The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1901-10-08
SCALEY INQUIRY COURT.
CAPT. FOLGER, WHO COMMAN DED
THE NEW ORLEANS, TESTIFIES.

tobol Colon Was EN- In emily Successful
in Developing Strength of Spanish
Batteries.
Washington, Oct. Lieutenant Com
mander Hodgson again occupied the
greater part of the Schley court of in
quiry to-day. He was followed on the
stand by Captain M. w. Folger, former
ly chief Of the bureau of ordnance OF
the navy department but commander
of the New Orleans during the Spanish
war. Lieutenant Dyson also was re-
called to add some details to his former
testimony concerning the coal supply
of the American fleet during the San
tiago blockade
Commander Hodgson extended and
repeated his story of the battle of July
3, giving the opinion that Commodore
Schley's conduct on that occasion was
such as that Of commander-in-c chief
should be-" He also explained at some
length his correspondence with Admiral
Schley concerning the alleged colloquy
between them while the Santiago en-
gagement was in progress. He said he
had no controversy with the commodore
at the time, but he repeated that the
commodore said Damn the Texas"
when told that that vessel was in dan
ger.
Captain Folger said that the bonn
bardment of the Cristobal Colon on
May 81 had been eminently successful
In developing the strength of the Span
fish shore batteries and had shown them
to be very weak. He also said that If
the Spanish vessels had attempted to
escape at night they could not have
been seen by the blockading fleet in bad
.wea Their.
FOlSer's Testimony In Detail.
Captain w. M Folger, who command
ed the cruiser New Orleans during the
Spanish war, detailed his part in the
campaign, beginning with the New Or
leans arrival at Santiago, as the con-
voy Of the collier Sterling. He also re-
later how, on May 81, the New Orleans
had participated in the bombardment
Of the Cristobal Colon, then lying in the
mouth of Santiago harbor. He said
that the shots of the New Orleans on
that day had been fired at range Of
from 5000 to 10000 yards and that all
had fallen short.
what damage was done to the en-
envy on that occasion?" asked Captain
Lemly.
IT don't think there was any," re-
pIied the witness.
''Was there any further effort to cap
ture of destroy the Colon?"
mot to my knowledge
Were all the vessels available en-
gagged in that action?"
mo; the Texas and the Brooklyn
were in the rear?'
WAS the fire of the enemy's batter
les heavy enough to seriously endanger |
the attacking ships?'
II do not so consider"
what was developed as to the shore
batteries?"
..That they had not strength enough
10 do any material damage.
Captain Lemly asked in regard to
he developments concerning the bonn
parchment of June IA, but Mr.. Rayner
,biected. The court ruled that the
question was admissible, a similar
question by Admiral Schley's counsel
having been admitted on former &C.
"a sion. I'VE cannot blow hot one time
Ind blow cold the next" said Admiral
Dewey in admitting the question.
Replying to the question Captain Fol-
,er said that the occurrence had failed
o develop that the batteries had any
Material strength as a single vessel had
ilenced them.
Recurring to the bombardment of
Iay 81, Captain Folger expressed the
pinion that the shots which had fallen
lear the fleet on that date were from
spanish ships in the harbor, fired over
he hill and not from the shore bat
cries. For this reason he had directed
IL the New Orleans fire on that &C.
aston at the Colon instead of at the
and batteries. 4
Describing the blockade of Santiago
arbor maintained by Commodore
chley, the witness said that the dis
ance out was from five to eight miles
nd that at night the vessels steamed
/ column back and across the harbor, !
omewhat nearer in. He added that
ven though the log Of the New Orleans
ad placed the vessels nearer the shore
e would not change his opinion. He
i'd not believe the vessels were more
IAN four miles from the Moro on May
Mr.. Rayner asked-"What do you
now about the strength of the bat !.
,ries, the number Of batteries or the
.rength of the guns before the recon-
distance on May 31st? What actual !.
nowledge did you have?"
The witness replied-"I had no knowl- ',
lge whatever before the reconnois-
lnce." =
Then on May 81 when this recon- :,
distance or bombardment took place
far as you were concerned, you were y
in ignorance of the number
the batteries or the strength of the |
lns?"
prior to the fire by the batteries I n
I'd no knowledge" f.
what knowledge did you acquire as o
e result of that reconnaissance or I,
2" O,
by the number of shots that were a.
ed, by the character of the discharge, 2,
e smoke, ETC., as indicating the cali
e of the guns; by the fall of the pro- ~
cities, the amount of water they
ould throw up, and the evident direc- +,
IN of the fall as indicating whether n
e projectiles were moving with great
locity or slow Tn that way iu6pe6