Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 34, Number 20, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 8 November 1901 — SCHLEY'S STORY IS TOLD. [ARTICLE]

SCHLEY'S STORY IS TOLD.

Bear-Admiral Concludes His Testimony Before the Naval Court. Rear Admiral Schley, under cross-ex-amination, explained the retrograde movement and dispatches sent by Schley and received by him during this period of the campaign. Schley’s three reasons for the westward movement were first that Captain Sigsbee, who was a scout and placed in front of the harbor for the express purpose of securing information, advised Schley that he did not believe the'Spanish squadron was in the harbor. The second reason was that Edouard Nunez stated that he did not believe the squadron could enter the harbor, and the third reasdn was that a dispatch from the department, accompanied by a memorandum from Sampson, minimized the importance of the squadron being there. The witness also said that the department’s dispatch of May 25, saying all its information indicated that the Spaniards were in Santiago, was ambiguous. He said the ambiguity of the department’s dispatch was manifest at once because it stated that its information indicated that the Spanish fleet was in Santiago, then it pointed out a place for coaling which at the time was inaccessible, and, finally, ,it stated that the department looked to ScWey to determine and report whether or not the enemy was in Santiago harbor.

Captain Lemiy asked Schley why he had reported to the department that it was impossible to coal the Brooklyn off Santiago, inasmuch as he had testified that the Brooklyn did not need coal and no attempt had been made to coal that ship. The witness replied that while it was true no attempt was made to coal the Brooklyn, he meant to convey to the department the impression that it was impossible to coal the Brooklyn and the other vessels of his fleet owing to the swell of the sea. Considerable time was spent by the judge advocate in trying to develop just how far the flying squadron went on the retrograde movement, and to show that Santiago harbor was left absolutely unguarded on the night of May 26, when the retrograde movement began. Rear Admiral Schley said that his recollection was the fleet steamed only twenty-one miles west, but the log of his vessel showed the distance was somewhat greater. The witness explained this by saying that the course was not directly westward at all times during the movement, and that allowance had not been made for the correction of the patent log, which was perhaps thrown overboard before the real retrograde movement began. He said the harbor was not left entirely unguarded, as up to midnight of May 26 he was within fifteen miles of the entrance, and the scout ships wefe not entirely withdrawn, and at least one of them was sent back to watch the entrance. Before Rear Admiral Schley’s crossexamination was completed the court took the applicant in hand and asked Schley a few important questions. The entire session of the court on this day was a lively one, as there was constant wrangling between the attorneys, principally over the admission of a preliminary report of the battle made by Schley to Sampson, which showed the New York was not in the battle of Santiago at nil. The judge advocate resisted the admission of Schley’s preliminary report on the ground that it was not an official document and that the report itself had not been sent. It developed, however, that Schley himself handed the report to Sampson, but the latter returned it to Schley because it “omitted important details” and made it evident that the New York was not in the battle. Schley told Sampson during the conversation which took place with reference to the the victory was great enough for all, and that he would make a second report to Sampson out of generosity, knowing, however, that the New York was not in the battle at all. This explains why Schley made two reports of the battle. Admiral Schley’s case was closed on the-following day, after one more witness for the “applicant” had been heard by the court of inquiry. The announcement that the end of the admiral’s presentation of testimony had come was made by Attorney Rayner and the court thdn settled down to listen to the beginning of the testimony to be introduced in rebuttal.