A witness on cross-examination was not permitted to read from the log of another vessel. The court was careful to prevent the read ing of editorials and newspaper clippings which happened to be referred to by letters without being enclosed in them. Yet an officer was permitted, when testifying as to the range, to say that he heard battle mes sengers call out the range to turrets, and in form people standing by, and said, "I would have fixed my gun by it, though it was not given me officially." A newspaper reporter was permitted to read from his notes, memoranda of the ranges heard when given. A good deal of matter concerning others than persons concerned with the inquiry as conducted had to be excluded, just as evi dence concerning Admiral Sampson was ex cluded, such as a statement by one officer, a letter of another officer to the Secretary of the .Navy, a "hail" from one vessel to another not in hearing of the applicant, and conversations out of his hearing. Attempts at indirect cumulative proof were made by the government, such as read ing from a Spaniard's book which the appli cant's counsel had read from, and asking whether that corresponded to the fact as to the ships withdrawing at night. Captain Parker objected. CROSS-EXAMINATION. The government asked a reporter why he did not say in his story in his newspaper what he said in the court of inquiry as to the closeness of the "Texas" to the "Brooklyn." The applicant's counsel objected, and said the newspaper should be produced and his reasons were not wanted. The court ad mitted the question. The practice as to examination and crossexamination appeared when the applicant's counsel stated that they also had intended to summon a witness already summoned by the government. The Judge Advocate con
sequently said that he did not wish to confine counsel to cross-examination on what was brought out on the direct examination. The president said, "The court wants the facts, no matter when it gets them." When Mr. Rayner reached, in his cross-examination, the matters which he wished to go into beyond the direct examination, the Judge Advo cate reminded him, and Mr. Rayner changed from leading questions to the form of a di rect examination. The applicant's counsel, on the cross-examination of a witness who was a member of a board to examine the Spanish wrecks, read from the report of that board, and questioned the witness with reference to it. The Judge Advocate insisted that the report be put in evi dence, and that the witness examine it. It was put in, and Mr. Rayner asked the wit ness to examine it, and with it a statement made by the applicant. The Judge Advo cate objected, and also said that it did not belong to cross-examination. Mr. Rayner said that now he was examining the witness as upon a direct examination. The Judge Advocate did not object to that. Finally, the witness, by consent of counsel, in order to get at material for an answer, figured on the papers presented for his examination. Mr. Hanna on cross-examination asked a witness whether he had not stated other wise in the ward-room. The president ob jected unless the applicant was present, and asked for authority as to the admissibility. Mr. Hanna appealed to the applicant's counsel, who admitted thatthe question could be asked on cross-examination. There was much argument as to whether the witness's answer could be contradicted. Mr. Hanna took the point that the purpose was not merely to contradict the witness, but to prove his conversation with the applicant. The court acted in accordance with the view that it is largely discretionary1 and excluded contradiction. The court's advisers, in cross-examining 1 See Chamberlayne's note in his edition of " Best on Evidence " (1889), on Contradictory Statements, p. 633.
