The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-10-05

turned to starboard. that you said the Texas would have to look out for her. self''
 Admiral schley returns thanks for the denial furnished. adding touching the col- loQuy "Your statement that 1t never oc- cured is absolutely true"
 Next in the correspondence Is a report from Captain Chadwick to the Secretary
 of the Navy upon the inquiry he made by the direction of the department into this alleged colloquy. This has been published heretofore, including Hodgson's statement that he did not intend to convey in his note of denial sent at the request of Ad- miral Schley, the idea that no such coI- loquy took place. and that all he sought was to refute the allegation that a con- troversy existed at a critical stage of the battle.
 Under date of July {. 1899. Hodgson writes from New York to Schiey calling attention to the newspaper attacks upon his veracity on account of these publica- tions. He thinks that If these newspapers were made acquainted with the facts in the case, full and ample apologies would be made for 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 has taken place between them. He repeats that he un- derstood Schley's request for denial to be nothing else than a request for a denial of the verbal accuracy of the dialogue and so understood 1t.
 He did not think that the denial could be construed by the public as completely and absolutely refuting the entire state ment made by The Sun or he certainly would have written it in much less equivocal language.
 Captain Chadwick's Report.
 Here follows another official report by Captain Chadwick of his examination of Lieutenant Commander Heilner. This represents Heilner as discussing with Hodgson the Brooklyn loop on board that ship while the Board of Ships Position was at work. Heilner says Hodgson re- peated that he was certain that the Brooklyn was nearer the Spanish ships than 1,400 yards as reported by the board. saying. We were so close that Schley gave the order hard aport.'"
 This report by Chadwick was transmit ted by Sampson to the Navy Department, approved and forwarded"
 Next in Admiral Schley's reply to Lieu- tenant Hodgson, dated Saugatuck, July 1, 1899. declining to refer the colloQuy to publication on the ground that 1t had
  ton. One sentence he uses is in part: 'T regret extremely that there should have been any tangle in this matter in your mind. It puzzles my understanding to grasp how a colloquy which never oc- cured could be true in substance with all the facts to 1t denied. 1t is rather your recollection of what did occur, and with whom it may have occurred. which Is at fault"
 July 21, 1899. Hodgson submitted all the preceding correspondence to the Navy Department saying that by the miscon- struction placed upon his denial, his honor and integrity had been reflected upon, and in view of Admiral Schiey's declination, he asks the department to exonerate him or to permit him to take steps to that end.
 December 23 Hodgson wrote to Admiral Schiey from Newport asking for copies of three letters that he had written him concerning the colloquy or falling to grant this request, to write statement giving their substance. He desired espe- ciaily the one of June Il. accompanying the specific denial. He earnestly beg ged this assistance to protect himself from injustice. Admiral Schley's answer came from Montevideo, March 7th. He regretted that all of Hodgson's letters were left at home packed in one of several boxes and in storage so that he was unable to comply with the request and adding that he would not trust him. self to quote them.
 Admiral Schley says: T distinctly recollect in one of my letters last year to you I stated that Cook had given the order to port the helm on July 3, 1898 and l not I. This being the case. 1t was not 1 possible for any colloquy of the character | harped upon in The New York Sun to | have taken place between you and l."
 Memory Was Defective.
 The correspondence shows that Hodg- | son. in letter dated Newport. April IA. makes another appeal and incidentally | disclaims the slightest desire to even to | attempt to establish the fact that Ad- miral Schley gave the order to port the | helm of the Brooklyn or that there was any controversy on the bridge. Admiral November 20, decline to quote from the contents of the letters hold Ing that Hodgson's memory was at fault and not his veracity.
 In a letter of January g, Hodgson trans mits all of the correspondence before that late to the Navy Department, asking that It be filed and saying. Tt Is possible that Admiral Schley misunderstands the | nature of my request. though 1t would | SeeH SOD UT elSS tS tO | do a simple act of justice"
 Secretary Long's reply states that, in | view of Hodgson's purpose to renew his | upon Admiral SchIey for the I etters when the Admiral returns to the | United States the Department deemed 1t | to take any action in the | natter. August IS, 1901, Admiral Schley | having returned to the United States Iodgson wrote him a letter. of which he'd VI ng for the letters and this last request brought a letter from the Admiral dated in which he says he Is will ng to allow any friend of Hodgson's to opy the letters.
 The end of the chapter was the ap- ,earance at Admiral Schley's hotel, of dajor Hodgson. a brother of Lieutenant Iodgson, who copied the letters and turn 1 d them over to his brother, who filed hem with the Department. August 18th. 901