The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-10-31

were coming for them. and his response to go for them, except some remark about the proximity of the Texas. He did not now recall, and he never had been able to recall colloguy. The witness
 stated that he would still say that he had desired tr set Hodgson light as
 well as himself but he had done noth- ing in the direction because the depart
 ment ordered an investigation. Schley is Excused. At 2:3f D. m., Captoin i,emlsy concluded his cross-examinatfon which had teen | session of Monday. Captain Lemlcy said: I have no further questions" He turned to Mir. Raynor who said: We have not a single question: The court has a few" said Admiral Dewey.
 Telegram in Evidence. At the conclusion of the cross exami- telegram sent by Admiral SchIey to the Department June 10 saying in substance | that he did rot desire to assume entire credit for the victory of July and that l the victory belonged to the fleet under command of Admiral Sampson. In reply to a question from Captain Parker he said he had taken the dispatch to Admiral Sampson, who stated that he was very glad that l had sent 1t and thought it was very generous" The questions of the court. with Admi-
 ral Schley's answers. were as follows: While of Cienfuegos, was there any reason why you could siot send a boat | inshorc to obtain information about Ger vera's squadron from the fishermen or l other persons who could be communicat-
 There were no fishermen that I dis
 covered anywhere along that coast. l | saw none. I saw no boats" | Had Admiral Cervera left Santiago for
 some point to the westward at the same | time you left Cienfuegos could not his squadron have passed between your
 ships and the shore without being seen
 by your
 "If that had been night. probably yes.
 In the day time, I think not | What was your reason for going over
 twenty miles to the southward of Santi- | ago instead of near the harbor's mouth | May 26th?'
 Because I laid the course for that point | supposng that if the squadron were still out or had got out co-incident with my l leaving they woulI run 50 he southwacj
 and it was with the view of giving me 1 larger horizon"
 Was it not possible for your suua iron | to blockade Santiago on May 26 for a few days and still have coal enough to run to Key West?"
 "Yes. if I had known then, as I knew subsequently,. that the fleet was there.' Did not the order under which you | were acting require you to remain off Santiago?'
 "Possitly. yes; but do not think that
 
 | discretion in the matter" Was not the situation at Santiago May | 26 such as to warrant you in taking con
 siderable risk in coaling the ships of
 'O Inc Risk Was Great.
 II think that the risks would have been | very great, would have been too great in
 my Judgment. We probably would have l lost the collier ana under the circum- | stances of my information there l felt | that ought to | Did not Captain Cotton inform you | that the Harvard had coaled at Mole St. Nicholas and that one large ship at 4
 time could coal there in ordinary wealth 1 er?' | No, do not recall that. do nor re- member that he said anything about
 coaling at Mole St. Nicholas. His infor-
 nation to me referred mainlyI-to small vessels, as l recollect it. Were the injuries to the Merrimac's engines as reported 10 you of such | character as to convince you that she
 was hopelesslv dsaoled"' r Yes"
 What was your object in seeking to develop the batteries May 2? | Simply to be able to know what was | in front of us l thought we ought to | know that in view of the possibility of
 our having to be obliged to force the en- l trance."|
 Did you not risk having some Of the
 vessels of your squadron injured in mak-
 ing the attack or May 31 | T thought that was remote at the
 range I had chosen" | You, have stated that you considered | the movement to the westward on May
 26 as basel on sourd military prIncipIe.
 Why, then. did, you go back off santi-
 For the reason as stated that after l the steaming radius of the snips had be, ,a | equaliZed the time consumed in going
 back would be very little and that 1T 1t
 eventuated in the fact that the Spanish
 squadron was noe there, we would not | have lost any very great time"
 Please point out the particular parts l of the Departments order of May %
 which you regarded as ambiguous" The Ambiguous sentence. Reads: ''All of the Departments in | formation indicates Spanish division is | still at Santiago. "Ihe following para graph indicates that there was doubt of | the fact. They required me to ascertain or suggested that l ascertain that. Then. again, (reading) The Cuoans who are familiar with Santiago, say that there
 are landing places five or six nautical miles west That location was at this time, according to the Information subse- quently received. occupied by Spaniards. Again (readingl, As soon as ascertained notify the Department whether enemy Is there. Those were the main things that occurred to me as being ambiguous.
 What reason have you for supposing that the spanish squadron would run south after leaving Santiago! Simply because if would have been the direction in which they could have | hidden themselves sooner" "Why did the Brooklyn and the Mas
 sachusetts leave Key West on May Q | short of coal?'
 Because of the order of the command | CT in chief"
 What effort did you make at or near | Cienfuegos before the arrival of the | Adula to discover whether or not Ad-
 miral Cerveras squadron was in that l port?'
 "l did not make any because i was led to infer that the coast was occupied and that to have sent in party would have brought disaster to them. l knew of the cable cutting expedition. and knew that Captain McCalla had lost quite number of men and l supposed
 that the coast was occupied. saw evidence once or twice."
 There Was No Scout. -. Did any of your light vessels scout between the flying squadron and the south coast of Cuba with the view of discovering the Spanish squadron in the event of its having left Santiago for | Cienfuegos"'
 No"
 Did you consider Captain Sigsbee's re- D )rt that he had not seen the Spanish sq :adron and the pilots (Nunez) state
 mtnt that the Spanish ships were too prCCf that the information given to you by Captain McCaua on May A that the Spanish fierce under Cervera had been reported. authoritatively in Santiago on May 1S and that they were still reported there on the afternoon of May 21' was errOneCuSy
 T do not recolect that he gave We at all.
 "If you were governed in making the