Evening star., 1901-10-30
BATTLE OF JULY Sd
Cross-Examination of Admiral Sohley
Ended.
THE LOOP And CHASE OF THE COLON
Disputes as to the Admission of
Evidence.
QUESTIONS BY THE COURT

The Schley court of inquiry assembled
this morning at II O'Clock. The attend
aFce was slightly larger than it was yes
terday. but was by means equal to the
occasion when Admiral Schley was giving
his direct testimony.
The length of time that has been consum-
ed in cross-examining the witness up
and through the period of the retrograde
movement cannot be taken as a criterion of
the entire time that will be consumed by
the questions of the judge advocate. There
will be some questions, of course, in rela-
tion to the reconnaissance of May 81 and
in regard to the loop. but it is understood
not to be the intention of the judge advo-
cate to cross-examne the witness at any
ICrSth in regard TO the battle itself of July
3. This plan makes it probable that during
the present week all the testimony will
have been completed. Following Admiral
Schley on the stand will be two other wit
neSses called by his counsel and then will
come fifteen witnesses in rebuttal. Each
of these fifteen witnesses in rebuttal will
probably be on the stand but a very short
time. Most of them will be questioned in
relation to one or at the most two or three
specific points on which their testimony
is desired.
When Admiral Schley went on the stand
thi" morning the judge advocate began by
questioning him in relation to the time he
first fell in with Capt. Evans of the Iowa.
Admiral Schley said he thought he had not
seen Capt Evans until after the feet got
off Cienfuegos.
THE first time / fell in with Capt. Ev-
ans said the admiral, was at Cienfuegos,
and then he was disabled. and his execu-
tive officer, Commander Rogers, acted for
him did not see Capt. Evans again until
| got at Santiago on the morning of the
Goth / talked good deal with Rogers.
but | do not recollect especially what was
said
The Circular Form of blockade.
@. (By the judge advocate): VIII you
state how the number of vessels in your
squadron blockading before Santiago on
June L compared with the number at the
Wei Hei Wei blockade? \ No 1 do not
know that am able To give that 1 think
however, from conversation with Capt
Folger that the blockade to which he re-
ferred as being a circular one contained a
number of vessels more than my squadron
had with the addition of two fanking
squadrons. one to starboard and one to
the port-my impression is that there were
a great many more vessels than | had.
O. Is the circular blockade. with vessels
pointed in to the mouth of the harbor, in
as good position for them to turn and chase
in either direction, if the enemys fleet
should come out, provided all turned with
the same heinz
Mr.. Rayner wanted to know whether this
question had reference to the blockade of
June 1. The judge advocate said that the
question was simply based upon the dis
CussiOn that occurred between Admiral
Sshley and Capt. Folger in regard to the
adoption of the circular blockade suggested
by Capt. Folger.
The witness: II think 1 stated in my di-
rect testimony that a squadron arranged in
circular form charging toward the center
CT n frrCin nd
neceSSitate a different arrangement, provid-
ed the enemy changed its course to the east
or west and that such change would
neceSSitate an entire rearrangement of
plan 1t struck me in talking over it that
there could be only one outcome and that
would be some confusion, and that actual
ly did happen little later"
@. | think you stated in your testimony
in chief that Folger on May 80 advised you
to move in closer, and that on the very
next day, although you did not move in
closer, he signalled to you that the batter
les would fire on the feet in the position
you held. a. 1 possibly made mistake in
the day My recollection of the signal now
is that is was made on June l.
After consulting the record the admiral
continued: Yes, l was mistaken in stat
ing the next day. 1t vase June 1. But
that there had been no change in the form
of the blockade"
q. You speak in your testimony of the
fact that no vessel passed the blockade
either going in or coming out of Santiago
OF CieHIueSOS pFlOF TO June l. A. nat was
my statement.
O. Can you repeat within your knowledge
whether any vessel attempted to pass in
or out with regard to those ports? A. No,
none that l knew Of l knew that when
ever an attempt was made to run the
blockade at other ports it was largely ad-
vertised. and l inferred, therefore, that If
any had been made at these ports large
notoriety would have been given.
The Reconnaissance of May 81.
~ L ant 70 fhe fFaiy 1f
May 81. When did you receive notice that
the commander-in-chief would be at San
tiago June 1? Do you remember? A.
think that that came to newell, am not
able TO say, unless 1 can see the telegram.
1t appears to me, according TO my recol-
lection now, that it came TO me in tele-
gram, but / cannot recall, unless / have
that telegram, whether il was the New Or
leans or some other vessel. My recollec-
tion is that it was in that telegram from
the department stating that the New York
or the New Orleans had been ordered, but
i do not recall.
Q. Just look at this telegram, admiral:
perhaps that will refresh your memory. A
This probably is the one, though do not
really recall it. (Reading) washington,
May 20: Cotton returned to Schley with
this message: Hold on at all hazards New
York and New Orleans are now ordered
there" That probably is the telegram. l
do not recall just now whether there
anything else. IL may be that Captain Fol-
ger might have communicated to me the
fact.
O. Now, you had been off Santiago two
days when you made this reconnaissance.
Why did you take two days before making
IT, admiral? A. Simply because | availed
myself of the privilege of coaling on all oc-
casions when it was possible. 1 thought it
was very much better to get my ships full
of coal in the event the reconnaissance
would develop the enemys presence or the
fact that he might get out
@. You We're still coaling the 31st were
nOt2 a Yes. With part of the vessels
Q. That was the part of the fleet that was
not engaged in the reconnaissance? A. Yes.
O. Now, / think you have telegram in
your hand you We're going to refer to? A.
Yes. That was the same telegram that I
read and it appears TO have been received
of Santiago on the 31st. IL reached King
ston on the 30th. and as 1t reached Cotton
1 assumed that it got there the 31st as
he did. But / have a distinct recollection
that Capt Folger might have stated some
thing about 1t to me.
Q. You made a remark on the 31st. The
admiral win be here tomorrow? A. i don't
= recall that. IL | did il NAV have been said