Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/173

 142

and that, upon the whole, he obeyed orders, and that if he was ever disobedient, it was for justifiable cause. The arguments of the Judge Advocate and the Solicitor, his assis tant, mean, substantially, that whether he obeyed orders or not, he did not do his ut most' to find, burn, sink or destroy the enemy, and that much of his conduct was un justifiable disobedience of orders upon points essential to any success in the campaign. The judicial clearness and brevity of the opening argument by Mr. Hanna, made after the evidence was in, and the argumen tative force of his statement of facts, is of great assistance in looking back at the com plicated masses of testimony and documents. A comprehensive grasp of details and a sober discussion of the points made for the appli cant characterized the final argument of Captain Lemly, the Judge Advocate, who won confidence in the spirit of his prosecu tion of the inquiry when he said, "From my knowledge of the man, having served under his command on two cruises, I have never believed, nor do I claim from the evidence, that personal misconduct,—or, to call a spade a spade, cowardice—was exhibited by Com modore Schley in any part of his career as commander-in-chief of the 'Flying Squad ron.'" No man can be always lucky, and the luck which had previously attended Admiral Schley was not with his cause when the sud den death of Judge Wilson, in the midst of the inquiry, deprived him of his wary senior counsel. Great professional consideration is due to the able associates who had to go on, contrary to their original plans. The ag gressive tactics of the remaining senior coun sel for the applicant in the course of the trial has been criticised as not adapted to affect the judgment of the members of the court, but the worth of counsel is to be weighed by the strongest and not by the weakest points which they make, whether in matter or manner, and it was in telling crossexamination, and in his final spirited argu

ment, that the value of Mr. Rayner's able advocacy was proved. He and Captain Parker, who added naval to legal experi ence, succeeded in dividing the court upon points involving the tone of its report, and in a court of inquiry this goes a great way, especially as it shall affect the future judg ment of students not stirred by the antagon ism of present parties. The division of the court and the review of the President of the United States on the appeal prove that vituperation, even when patriotic, has sig nally failed as against either side. Since the printed record contains about sixteen hundred pages of testimony, it may be convenient for readers to know that ap pended to Mr. Rayner's argument, and ar ranged under the several specifications, are brief minutes of testimony written by Mr. M. A. Teague, of Baltimore, to whom Mr. Rayner gave the credit of this laborious work. With Air. Hanna's statement for the government and these minutes for the appli cant, one is helped to find and to appreciate the evidence relied upon on each side.

CHARACTERISTIC POWERS. The chief trait distinguishing the methods of examination in courts of inquiry from those of civil courts is the court's control. In civil courts the rules of exclusion, which give the parties to the cause the right to have hearsay opinions, matters concerning others, and evidence of character ruled out, when offered, subject the court to be overruled by a superior or an appellate court, if it admits or rejects evidence illegally. Hence, each party can plan beforehand with some degree of approximate correctness as to how its own evidence will be treated, either by the ori ginal or the final court. But no man can tell what a court of inquiry may admit or ex clude, or what some member of it may per mit himself to think about, and even to re port about, even if excluded. This renders a court of inquiry a source