The Washington times., 1901-10-03

had been developed from this attack or
| Reconnaissance" as Admiral Schiey caL-
| ed II In his report, except that there were
| batteries at Santiago
And you found out the strength of
| your guns?'
did Commodore Schley state in your
presence and Lieutenant Harlow,s that
the purpose was to develop the strength
of these batteries?'
Il really don't remember, sir. wish
| could"
Eject of the Changes.
After recess Mr. Sharp was questioned
further as to discrepancies in the Harlow
notes. and explained thapfthe effect of
the changes in the Brooklyn pamphlet
was to place the Brooklyn farther forward
with reference to the enemy ships than
the original copy did. nBfn
Captain Parker. taking Nh Sharp for
cross-examination, pointed opt some err
rors in tie original Harlow notes, for ex-
ample, the mention of the Massachusetts
in the fight. the Massachusetts not hav-
ing been in the engagement. and asked
if the witness did not know that these
differences between the tnutes on the log
of the Vixen and those printed on the
Brooklyn were due to changes, made BY
Lieutenant Harlow before delivering
transcript of the notes t9; Commodore
Schley
No: don't think 1 know that said
the witness ---f r-=
Captain Parker read from the log of
the Vixen to show that at 1l:42 the
Brooklyn was one point on the starboard
how of the Vixen. distant about three
miles, and the witness said this coincided
with the notes as printed on fhe Brook
lyn. but thought II was an error
'Yca can hardly remember whether the
Brooklyn was on the starboard or the
port bow" said Captain Parker.
My Impression is that she was on the
during r1U In he
westward, and the Oregon was on the
starboard bow. | endsavored to keep the
Vixen between the two ships
Mr.. Rayner asked the witness If he
didn't remember saying TO Commodore
Schley Commodore Schley, these are the
true notes of the fight and will stand
No, sir; / don't remember it," Mr..
Sharp answered.
Then came a question that created a
rustic in the court room and caused court
and spectators to lean forward instantly.
DO you remember. said Mr.. Rayner,
more slowly and impressively than usual.
that either on the LIST or I'd of July you
were called alongside the Brooklyn and
by megaphone message from Lieutenant
Sears. speaking for Commodore Schley,
directed to go 20 the New York and re-
port to Admiral Sampson that Commo-
dore Schley had observed suspicious
movements of smoke in the harbor in
entrance. and that Commodore Schley
thought the enemy was preparing to come
out; that you did go to the New York
and report to Admiral Sampson as d.
rected and that by Admiral Sampson you
were ordered to go to each vessel on the
blockade and repeat Commodore Schley
message, with an additional order from
Admiral Sampson directing the ships to
close in and keep sharp lookout; that
you performed the duty and so reported
later the same day that you had done as
directed?
Did Not Remember.
To this long question Mr.. Sharp said
with emphasis: Il have no remembrance
of the occurrence.
Then you are not in a position today
to say that it did not take place." per-
sisted Mr.. Rayner.
Il am not in a position today to say
that it did not take place" repeated the
witness.
The Court asked the witness a number
of questions, which, with the answers,
follow:
Q.-Are the positions of the Brooklyn
and the oregon, relative to the Vixen.
during the battle of July 3. taken from
Lieutenant Harlow's notes or from your
personal observations?
A.-They are from my recollection.
Q.-During the attack on the Colon on
Nav 81 could you see If the shots from
the squadron struck ear%he enemy?
Al could not, because the entrance TO
the harbor was not open TO me while the
vessels ahead were forming
Q.-What conversation II any. mad You
with Commodore Schiey relative to the
object OF the bombardment of May 81
while you were taking him to the Massa-
chusetts?
A.-The only onversatioD remember
was that relative TO what should become
of the Vixen, after the commodore had
left.
Q.-How near were the Spanish vessels
to the Brooklyn at the time you saw her
turn TO the southwark on July 80
Al cannot give the distance.
Q.-What signals. if any, we.+ made
by the Brooklyn from the beginning to
the end of the battle of July 3?
A-The only signal I recoliect was the
one that the enemy was seeking TO escape
Q-At the time the Brooklyn made the
turn you have referred to, how near to
her was the nearest vessel of the enemy?
Al cannot say, with any deiiniteness.
Mr.. Rayner-I see, from the notes, that
the New York admiral SIMPSONS YES
sell came in about an hour and ffteen
minutes after the Colon had surrendered
Is that right2
Mr.. Sharp-Yes, if these notes are cor
Captain sigsbee having been called to
make corrections in his testimony of yes
terday, was further interrogated by the
Court regarding the conference of officers
of the squadron.
Lieutcnnnt Doyle Called.
Great interest was manifested in the
court room when the name of Lieut..
James X G. Doyle was called. He was
the first officer of the Brooklyn to be
placed on the stand by thef3udge advo-
cate and his testimony did not disappoint
those who expected TO hear something
interesting.
Lieutenant Doyle said he had served as
a watch and division officer on board the
Brooklyn and related incidents connected
with the fight of July g. He mad charge
of the two waist turrets, port and star
board AT first he was in the port tur-
ret and had an opportunity of observing
what took place.
Odd you hear orders given to the
man at the helm?
Q.-What did you observe?
Awhile in the port turret we had an
opportunity of firing at the Spanish ships
with our guns trained well forward. The
Spanish ships were then little off our
port bow Our ship turned with the star
board helm and we lost sight of them
Then the order was given to man the
starboard battery. As | crossed from one
turret to the other | noticed the Spanish
ships little on our starboard bow. When
left the port turret the ship was turning
with ner starboard helm; and that is the
way we lost the Spanish ships.
Q.-You do not mean that the Brooklyn
made d complete turn with her starboard
helm?
A-No; but i was under the Impression
that she did.
This testimony showed that the Brook
lyn had at first turned to go around in
the same direction as the Spanish ships.
but that her course had been changed so
as to make her steam In direction op-
posite to the direction they had taken.
In other words she had turned to go to
the west the direction taken Nby Ger
veras vessels, but before doing so the
helm had been changed, and s-she had