The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-10-05
THE LETTERS
 OF SCHLEY His Correspondence With Lieutenant HOdgSOn. WANTED A CORRECTION The Admiral Was Irritated by
 Publication. Navigator of Brooklyn Affirmed and Denied Statements Concerning the Loop" of the Vessel {
 During Fight.

| Washington, Oct. 4.-Copies of core spondence between Lieutenant Hodgson and Admiral Schley during the period from June 6. 1899, to August 25. 1901. were given to the press today with the state ment that the correspondence will be sub | mitted to the Schley court of inquiry by Lieutenant Hodgson while on the witness stand.
 On June 6, 1s99 Admiral Schley wrote Lieutenant Hodgson enclosing an edito- | rial from The New York Sun, alleging that colloquy had occurred between Schley and Hodgson on the bridge of the Brooklyn during the battle of Santiago, | in the couse of which the Admiral is rep resented to have said, Damn the Texas; let her look out for herself" in reply to Hodgson's remonstrance against turning the. ship to starboard. Characterizing l this as "grotesque lie." the Admiral asked Hodgson to write your denial of this oft-repeated calumny."
 June Hodgson responded in a very long letter, dated at the New York Navy Yord. denying he authorized the publi- cation of any conversation, and making an explanation of what he says occurred during the battle. He added that what was printed as part of conversation between you and me Is substantially cor rect, though not as to the manner in which 1t took place."
 Hodgson then tells of the rage with which the Brooklyn people heard the sim ister whisper, upon her return to Guam tanamo Bay, that they were "gun-shy,' and he says that he gave what he thought was a true explanation of that turn. to many officers of the fleet. none of whom failed to agree with him. He explains that Admiral schley regarded this t,Irn as stfategical manoeuver, Hooking to the further part the Brooklyn was to play in that days battle. rather than as an effort to avoid interfering with the fire of the other vessels of the fleet. In fact, thought then, as think now, that the turn to starboard caused more interfer- ence''
 Though Spaniards were fast. he tells of the belief that existed that the Spanish ships outclassed the Americans in speed and that in the absence of tie New York, the Brooklyn was the only American ship capable of preventing the escape of the Spaniards should they pass the fire of the battleships. The Spanish torpedo boats also were to be reckoned with. Therefore, says Hodgson, "after putting the helm to starboard and to port once or twice to counteract the efforts of the Teresa and Vizcaya to get into closer action and ram us, and after the leading Spanish ship had reached just a little abaft our port beam, you decided to port Inc helm and turn around in chase to prevent the es- cape of any of the Spanish vessels
 Hodgson writes that he suggested that the Texas was off their staiboard beam, and that there was danger oi running in- to her and getting right acioss her line of fire and that Schley replied that ''the Texas would have to look oIt for that; that 1t was imperative to get around inn mediately and by turning ts port, you would get so close to the enemy that you would expose yourself to attack from the torpedo boat that a lucky snot or two by the enemey might disable the Brook lyn, and that you did not propose to run such a risk at that stage of the battle, when it was so unnecessary and when sa much depended upon the speed of the Brooklyn"
 Hodgson writes that he then suggested backing the starboard engine, because it would shorten the circle and give the Texas a wider berth" and that Schley replied, after a pause, ''Nd because it would deaden our speed of turning. and we wish to get around as quck as possi- ble"
 Hodeson adds: T immediately perceiv- ed that your cool judgment at this try ing moment had enabled you to consider the results of your decision. and then as now. it seemed to me that you had de- cided most wisely that 1t was a strat- estcal move of the greatest importance and that the result of the battle most fully proved its wisdom
 Schley Desires Correction.
 Under date of Washington June 10 1899, Admiral Schley. disclalning any sense of annoyance from the newspaper attack savs: "Of course you did not au- thorize this, and it Is this dialogue which should he denied I have no recollection whatever of anything of the kind. and mv memory is exceedingly clear of the events of that day, for l never felt in all my life less excitement pr more steadiness of judgment, than when the Dons came out that day. When the turn was made. the Brooklyn was. inmy judg- ment within the distance of theh tactical diemeter and if it had been made to nort we should probably have passed in- to their line but having them exposed to tha uninterrupted fire of all the ships. an important in the earlier moments of the fight, the proper strategy or Dattle was to avoid interfering with that. and, as the sequel shows, we made no mis- take Cook really gave the order which I annroved. and it Is possible that your conversation was with him. but Tie Suns effort has been to promote the notion that YOU and l had controversy at the criticaI moment, and this is unjust to you and to me What l desired $ sim nIv your denial that any such c,lloquy occurred" Work Navy Yard. in answer to ths let fer Tn one, very short. Hodgson says:
 "The coloquy published in The New Work sun and alleged to have taken nlaoe between you and me on the day of inc battlo off Santiago, July 8, 1898. never occurred"
 Publication Was Garbled.
 The second letter is explanatory. Hodg- son repeats that he told The Sun report- CT that the first publication in The Sun was garbled and that when the turn was to be made I suggested the irox- imitv of the Texas and the probable ian- ger of getting mixed up with her we