eral Sherman ruled as follows: "The ques tions by the Judge Advocate are questions by the court, adopted for convenience, and the court holds that it has the right to re new the examination even to the last stages of the inquiry (p. 121). As to "whether or not they are confined to the charges," Gen eral Sherman said, "the court is not limited to these eight headings of the Secretary of War." The accused said: "Then it follows that, although the officer might be acquitted on a charge,, yet he might be convicted on a speci fication." General Sherman replied: "There are no charges and specifications technically before us. It is an investigation." Later, General Sherman said: "Thus far the court has not agreed to accept his (Judge Advocate's) limiting the investigation to the collated brief which he prepared, and the court has gone on investigating the whole matter carefully, not desiring to hold the accused to any direct line of defence" (pp. 277. 278). On cross-examination of a witness by General Howard's counsel, a question was put about a letter. The Judge Advocate suggested that if this was to be in defence then he also wished to cross-examine on it. The court was cleared for deliberation, and the court ruled that the letter could be read, and General Sherman said to the Judge Ad vocate: "You may examine the witness to any extent, and any questions you wish to ask you may submit to the court, and they will be put by the court if they are not ob jectionable. The court have the right to cross-examine at all times, regardless of rules of evidence" (p. 310). Later the Judge Advocate said: "I object on the ground that this is new matter, and the court decided this morning that the ac cused must wait until the case is with him before he undertakes to prove his defence" (P- 33o). General Sherman ruled as follows: "We
are not tied down by any strict rules of evi dence. It is our desire and intention to get at the truth, and if there is anything in the letter which bears upon the question under investigation, I am certain it comes within our ruling of yesterday and I so declare it. You may read the letter. The sense of the court is that anything that throws light on the subject matter it is proper for us to re ceive" (p. 335). The arbitrariness, from a legal point of view, of this method of ruling on evidence appeared in both admissions and exclusions, which were not entirely consistent, if the vigorous language of General Sherman cor rectly explained them. For instance, upon the offer of certain papers and objections made, General Sherman said: "No harm could come; that if papers were read and found irrelevant they could be excluded." Afterwards, when General Howard's counsel offered to read the letters of a whole corre spondence, General Sherman said : "They are hardly pertinent." And, still later; after a struggle between the Judge Advocate and a member of the court, concerning certain evi dence, General Sherman put a stop to it by saying: "You may enter the record that the court has heard enough testimony on this branch of the case" (p. 346).
OPEN SESSIONS. Whatever course a court of inquiry takes, the very fact that it is an examination al most necessarily causes discontent in some of the persons in any way alluded to in it. In a debate in the House of Commons, upon the question whether it would concur in a vote passed by the House of Lords, thanking Sir Arthur Wellesley for his conduct in the campaign inquired' into, as above stated, because of the Con vention of Cintra, the fact that he had signed the hated armistice was referred to, and, necessarily, the fact was considered that he had acted as a subordinate and had signed
