The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-10-31

1ol:oTo:; }: 3 1907
8. q, 3 81 4 ory belonged to the feet
anas ln, = a, rIr sampson's command.
"a % quest Ion from Captain
- said he had taken this dis
81, - B dmiral Sampson. who said
,,,as very glad had sent 1t and
tt,a,,ght twas very generous.
s..yyho was generous
at of course 4
,r,,a FIRST of the courts question related
- the blockade of CienfueSos, and was as
follows:
the shore to the westward SO distinctly
as to form an idea of the feasibility or
making a landing there?
The witness answered in the affirmative,
and in reply to the next question said he.
had seen no fishermen or fishing boats
on shore with whom he could have COM
municated.
Also replying to question of the
court he said he could not recollects at
all the conversation between himself and
Lieutenant Hodgson, to which the later
had testified: Had Admiral CerVera,s
fleet left Santiago and gone to the west
ward at the same time that you left
Il
tween your fleet and the shore without
being seen by you2'
cat night it might possibly have done
so. but think not in the daytime
WIDER HORIZON.
ssWhy on May 18th did you make your
stopping point twenty miles south OF
Santiago instead Of the mouth OF the
harbor?'
81 laid my course for that point, think
ing that If the enemy should leave san
tiago he would go to the southwark and
that point would give me a wider horizon
for observation of his movements
"Was It not possible to begin your
blockade of Santiago May 18th and main
tain it for few days and still have
coal enough left to enable You to reach
Key West?'
eyes: if I had then known, as knew
subsequently, that the Spanish fleet was
there
Ibid not the order under which you
were acting require You to remain on
Santiago?'
Possibly yes; but do not think that
the order given me was to deprive me or
all discretion in the matter II iiedio -
the contrary
.Was not the situation at Santiago
Nav o6tl such as to warrant you IN tax
ing considerable risk in coaling the shlps
of your squadron?'
i .lnIn ina. me risks would have been
very great-too great, in my judgment.
We might have lost a collier.
Did not captain Cotton inform you
that the Harvard had coaled at Mole st.
Nicholas and that one large ship at that
time could coal there in ordinary
weather.?
II do not recall that. His information
to me referred mainly to small vessels,
as I recollect it.
Nothing about coaling the Harvard?'
broke in Admiral Ramsay.
NO / think not
did the report of the Merrinac'S in
jury lead you to believe that she was
hopelessly disabled?"
Practically so. Her intermediate valve
| was broken"
What was your object in seeking to
| develop the batteries at Santa go?'
| POSSIBILITY REMOTE.
81 desired to know what was in front
of us in view of the possibility Of our
| being obliged to force the entrance.
Did you not risk the loss Of a ship
| May 3lst?"
/ Il thought such possibility remote in
| view of the range given.
| How did you know the prevailing
| winds at Cape Cruz were west and south
! west?
..From the pilot
| '.You stated that the movement west
/! ward was based upon sound military
/ principles Why then did you so back
| to SantiagO?'
''For the reasonI have already stated.
! After the coal supply was equalized. as
! we were not far away we would not lose
4 much time in going back and determin-
ing definitely whether. the enemy was in
| port
| IF the scouts we're Independent why
~
LAS senior officer when they Joined me,
i was, of course. responsible
..Why did the Brooklyn leave Key West
| short of coal?"
Because of the order of the command
| er-in-chief.
WAS there any shortage of coal at
| Key West?'
Not to my knowledge
Gas you were ordered to Cicnfuegos. was
it not your duty to communicate direct
I with the senior officer leaving there?'
IF he had important information I
! think it was his duty to communicate It
to me-"
/; ..Did the Flying Squadron ever steam
in at Cienfuegos between s P. NJ and 4
A Mp
Eve tried to keep further in at night
than in the day"
What effort did you make at or near
.
Ia, to discover whether or not Cervera's
squadron was in that port?'
THOUGHT COAST OCCUPIED
ST did not make any because I was led
to infer that the coast was occupied. Nc
/ Gala, in his cable-cutting expedition, had
! lost quite Il number Of men. and sup
! pos that the coast was occupied"
Ibid any of your light vessels scout be-
tween the FLYING SQUADRON and the south
coast of Cuba. in view Of discovering the
I. Spanish squadron in the event OF its hay
ing left Santiago for Cienfuegos?''
enc
..Did you consider Captain Sissbees re-
! port. that he had not seen the Spanish
squadron and the Pilot Nunez's state
,nent that the Spanish ships We're too
large to enter the harbor of Santiago.
proof that the information given to You
by Captain McCalla on May oath. that
the Spanish force under Ceryera had been
reported authoritatively in Santiago OF