The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-11-05

receipt of the McCalla memoranda, s;1: May 2s: and particularly why the three light signal that had attracted general at- tention on board the fleet was not in- vestigated after Commodore Schley learn. ed that Cubans were in the neighborhooo where such signals were displayed. 4- why order No. directing that steps pc takef1- to prevent the enemy from con- tinuins work on certain new fortihcations was not obeyed. 5-Why the order direct Ing the masking of the movements or the fleet on leaving Sienfuegos was not obeyed. 6-The nature and cause or the current said to have accounted Tor tne steaming of the ships of shore at night, while on blockade off Cienfuegos. r. Why, after learning positively that the Spanish squadron was not there and ac- cepting this report conclusive, the Com modore sent official letters and telegrams saying not that he would leave at once but on the following day. S-Why the Commodore failed to report to any high authority that he actually did leave Clen- fueeos on the evening of the s4th, if. as appears, he did so fail to report; and generaliy-s-While irrespective of sig nais. orders or aides from any source. the commanding officer of the flying squad Ton did not, while at Cienfueges. of his
 own motion. and with the resources un-
 der his command. do something to gain
 information of the Spanish fleet.
 Mir. Hanna then took up the third spe- cification of the precept concerning the cruise from Cienfuegos to Santiago. He
 admitted that the Eagle had delayed the progress of the squadron, but said this was not due to the weather, but to water in her compartments. The testimony was, he said, uniform to the effect that the
 -IA nd haf proceed with dispatch as directed. Ref erence was made in this connection to the sending away of the Eagle to Port Antonio for coal and Commander South erland's testimony was quoted to the ef- feet that the Eagle could have coaled from the collier Merrimac.
 "As to whether, the fighting ships should have been held back for the Eagle, I do not express an opinion before this court" said Mir. Hanna, "and then with this sentence he landed the squadron miles south of Santiago, May 26, and then took up the retrograde move~ ment MT. Hanna said there had been no explanation of the fact. that the squad ron stopped so far south of Santiago nor of the circumstances that after passing the longitude of Santiago he had con tinued to the eastward. except that on the latter point Admiral Schley had said that at the time he was asleep.
 It was at this point the scout boats St. Paul, Minneapolis and Yale were en- countered. and Mir. Hanna referred to this incident, narrating Captain Sissbee's visit to Commodore Schley on board the Brooklyn and the contradictory testimony the purport of the captains for himself and Captains Jewell and Wise. He quoted Captain Sigsbee's testimony to the effect that he had not told the Commodore that the Spanish fleet was not in Santiago and also gave Admiral Schleys version of the interview, claiming that Sigsbee did say that the Spaniards were not there. MT. Hanna also referred to the testimony that. Ensign Marble saying that Sigsbee had said that he knew that the Spaniards were not in the harbor.
 At this point Mir. Hanna took up speci- fcations four. referring to the retrograde movement. He said that in making this Commodore Schley had not only taken away from Santiago the fight ing ships of the flying squadron. but also the scout vessels located there by the to watch the mouth of the harbor.
 During this time" he said, "the gates of the liarbor were left entirely unglard- ed and ft was not our fault that Cervera's fleet did not get away without being de- stroyed"
 Mir Hanna had not concluded when court adjourned for the day.