The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1901-10-08


There was no lying in that colloQuy unless
man stuck to the verbal correctness of tho
words. So l did not characterize the paper
as liar for printing that colloQuy.
Says Wainwright.
Commander Wainwright was called.
Captain Lemly began his examination by
drawing from the witness the fact that he
mad been member and later senior mem
Der of the board which had officially acted
IN making the chart showing the positions
OF the American and Spanish ships at San
tlago The witness told how conclusions
were reached by that board.
He said
when l reported as senior member Of the
board, the board of navigators had sketched
chart before them with the number OF the
osltions sketched on it, which had been de-
armlned by them, starting at different ne
riods, first when the ships came out and aft
erwards when they went ashore. Each navi-
gator, as near as possible, would put the
position Of his ship at that time Then there
was great deal Of discussion as to the
relative positions. OF course it was tmpos-
slble to get any position by bearings and
nothing was known about the relative posi-
tions. We also knew that the distances in
the chart were somewhat incorrect and the
final decision of the board was to reconcile
eac one as near as possible, but none of the
positions was considered exact The i'm
possibility of getting bearings even if we had
had correct chart was apparent, but it gave
general idea Of the positions of the ves-
sells during different periods Of the battle.
Asked by Mr.. Rayner about the places
assigned to the Brooklyn and the Texas
while the former vessel was making her
loop, Commander Wainwright said he did
not consider them correct, Questions
were put by the court and answered as
follows:
We're the positions of the ships as shown
on the chart in question obtained from tes-
tlmony taken by the board or from general
discussion of the members Of the board?
Almost entirely by general discussion bv
the members Of the board. Captain Chadwick
and Captain Cook discussed the matter with
the board.
From the position of the Gloucester at the
commencement of the battle of July 8 could
you see both the Brooklyn and the Texas?
do not remember seeing them at the COM
mencement of the battle
What orders, If any, were sgnaled by the
Brooklyn to the fleet during the engagement
of July 8.
l saw none.
Mr.. Rayner-This does not mean that no
signals were displayed, does it?
No, it does not.
The Court-Did any one of the Spanish ves-
4
intending to ram one of the fleet?
saw no signs of it.
Lieutenant NJ L. Bristol former watch
and division officer on the Texas. was
called. He had only related the arrival
Of the Texas at Cienfuegos and detailed
conditions there when the court took a
recess for luncheon.
COaIing Again.
Lieutenant Bristol continued his testi-
mony at the afternoon session: Speaking
Of he blockade of Cienfuegos, he said that
during the day the ships lay from five
to ten miles from the shore, steaming in
nearer at night; then going farther out
and returning nearer at daybreak. He
had observed the signal lights on the
shore near Cienfuegos, but had not un-
derstood their significance. With respect
to coaling he said that on one occasion
while off Cienfuegos, Captain Philip had
signalled to the flagship that he consid-
cred it dangerous to put the collier beur
tween the Texas and Iowa, meaning by
that it was dangerous to collier to put
1t between two battleships regardless Of
the weather. He also told of the injury
to the Texas in coaling while off Santi-
ago, but said it was not due to the
weather. h
Mr.. Hanna here asked witness: eff the
vessels Of the Spanish squadron had sud-
denly appeared what orders had you
to meet such contingency"
mo orders wer turned over to me in
regard to a contingency of that kind"
replied witness.
AS watch officer should you have had
such orders?''
81 should have had