Evening star., 1901-11-06

And I saw your eyes becoming watery. AS
l heard that story l not only thought of
Lieut. Simpson, who was telling it, not
only Of the Simpson of today, but of the
dead Simpson Of the past. But what is the
use of discussing such testimony. The teS-
tlmony itself carries conviction. Any man
knows what the Brooklyn dill that day, if
he has heard this testimony. The man in
the far distance, who had that pail of
smoke between them and the Brooklyn
came here to make suggestions derogatory
Of those who had that vessel in charge
With the rest of the battle We have little
or concern.
There are two questions that concern
u.s. One is the authorization of that log.
Why they should say anything about that
passes my comprehension? The officer of
the deck came here and told how that au-
thoriZation occurred and his statement was
clinched when the man who wrote the log
, and made the alteration came here and
showed copy of the log as first written.
That shows conclusively that what Adj
miral Schley has sworn to. what the cfflcer
of the deck swore to, what Hodgson swore
to on that day, that they could see the
enemy heading for them, was true. They
had better opportunities to judge than had
Captain Taylor or anybody else five miles
away, and they gave orders in accordance
with the idea that there was some immi-
Tent danger of being rammed and good
officers have come here and sworn of the
movement of the enemy's ships to indicate
the intention of ramming. If We could have
it in evidence it could be shown that that
absolutely the effort of the part of
the Spanish commanders l believe Admiral
Schley has sworn that one Spanish captain
told him that that was their purpose.
The Alleged Colloquy as to the Loop.
Now we come to this question of Mr..
Hodgson, and l really feel ashamed to say
a word to the court about that. l cannot
tell what Hodgson intended in this matter.
L believe what Admiral Schley said about
il is true; that is, that Hodgson meant to
tell the truth, but he has constantly given
out contradictory statements about that
colloquy about which SO much has been
said And the last statement is the same as
the one he made before Chadwick"
Captain Parker then quoted Hodgsons
statement, which he had made to Captain
Chadwick before his correspondence with
Admiral Schley, and compared 1t with the
statement he made on the stand before the
court of inquiry.
I'VE know from what we know of COM
modores and from what we know of Com
modore Schley that a colloquy never could
have occurred between the commodore and
Hodgson. because, if it had, Hodgson would
have gone down off that bridge"
Captain Parker then took up the testi-
mony of Captain Evans of the Iowa and
said that from his published statement one
other ship than his present on that day.
1T was he who shot the stern off
boat and the bow off another" continued
Capt. Parker. and put his helm to star
board and raked another. You would have
supposed that he sunk every one of those
ships.
Danger of Collision.
There was danger of a collision. We
have Capt. Clark's own statement that
there was danger of a collision. We have
the statement of the captain of the Iowa,
which 1 propose to read to the court"
Capt. Parker read this statement, which
concluded: 81 did not see the Brooklyn
again until my attention was called by the
captain: Look out. captainv
For what?" added Capt. Parker. you
would suppose the Brooklyn. But, he says:
Look out for the Texas And them read
ing from the testimony again, Where is
the Texas%"
Capt. Parker said he was inclined to be-
lieVe that there were some other words used
also by this witness In the actual occur
renee. Then he read again from the testi-
mony: Il said Capt. Philip will look out
for the Texas" Capt. Parker said that the
only way he could explain Hodgson's posi-
tion in the matter was that he per-
meated with the idea that it was the Iowa.
and he had come to think 1t was the Brook
lyn, and that was the foundation for the
story. and that was all there was in it.
Now We come to the general character
and conduct of Admiral Schley. as set forth
in the first specification, and 1 say We can
appeal with confidence for the court to give
us a judgment on that specification. There
Is not an officer, there is not a man, there
Is not a circumstance in which all the way
through he does not seem to be the con-
trolling power and influence. No one can
read the story of that battle without see
ing that this is SO. And this Is SO with the
exception of one man named Potts, who
contradicts his own testimony and who has
had the courage to come here and sugges;
one word derogatory of. Admiral Schley.
Every one knows, the country knows, what
the character of Admiral Schley has been;
that hts devotion to duty has always been
his guiding principle, and I think we
safely appeal to you and repeat what the
admiral said in the conclusion of his tes-
timony of the officers and men under his
command that all officers and men fulfilled
in the very highest and very noblest de-
gree the traditions Of the American navy.
Mr.. President. have DONE"