Hot Springs weekly star. (Hot Springs, S.D.) 1892-1917, 1901-10-25
Nineteenth Day.

Rear Admiral Schley won the most fa-
vorable point developed at the court OF
inquiry on this day, inasmuch as Lieut..
Holden, the watch officer Of the Scor-
pion, testified that the information that
the Spanish fleet was not in Cienfuegos
harbor ON May 10 was not communicated
to Rear Admiral Schley, although it was
testified to by Lieut.. Switzerland.
Judge Advocate Lemly thercupon adj
mitted that he was unable by any evil
dence in his possession to show that the
message had been delivered to Schley.
The testimony .of Lieut.. Holden places
Lieut.. Switzerland in a discredited POI
sition. inasmuch as Switzerland, COM
manding the Eagle. testified that he had
communicated this information to the
commanding officer of the Scorpion with
instructions to that officer, Commander
Mark. to communicate it to Rear Ad-
miral Schley.
Lieut.. Holden, who heard part of the
megaphone message which Commander
Mark received from Lieut.. Switzerland,
said there was nothing in it which convey
ed the information that the Spaniards
were not in Cienfuesos. Reading from
the log of his vessel, the Scorpion, Lieut..
V1OltlSli u IL c!ltiS IctuIitS. ~ LicMS
from the Spaniards." This entry CORE
spends exactly with the log of the Brook
iyn and with the claims made by Rear
Admiral Schley.
More hard blows were given the official
chart plotting the positions of the Span
ish and American vessels during the bat
tie of Santiago which were prepared by
the Board of Navigators. Lieutenant
Commander Schuetze.S the navigator of
the Iowa and 4 member of the board,
testified that he protested against signing
the report accompanying the chart. as it
was inaccurate. He said the chart was
a compromise and that he had been per-
suaded to sign it by Commander VAIN
wright, the president of the board, who
said it was the best the navigators could
agree to il they sat until doomsaay.
SchuetZe said he objected to the chart
as it gave the Iowa too much speed. Ac-
cording to the position of that vessel on
the chart, the Iowa would have been
forced to steam at the rate of eighteen
knots instead OF nine, which was the
speed the ship was making. He also
objected to the chart because it placed
the Brooklyn too near to the mouth of
Santiago barbor.
This officer testified that the Spanish
ships did not attempt to ram the Brook
Ign when they left Santiago the morn
Ing of the battle. He also swoce that
the attack of May 81 was directed at the
Colon and not Mt the shore batteries as
has been contended. He said this action
was not Il reconnaissance, but an attempt
to sink the Colon.
Lieutenant Commander Grant, the
watch officer of the Massachusetts,. said
ne Knew OF. no instructions from Admiral
Schley as to what should be done in the
event of meeting the enemy. The pro-
.gress of the flying squadron from Cienfue-
gos to Santiago was slow. according to
this witness. His distances relating, TO
The blockade Mt Santiago were extreme.
He said the feet was between from six
to ten miles distant from the mouth of
the harbor during the day and night and
that the vessels of the squadron steam-
ed a distance of five. and six miles east
and west of the harbor.
Although Lientenant Commander Grant
was sure thar the action of May 81 was
intended to sink the Colon, he testified
that Admiral Schley upon leaving the
massachusetts had said: 1.-The %reconnois-
sance had developed the strength of the
battery and that it was satisfactory
Twentieth Day.
Captain French E. Chadwick, COM
mandcr of the New York in 1898, created
somewhat of a sensation when he testi-
fed that he protested to Sampson against
sending to Schleg a message congratulate
Ing the latter upon the character of the
blockade he had maintained, because, I'M
der the circumstances, such action was
improper.