Answer, "I think with Mr. Ward," men tioning the officer who was assisting the Judge Advocate. If this conversation had taken place in one of our court rooms, where it is not the practice to profess to believe that every wit ness is trying as hard as he can to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, it would be regarded as a moment of truthful bias, but nevertheless of bias guarding the point of those confidential communications, which take off the bloom of the really fresh fruit. There is no self-deceit more complacent than that of professional gentlemen, who dream that their right to be believed is as great as their desire to tell the truth. In this case there was much honest protesta tion of the truthful proclivities of the wit nesses, and their mutual contradictions were explained as errors resulting from imper fect observation or defective recollection. That was doubtless the proper course to take in living up to the tone desired upon such an occasion. But it is necessary to look be neath the surface in order to distinguish be tween the knowledge of the witnesses and their respective personal equations. The essential point to be remembered is that even the testimony of a gentleman, trained to high standards of honor, is affected by preparation made under the honest art of honorable counsel. The same man hon estly telling the same story tells it differ ently when led by different counsel. This is not merely a thing to be regretted, it is a thing to be understood. Men of business experience realize, as few other men do, that an honorable gentleman is as sensitive about being believed after he has had his attention called to some mistake in his tes timony as he was strenuous in insisting on its original correctness. After the trial of Admiral Keppel. Vice Admiral Sir Hugh Palliscr, who appeared to be active against Admiral Keppel, was tried by court-martial. The court acquitted
him of misconduct or misbehavior, and said that his conduct in many respects had been highly exemplary and meritorious, but added that he should have made certain facts known to his commander-in-chief.1
INGENUITY A USUAL INCIDENT OF ADVOCACY. The need of distinguishing between the actions of an officer whose duties and powers require him to advise the court, and also to represent the government in the trial of a case appeared early in this investigation. The Judge Advocate asked of a witness, "What impression did the Commodore's manner make upon you?" When the counsel for the applicant ob jected, the Judge Advocate replied, "I got that idea from a question put by Mr. Rayner to the witness the other day." To which Mr. Rayner responded, "Not on such a subject as this." Thereupon the Judge Ad vocate withdrew the question, and asked concerning the applicant's manner. The answer was, "His manner was that of a com mander-in-chief." The Judge Advocate then asked again for the witness's impres sion, and was again checked by an objection. In such target practice as trying to hit the bull's-eye in the minds of a court or a jury, the experienced practitioner is warned by previous failures of unsophisticated trust in the natural and immediate appreciation of the merits of his client or of his cause. He finds it expedient to remember that testi mony is not discharged into a vacuum, but into a medium subject to the winds of preju dice. Hence, unless he uses some inge nuity, he may not even strike the minds of his judges at all. The Judge Advocate asked an officer to state the features of the blockade which may aid the court in determining whether or not it was an effective blockade. One of the ap1 Court-Martial published with that of Keppel. See below.
