On the 1 2th of September, the court met in public session at the place appointed. The Judge Advocate General referred to article 1 79 1, paragraph 2, of the Regulations for the Government of the Navy. Instead of clearing the court room until the order and instructions had been read, the court withdrew for that purpose, and after having decided to sit with open doors returned and resumed its public session. The Judge Advocate and his assistant had agreed, as subsequently appeared, to use the word "applicant" to describe Rear-Admiral Schley, although the Regulations use the words "the complainant" and "the accused." Accordingly the Judge Advocate asked whether the applicant desired to be repre sented by counsel. The applicant replied, "Yes." The Judge Advocate asked: "By whom?" The applicant replied: "The Hon. Jeremiah M. Wilson, the Hon. Isidor Rayner, and Captain James Parker, U. S. N." Permission was granted, and the Judge Ad vocate introduced those gentlemen as coun sel for the applicant. The Judge Advocate then asked permis sion to introduce Mr. Hanna to assist the Judge Advocate. Permission was granted. The Judge Advocate, having read the orders, asked whether there was any objec tion to any of the court. The applicant with express regret objected to Rear- Admiral Howison, on the ground that he had formed and expressed an opinion on the merits, and the applicant offered to present evidence of this. The following examina tion of Admiral Howison is especially in teresting in view of the fact that in the case of General Howard1 one of the members of the court itself, General Meigs, was a witness called by the government. The Judge Advocate directed the appli cant to proceed. Therefore Mr. Rayner called a newspaper reporter as a witness, who said that he had heard Howison speak of Schley "in what I should call a sneering manner." Upon 1 Court of Inquiry.
cross-examination, Mr. Hanna asked the witness whether that was "an impression merely"; the witness replied, that it was an impression. The witness also testified to the words which Howison had spoken. Mr. Rayner then called as a witness a book pub lisher, and afterwards an editor of an ency clopedia of biography. The last witness ex pressed his unwillingness to testify. RearAdmiral Howison said to him, "Do not let the sentimental part interfere in the least." The witness then stated that he had heard Howison, when looking at a picture of Schley, make comments upon Schley of an uncomplimentary nature, and suggest that Schley had been guilty qf disobedience. Upon the conclusion of this testimony the I'resident of the Court asked Rear-Admiral Howison whether he had any questions to ask, to which he replied, "No." The Judge Advocate then said that he had no testi mony to offer. Mr. Rayner then said to the court that the applicant challenged RearAdmiral Howison for cause upon the uncon tradicted testimony of three witnesses not impeached, The Judgeand Advocate with nosaid denial thatbyit Howison. had been arranged that Admiral Howison should make a statement after he had heard all that was to be said in support of the challenge. Mr. Rayner said that that was not the practice in courts of inquiry or courts-mar tial; that the applicant and his counsel were entitled to hear Admiral Howison before ar gument, so that they could address the court, not on their own testimony merely, but on the whole testimony. He added that if Admiral Howison is to be examined, now is The the time, Judgeand Advocate "we want replied to cross-examine." that the prac tice is, after all has been said in challenge, for the member challenged to make "a state ment as a member"; that he had not been called by the court as a witness, but is en titled, after all that is "urged" against him as a challenged member, to make such state ment. "Yes," said Judge Wilson, "but not after
