Iowa state bystander. [volume] (Des Moines, Iowa) 1894-1916, 1901-11-01
IN. Admiral Concludes His. Pro-
longed Testimony
QUESTIONS FROM JUDGES
center Chiefly About CoaIing and Reasons
for Retrog rade Reasons
why Schley Made the Turn-Precau-
lions He Took to Trap Enemy.

was allowed to leave the witness stand.
when the Judge advocate finished the
cross examination, shortly after 8
o'clock, the court propounded to the
admiral thirty-four questions prepared
by the members of the court These
questions mainly conferred. about the
ANTIQUITIES encountered in coaling and
the reasons for the retrograde move
ment. Not one of them related to the
battle of Santiago. One Of the most
interesting features of the day was
the development of the fact that the
report of the battle written by Ad-
miral Schley July 6, 1898, was not the
original report. The latter never has
been published, and in accordance with
a previous decision the court declined
to let it go into the record. Admiral
schley was allowed to explain, how
ever that Admiral Sampson declined
to receive the first report because it
did not mention the presence of the
New York.
Victory Enough for All.
II felt that the victory at that time,'
said Admiral Schley in explaining the
matter, 'was big enough for ALL and
made this change out of generosity
and because I knew if the New York
had been present she would have done
as good work as anybody else"
Captain Thomas Borden of the
marine corps, who was aboard the
Brooklyn, will be the last witness
called for Admiral Schley. After he
testifes tomorrow the Judge advocate
will put on the stand the witnesses in
rebuttal, of whom there are under
stood to be about fifteen, and it is
probable that Admiral Schley's coun-
BEL will call several witnesses in sur
rebuttal. Soon after he had taken the
stand Admiral Schley was asked by
Captain Lemly: "Why did you wait
two days after the discovery Of the
presence of the fleet in the harbor be-
fore undertaking your reconnois-
sance?"
For the reason I had used those two
days for coaling the vessels Of the
feet, so as to be prepared in case the
enemy should come out"
Does your letter to the Senate dat
led Feb. 1S, 1899. plead the precaution-
airy order of the department. for not
destroying the Colon?"
II should rather think that is the in
Ference
Reasons for the Loop.
Admiral Schley, in response to
question, said he never heard of the
Texas incident until six months after
the battle. He recollected distinctly
that he had warned Captain Cook as
the enemy approached that they were
going to ram him. His attention was
next called to his letter to the Senate,
in which he said the turn. was made
10 avoid blanketing the fire of his own
ehips, and also to his statement in ex-
emination in chief that he had not
|urned to port because to do so would
have brought the ship into dangerous
proximity to the enemy's vessels and
exposed her to possible torpedo at
tack or ramming.
Now said Captain Lemly, sthere
appear to be three reasons why you
made the turn. Why did you make
that turn? ?"
testimony, there is another very much
more important reason which you
have not asked, and that was that the
ship might continue in action and beat
the enemy as we did. That was the
controlling one Of ALL"
Among the more important qres-
tons of the court, with Admiral
ochley's answers, were the following:
Had Admiral Cervera left Santiago
for some point to the westward at the
same time you left Cienfuegos could
not his squadron have passed between
your ships and the shore without be-
ing seen by you?"
II it had been night probably yes.
the daytime, I think not"
What was your reason for going
Dyer twenty miles to the southwark
pr Santiago instead of near the bar
Dor's mouth May 1922
Precautions Against Escape.
Because I laid the course for that
point supposing that if the squadron
were still out or had got out coinci-
1ent with my leaving they would run
. the southwark, and it was with the
view of giving me larger horizon
Was it not possible for your squad
on to blockade Santiago on May 26
or few days and still have coal
enough to run to Key West?'
Yes, if had known then as I knew
subsequently, that the fleet was there
Did not the order under which you
we're acting require you to remain off
Pantiago?''
POSSIBLY, yes, but l do not think
hat the order was given me to de-
rive me Of all discretion in the mat
er II heard to the contrary
Did you consider Captain Sigsbee's
eport that he had not seen the Span
sn squadron and Pilot Nunez's state
nent that the Spanish ships were too
arge to enter the harbor of Santiago
roof that th2, infnrrn atic,, given q