forbidden law of flight-made sport of prisoners of war, and even noncombatants, giving them a fiying start and 'potting' them as they fed." The court finds these allegations are not sustained by the evidence adduced. No evidence whatsoever was adduced to prove them, nor to identify the friends, officers, and men referred to. OPINION. In the opinion of the court no further proceedings should be had against Ensign William A. Richardson, United States Navy, nor any other person in the Navy, for the reason that the allegations against them have not been sustained. (1) On July 16, 1914, the commander in chief approved the proceedings, finding, and opinion of the court by the following indorse ment: The inquiry into the allegations made by Mr. Fred L. Boat, correspondent of the Newspaper Enterprise Association, at Vera Cruz, Mexico, has been very exhaustive, and conclusively proves the entire falsity of the statements of Mr. Boalt in regard to the application of the "law of flight" to Mexican prisoners by Ensign W. A. Richardson, United States Navy, during the occupation of Vera Cruz by the United States naval forces, April 21-30, 1914, and, further, conclusively shows that the "law of flight' was not in any case applied by any of the United States forces at Vera Cruz at any time. The proceedings, finding, and opinion of the court of inquiry are forwarded approved. 3. An examination of the testimony shows conclusively not only that the statements alleging that prisoners or other persons were improperly killed by Ensign Richardson, or by his order, were not sustained, but it seems to be established beyond doubt that neither Ensign Richardson, nor any other person attached to the naval forces of the United States during the capture of Vera Cruz, improperly killed any Mexicans during the occupation. Furthermore, it is conclusively established that no prisoners were at any time taken by Ensign Richardson, or at any time under his orders or control. Furthermore, it appears that of the 41 witnesses examined, Mr. Fred L. Boalt and Mr. W. G. Shepherd (who, from the testimony, appears to have been his roommate) were the only ones who had any knowledge or remote recollection of any such conversation having taken place as alleged by Mr. Boalt, nor does it appear that any of this representative body of witnesses had ever heard of the application of the "law of flight" to prisoners taken by United States naval forces prior to the appearance of Mr. Boalt's dispatch. 4. It further appears that though Mr. Shepherd is a news item correspondent, whereas Mr. Boalt is a feature writer, and though both allege to have heard this piece of startling news early in May, soon after their arrival, Mr. Shepherd never saw fit to utilize it as an item of news, and Mr. Boalt appears to have mentioned it for the first time in his dispatch which appeared under date of June 19, six weeks after the conversation is alleged to have taken place, neither of these correspondents having made any serious effort to verify the facts in the meantime. 5. In this connection, the testimony given by Mr. Boalt while on the witness stand concerning this alleged conversation is noteworthy when compared with the dispatch (which is quoted in the first paragraph above). 6. His sworn testimony concerning the conversation which he states was the sole basis of his dispatch is as follows: 3. Question. State the facts in the article that you wrote concerning some officer of the naval service. Answer. You mean how I came to write the article? 4. Question. Yes. * * * * * Answer. I got to Vera Cruz on the night of May 2, and the fighting in Vera Cruz was then the chief topic of conversation, and in a few days after my arrival in Vera Cruz, I and William G. Shepherd were introduced to a number of naval officers under the portales. We were all talking, or at least the naval officers, * * about the need of handling these Mexicans with strong hands. One of the officers mentioned that Ensign Richardson had used a strong hand in handling the Mexicans. I have met so many groups of naval and Army officers, and changing groups, and listening to so many stories and writing so many that I can not remember who were in the groups with the single exception of Ensign Richardson. I can't remember, and will not pretend to, what Ensign Richardson's exact words were. He did, however, say that he and his men put the prisoners in a room, let them go and run down the street, and those that got away around the corner were entitled to get away. That was about all that Ensign Richardson said. He left the table to speak to some friends at another table. *: ** * 9. Question. When Ensign Richardson told that story, did he state that he had shot at any men that were running? Answer. No. 50. Question. Was your story in the Memphis Press of Saturday, June 20, 1914, based on anything whatever except the statement alleged to have been made by Ensign Richardson under the portales? Answer. Nothing but that. The statement" alleged to have been made by Ensign Richardson under the portales" is the underlined in the answer to question 4, consisting of three lines, and in his sworn testimony Mr. Boalt states that his story was based on nothing whatever but that. 7. Mr. Shepherd, the only other of the 41 witnesses who had any knowledge or remote recollection of any such conversation, testified in regard thereto as follows: 10. Question. Can you state the gist of the conversation? Answer. My memory in regard to this conversation is not very clear. There were quite a few of them sitting around a table, but how much these gentlemen, talking around the table, or how much Mr. Richardson himself told of this story is not just clear in my mind in regard to the entire conversation. I can not state as a matter of fact exactly what Mr. Richardson said. My memory is a little indistinct. There was a large number of us sitting around the table and the impression I gained from this gentleman's conversation was that Ensign Richardson had ordered some Mexicans confined in either a room or a building and that at his signal these Mexicans were released and were told to run away; that they were at liberty; and that when these Mexicans ran they were fired at and some of them killed. 11. Question. Do you know any other officers or civilians present at the same conversation? 13. Question. How did you know it was Mr. Richardson? Answer. Some of the chaps around told me who he was. Mr. Simpson, of the Associated Press, was sitting at the table, and somebody told me that that was Mr. Richardson. * * Mr. Simpson, correspondent of the Associated Press, is the only person who either of the above witnesses can remember as being present on the occasion of this alleged conversation. 8. Mr. Simpson, the next witness on the stand, testifies that he was never present amongst a group of civilians and naval officers when certain incidents, such as the law of flight, were discussed; that he was present during a great many discussions of occurrences during the American occupation; that he never heard the law of flight mentioned at any of these discussions; that he had been in company with Ensign Richardson on shore during the occupation at various times; that he had heard Ensign Richardson tell of his experiences during the occupation; that he never heard him mention having taken any prisoners; and finally that he had never been in company with Mr. Boalt, Mr. Shepherd, and Ensign Richardson at the same time. 9. The testimony points conclusively that Ensign Richardson never captured any prisoners, nor did he ever have any prisoners under his charge, and it appears to have been established beyond any doubt that the "law of flight" was not in any case applied by any of the United States forces at Vera Cruz at any time. 10. The precept ordered the court to inquire into the truth of the allegations made by Fred L. Boalt relative to the shooting of certain prisoners by the naval forces of the United States during the occupation of Vera Cruz on or about April 22. The finding of the court is that the several allegations were "not sustained by the evidence adduced." The remainder of the remarks under the heading "Finding" are explanatory of the finding, in the nature of weighing or a summation of the evidence which was adduced. 11. After a careful review of the record I am of the opinion that the proceedings were regular; the inquiry exhaustive; the findings sustained by the evidence adduced, and the opinion responsive thereto. 12. In view of the foregoing, and of the court's opinion that no further proceedings should be had against Ensign William A. Richardson or any other person in the Navy, which opinion has been approved by the commander in chief, who convened the court, no further action in the case on the part of the department is necessary. RIDLEY MCLEAN, Judge Advocate General. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF A COURT OF INQUIRY CONVENED ON BOARD U. S. S. "TEXAS," VERA CRUZ, MEXICO, BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, UNITED STATES ATLANTIC FLEET. To inquire into the truth of certain allegations made by Fred L. Boalt, correspondent for the Newspaper Enterprise Association in Vera Cruz, relative to the shooting of certain prisoners by the naval forces of the United States during the occupation of Vera Cruz on or about April 22, 1914. [July 10 to 14, 1914.] FIRST DAY. U. S. S. "TEXAS," Vera Cruz, Mexico, Friday, July 10, 1914. The court met at 10 a. m. Present: Capt. Albert W. Grant, United States Navy, president; Capt. Thomas S. Rodgers, United States Navy, and Commander George C. Day, United States Navy, members; and Lieut. (Junior Grade) Nelson W. Pickering, United States Navy, judge ad vocate. The court was cleared, and the precept, together with the accompanying instructions, were read. All other matters preliminary to the inquiry were determined and, after deciding to sit with open doors, the court was opened. The judge advocate, having received permission, introduced as stenographers, Chief Yeoman Floyd H. Boyce, United States Navy, and Yeoman (Second Class) Ralph L. Armstrong, United States Navy. The defendant, Ensign William A. Richardson, United States Navy, appeared and, having received permission, introduced Commander David F. Sellers, United States Navy, as his counsel. The judge advocate read the precept and accompanying papers, the original of the former, and the original letter and newspaper article appended, marked "Á," "B," and "C." Mr. Fred L. Boalt then appeared and was informed that he was a complainant and informed that as a complainant he was entitled to be present with counsel during the sittings of the court and should he at any time become a defendant the court would so inform him. Mr. Boalt stated that he did not desire counsel. The judge advocate read the precept and accompanying papers, the original of the former, and the original letter and newspaper article appended, marked "A," "B," and "C." The members, judge advocate, and stenographers were duly sworn. All witnesses were directed to withdraw, and the inquiry proceeded as follows: The complainant was called as a witness by the judge advocate and was duly sworn. The witness was cautioned by the court to confine himself to facts which are within his own knowledge. Examined by the JUDGE ADVOCATE : 1. Question. What is your name, occupation, and present residence? Answer. Fred L. Boalt, newspaper reporter, now in Vera Cruz. 2. Question. You have written an article to a newspaper making a statement concerning Ensign Richardson and possibly other officers of the service; state the facts you know concerning statements in the article. Answer. I did not write any article in which Ensign Richardson's name was given. 3. Question. State the facts in the article that you wrote concerning some officer of the naval service. Answer. You mean how I came to write the article? 4. Question. Yes. Answer. I got to Vera Cruz on the night of May 2, and the fighting in Vera Cruz was then the chief topic of conversation, and in a few days, I can't fix the day after my arrival in Vera Cruz, I and William G. Shepherd, of the United Press Association, were introduced to a number of naval officers under the portales. We were all talking, or at least the naval officers-they were all naval officers except Shepherd and myself-about the need of handling these Mexicans with strong hands. One of the officers mentioned that Ensign Richardson had used a strong hand in handling the Mexi cans. I have met so many groups of naval and Army officers, and changing groups, and listening to so many stories and writing so many that I can't remember who were in the groups with the single exception of Ensign Richardson. I can't remember, and I will not pretend to, what Ensign Richardson's exact words were. He did, however, say that he and his men put the prisoners in a room, let them go and run down the street, and those that got away around the corner were entitled to get away. That was about all that Ensign Richardson said; he left the table to speak to some friends at another table. When this story was told I didn't even know Ensign Richardson's name. I had to ask who he was and I had never heard the name before; it didn't mean anything to me, but they told me he had been a great football player. One officer said he didn't believe that Ensign Richardson had done what he said he had, and another man said he believed that he had. I didn't use the story for I don't know how many days, but a number of days. I thought it over and thought there might be a comeback. Finally I used the story, but not giving the name of Ensign Richardson, and in the same story I told of this sailor who was wounded, carrying another wounded sailor to a place of safety and then died— in order to show two extremes of behavior during a battle. 5. Question. Where is William G. Shepherd? Answer. He is in Vera Cruz. 6. Question. Where does he live in Vera Cruz? Answer. At the Deligencia. 7. Question. Do you know the names of anybody else in the party? Answer. I do not. 8. Question. Was Ensign Richardson in the club at that time? Answer. At the outset, yes. 9. Question. When Ensign Richardson told that story, did he state that he had shot at any men that were running? Answer. No; he just explained the method about as briefly as I have stated here. 10. Question. Then he didn't mention shooting at any men himself? Answer. No, sir. 11. Question. Then he didn't mention that his detachment had fired at any of the men who were running? Answer. That was included in the method that he had described. 12. Question. Whom did you ask as to Ensign Richardson's name? Answer. Right there at the table-a number of officers. Neither Shepherd or I knew who the officers were at that time. 13. Question. Was Mr. Shepherd with you during the entire conversation and when you asked about Ensign Richardson's name? Answer. My recollection is that he was with me throughout that conversation, because a little later we discussed the story we had heard and it was then that Mr. Shepherd had told me that the method described in our conversation was called the "ley de fuga.” That was the first time I had ever heard of the term. 14. Question. In what part of Vera Cruz was this "ley de fuga " put into effect by Ensign Richardson? |