The Landing on the Island of Cuba. 185 
of the course by the winds, by the tides, by the swift currents of 
the West Indian seas? What was lost or gained in latitude and 
departure in all the many times the vessels were standing off 
and on? Of all the places in the West Indies at which the 
squadron anchored, but one, Fort Navidad, is known. Here 
the caracca Santa Maria was wrecked, and forty-two men picked 
from the crews were left to guard the stockade built from the 
wrecked vessel. The impression obtains that Puerto Nipe was 
the first place in Cuba at which the squadron touched. Navar- 
rete takes this view, and so do Captains Becher and Parker. As 
a matter of fact, there is not a scintilla of evidence to establish 
such a statement. THe Admiral states specifically that there 
were but twelve fathoms of water in the harbor in which the 
squadron anchored. But in the roadstead of Puerto Nipe there 
is a depth of from twenty to thirty-five fathoms, while in the 
gut through which it opens into the sea there are nearly twice 
twelve fathoms of water; in the deepest part there are about 
forty fathoms. Now an estuary into which several mountain 
torrents are pouring might possibly silt itself up from thirty-odd 
fathoms to twelve; it could not well scour itself out from twelve 
fathoms to thirty. Moreover, the course from Islas de Arenas 
to Puerto Nipe would have been two or three points east of 
south, but according to the log Columbus lay the course south- 
southwest, and the westerly current would have carried him 
still farther westward. Had Messrs Becher, Markham, and Par- 
ker considered Puerto Padre as the first anchorage on the coast 
of Cuba there would have been fewer inconsistencies to explain 
away. 
And this brings me to a statement in Mr Markham/’s interest- 
ing paper that I wish chiefly to consider. He says: 
When we warmly applauded the close reasoning of Major’s paper we 
supposed that the question was at length settled; but as time went on 
arguments in favor of other islands continued to appear, and an Ameri- 
can* in high official position even started a new island, contending that 
Samana was the landfall. But Fox’s Samand and Varnhagen’s Maya- 
guana must be ‘‘ruled out of court” without further discussion, for they 
both occur on the maps of Juan de la Cosa and Herrera,-on which Gua- 
nahani also appears. It is obvious that they cannot be Guanahani and 
themselves at the same time; and it is perhaps needless to add that they 
do not answer to the description of Guanahani by Columbus and meet 
none of the other requirements. 
* Captain Gustavus V. Fox. 
