New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-03-17
THE WHITAKER INQUIRE.
MR.. sOUrHWORTH STILL TESTlFYlNG.

MR.. SOUTHWORTH STILL TESIlF4lNG.
COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE CLoSENEsS or THE ROOM
WHY THE WITNESS RETEACTED AN OPINION
NOT AFFECTED By THE OPINIONS or OTHERS.
The small size and defective ventilation OF
the room In wnich The Whitaker Court Martial Is held
and the undlmished attendance OF visitors render inc
air 90 sitting that at the close OF the trial yesterday
Maior Gardner after saying that he had hopes OF Fern
ing better accommodation the near futare, moved
that lnasnuch 90 several members OF the court mad
already suffered from the unwhoesome coniiDe Dent.
only limited number Of visitors should hereafter OH
admitted Some objection vas made 10 the motion. and
the Court postponed 1t for private delibaration.
The motion OF the JudgeAdyOcatc to Introduce the
record the Court Of Inquiry argued again ut The
fouest of Major Gardner, who had discovered new
authorities support OF his position. H. offered 10
produce only parts were pertinent 10 IN" matter
Chamberlain tat Major Gardner wished to intru
du>e The record nnt only 10 ground MS CHARGE upon IT,
b also to prove tie charge Aer some discussion the
Mr. soui hworth the expert, AGAIN took the stand and
admitted the accuracy Of the record OF the Court OF III
quiry which read to him III detail ~
Mr. Chamberlain kcd how thr witness, after having
stated in bis first report that he had 10 douh whatever
that note of warning was written by N" sam fsnh
"a specimen No. ~ had in his second report rctIaced
Tire %incss-I had worried day ami night before
made nv rs' report, until was very much rHd-ustel
ami hardly in stat" to examine further paper.
'Why did you give an unquanhed opinion when in no
1T was not an unqu tlrd opinion. IL was only ~
cOyting to the best OF my judgment.
You sad you had no doubt. VIII you state Whtt
opiuion YOU could nod more strongly T.
q made d Ins.d<e 1nHt IA all Eavc 70 say sun
M ed therr must be of the hanGwrt NJ o! The
the packri and COncn led tai No - "hs Hc
one. But whan the standards were presented 10 me ior
comparison saw at once that nad been ns'aEr an1
mat those we're written by the autHOr Of the not.
| Cnud there b. any possibility that the note was
written by any else tGaH III" author OF the stand
80 i. is impossible Ny conclusion did not rest on
| conjecture, bui on d'monS rAti !n.' ,.
"I' other experts should reach contrary c"ncInsioD'
I -rn1f I i,sE
| 4, wnul! not affect M In the least"
| "Ah! thought That was the nature OF your cOah-
| Mr Souihworth wished to plain and asserted that
nakp a clean breast, ana was ready ana
eager answer Questions That might ~ Vl' u Lu
| He had . rcpresscd several times by the Court.
| Mr Chamberi nD-- How do you expiln the tact that
cusio you acGno Vic !ge taat your report may not have
| been iudlcluus?
the Jud A vocae objected, but refused 10 give
eors for his objection. THc CDHr no refused 10
su<tsIn the objection Tdi4 decision WAS greeted frOI
without tho rail b. .aut sound of applause, which was
| sharply rcpgOvai by General Milcs.
TGc Wltaessi sometimes hurried III making up an
\ opinion. -.
r.spub Iuce5 b9twtrn No 81 and the note % warning
as b zen thc stnerl is ana the note OF warming the
witness thOught thar he had not ana said tat he had
changed L CD MON brcau-1 Tho resemblance NOT ~
striking, aultIe hal seen az nnce that the wrcr OF ne
standards and OF the note the same r
| Sun.
| The Court adjourned until th's morning at IL o'clock