Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/149

 n8

party, or that it could prevent a party to an plicant for the inquiry were correct or mis event from becoming a party on the record, taken; even if their claims were mistaken, and thereby succeeded in doing a more their claims surely required an understand limited piece of work than even the party ing of the battle of Santiago, which under whom it regarded as the sole party argued standing the court could not have officially, was possible. without proof of who was in command, or of In these considerations, they say, it is not whether in any way, at any time, the com pertinent to reply, as might be said, that the mand shifted, or was in any way affected, so counsel for Rear-Admiral Schley really did as itself to affect the responsibility of the not regret the refusal of the court to admit applicant for the inquiry. It is urged that the Navy Department had Admiral Sampson, or to entertain the ques tion of command. The point here is whether consented to act more or less in the manner the court acted correctly from a military of a trustee of some at least of the fund of point of view in such refusal. The Secre reputation dear to its officers, and in its order contemplated the possibility that tary of the Navy, while approving the con duct of the court in making no finding and there might be more than one applicant for rendering no opinion on the questions of the whole or parts of that fund. Wherefore command and of credit for the victory, gives its court, constituted for this one occasion as a reason for such approval the fact that only, had no more important duty than the consideration of how most thoroughly and evidence on those questions, during the in finally to examine, and to report all facts, quiry, was excluded by the court. The Secretary of the Navy expresses no giving the truth about the entire matter opinion as to such exclusion, having left dis required, together with their opinion or cretion to the court. But, it is argued, while opinions, as to what military law and justice the court was right in not reporting upon required them to think as judges and to what it had excluded, its work was imper recommend as advisers of the Executive. These views with regard to the conduct fect because of such exclusion. The action of the court, it is said, cannot be said to be of such a distinguished military court are thorough from a military point of view. It said to be presented with the great respect is said that it does not appear, from the due to its members, and with the belief that they expect that their official acts shall be action of the judges of this court, who com manded at the battle about which it heard examined with the strictness without which evidence touching the conduct of an officer sincere respect cannot be shown. whose counsel claimed that he was in com mand. Nor does it appear from the action of the judges of this court, that there was a THE EXCLUSION OF ADMIRAL victory in which the Spanish fleet was de SAMPSON FROM THE INQUIRY WAS AN AUTHORITATIVE ACT stroyed; facts which might have great in WITHIN MILITARY DISCRE fluence in determining their opinion of the TION. conduct, or of the proper treatment of the conduct of the applicant for the inquiry. The foregoing suggestions have been made It is said that it makes no difference, from at length as they might be argued in favor this point of view of military thoroughness, of permitting Admiral Sampson's counsel to take a part in the proceedings of the court whether the claims of the counsel of the ap