The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-09-22
RAP AT SCHLEY
Continued From First Page.

| point was sought to be made that to
make this sail of sixteen miles would re-
| quire greater speed than three knots an
I hour, which witness had testified was
made, but Capt. Harder maintained his
position, saying he had given his best
| impression.
Some of the log entries he considered
worthless as evidence.
Admiral Higginsen, who preceded you
on the stand, said Mr.. Rayner. .'testi-
fed that the blockade of Admiral Schley
cruised nearer at night than day Now,
| do you still maintain that you did not
day?" %
Certainly; I gave my estimate
/ just want to refresh your memory"
1T don't refresh my memory at ALL
1T is not possible for you to be wrong
I did not say anything about that.
/ Certainly it is possible for me to be
wrong. I want to state that 1 am here
10 answer questions pertaining to this
| testimony. and not to have words made
| in that way, as though I had made the
! assertions
I Mr.. Rayner announced his cross-exam-
/ nation closed, and the witness was re-
examined by Mr.. Hanna, assistant judge
! advocate.
/ Mr.. Hanna asked whether 1T is practi-
! cable in times of urgency to make log
| entries of signals. The witness replied
that it was not practicable for the per
| son who usually made sued entries to
! put them down at that time 1t was
necessary TO write them cut later. he
said, trusting TO memory, He also stat
ed that it was impossible for him to have
knowledge of signals from the Texas. as
Capt Philip usually managed the ship
| personally.
COALING SHIP
is it. asked Mr. Hanna. "a more
| critical matter to coal ship in the open.
with battleshtp on either side, than
with a ship only on one side2"
| Decidedly" was the response.
Capt. Parker here asked: You did
| some coaIing on the 9th and 18th of
| May?"
.'on the night of the 9th and morning
of the 2Sth'
Did not, in the course of the coaling,
the collier spring a leak because of
collision with the Texas?''
You could not call it springing leak
The plates were fndented, and in the Tex
as very little water came creeping
through -
Though the sea at that time was bad
enough to cause these vessels to eoIIide27
THE Inference, sir. is quite wrong
That was due to a float which we put in
between the vessels and did not notice
The float consisted of square tfnbers. -
That would have been worse in a
worse sea; and it was bad enough in that
sea?''
Experience told it was not necessary
to use that sort of thing"
You did not have as much experience
then in coalfng as you have had since,
did your"
with that sort of sea. yes. sir
By the Court-What was the state of
the sea when the Texas coaIed on May
q, as compared with the state on the
18th p
The weather was smoother somewhat,
1 believe, more favorable"
This concluded Capt Harber's testt-
mony and he was excused.
HGGINsoN RECALLED.
Admiral -Higgfnson then was recalled
and questioned especially concerning his
statement OF yesterday that the fleet was
only two or three miles out from Sam
tiago harbor. He modified his statement
by saying that during the first portion of
the blockade the fleet stood out farther,
probably five miles by day and four
miles by night. He confessed 92wever,
that after three years his ms ry was
indistfnct.
In reply to a question by Cart. Parker,
the witness said that with SOC tons Of coal
aboard the Massachusetts could have
steamed $500 miles or could have re-
NAMED on blockade duty for about
twelve days.
By Capt. Parker-Then after twelve
days you would not have been able to
get anywhere?
No; we would not
Did the fleet after the 18th of May
ever go off distance of twenty-five
miles 81
Il don't remember that it ever did
Then the story to that effect, by
whomsoever told, could not be true?''
I don't remember such an excursion
and If made the log book should show
the facts.
Have you any memory that the fleet
ever withdrew after that date distance
of more than six miIes?''
Il have not
By the COURTROOM the distance at
which the blockade was maintained,
could you have seen any vessel at
tempting to leave Santiago under or
binary conditions of weather.
Admiral HigginsonI think If would
have been difficult on account of the
high land and the shadows under the
land
Admiral Hfgginson was then excused
and the court at 1 O'Clock took recess fer
luncheon.
SCHROEDER ON THE STAND.
Promptly upon the striking of the hour
of 2, the court. reeonvened- The first
witness called was Commander Seatbn
Schroeder, now governor of the island
of Guam who, during the Spanish waF,
was executive officer of the battleship
Massachusetts. His appearance created
a slight stir of interest.
Commander Schroeder was Questioned
to the details of the entire campaign
He knew, he said of no efforts to COM
municate with the shore while the flying
squadron lay off Cienfuegos. He could
give no details concerning the voyage
from Cfenfuegos to Santiago, having
been on the sick list. On the first ar
rival off Santiago, the fleet had. the wit
ness said been twenty miles to the south
of the port. He did not know of his
own knowledge, why a westward move
ment had been undertaken after arrtv-
ing at Santiago nor did he know how
far the fleet had Travelled IN that dfrec-
ton He stated that upon the return to
Santiago on May q, he had sighted the
Spanish ship Colon and that it lay .2BO
or 1.300 feet inside the harbor the
American fleet being six or seven miles
out
The witness stated in response to alIFs-
items by Judge Advocate Leuly that the
squadron remained out about six or
seven miles, maintaining this distance
during the day, and keeping under way,
countermarehing eastward and westward
at night. At one point they Were nearer
shore than at another. the ships deser1b-
ing an elongated eIfpse IN their
maneuvers. The average distance out.
however, was about the same at night as
during the day.
Referring to the bombardment of the