The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1901-10-08

u the report
Facts Were True.
Have you anywhere denied the sub
stantial accuracy Of the facts as set
forth in the report of that colIoauy %
On the contrary, 1 have admitted
Changing the line of examination.
Nj. Hanna then asked: when the
Brooklyn turned with port helm. did
she blanket the FIRE of the Texas2''
DID she go between the Texas and the
4 don't think she did. I thought
however, she was going to do it,"
had she turned the other way, was
there space enough for her to have
made such a turn without endangering
space" -
number Of questions were then
asked by the court, as follows:
What was the distance of the
Brooklyn from the nearest Spanish yes
ser when Commodore Schley said to
captain Cook, Look out, Cooss, they're
going to ram you'2''
I should say the distance was about
z.GO0 or 200 yards"
In making the turn did the Brook
Iyn turn rapidly and continually, or
Gid she have her head longer on some
heading than on others?"
she turned rapidly and continuous
~"
Tried to Ram the Brooklyn.
Did any of the Spanish ships at
tempt to ram the Brooklyn in the early
part of the battle Of July 3?''
The Maria Teresa evidently made a
rank sheer to port toward the Brook
lyn, with the evident intention of get
tins into close quarters or ramming."
What orders were signaled by the
Brooklyn to the fleet July 3. 1882
can only say from recollection
that my orders were, Clear ship for
action and close up, or close in
Did you know OF any plan of battle
having been promulgated by Commo-
dore Schley in case of falling in with
the Spanish squadron
L do not
Commander Hodgson was then ex-
cused and Captain W. NJ. Folger, who
commanded the cruiser New Orleans
during the Spanish war, was called. He
detailed his part in the campaign. be-
ginning with the New Orleans arrival
at Santiago as the convoy of the col
lier Sterling He also related on May
81 the New Orleans had participated in
the bOmbardment of the Colon, then
lying off Santiago harbor
What damage was done to the
enemy on that occasion?" asked Cap
tain Lemly.
II don't think there was any," re-
piled the witness.
Shore Batteries Weak.
What was developed as to the shore
batteries? -
That they had not strength enough
to do any material damage"
Captain Lemly asked in regard to the
developments concerning the lombard
ment of June II. but Mr.. Raynor OBJ
jected-
The court ruled that the question was
oil IL
mlral Schley's counsel having been adj
mitted on a former occasion.
we cannot blow hot one time and
blow cold the next" said Admiral
Dewey. on admitting the question.
Replying to the last question. Cap
tain FOlger said that the reconnaiS-
sance had failed to develop that the
had any material strength as
a single vessel had silenced them
Describing the blockade of Santiago
narbor maintained by Commodore
Schley, the witness said the distance
during the day was from five to eight
miles and at night the vessels steamed
IN column back and forth across the
larbor somewhat nearer in. He added
that even though the lOk Of the New
Orleans had placed the vessels nearer
the shore, he would not change hts
position. He did not believe the yes
sells were more than four miles from
the MORO on May 81.
The court asked questions of Captain
FOlger as follows:
For what length of time was the
New Orleans able to fire at the Colon /
and the batteries on May 81 on each
-un?"
Il think it was between five and ten |
minutes"
Were you furnished any plan OF /
cattle by Commodore SchIey to be fol- /
owed in case the Spanish squadron I
should come out2''
No. sir -
Admiral Dewey-You referred to a /
signal from the flagship. The court /
would Ike to know what that signal /
vas2"
The signal was, New Orleans, clear