Evening star., 1901-10-10

Lieut.. Com. VIM. H. Schuetze.
was not inside at all times, and he thought
the Marblehead came out for coal. He
knew that the Vixen came out in the day
time. On the Both the Vixen and Marble
head were from two to two and one-haf
miles inside the blockade line. At night
he could not see either vessel and did not
know how far inside the line they were.
Q. (By the judge advocate) What was de-
veloped on May 81 by the attack on the
Colon regarding the strength or weakness
of the guns of the shore batteries? A. Com
pairing them with the strength of the
squadron and with the strength of the
guns on the ships of the squadron the
batteries were weak
O. Was any instruction given you or
given within your knowledge to any person
on the New Orleans that the affair of May
81 was a reconnaissance, and that notes
should be made as to what was developed?
A. 1 had no knowledge of any such direc-
tionS. l made report as to the strength
of batteries and / know of no one else who
did
Accuracy of the Stadimeter.
Lieut. Mark l.. Bristol, once watch and
division officer on the Texas during the
Spanish war who has previously testified.
was recalled to the stand in order that he
might correct his testimony.
After making corrections he was asked
by Mr. Rayner if he knew of any official
reports that had been made to the Navy
Department in relation to the accuracy of
| the stadimeter within it's range.
He replied that he did not, and Mr.. Ray
ner said he desired to offer reports that
he had had copied and had just received
| These reports were made in 1885 He said
| that a great deal had been said about the
stadimeter and it's reliability in determining
| distances, and he thought 1t was highly
| important that these reports should be en-
| tered upon the record.
| The judge advocate after looking at the
| reports said he had no objection to having
| them offered as evidence, and Mr.. Rayner
proceeded to read them One was a report
| by Captain R. D. Evans transmitting re-
| port Of Lieutenant Wainwright Kellogg,
| navigating officer of his vessel in 1895,
| which stated that he was in constant use
| of the stadimeter and found it very; accu-
| rate, and in his opinion 1t was a necessary
| and valuable instrument and should be
| placed on every ship in the service. An
| other report on the subject offered was by
| Captain Henry Glass, when in command
| of the Cincinnati Captain Glass said that
| slant use night and day and had proved of
| the greatest value. He declared that it was
| accurate in determining distances within lis
! range.
| Q. By Mr.. Rayner)-What is its range?
| A. That would be found by getting a stadi-
| meter. / think that it's range is about 10,
! 900 yards.
| O. (By the judge MISUNDERSTANDING heard
| these reports read, reports made In 1895,
| and which appear TO be based not upon
| actual experience in action have you
| changed your views or your opinion based
| upon use of the stadmeter in action? A.
| They do not change my idea of the stadi-
meter. The stadimeter is correct in short
ranges and as I stated before becomes in
| accurate at higher ranges. 1t had never
| been tried in action before the Spanish
| war that / know of. / formed my opinion
| of the stadimeter before we used it in ac-
ton. and after very long personal use
| of II.
| He thought that whatever errors would
| be discovered in the instrument under or
| binary circumstances would be much less
| than errors in its use in the heat of battle
and when the smoke of battle is present.
| Commander Schuetze Testffes.
| Lieut. Commander VIM. II. Sehuetze now
| on duty at the bureau of equipment, Navy
| Department, and during the Spanish war
a lieutenant and navigator of the Iowa
| was the next witness. He testified that he
was a member of the board Of navigators
that had plotted the positions of vessels on
a chart after the battle of Santiago. He
said that the data on which these positions
were determined were obtained in the form
of statements of navigators of ships. This
| was the general method. He described the
| method In detail, saying that draughts-
| man had prepared a chart and navigators
| were requested to report their positions on
| this chart while engaging the Spaniards
and while chasing them to the westward
Q. By the judge advocate). What have
you to say of your having signed this re-
port, particularly in regard to the posi-.
tion of the Iowa, of which vessel you were
navigator? A. l protested against sign.
| ing the report as being inaccurate, and
was finally persuaded principally by the
senior member Of the board, Commander
| Wainwright, who argued that that was
| the best we could do in coming to an agree
ment, and 1 signed 1t. My first objection
was that the chart was Inaccurate; that
the position of the Iowa as plotted or
this chart gave her too much speed anG
in order to keep the Iowa in her proper
relative position with other ships her speed
appeared approximately to be about eigh
teen knots when she was making nine ol
ten knots actually. That is one objection
Another objection was in regard to tn,
initial position of the Brooklyn when tn,
Spaniards first left the harbor 1 con
tended that this initial position was to.
close to the mouth of the harbor We wsr,
not in our regular position and she wa
south of 1t. l base that opinion on tn,
fact that when first discovered the Span
iards coming out of the harbor l looket
over towards the other ships on our lef
and the Brooklyn was very nearly abean
|