn, he meant RI convey TO the
department the impression that it was
impossible to coal he Brooklyn and the
other yesse ; of his fleet owing to the
swell Of the sea.
Considerable time was spent by the
Judge advocate in trying to develop Just
how far tie flying squadron went ON the
retrograde movement, and to show that
Santiago harbor was left absolutely I'M.
! guarded on the night of May 20, when
the retrograde movement began. Rear
Admiral Schley said that his recollection
was the feet steamed only twentv-cls
miles west, but the log of his vessel
showed the distance was somewhat great
er.
that the course was not directly west
ward at all times during the movement.
and that allowance had not been made
for the correction of the patent log,
which was perhaps thrown overheard be-
fore the real retrogFade movement be-
gan. He said the harbor was not left
entirely unguarded, as up to midnight of
| May 26 he was within fifteen miles of
the entrance, and the scout ships were
not entirely withdrawn, and at least one
| of them was sent back to watch the en-
| trance.
Before Rear Admiral Schley's cross
examination was completed the court
took the applicant in hand and asked
Schley few important questions.
The entire session of the court on this
| day was a lively one, as there was con-
slant wrangling between the attorneys,
| principally over the admission of pre-
! lminary report of the battle made by
! Schley to Sampson, which showed the
| New York was not in the battle of San
| tiago at all. The judge advocate resist
ed the admission of Schley's preliminary
report on the ground that it was not an
| official document and that the report it
self had not been sent
1t developed, however, that Schley him
self handed the report to Sampson. but
| the latter returned it to Schley because
| it omitted important details" and made
| it evident that the New York was not
in the battle.
Schley told Sampson during the con-
versation which took place with reference
to the report that the victory was great
enough for all, and that he would make
a second report to Sampson out Of gem
erosity, knowing, however, that the New
York was not in the battle at all. This
explains why Schley made two reports
of the battle.
Admiral Schley's case was closed on
the following day, after one more witness
for the applicant" had been heard by
the court of inquiry. The announcement
! that the end of the admiraPs presentation
of testimony had come was made by At
torney Rayner and the court then settled
down to listen to the beginning of the
testimony to be introduced in rebuttal.