The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-10-18
INTERESTING EVIDENCE
Fitzsimmons Thought Brook
 lyn Was Doing It All.
Chief Surgeon of Flying Squadron Tells of the Good Work of Schley's Flagship at
 Santiago Battle.

Washington, Oct. 17.-The presentation of Admiral Schleys side of the contro- versy was continued before the Schley court of inquiry today, eight witnesses being examined. Of these, five were en- signs and the entire eight had served on board the Brooklyn with Admiral then Commodore) Schiey. Today's witnesses were Lieutenant Charles Webster, Lieu tenant Commander T. D. Griffin. who had charge of the powder division on the Brooklyn during the fight off Santiago; Ensigns C. A Abele, John Haligan, Jr.. U. S. Mayer, James M. Hand and Ralph N. Marble. The last witness of the day was Medical Director Paul Fitzsimmons, who was chief surgeon of the flying squadron. While Ensign Haligan was on the stand, MT. Raynor sought to bring out information as to the American ships in sight at the beginning of the battle of July 8, but Judge Advocate Lemly ob- jected on the ground that the question was intended to show the absence of the New York and the interrogatory was withdrawn. Ensign Marble stated that he had heard Captain Sigsbee tell Com modore Schley when he came aboard the Brooklyn on May 26 that the Spaniards were not at Santiago.
 There has been some inquiry as to Ad- miral Schley's standing in the navy since he was placed on the retired list because of age, but 1t appears that all questions on this point have been settled by the department having assigned the Admiral to active duty" at the court of inquiry while 1t is in progress. This action was taken to prevent any question as to the effect of the Admiraps retirement on the action of the court.
 Opening of Court. s.,
 The first new witness called before the Schley court of inquiry today was Lieu tenant Commander T. D. Griffin, who, as Neutenant was the senior watch officer on the Brooklyn during the war with Spain. After him came & number of Ju- nior officers who served on the Brooklyn during the campaign. As usual, before any of the new witnesses were summon ed, a number of former witnesses were called for the purpose of correcting their former testimony.
 It. had been the intention of Admiral Schley's counsel to propound yesterday a number of questions to the court, which it was proposed to put to the witnesses for the purpose of determining to what extent Admiral Sampson's connection with the present inquiry could be gone into, and it was not decided until the be- ginning of the afternoon session to with hold the questions. This decision was then reached. largely because 1t was be- Neved that the information intended to be elicited by the questions could be se- cured in a more direct and certain way by Lieutenant McCauley's testimony re- garding signals on July 3rd.
 The questions, which had been formu- lated for presentation previous to McCau- ley taking the stand, related principally to the movements of Admiral Sampson's flag ship. the New York, on July 3rd. the day of the battle of Santiago. and espe- cially to the signals of that day directing the fleet to disregard the fagships movements. It is still the intention to present other questions involving Admiral Sampson's relation to the inquiry before the close of the case. It seems probable that their presentation will be deferred until time shortly before the beginning of Admiral Schley's testimony.
 Mason Recalled.
 The first of yesterdays witnesses called for correction of testimony was Comman- der Mason. and after him came in suc- cession, Lieutenant Commander Sears. Lieutenant McCauley and Lieutenant Webster. Quite a number of additional questions were addressed to Lieutenant Webster by MT. Hanna. Replying, the witness said that he had seen signal lights at night on the shore while lying off Santiago. In connection with the ques- ton of the distance off shore at Santiago, MT Hanna asked:
 While the vessels were on blockade at Santiago from May g to the 3lst. in- elusive, were you able during the night to distinguish points on shore readily while you were on watch?"
 The witness replied in the negative
 Could you make out Aguidores and Cabanas?"
 "I was not familiar with the coast at that time, and would not have known those points under any circumstances but it was so dark do not think could have seen them"
 What was the background?'
 "The high hills back of Santiago did give us good points later when we were familiar with them. We could see them quite readily"
 ]CouId you discover the shore line at night?'
 Not the line of breakers. if there were any"
 Could you see the vessels on the inner picket line at night?"
 Not without the aid of searchlights"
 On redirect examination, MT. Raynor asked Webster concerning the bearing of the Iowa and Texas on the morning of July 8, the beginning of the battle The witness said that they bore ahaft the starboard beam of the Brooklyn, the Texas being to the right of the Iowa. The Brooklyn was headed, he said, north or north-northwest-
 Tn reply to another question by Mir. Raynor, he stated that after the surren-- der of the Colon. July 3, he had gone td the forecastle to look for other ships. He had only seen the Oregon and the Texas. The smoke of other vessels was visible, but not the vessels themselves.
 Commander Griffin.
 When Lieutenant Webster was excused Lieutenant Commander Grifin was called. He gave details of the Cienfuegos cam paign. saying that the distance of the blockading line there varied from three to seven miles. being farther out at night
 Speaking of the voyage from Cienfuegos to Santiago. the witness said the weather was heavy" and that there was a short, choppx sea" He Rasa said that the