Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1901-10-22

The witness replied that as soon as
general quarters sounded he relieved
Machinist Hill. He stated in reply to
a question by Captain Lemly that
Claxton, who had testified that he was
at the port engine on that day and that
the engine was reversed, that Claxton
was stationed at the air pumps. back
OF the engine. Hanley says he kept his
hand on the throttle of the engine most
OF the time and did not think,it pos
sible that the signal to stop or back
could have been given without his
knowledge. Captain Lemly asked the
witness If he had teen on the Texas
when the vessel ran aground at New
port
Mr.. Rayner objected to this line of
examination.
Captain Lemly said that he desired
TO show that the witness had mis,in-
derstood signals then with disastrous
results and il was possible he might
have been mistaken on the day OF the
battle. After a short argument the
court decided that the question was not
admissible.
Lieutenant B. w. Wells. Jr.. who
was on the stand when court adjourn
ed Friday. was then recalled and tes-
titled regarding the battle of July 3.
lie said he did not remember the
ranges at which the Brooklyn fred
but thought l.i00 yards was the short
est He described the turn of the
Brooklyn and the chase after the
Spanish ships. When the Viseaya ran
ashore the Colon was about 10000
yards ahead of the Brooklyn and for
time firing ceased. He said that he
had received orders to get up guam
tity of rapid fire ammunition. Owing
to the character of the coast IL was ex-
pected that the Brooklyn and the Col
on would come to close quarters. He
was ordered to have this ammunition
ready to close with Colon and give her
rapid fire when they got close togeth-
err. He then described the rest of the
chase and the final surrender of the
Colon. He said he had not seen the
Texas when the Brooklyn made her
turn. At one time during the battle.
he said the Brooklyn seemed to be
alone, engaging three ships.
When Lieutenant Wells had finished
his description of the battle the ques-
ton OF dispatches we're taken up.
Mr.. Rayner-"Am | right in saying
that you perhaps saw more or as much
of Commodore Sehley during the
whole OF this Spanish war as any one
else and came in contact with him as
much as anybody"
II saw MIN daily and all through
each day, generally speaking"
did you see him during the time
of the reconnaissance on May 31?'
Eyes SIR"
did you see him frequently during
the day of the battle of July 80"
mo sir, ! only saw him during the
chase of the Colon"
did you see him during any of the
commandments?
u saw him during one Of them.
Exactly which one | cannot distinctly
recollect."
What was his general bearing.
conduct and manner on any day in
wnich there was a battle or any other
time?"
so far as my observation went he
was thoroughly fearless and self-pos-
sessed on all occasions"
Was he at any time within your
knowledge laboring under any mental
excitement"
mo sir"
When the court met at o'clock Mr..
Hanna continued his examination of
Lieutenant Wells.
How do you account specifically
for the absence of the receiving stamp
imprint on the duplicate Dear Schley
Dispatcher" he asked.
1T is possible that / jotted down
that note on them when they were
handed to me. OF course, it was the
custom to put the receiving stamp on
letters generally"
Can 1t be possible that the Commo-
dore retained them for some timer
ut is possible, but not probable. He
sometimes held dispatches in the cab
in for time but he generally sent
them down as soon as received"
In reply to questions the witness
said that he remembered absolutely
nothing whatever about the receipt OF
dispatch No. from Admiral Sampson
to Commodore Schley saying that the
Spanish fleet was probably at Santa
go, except Wudt was ltNtdtCu ny thc
receiving stamp endorsements. He
said that on this dispatch as on the
Dear Schley letter" there had at first
been an endorsement showing its re-
ceipt on May "a. and subsequently an-
ofher written over the first indicating
its receipt on the 23rd of that month.
Your pencil marks then cannot be
taken as very clear indication as to
when these papers were received
questioned Mr.. Hanna. but the witness
replied that they could be, saying:
Generally. I should say yes. do
not intend to be infallible on that sub
jeck"
But the Dear Schley" letter you
say would seem to have been received
on the 22nd of May"
Eyes sir"
$50 that although actually received
on the 22nd ii bore the endorsement
of "23rd'' and oath.
"One bore date 's23rd" and another
bore a date "24th' as recollect"
WILL GIVE AN ORGAN.