The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

OCTOBER 24, I9QOI. THE MARINE RECORD. 9 = 90_—_—_ —T—wTwrTwyTywns Ts EOE EO OO SSS SSS eeeeeeses NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS. (CONCLUDED FROM LAST WEEK'S ISSUE. ) The navy court whose highest officer was a lieutenant- commander, and which adjudged that a navy captain should not be embarrassed by awkward questions as to the meaning of his testimony, gave an equally worthy judgment that no less than five different punishments should be the penalty for the charge. In the G. C.-M. O. on the case, the Secre- tary, of the Navy says: ‘‘The charge, ‘conduct to the preju- dice of good order and discipline,’ having been fully sus- tained, it is proper to add that Ensign E., in the conduct re- ferred to, was guilty of insubordination, disrespect to his su- perior officers and a willful disregard of the regulations.” But E. was neither charged with, nor found guilty of ‘‘dis- respect’”’ nor ‘‘violating a lawful regulation of the Secretary of the Navy.’ (Art. 8, sec. 1624 R. S ) No such dubious accusation as ‘‘insubordination’’ is made punishable by naval statute. This sentence is testimony to the veneration in which a captain’s reputation for veracity is held on the high seas. It is the altar of the church of discipline. The sacri- lege of attacking it was committed here. The following are extracts from the record of the cross-ex- amination of K. on his denial that he had not, as reported, “inflicted an illegal punishment.in compelling E. to come to a public place, the starboard side of the quarter-deck, and there in the presence of officers and men, reprimanding him.’? Cross-examined by the accused: Q. ‘In your letter to Admiral M. you told Mr. E. on the quarter-deck that his action was ‘unofficerlike and disre- spectful;’ did you not? A. ‘I put him under suspension for ‘unofficerlike con- duct and disrespect to his superior officer,’ and that was in substance the report I made to the Commander-in-Chief,.’’ The accused made the following request: ‘‘Please ask the witness to answer the question and nothing else.’’ The witness replied: ‘‘I can tell by referring to my letter, which I have with me.’’ The court permits the witness to refer to the letter. A. ‘I told him that I looked upon his action as unofficer- like and disrespectful to his superior officer and that he should consider himself suspended from duty accordingly. That is what I wrote.’’ . ‘*What else did you say on the quarter-deck ?”’ A. “I told Mr. G. to enter the fact of the suspension in the ship’s log.”’ . ‘What else? ’’ : “Don’t remember anything else.’’ “What did Mr. E. say to you?’’ ‘*T don’t remember.’’ ‘‘Where was Mr, P, (the officer of the deck)??? ‘‘He was on the port side of the quarter-deck.’’ ‘‘What hour of the morning was it?’’ ; “ . .. between half past seven and eight.’’ . “And about that hour’ the crew are busy cleaning ‘deck’s bright work’ ?.”’ A. ‘‘Very few were about the quarter-deck. I saw very few, I took no notice of them—paid no attention.”’ Q. ‘‘Is the quarter-deck a ‘public place’ as stated in the specification ?”’ ae A. ‘Itis not as ‘public’ as other parts of the ship. . The starboard side is less ‘public’ than the port side.’’ The accused requested that the witness answer the question directly. The witness insists on his answer as just given. Other schuffling testimony of this kind, guarded with “this is as nearly as I can remember’’ and similar phrases which might reasonably be expected to protect faltering de- nials, if contradicted by observant witnesses sufficiently daring to repute their commanding officer, prompted E. to put on the stand, among the witnesses for the defence, a watch-officer of the Avams. This isthe record of his tes- timony: Q. ‘‘What is Commander K.’s general reputation for veracity ?”’ : : : A. “I don’t know anything about his reputation outside of the ddams.”’ p Q. ‘What is his reputation for veracity, as far as you know?”’ A. ‘I should say it was not good.’’ Q, ‘*Would you believe Commander K, on oath?”’ A. “I would hesitate about it.’’ Lieutenant M. was a graduate of the Harvard Law School. His legal learning, his native ability, warned him that the consequences of such brave conscientiousness could not be pleasant. After the trial he was detached from cruising and ordered to a stationary vessel in the cheerless harbor of Sit- ka, Alaska, for three years. “To substantiate the character of Captain K.,’’ as the record quaintly put it, the President of the court-martial himself was called. (This did not demonstrate that the OPO POPOPIO court was ‘‘packed’’, at least not necessarily, but that bias in favor of K. was not deceitfully concealed.) After ‘‘sub- stantiating K.’s character,’’ he was asked on cross-examina- tion: Q. ‘Will you please state what his reputation for ver- acity is on board the 4dams?’’ A. “I know nothing about his reputation aboard the Adams,” (This witness was the executive of the flagship Hartford.) - The next witness also failed to come from the Adams, (he was a watch-officer on the Hartford) also ‘‘substantiated’’ the ‘‘character,’’ and was also thus questioned: Cross examined by the accused: Q. ‘‘What has been his, K.’s, general reputation for veracity for the last six months, and on board the vessel on which he is stationed ?”’ A, ‘‘I do not know.”’ No other questions were asked these witnesses. A third witness, who also failed to represent the views, at close quarters, in K.’s vicinage, the pay-inspector of the HTariford, ‘‘was called for the purpose of substantiating the character;”’ and also, on cross-examination, replied to a question as to what had been K.’s reputation for veracity during the past six months and on board the vessel on which he is stationed’’ that he had ‘‘no knowledge on the subject.” It is significant that at this point ‘‘the court took a recess for ten minutes.’’ This recess was not at the request of the judge-advocate. Immediately after recess the first witness introduced was from the Adams, (at last) its amiable old paymaster, also a ‘‘substantiator.’”’ He testified, ‘‘As far as I know his reputation has been good for veracity.”’ But on cross-examination he was asked, ‘‘Have you ever seen him placed in a position where he would be tempted to tell an untruth and where he has not done so?” To which he answered in the negative. _ The next witness, the also aged chief-engineer of the Adams, was cross-examined thus: Q. ‘‘Have you during that time, ever known him to be placed in a position where he would be tempted to be un- truthful, and where he has not been so?”’ A ‘No.”’ With a single other remarkable exception these were all the witnesses called from the 4dams to testify that the cap- tain of this vessel had either a good reputation or could be believed on oath among and by the men whom he command- ed. In showing that they were friends of K., and in posi- tions to receive cabin favors, in their scrupulously declining to affirm that they had'seen hima man of honor when it was profitable for him to be the reverse, they gave testimony far more valuable than the surface evidence intended by them, viz., of the high character of naval officers in general, unwilling to deflect from truth that doesn’t pay to some falsehood that does. The same isto be said of the other witnesses, not one of them saying ‘‘yes’’ tothe repeated question ‘‘have you ever seen him placed in positions where he could be tempted to be untruthful and where he has not been so?”’ The care maintained made some ludicrous con- trasts.- Thus a Capt. Wilson, having given favorable testi- mony to K.’s ‘‘veracity’’ for ‘‘about 21 years,’ dampened it with ‘‘so far'as I know’ and confessed (this in 1886) that he ‘had not been with him for any length of time since 1872.’’ And on being asked, ‘‘Have you ever noticed Capt. K. in positions where he could have been tempted to be un- truthful and when he has not been so?’’ answered, ‘‘Don’t know anything about that.’’ Reserved as the last witness was a second member of the court, who, having listened to all the other witnesses, knew what tosay. Yet his luke-warm description of K.’s ‘‘repu- tation’’ was only, ‘‘Good as far as I know.”’ No less than ten witnesses were called. Only three of them came from the ddams. Yetit was his reputation as a man, as proven in his neighborhood, where he lived, that was at stake. Not a watch-officer of the Adams was found to uphold him. Not one of the steerage officers, young men who needed his favors, leaves of absence, etc. The surgeon, the professional member ot the ward-room, would not swear to his master’s credibility; nor the commandant of marines. The pregnant silence of all these against the pressure of their superiors, against their own interests for the three years to come, was silent testimony that naval officers are not to be bought. Was there one exception that proved the rule? The third Adams’ witness, Lieut. G., when asked ‘‘ What is his repu- tation for veracity ?’’ did not answer with a straightforward ‘*good,’’ but significantly denied that he had ‘‘ heard”’ K’s ‘‘veracity called in question’’ and however, this may have been, G. added, he ‘‘ certainly” had ‘‘ no reason to question it himself.’” G. alone ‘corroborated K. as to the non-inflic- tion of a reprimand. To do this he cautiously avoided quoting K., saying that K’s language vas ‘‘to this effect.” When questioned whether K. reprimanded the accused, the answer was not ‘“‘no’’ but, with a long circumvention, “I did not consider’? that what was said was of the extreme “nature of a reprimand,” It was both unnecessary and useless to cross-examine such a witness. In the summer of 1886 a second court-martial overtook Lieut. Comdr. N. Then E. was no longer there to help him, and N. was sent home to be dismissed. By the dismissal Lieut. G. was pro- moted from his dark cellar-like berth below, into the upper deck, airy and commodious quarters of N., where he remained with K’s glad approval until the cruise ended in 1889. But all this may have been chance and G’s way of thinking and talking. : A final tribute is due to the enlisted men of the Navy. Their widely prevalent nobility of character was reflected ‘in humble Ship’s Bugler Thos. Murphy, and in Landsman W. D. Callan, koth of the Adams, who testified to their, cap- tain’s angry “‘gestures with his right hand,” his loudly accusing E, ‘‘of doing something over K’s head;’’ his “‘shaking his head,’’ charging E. with “‘ unofficer-like con- duct,’’ of hearing ‘‘ the men talking forward about it’ and ‘‘around the deck.’’ No one who realizes how much moral courage such testimony demanded, from lowly men whose fortune and happiness are absolutely at the mercy of the Sultan whom they serve, can deny that there is as worthy timber for commissioned officers among szamen, among men of the merchant marine, as was in the cabin boy who became Marshal Massena of Napoleon’s France. Gro. F. ORMSBy. Washington, D. C. Bes oe oe or oor SHIPPING AND MARINE JUDICIAL DECISIONS. (COLLABORATED SPECIALLY FOR THE MARINE RECORD. Insurance—Policy Not Attaching.—The policy of the con- signees having been expressly limited by its terms to ‘wool, their own, or consigned to them, not previously insured,” did not attach, the wool being already insured, not only by the contract of the steamship company, under the bill of lading rate, to carry insurance, but also by its policies which at once became pro tanto applicable thereto, although the risk had not yet actually attached ; it further appearing that it was the intention of the parties that the policy should take effect only in case there had been no insurance by the consignor. Cross vs. New York & T.S.S.Co., i07 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 516. Beh Marine Insurance—Open Policy.—A shipper of wool by rail and water contracted with the steamship company to cover the shipment by marine insurance for an additional rate of freight statedin the bill of lading, which was in ac- cordance with the company’s custom. It carried several policies issued about six months before, covering such cargo as it was required by contract to insure, and also its own risk as a carrier. Such policies were all applicable to the cargo in which the wool was shipped. The consignees of the wool, having paid draft against the shipment attached to the bill of lading, and not knowing whether the goods were insured, reported them for insurance under an open policy carried by them for several years, under which they had covered’ ‘‘wool * * * not previously insured.’ This was before the goods had actually been received upon the ship, but while they were in course of shipment. by rail. All the policies contained the American clause against double insurance, providing that ‘‘if the said assured shall have made any other assurance * * * prior in day of date to this policy, then the said assurers shall be answerable only’ for so much as the amount of such prior assurance shall be deficient,’’ etc. Held, that such clause had no, application as between the two sets of policies to affect the validity of either, not being applicable by its terms to insurance under an open policy and neither the assured, the interests in- sured, nor the risks insured against being the same in. the two cases. Gross vs. New York & T.S.S. Co., 107 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 516. — Sr rr i ,.NOTICE TO MARINERS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA—NORTHERN LAKES.AND ©: RIVERS—-NEW YORK. OFFICE OF THE LIGHT-HOUSE. BOARD, WASHINGTON, D. C., Oct. 17, 1901. GENESEE RANGE FRONT LIGHT —Notice is hereby, given that, on or about October 31, 1901, the arc of illumina- tion of this fixed red light, located on the west pier, en- trance to Charlotte Harbor, mouth of the Genesee river, southerly shore of Lake Oatario, will be increased from 180°: to 270°, The light will then be visible from all points of approach upon the lake. By order of the Light-House Board: TREASURY DEPARTMENT, } af N. H. FARQUHAR, Rear-Admiral, U. S. Navy, Chairman. ee t Capt A. Gallagher, of the steamer Indiana, reports to the Hydrographic Department a least depth of water of 14 feet on a shoal about 600 feet due west of the harbor entrance at Grand Haven. :