The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1901-10-22

Bearing During inc engagements
His Conduct on the Killing of Ellis
Given as an Instance-The Signals
Between the Brooklyn and the Other
Vessels During the Battle of Santiago
Washington, October 16.-The officers
of Admiral Schley's flagship, the Brook
Ign, occupied the attention Of the Sch1ey
court of inquiry for the entire day.
The proceedings began with the recall
Of Captain Cook and Lieutenant Com
mander Sears, both of whom made ma
terial additions to their former testi-
mony, and they were followed in Sue
cession by Commander Mason, who was
executive officer of the Brooklyn; Lieu
tenan Edward McCauley Jr., who was
signal officer, and Lieutenant Charles
Webster, who had charge of the for
ward battery Of the Brooklyn during
the battle OF Santiago and was a watch
officer on board that ship.
Captain Cooks new testimony related
to the ~uncOupling of the BrookIyn's en-
gines and to the voyage of the flying
squadron from Cienfuegos to Santiago,
explaining in some detail the cause of
the slow progress made on that occa-
sion.
Commander Sears spoke again of the
conversation reported as having taken
place between himself and officers of
the Massachusetts, in the wardroom of
that vessel on May 31st. in which he
was alleged to have said that it had
been difficult to get Commodore Schley
up to the point of undertaking the bonn
bardment of the Colon, and he again
denied that he had said anything re-
fecting upon his superior officer.
Commander Mason and L~ieutenants
McCauley and Webster all gave &C
counts of the engagement of July Bird.
MI. McCauley recited in detail the sig
nails made in connection with that his
torical event at the instance of Com
mOdOTe Schley. When asked if Com
modOTe SChley had said anything dur
ing the battle for the encouragement of
the men this witness replied that he
several times had sal Give 'em hell,
IbulliesI"
All these witnesses testified that the
conduct of the commodore when under
fire was DOL and
While Captain Cook occupied the wit
ness stand for the purpose of correcting
his testimony, Mr.. Hanna asked MIN:
referring to your statement in egard
to the steam required to be kept UP In
connection with the uncoupling of the
BTOoklyn's engines. that it was the or
der of the commander-in-chief, while
lying off Santiago on the blockade.
Was that a written Order?"
Nj recollection is that it was a bull
letin. The exact words 1 do not re-
member"
THE particular point was with re-
spect to the u~ncOupling of the engines.
Was there anything in that order on
this subject and in pursuance of which
that was n
1T Jay impression that there was
TheySSal. as / understand it, had their
engines u~ncOupled."
Captain Cook was also questioned
again concerning the voyage of the fly
ing squadron from Cienfuegos to Santi-
ago, as follows:
Ibid the flying squadron, When pro-
ceeding from C~ienfuegOS TO Santiago
proceed with all dispatch?'
Throwing out of consideration the
surrounding circumstances and condi-
tions that nave already been testified
to / should say no.
Fir. Rayner: But putting in the sur
rounding circumstances and conditions
you would say yes would you not?"
Yes"
What do you mean by the surround
ing circumstances and conditions?
Il mean that as / understand the
question. We could have gone from
Cienfuegos to Santiago and arrived the
next day after we left Cienfuegos with
some if not all of the larger vessels
''Wha were the circumstances ahC
conditions you speak Of"
THE coaling conditions that existed
at the time"
SEARS C~ORRECTES HIS TESTING
NY.
Lieutenant Commander Sears also
made a correction in his testimony fol
the purpose of explaining the DISPOSE
ton of the GOLFERS at night while Com
modore Schley was in charge OF tht
blockade of Santiago. He said these
vessels had been sent a distance on
each night and every night IN dlfferen
directions on account of the rear o.
torpedo attacks.
The judge advocate then asked th'
following questions.
I'm regard to the conversation in tn
wardroom of the Massachusetts, as al
legged on May 31st. in order to refresi
your emo in regard to that matteI
YOU are informed that Lieutenan
Potts. Lieutenant Grant, Lieutenan
Glennon and Major Wood are supposed
" nave bCCh- PANSSAS NA~
in that conversation"
Il do not recollect it at all. 1t coul'
not be possible I said such a thing
They nave misunderstood I said
I was irritated at the delay. In tn
wardroom talk something may haV
peer construed in that way, as state
ments often are, but it is entirely i'm
possible that I could have said that.
was impatient, excited perhaps, 1t be
ing my first engagement, and 1 Nigh
have been misunderstood, but that re
mark I never made"
What do you mean by irritated a
the delay?''
Delay of not going immediatel
into this work"
Explain what you mean by 'immedi
ately.'"
"As L recall I was irritated at Cap
tain Higginson's request to delay tn
reconnaissance until after h men
dinner. / remember that very Well
QUESTIONED BY THE COURT.
The court questioned Commando