New-York tribune., 1901-10-31

had ordered the range at 1000 yards for that day
but had not supposed the Colon was so far up the
hsrbor. "of course" he said Il left the measure
rnent Of the range the executive officer
Does your letter 10 the Senate. dated February
is. 1888. plead the precautionary order OF the de-
partnlent for not destroying the Colon?
81 should rather think that Is the inference
The Admiral. at the request Of the Judge AdVo-
cate. read what he wrote TO the Senate. The lei
ter contained the precautionary order or the de-
partment at the opening OF the war he again %
planned that when he wrote his communication ~
the Senate he did not have all the recoros pelOi
him He omitted to mention Admiral sampson
caution at Key West. He had prepared II laiseS
from memory. In further support OF MS Posi'ioii
the Admiral read the departments insrucloHs u
July g. specifically warning the commahoer IN
chief against r!sking armored vessels TO the hre Oh
land batteries He was cross-questioned closelg as
10 all the orders bearing on this SUBJECT ne Saiu
he had never seen, until he saw them Ia tne re-
port, orders of April and April Zs nooIylhs 10
extent the original orders. out ne hdu oeei
advised OF their purport
In your report of June to the department con-
cerning the reconnaissance you did not mennon
any purpose 10 sink or destroy the colonE
"I did not"
''But in your telegraphic report you did say tnat
your purpose 10 destroy the Colon?
Incidentally yes"
PURPOSE OF THE RECONNAISSANCE.
The Judge Advocate then asked the Admiral TO
tell exactly what his purpose was on that occasion
and what instructions he had given, hepiy'fle
that he had fully this subject before ne
said that the signals made indicated the purpose
The signals instructed the ships 10 use ther heaNy
guns against the Colon. The New-Orieans' win
her lighter battery, was directed 10 hre at ue
shore batteries The instruction was TO go In 10
seven thousand yards, and he thought nhtil sew
eral days afterward that the ships had gone In 10
that distance IT directed the ships TO follow the
flag. TO operate against the Colon and hre at 'he
forts TO develop them, and think the recon
noissance so far it went, was eminently sue
cessful The batteries were developed and the
fact was demonstrated that the enemy was In
port With squadron OF only hve or SIX shlps' L
believed only the strongest military necessity
would have justified me in riskng the loss OF
vessel that might have reduced our squadron to
numerical inferiority with the enemy. If one or
two OF our ships had been crippled the enemy
might have out and engaged US, with dis
astrous results. The development of the facts as
the batteries and ships was, in my OPINION
sufficient The enemy's ships could not get away
and they did not get away"
The Admiral then asked whether he hao IN
formed Ensign Macy, Captain Cook and MI era
ham, the correspondent that the affair OF May SI
was TO be a reconnaissance. He thought he mad In
a general way and he thought he could De 1alry
said TO have informed the captains in the signals
hoisted.
1t was 10 be Reconnaissance"
mo. think not. ! think signalled that we
should go in and fire our large guns
Did the affair develop without question the
presence Of the enemy in the harbor?
'I thought so. because of the large shells nred
st us and also because a number of vessels were
seen"
Referring again the alleged signal not 10 go in
closer Admiral Schley said he did not consider it
probable that If 1t was sent IL was because any
JssnO n 90
was anxious than I was 10 go in on that
day." he said.
Captain Lemly asked why the mouth Of Santiago
Harbor had not been enhaded and all ships used
May 81.
Admiral schIey replied that he had not done
simply because the batteries would have been safe
while the ships used thus would have been placed
IN greater danger This he added. lis like many
arrangements which We might make that we do
not make The question OF coaling was so I'M
portant and had been strongly urged by the
commander in chief felt that should lose no
opportunity of putting the ships in the highest
condition of efficiency
why did you not steam more slowly you
passed the mouth of the harbor?
The witness replied IN a deliberate manner
We'll that is a technical that might have
been remedied If some one else had been in COM
mand. Possibly the firing would have been more
effective If we had gone in closer but If we had
and had steamed more slowly. there would have
been no gain, as the range would have been mar
rover 1t case Of tweedledee on one hand
and tweedledum the other
Captain Lemly passed to the battle Of July 3.
stopping ask two incidental questions
about the circumstances of the evening of July 2.
On July 2, when the suspicious movements were
seen In the harbor of Santiago. the witness said
he had talked with Captain Cook about the ad-
Visibility of coupling up the engines. II was de-
cided not to do so. He supposed the ship was al
ways ready for a sortie. Admiral Schleys atten-
ton was called Captain Cooks testimony that
on the night of July he turned in with no intima-
tion that the fleet would out. The witness
said that CAPTAIN Cooks statement not in any
sense inconsistent with his. He had no intima-
tion that the feet would come out.
THE BATTLE OF JULY 3.