The age-herald., 1901-10-29

of the guns in the direction of Cienfuegos.
 The log mentions only two guns" said the admiral T heard more."
 The Judge Advocate then reverted to the confidential orders received from Ad- miral Sampson and called the witness attention to article 269 for a comm ander or squadron to communicate his secret instructions to the captains under him.
 T regard the instance as confdentiaP' said the admiral
 The witness was then closely question: ed about the time of the receipt of the Dear Schley" letter which the admiral declared was received May g according to his best recollection.
 But in your letter you say that this letter came to you on the 23rd and com fused the situation.
 That is a fact
 But 1t came on the 22nd.
 As l have related before I wrote the communication to the Senate from mem- oIy. The point was that at that time had not received order No. 8.
 Signals at cenfuegos.
 The judge advocate then called the at- tention of the witness to his statement that when he saw the signals at Cienfue- sos he did not understand them, and asked why he made the statement.
 Because Admiral Sampson had stated to me unqualifiedly that as he got the situation better in hand he would advise me-"
 When did the Iowa arrive at cienfue- gos?" asked Captain Lemly.
 On the 22d, some time in the afternoon, I think"
 Captain Lemly then stated that the Iowa left Key West May 20 and gained In her trip about thirty-one hours on the squadron. He asked the witness how he accounted for this
 The only reason can give" said the witness, Ifs that she stood directly across from Key West to Havana, also that in shore the current would be as strong as 1t was off shore. Then probably she may have steamed out of the current after she got around"
 MT. Rayner called attention to the fact that the precept does not raise any ques- tion concerning the movement of the squadron from Key West to Clenfuegos. But Captain Lemly and MT. Hanna con- tended that inquiry in this line is includ- ed in the precept's instruction to investi- gate Admiral Schley's conduct generally. In presenting his objection, MT. Rayner spoke of the "charges against Admiral Schley," but Captain Lemly replied that there was no Charges"
 The court retired to consider Mir. Ray ner's suggestion, and when its members returned, Admiral Dewey announced it's decision as follows:
 'The court Is of the opinion that this question is in compliance with its de- cision of this morning, coming between the dates of May 19 and June 1. The court is also of the opinion that this witness is better qualified to give reasons than any other witness If it Is true that there was. delay in that trip rom Key West to Cienfuegos, the witness on the stand fC hatt ta-I tlaav. any one else. So briefly this is renewal of the discussion of this morning."
 Delays to cienfueeos.
 Captain Lemly then began a line of inquiry to develop the facts concerning the alleged delays enroute to Cienfuegos beginning with the interview between Admiral Schley and Captain Chester of the Cincinnati In connection with this incident Admiral Schley repeated that he had declined to take the Cincinnati along. because he did not feel that he had a right to take a ship from where she had been placed by the commander in-chief.
 Admiral Schley, answering a question as to coaling, said he felt that there would be greater difficulty in coaling off Santiago than there was at Cienfuegos.
 You anticipated difficulty, then, In coaling at Santiago?''
 .OndoubteGly. In June we coaieu con siderably there, but on one occasion we cast off after coaling for an hour or so. As our experience increased we got on better, and Furthermore, the later colliers were better arranged than the former. After our arrival at Cinfuegos on the 27th and 2Sth some vessels coaled also on the 31st, but do not recall about the 29th and 30th."
 In reply to questions, Admiral Schley said that he had asked for colliers with the intention of coaling a ship or two at a time off the Gonaives Bay coast out side the marine limit.
 Captain Lemly-Then you could coal at Gonaives?
 That is a mere play upon words be- tween tine port and the coast. '" The admiral further said that he had said nothing in his dispatch of May 29 about taking one vessel at a time to Hati for coal That goes without saying, be- cause when one is blockading port, he could not entirely abandon it and take all his ships away to coal them at one time Evidently one vessel would have been taken away at time for coaling purposes" Then, at o'clock, the court adjourned.