The age-herald., 1902-01-04

rect?
 MT. Lomax: We object to that. We are not bound by custom and habits of other people It Is utterly irrelevant to any is- sue In this case.
 Announcement by the court: Objection is overruled.
 Judge Advocate: State that colonel. A. Yes, sir; I consider a colonel, in as- suming command, has a right to issue or ders at any time during his administration to make the regiment effective. I often Is sue orders that do not receive from the adjutant generals office. Q. Isn't 1t fact during the whole pc riod of an officers term that he Is en- gagged at various times and on many oc- casions in addressing communications to the adjutant generals office about the military affairs of his regiment, and in receiving communications, when they are not, in fact, on duty in uniform, conn monly called active duty? A. Yes, sir.
 Mir Lomax: Object, if the court please.
 Announcement by the court: Objection overruled.
 General Oates: I wanted word or two on that point, but the court has already ruled.
 Statement by the Court: Very sorry. general, but the court has ruled on that tAHN SohiOi tiidiiSC tlit Hufc.
 Judge Advocate: I ask you if that is not a fact? A. Yes
 c. Military organizations kept up con- tinuously? A. Yes; absolutely necessary to make 1t efficient.
 General Oates: We object. It Is not com petent to examine this witness as an ex- pert as to the rules and regulations of the adjutant generals office; If anybody is eligible to prove that it would be the ad +ho Iau scribes his duties, etc.
 Judge Advocate: As matter of fact, Colonel Higdon says that he knows as colonel of the regiment that he is con- tinuously and frequently writing letters and receiving orders from the adjutant generals office-in transmitting them to his inferiors-in fact, continuously en- gagged in military duties.
 General Oates-Suppose he is, that does not affect this case. It does not tend in any way to enlighten the court with evil dence as to the charges preferred as to what correspondence he and the adjutant general carries on Suppose the adjutant General were to request him to do a cer- tain thing outside of the law and he replies to him, neither consenting nor dissenting The defendant has nothing to do with that, and therefore it is ir- relevant and incompetent testimony.
 v. oy Lne OOurl-DOeS COiOnel f1lSuOn desire to make any remarks on this sub ject?
 Judge Advocate-I wish to read the law on this subject.
 Announcement by the Court-You need not argue the question. The court will overrule the objection.
 Judge Advocate-In pursuance of your duties as commanding officer of the Third Regiment
 Announcement by the Court-One min ute, I think the court had better adjourn for lunch.
 Judge Advocate-Just one question and I will be through with him.
 Q. I will ask you this question now, If it Is not a fact that frequently, almost continuously that you are transmitting of ficial letters and orders and receiving of- ficial letters and orders from the inferior officers of your regiment?
 A. Yes.
 MT. Lomax- Object to that on the same and immaterial.
 Announcement by the Court-Objection overruled.
 Judge Advocate-I think that covers the ground for the present
 The court recessed until o'clock.
 Cross-Examination.
 Upon the reconvening of the court at o'clock Colonel Higdon took the stand for cross-examination. In reply to question by General Oates witness stated that he did not prefer charges against Colonel Kyle until thirty days after he had re- ceived the insulting letter.
 The witness Colonel Higdon) was hand ed paper purporting to be the discharge from the volunteer army service of Lieu tenant Colonel Kyle. It was identified by Colonel Higdon as a part of the dis charge papers of Lieutenant Colonel Kyle Colonel Higdon testified that the original discharge paper of Lieutenant Colonel Kyle certified that he had been good officer with one exception, when his breach of discipline came near causing mutiny in the regiment
 This endorsement Colonel Higdon said was afterward changed upon a satisfac- tory explanation by Lieutenant Colonel Kyle of his conduct and he was given a clear record by direction of Colonel Higdon.
 Colenel Higdon said that he had prepar- ed discharges for Major Tom O. Smith and Major D. D. Mcleod and Major Kyle. They set out that each of these officers had served faithfully with one exception. Upon the application of Major Kyle he had specified the exception in his discharge that he had been guilty of a breach of discipline.
 Asked Him to Resign.
 Then Colonel Higdon testified that the three-Major Kyle, Mcleod and Smith called on him at Miami and told him they represented forty-five of the fifty officers of the regiment who desired him to resign.
 At this point in the testimony the judge advocate interposed objection to the line pr evidence. He said the accused officer was undertaking to try Colonel Higdon 'or his conduct during the Spanish war. General Oates and MT. Lomax replied 70 the judge advocate. They contended hat they had right to show personal ceiling between the two officers. The ob- ecuon or the judge advocate was over ruled.
 Continuing his testimony, Colonel Hie- don said that after he had given Major Kyle his final discharge he received a telegram from Lieut.-Col. McDonald. an army officer referring him to army reo,,-