Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/167

 136 ness, both for the direct and the cross-ex amination. NAVAL PECULIARITIES. Certain points arose, with reference es pecially to military practice. When the offi cer who took written despatches from Ad miral Sampson to the applicant was testify ing, conversation was excluded as distin guished from oral instructions. An inter esting point in naval practice appeared when this witness said that he read the writ ten order which he carried so that he might know it if he were obliged to destroy the despatch. He also said that he received oral instructions concerning his own actions, which The did dangers not appear of cipher in the transcripts, written despatch. or trans lations of written despatches, were shown by a witness who testified to having found it necessary to abbreviate the sentences of a despatch because all the words were not in the code book. An officer who had testified that he pro tested when Admiral Sampson sent a con gratulatory despatch to the applicant, was asked by the applicant's counsel, "In pro testing did you refer to the blockade of Cienfuegos?" The witness answered, "I had it partially in mind," and the answer was not objected to. As to the preliminary report of the applicant to the commander-in-chief, which was not sent, the court ruled that the applicant could refresh his memory by it, but could not read it aloud. A witness whose testimony was interrupted by a recess was warned after the recess that his oath was still binding. One of the terrors of persons who spend their lives in courts is the disposition of some witnesses to tell all that they know, and yet now and then a discreet witness may reasonably be asked such a question as that asked by Mr. Hanna, who showed the pre cept to a witness, and asked him to state any thing of importance bearing on any of the points therein set forth.

As it is, the government arranges the as sistance at its discretion. A lieutenant of the Navy who was present at the trial by order of the Navy Department, to assist, was per mitted by the court, after inquiry as to pro priety by counsel of the applicant, to join in the examination of a log while counsel were examining it before the court. A difference between naval etiquette in marking distinctions of rank and the man ners of civil courts appeared when the Judge Advocate spoke to a witness, who was a yeoman of one of the ships, by his last name, without any title, and Mr. Rayner on crossexamination addressed him as Mr.. Mr. Hanna politely expressed regret at having once spoken of the applicant as the accused. He probably used the word be cause the regulations use it concerning the person whose conduct is investigated by a court of inquiry. He said that the Judge Advocate and he had agreed upon the word "applicant'' as the description to be used in this case. EXAMINING A MEMBER OF THE COURT AS TO HIS DISQUALIFI CATION. So many readers have not seen the record that a brief account of the preliminary pro ceedings may be of service to show not only the modern military practice, but also its liberality as well as dignity. Rear -Admiral Schley wrote a letter, dated July 22, 1901, to the Secretary of the Navy, referring to "The History of the Navy," by Edgar Stanton Maclay; the first two vol umes being text-books at the Naval Acad emy. The letter alleged that "perversion of facts, misconstruction of intention," and "in temperate abuse and defamation" are con tained in the third volume of that work. The letter also referred to "innuendos of enemies" and expressed a wish that "this entire matter" be discussed, "under the clearer and calmer review of my brothers in arms," and to this end asks "such action at