shift to divert public attention from the mis takes of the ministry to the gallantry of the generals of the army. A permanently important point as to the working of a government which stands out in the instances of Sir Arthur Wellesley, who was included in an open inquiry, and of Admiral Sampson, who was excluded from an open inquiry, is that howsoever much credit may be due to an officer, among the risks he takes in entering his profession is that he may have to submit to, and perhaps suffer, either real or formal injustice, or want of recognition, or what appears to be such, from the exigencies of popular interest in the government of the country, when a court of inquiry, which is essentially a confidential in strument of the government, whether it be ordered originally by the Executive, or, as sometimes happens, in consequence of a special act of Parliament or of Congress, acts in open session. The best lesson of this is not the rapid conclusion that such inquiries should always be secret; the deeper and surer inference, for the long run, is that the soldiers and sailors of a free people must not only culti vate the bravery and strategy of war, but must learn to practise the equally difficult task of teaching their masters without flat tery. For a people, inclined, enough at least, to warfare, it is an instructive lesson in military life to get behind the dramatic scene of uni forms, flags, battleships in action, and the blaze of victory, and to see how the big and little men inside of the ships really attend to their business, and how they feel about it and each other. But such lessons are not per mitted to go to greater lengths than seems practicable by the experienced officers who are responsible for the conduct of courts of inquiry. The mere fact that a court of inquiry holds open sessions does not deprive it of its es sentially confidential character and practical function. It is still an examining instru
ment and confidential adviser of the gov ernment, whether its inquiry and report be in secret or in public. The whole nation may be listening, but the court is responsi ble directly to the officer under whose order it acts, and it can help that officer most by acting as firmly in public as it would in se cret. The permanently valuable result of the in quiry is the formidable lesson in discipline furnished to both army and navy. The find ings of the court were not to be expected to compare with either the precision of an in dictment by a grand jury or the adherence to legal principles that a master in chancery at tempts. It is a convenience for a government, especially when there is much public discus sion, and the administration may be blamed by the popular voice, to have an inquiry made by such a court in public, in order that the people's interest may be gratified and their sentiments tested and directed in some measure. Then the government by a tactful use of power may try to pre vent or allay irritation. The prompt ac tion of the present administration of the United States government after the court's report in the Schley case was a signal in stance. There had to be an approval or dis approval or both, and both were given. Ac cording to the recommendation approved, the Navy Department was about to concern itself no further with the case. The officer who had asked to have the entire matter passed upon by his brothers in arms, had had his request granted, and although the court as a whole did not pass upon all that his counsel may have desired, the dissenting opinion covered some of that.
THE APPEAL AND THE MEMORAN DUM OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THEREON. By appealing to the President of the United States the applicant revived the ques
