The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-10-06

Texas and the probable danger Of getting
mixed up with her II we turned TO star
board; that you said the Texas would nave
Admiral Schley returns thanks for the
denial furnished. adding touching the col
Ioquy; Your statement that 1t never oc-
Cured Is absolutely true"
Next IN the correspondence is q report
from Captain Chadwick TO the secretary Of
the navy on the inquiry he made by the
direction OF the department into this al
legged collOquy. This has been published
heretofore. including Hodgson's statement
That ne did not intend TO convey in his
note of denial sent at the request Of Adj
miral Schley, the idea that no such colo
guy took place. and that all he sought was
10 refute the allegation that a controversy
existed at a critical stage of the battle.
Under date Of July A. 1893. HOdgsOn
writes from New York TO Schley calling
attention TO the newspaper attack upon MS
Veractty on account OF these publications
He thinks that If these newspapers were
made acquainted with the facts in the case
fuH and ample apologies would be made
Tor their unjust and abusive TRADES.
Therefore, he asks Schley to put these
Facts before the Washington Post and New
York sun. or permit him TO publish the
correspondence that had taken place be-
tween them. He repeats that he under
stood Schleys request for a denial 10 be
nothing else than a request Tor a denial
OF the verbal ACCURACY of the dialogue, and
/ so understood It," He did not think that
the denial could be construed by the public
90 competency dnu dUEOluAtl1 ltLuAiAAo NE(
entire statement made by the Sun, or he
certainly would have -itten il in much
less equivocal language.
CHADWICKS REPORT.
Here follows another official report by
Captain Chadwick of the explanation from
Lieutenant Commander Heilner. This re-
ports Heilner as discussing with Hodgson
the Brooklyn loop on board that ship while
the board on ships position was at work.
Heilner says Hodgson repeated that he
was certain that the Brooklyn was nearer
the Spanish ships than I,4co yards, as re-
ported by the board, saying 1--WE were so
close that Schley gave the order Hard
aport.'"
This report by Chadwick was transmitted
by Sampson to the Navy Department. with
the three words of Endorsement. Approved
and forwarded"
Next in order is Admiral Schley's reply
TO HodgsOn, dated at Sa~ugatuck, July II,
1899. declining to refer to the coilOquy for
publication on the ground that it had been
made an official matter of investigation.
One sentence he uses is, in part:
Il regret extremely that there should
have been any tangle in this matter in
your mind. . " 1t puzzles my under
standing to grasp how "a coIloquy which
never occurred could be true in substance
with all the facts to il denied. > 3 . 1t is
rather your recollection OF what did occur,
and with whom ii may have occurred,
NAllCU L a. duI
on July p, 1899, Hodgson submitted all
the preceding correspondence to the Navy
Department, saying that, by the miscOn-
stEuction placed on his denial. his honor
ana integrity had been renected upon and,
in view Of Admiral Schley's declinatiOn, he
asks the department to exOnerate him or
to permit him to take steps to that end.
On Dec. 70, HOdgson wrote TO Admiral
Schley from Newport. asking for copies of
the three letters that he had written him
concerning the cOllOquy, or failing to grant
this request. TO write a statement giving
their substance. He desired especially the
one of June IL, accompanying the specific
denial. He earnestly begged this assist
ance to protect himself from injustice. Ad-
miral Schiey's answer came from Monte
video on March Z. He regretted that all
HOdgSon'S letters were left at home, packed
in ore of several boxes and in storage, so
that ne was unable to comply with the re-
quest and adding that he would not trust
himself to quote them. The admiral says:
SAYS 1T WAS COOK.
Il distinctly r~ecollect in one of my letters
last year to you L stated that Cook had
given the order TO port the helm on July 3,
1898, and not 1. This being the case, it was
not possible for any c%olloQuy of the charac-
ter harped upon in the New York Sun to
have taken place between you and l.
Cooks Acknowledgement, in his usual man.
ly way, that it was he who gave the order
at the time. which 1 heartily approve. COM
pltlely ItliTeS lnlS LldlltI lIOm any luE-
ther question or controversy"
The correspondence shows that HodgsOn,
in a letter dated at Newport, April IA,
makes another appeal and Incidentally dis
claims the slightest desire or even attempt
to establish the fact tina admiral Schley
gave the order 10 port the helm of the
Brooklyn, or that there was any cOntrO-
versy on the bridge. Admiral Schley, from
Montevideo again, on Nov. 20, declined to
quote from memory the contents of the let
tiers, holding that HOdgson's memory was
at fault and not his veracity.
In a letter of jan. 3 HOdgSon transmits
all of the correspondence before that date
to the Navy Department, asking that il be
filed. and saying: 1T is possible that Admit
my request, though il would hardly seem
so, or else is unwilling to do a simple act
of justice"
Secretary Longs reply states that. i'm
view of HodgsOn's purpose To renew his re-
quest on Admiral Schley for the letters
when the admiral returns to the United
States, the department deemed il unneces-
sary to take any action in the matter. on
Aug. Is, 1901, Admiral Schley having re-
turned to the United States, Hodgson wrote
him a letter, of which he notified the Navy
and this last request brought a letter from
the admiral. dated in Washington, in which
he says he is willing TO allow any friend Of
HOdgsOn's to copy the letters.
The end of the chapter was the appear
ance at Admiral Schley'S hotel of Major
HOdgson, a brother of Lieutenant Hodg-
son. who copied the letters and turned
them over to his brother, who filed them
with the department on Aug. &c, 1901.