I remember that the first rat that left the trap never got more than a foot from it, and so on. The last rat always tried desperately to reach the fence. But it was very seldom that even the last rat escaped that bulldog's snapping jaws. I imagine that my bulldog and the young ensign and exfootball star whom I have mentioned, both of whom applied the law of flight, are somewhat a!ike. I am glad that I can tell you of a different man. He was only a sailor, an enlisted man. I can not tell you the name of that sailor. I got the story from the man in whose arms he died. He was one of the 17. At the foot of a wide street, close to the Vera Cruz water front, is the terminal station. On the second day of the fighting, a sailor was seen staggering toward the station, dragging after him a wounded comrade. The comrade was wounded in the leg and could not walk. But through the lungs of the sailor who was dragging him to safety a bullet had torn a gaping wound. They rounded the corner of the building. The man with the shattered leg was taken away and cared for, and to-day he is as good as new. There was blood on the sailor's blouse and a tiny hole. The splotch of blood widened. It was then they guessed that his wound was mortal. They fetched a cot. He waved them away. A doctor came. He stayed him with a gesture. I have the word of the man in whose arms he died that that gesture was superb. He tried to speak. Blood gushed from his lips. He swallowed, while his eyes glazed. Then the words came. To: President board of inquiry, U. S. S. Texas. Subject: Conversation between Ensign Richardson and Mr. Boalt. 1. The following verbal orders were telephoned on July 12, 1914, to each organization in this command: "The commanding general desires to know before Tuesday morning, July 14, 1914, if any officer or officers of your command overheard or was present at a conversation between Ensign Richardson, United States Navy, and Mr. Boalt, correspondent, relating to casualties or killing of natives during the capture of Vera Cruz." 2. In answer to the above, telephone messages have been received this morning from the commanding officer, Fifth Brigade, United States Army; the commanding officer, First Brigade, United States Marines; and the commanding officer, Fourth Field Artillery, that none has been found who heard the conversation referred to between Ensign Richardson and Mr. Boalt. Every officer in the organizations (Army and marines) has been informed of the desire of the commanding general for any information on this subject without result. 3. The intelligence officer at these headquarters, Capt. William A. Burnside, Infantry, unassigned, military attaché to Mexico, has also endeavored by every means of information available to him to find out if anyone could give him information so that he could locate parties cognizant of this alleged conversation. War correspondents and civilans have been interviewed with no result. F. D. EVANS, Adjutant General. E. The article written by Mr. Boalt and published in the Memphis Press is not an expression of opinion, but purports to be a plain statement of facts. It comes directly within the law definition of libel as given in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 1912. He states, positively and in unequivocal terms, that I had command of a squad of men who took many prisoners at Vera Cruz; he states that these prisoners were corraled in a room; he says that at a word from me they were released and told to scatter for their lives; he says that very few of them escaped alive; he says that I applied "the law of flight"; he says that this law of flight is forbidden by the rules of civilized warfare; he says that I not only applied this prohibited law of flight, but that I admitted and boast about it; he says that my friends applauded me for it, and hundreds of American Army and naval officers know that I applied this forbidden law of flight; that I made sport of prisoners of war, even potting them as they fled. All of the above appears in Mr. Boalt's article as cold, hard facts, and if true, render me liable to trial by general court-martial and a very severe sentence. If unture they render Mr. Boalt liable to indictment and trial for libel. The attention of the court is respectfully invited to the fact that of all the scandalous allegations made by Mr. Boalt in the Memphis Press and also in his letter to Gen. Funston not one has been substantiated either by him or any evidence which has been brought before the court. Mr. Boalt bases all of his statements on an alleged conversation at which he claims he was present, and which he claims took place under the portales in Vera Cruz. Although he claims to be very positive in recognizing Ensign Richardson as the officer who boasted of having put into effect "the law of flight," his memory is singularly defective when it comes to remembering the date of the conversation, the names of any officers who were present, the time of day the conversation took place, or any other details whatsoever in connection therewith, yet he deliberately writes an article which is published in at least one paper in which he states that Ensign Richardson openly boasts of shooting prisoners, that hundreds of officers approve of Ensign Richardson's conduct, etc. Mr. Boalt has only produced one other witness besides himself whom he claims was present at the above-mentioned conversation, and both Mr. Boalt and his colleague prefaced their testimony by stating positively that they know nothing of their own knowledge, Mr. Boalt not having arrived at Vera Cruz until May 2. Both Mr. Boalt and his friend, Mr. Shepard, state in their testimony that the article published in the Memphis Press was gained by listening to a general conversation held by a group of naval officers, and the article is their impression of the entire conversation and not the statements of any one officer. Mr. Boalt admits that he never has had any direct conversation with me; that he has never met me; that at the time when the alleged conversation took place he did not know me by sight. He does not claim to have even taken any notes at the time of the conversation, and yet he afterwards writes an article making very positive statements about me and purporting to tell of certain disgraceful acts performed by me. Both Mr. Boalt and his friend, Mr. Shepherd, have stated in their testimony that I am given to exaggeration. As Mr. Boalt has stated in his article, which was published in the Memphis Press, that "hundreds of American Army and naval officers know that I applied this forbidden law of flight," and yet has been totally unable to cite one single Army or naval officer who does know of or applaud the application of the law of flight, I leave it for the court to decide which of us is given to exaggeration. This inability of Mr. Boalt to remember the time that the alleged conversation under the portales took place, or to remember the name of a single officer of the Navy who was present at the time, places me in a peculiarly trying position, for under the circumstances I am totally unable to call any witnesses who were present at this particular time to refute Mr. Boalt's statements as regards the alleged conversation. Mr. Boalt states in his letter to Gen. Funston that he wrote the article under discussion because he is against war, because he believes war to be wrong, because he wanted to show what men do in war when they are engaged in killing of other men. The high and lofty ideals which impelled Mr. Boalt to write a scandalous and malicious article which reflects not only upon the integrity of an officer, but upon the whole naval service, in my opinion requires no comment. The testimony of several reputable newspaper correspondents goes to show that it is not considered the proper procedure to write a story of this character with as little to base it on as Mr. Boalt claims he had in this case. As regards the credibility of the only two witnesses who have appeared against me, I wish to invite the attention of the court to the deliberate falsehood and disregard of the court's instructions by Mr. Boalt, the complainant, and the disregard of the court's explicit instructions by his friend, Mr. Shepherd. Mr. Boalt was plainly informed by the president of this court that it was an open court, and he was warned not to discuss matters pertaining to the inquiry during its continuance. Notwithstanding this fact, he deliberately went on shore from the court and cabled to his newspaper that it was a closed court; that he was not permitted to be present during the inquiry; and that only Ensign Richardson was allowed in the court room. He also cabled large portions of his testimony before the court. Mr. Shepherd totally disregarded the warning given to him by the president of the court, and also cabled to his newspaper about matters pertaining to the trial. That both Mr. Boalt and Mr. Shepherd well knew they were violating the warning of the president of the court is shown by the fact that each of them incorporated in his dispatch that he had been cautioned by the president of the court not to discuss matters pertaining to the trial. The testimony of a large number of officers of the Army, of the Navy, and of the Marine Corps, and also newspaper men who have been under the portales with me all goes to show that I have never discussed the "law of flight" in public; that I have never boasted of having corraled any prisoners in a room; in fact, their testimony shows conclusively that the testimony of both Mr. Boalt and Mr. Shepherd is absolutely false. It has been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that Ensign Richardson never captured any prisoners, never had any prisoners under his charge, nor did he ever have any prisoners executed during the occupation of the city of Vera Cruz by the naval forces; in fact, it has been proved that no shots were fired by either Ensign Richardson or men under his command from a machine gun. Owing to the large number of newspaper men who came to Vera Cruz during the occupation, and to the harm which can be done not only to individuals buc to the military service if such acts are condoned, it is earnestly requested that this court find in unmistakable terms from the evidence which has been submitted to it that the allegations of Mr. Boalt are not only false, but base in character, and tending to destroy the good reputation which the defendant in this case now enjoys. |