Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/170

 A Legal View of the Schley Inquiry. he has heard the arguments that may be made on that evidence." Mr. Rayner compared the challenged member to a juror, and said that unless the statement were made now there would have to be a double argument. The Judge Advocate said that the chal lenged member need not make a statement now; he may if he chooses; he may make none, or he may make one at any time be fore the final conclusion of the court is reached. Mr. Rayner replied, "Then we reserve our argument." The president said, "Admiral Howison will make his statement now. He will prepare it and submit it to the court." Admiral Howison said that he would re tire and prepare it and submit it. A recess was taken to give him the opportunity to do so. Upon the reassembling of the court, the Judge Advocate read the statement of Ad miral Howison. The statement makes answer to the testimony of the newspaper reporter; says that Howison does not re member the face of the book publisher, and that he had only a short talk with the editor; that he is here to obey orders; that he hopes that if any doubtful points appear, all such points will be decided in favor of Admiral Schley; that he has no personal feelings or wish, except for the good of the service. A copy of a letter of Admiral Howison to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy was annexed to his statement. The letter said that he was ready to withdraw voluntarily or to have the Department relieve him; or if the Depart ment, knowing all the circumstances, wished, he was ready to do his duty, "without par tiality." as the law required. Mr. Rayner said that the applicant's coun sel wished to ask a few questions of Admiral Howison. The Judge Advocate repeats this to the court, and it is permitted. Admiral Howison said that he did not propose to go into private discussions.

139

Mr. Rayner said to him that the question was whether he had made up his mind that Admiral Sampson should have the credit of the battle of Santiago. Admiral Howison replied, "May be I have," and went on to explain that perhaps he had made up his mind that if Sampson was commander-inchief he was entitled to such credit, and added, " I am merely talking now of the Navy Orders and Regulations, and the customs and commands of the service." To further questions by Mr. Rayner, Ad miral Howison said that he did not recollect that what the witnesses had testified to had happened, and did not even remember all the witnesses, but that if some one should say that an officer had done this or that thing, he would not hesitate to say to any one that such officer would be subject to a court-martial, if that were so, under the navy regulations; and that it was natural to speak so when addressed by a stranger on the subject. Mr. Rayner then said, "Are you willing to ask the court to relieve you?' Admiral Howison replied, "I can't. They must do it on the merits." Then followed this interesting dialogue: Mr. Rayner said, "If the question of who was commander-in-chief is involved, and you think that Admiral Sampson was, have you not made up your mind on a very im portant question?" Admiral Howison answered, "No." Mr. Rayner: "Why not?" Admiral Howison said, "I don't care what a naval officer has been talking in private. . . . Naval officers are taught from youth up that their oath of office is something different from most people's oaths," and he added, "an officer may judge from the testimony without regard to what he may have taken from newspaper reports." Mr. Rayner said, "But you put on us the burden of proof that your opinion was wrong." Here came what lawyers would expect,