Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/165

 134

The Judge Advocate urged that this is the advantageous time, but the president stopped the interruption.

SOME TIME IS REQUIRED TO IN FORM THE COURT OF LEGAL VIEWS. Much time was consumed by legal argu ments about rudimentary principles of evi dence, and of the treatment of witnesses, with the result of not getting very clear rul ings. Now the Judge Advocate does the hard work of a presiding officer by advice without having the power to use despatch upon such simple matters as the following: After argument the court ruled that ques tions intended to impugn the credibility of witnesses to prove positions at the battle of July 3, or statements made by the applicant or conversations with him are admissible from one who .was present, if material. Mr. Rayner began to cross-examine a wit ness as to a despatch from the applicant to the Navy Department. The president asked, "Was it sent?" and upon its appearing that it was taken to the cable office but not sent, the president said, "It ought not to appear," and declined to argue the question when Mr. Rayner asked the court, "Suppose it was not the fault of the applicant?" The president said, "You cannot ask us questions. We are not in the witness box."

POINTS OF PRACTICE. Counsel agreed with the Judge Advocate that according to the proper practice in courts of inquiry, questions and answers al though excluded, should not be struck out of the record, because the record should con tain all the proceedings. Of course, this adds to the value of such records for the purpose of precedents of practice. The Judge Advocate arranged such mat ters as the following: he requested that the

testimony be not read to a witness by the stenographer, but that the witness be ordered to report the next day at the opening of the court when he could be furnished with a part of the record containing his testimony, and be asked to withdraw for consideration of it. On completion of it he would again be called before the court and be given an opportunity to amend his testimony as re corded, or to pronounce it correct. This was granted. But a witness who wished to go away and not return was permitted to have his testi mony read to him by the stenographer be fore his departure. The Judge Advocate suggested that it would be convenient to adopt the following practice upon objections: first, objection and argument by the objector; then reply; then objector to close. The counsel agreed upon this method. The Judge Advocate, while a witness was on the stand, offered to suspend his examina tion and to examine another witness with reference to differences between original papers and copies. Mr. Rayner objected that a witness was on the stand. Then the Judge Advocate admitted there .might be objection "if this had not gone out to the public." He added that he had known it to be done frequently in courts-martial and courts of inquiry. The president asked, "Is there any law on this subject?" The Judge Advocate replied, "Nothing but the prac tice.''' Mr. Rayner asked for a precedent, and urged that it was important with a view to cross-examination that such suspension should not be allowed. The Judge Advocate said he could look up one. Mr. Rayner said that he had tried one court-martial case, and that such suspen sion would be contrary to the principles of common law practice which were regarded in such cases. His objection was sustained. As so often happens in trials, not long afterward Mr. Rayner wished to suspend the examination of a witness, in order to intro