Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1901-10-19
- COURT OF X ~
& X INQUIRY. &
WIZ PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PAST WEEK. %S=HE"0
PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PAST WEEK.

/ sons this information was not started tc
Schley until the evening of May Il. Even
| Sampson did not communicate positive
| information on this point to Schiey, bul
instructed the latter to be sure the Span
iards were not in Cienfuegos before leaV-
| ing for Santiago.
Captain Chadwick of the New York
was recalled and questioned regarding
his protest to Sampson against sending
congratulatory dispatch to Schley, ON
the character of the blockade maintained
by the flying squadron. The previous day
Mr.. Rayner attempted to question Cap
tain Chadwick with regard to a conver-
sation the latter had with Watson regard
ing the blockade, which was at that time
commended by Captain Chadwick. The
court promptly and with some heat de-
clined to admit the question, and object
ed to further inquiry on this line.
Twenty-second Day.
CAPTAIN Cooks testimony was in favor
of Schley Cook said the flying squadron
! left Cienfuegos for Santiago as soon as it
| was learned definitely that the Spanish
| feet was not in the former place.
The retrograde movement, Cook test1-
| fed, was begun because Schley feared his
squadron would be caught with short
| coal supply. Schley turned back to San
| tiago as soon as the weather moderated
and it was possible to coal at sea.
Schley maintained a moving blockade
instead of a stationary circular block
ade-such as Sampson's said, be-
cause he wanted to have his ships under
| way and ready at a moments notice to
| engage in battle. Cook said he ordered
| the loop without instruction or suggestion
| from Schley. He stated that the Brook
| Ign passed within 400 yards of the Texas,
| but there was absolutely no danger of col
! ision. He did not hear the Hodgson-
| Schley colloquy, in which the latter is
alleged to have said, On the Texas"
When Hanna asked a theoretical ques-
| ton as to what would have happened il
| the Brooklyn had been handled different
| ly. he said, with some feeling: II know
| that what we did was entirely successful.
| If we had done something else l do not
know whether it would have been sue
cessful.'
Eyes, that's right said Dewey. 1--WE
| want facts, not conjectures."
Twenty-third Day.
Only one new witness was heard in de-
| tail by the Schley court on this day. This
was Lieutenant Commander James II.
Sears, who was Admiral Schley's flag
| lieutenant during the Spanish war. He
gave a detailed account of the entire
! Cuban campaign, including the brief siege
of Cienfuegos, the retrograde movement
of the flying squadron in the search of
coal, the blockade of Santiago, the recon
noissance Of the Santiago shore batteries
(N.sr i0o1
| Colon May 81, and the battle off San
tiago July 3, when Cervera's fleet was
| destroyed.
| He placed the distance out of the block
ade line at Cienfuegos at from one to
| four miles and at Santiago at from three
| to six miles. He expressed the opinion
| that in the battle of July 3 it had been
| the Viscaya's intention to ram the Brook
| lyn.
| Mr.. Rayner sought to secure the intro
| duction of a brief report of the battle of
| July 3, which Commodore Schley prepar-
ed for transmission to the Secretary of
| the Navy. 1t was stated that Command
er Sears had taken this dispatch ashore
| to be cabled to the Secretary, but that it
never had reached that official. The dis
| patch was ruled out on the ground that
as it was not received it was not an Off
cial communication. 1t was not read in
| the court room.
Captain Cook was recalled, and in re-
spouse to question by Captain Lemly
| made an additional statement concerning
the retrograde movement of the flying
squadron May 26 to May 2S He also
said in answer to question by the court
| that Commodore Schley during the bat
| tie of July 3 was "cool, brave and enthu-
siastic. cannot imagine any. conduct in
battle more admirable