The San Francisco call., 1901-10-29

time of the arrival of the flying squadron of
| Cienfuegos' and both sides f1nally settled on
| fourteen hours instead of thirty-one.
| Lemly then reiterated his question on a basis
| of fourteen hours.
The only reason give" said the wit
| ness. lis that she stood directly across from
current would not be as strong as it was
on shore. Then, probably, she may have
steamed out of the current after she got
around
! Raynor called attention to the fact that the
precept does not require any question concern
ing the movements of the squadron from Key
| West to Cienfuegos, but Captain Lemly and
hanna contended that inquiry in this line is
1nc4aed IN the precepts instructions to in
/ In presenting his objection Raynor spoke of
the charges against Admiral Schley," but
captain Lemly replied that there were no
The court retired to consider Raynor's sug-
gestion and when its members had returned
Admiral Dewey announced that the question
| was In compliance with it's decision of this
| morning. coming between the dates of the 18th
or May and the 1st of June.
Captain Lemly then began a line of inquiry
| TO develop the fact concerning the alleged de-
lays en- route to Cienfuegos. beginning with
the interview between Admiral Schley and Cap
| tain Chester of the Cincinnati. In connection
with this incident Admiral Schley repeated that
cause he did not feel that he had right to
take a. ship from where she had been placed
by the commander in chief
When did you first acquire the belief that
the Spanish fleet was at Cienfuegos?'' asked
! the judge advocate.
That question is difficult to answer but 1
! think | became reasonably certain that the
| fleet was there after hearing the gun firing on
| the afternoon preceding my arrival and after
KINGSTON
Was there anything in dispatches No. or
NO to indicate that the Spaniards were at
Cienfuesos?" :,
There not"
tain whether the Spanish fleet was there?"
Il made distinct effort on May % by allow
! ing the Adula to go in"
You regard that as the best effort that could
| have been nader"
II do; inasmuch she was to come ont the
The witness was then questioned as to the
| orders he received by the Hawk. He remem-
bered dispatch No. distinctly.
not proceed to santia<o?''
hs Simply because .,t the order was conditional;
| at CtenfueEos l was directed to proceed to
| Santiago"
schley's Letter to Sampson.
Captain Lemly called Admiral schley's at
tenton to his letter to Admiral Sampson dated
off Cienfuegos. May %, and 5sading:
state that 1 am by no means satisfied that
the the Spanish SQUADRON is not at Cienfuegos.
! The large amount of smoke seen In the harbor
would indicate the presence Of a number of
vessels and under such circumstances it would
seem to 3, be extremely unwise to chase up a
] Havana and no doubt as ruse-
Does that contain all your reasons for not
| proceeding when you received this last dis
| patch from Admiral Sampson?'
Yes. I may have had other reasons but
| do not recall them"
The judge advocate asked the witness as to
! why he questioned the crediblity of some of
the reports concerning the location of the Span
| ish fleet which came from Admiral Sampson.
He read Admiral Schleys statement saying :
I'VE ought to be careful how We receive in
| formation from Havana"
He wanted to know why the admiral was
shy about taking information from Havana
| when he would accept information brought by
the Adula from Kingston
"On account of the implied doubt in the
| mind of the commander in chief as shown
| by the language of his dispatch
Referring to Lieutenant Hoods memorandum
Admiral Schley said that for one thing he
should have been glad to- know that Santiago
and Cienfuegos were mined He did not think