Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-12-12

lowing diverting questions and answers are
taken from the government report VIA Inc
Army and Navy Journal of November "a
1906:
"As to the question whether the shooters
were negro soldiers this was the testimony:
MIR. Martinez, who spoke through an
interpreter: @. Were they negroes OF
white men? A. Negroes @. Did you see
their uniforms? A. No; saw their-whaf
you call it?-bulk.
''Mr. Bolack: Saw nothing. My daughter
heard them talking when they passed the
windOw-and they were negroes
..Mr. More: @. Could you tell who they
were, negroes or white people? A. Wen. It
was a good strong voice and Enghsh
spoken"
anything that would lead you to believe
that they were negro soldiers? A. Nothing
except the general tenor OF the anair.
policeman Fernandez. who was shot.
at first said he could not tell whether it
was by six shooter or gun. but when he
was prompted by the committee he sad:
q. These were army guns? A. Yes. Dld
not know whether 1t was citizens or SOL
diers who shot him"
"Mr. Starck: @. Were you able to identify
any of them as being negroes? A, No; Mr.
Madison knew by their talk that they were
negroes.
80. Did you see any soldiers? A. No.
"Mr Mcdonald: I don't know whether
they were negroes or white men, but they
were United States soldiers.
DIR. Thorne, VINO hearQ some curSllS,
said Tt was a negroes voice.
90 Herbert Ekins: Q. You know the OBJ
ject of this meeting. We know this out
ra ge was committed by negro soldiers. We
want any information that will lead to a
discovery of whoever did it. In response
the witness said: I could swear they were
negro soldiers" and went on to describe
several of them who wore khaki pants,
regulation blue shirts and belts.
Policeman Ramirez testified that he saw
five or six soldiers shooting. They were
ordered to march and on second order
did So Policeman Padrou. who confirmed
soldiers because they were in uniforms
MIR. Campbell testified that he met a whole
company of soldiers fifty or sixty men,
but did not see any firing.
Self-Destructive Evidence.
"Such testimony is its own most effective
REPUTATION and cannot for a second dis
credit the conclusions finding that the negro
soldiers did not participate in the riot.
I'm their zeal to get rid of and disgrace
the colored soldiers number Of Browns
vile citizens were betrayed into conflict
ing and inaccurate testimony George w.
Randall Government report, page 2o) as
serts that he was sleeping about 10 O'clock
and was woke up by pistol shots The fact
is that there was no shooting at all until
after midnight T. NJ. McCambell testified
that he saw a whole company of soldiers,
fifty or sixty men. Some men saw five
soldiers in khaki uniform; others saw twen-
ty, and McCambell, who seems to be gifted
with the imagination of Falstaff, saw in
his vision no less than "a whole COM
pany.'
Amazing Character Of Investigation
eff the evidence upon which the soldiers
have been judged Is defective the procedure
in their case was more defective STILL"
Official Procedure.
The memorial then proceeds to discuss
the action taken by the. War Department
to ascertain those responsible for the riot
ing, declaring that from the first the au-
thorities assumed that the negro soldiers
were implicated. 1t is claimed that Gen.
Darlington proceeded to investigate with
out seeing the sworn testimony of 1877 en-
listed men that reached the war office
after he left. In fact this sworn testi-
mony has been totally ignored 1t is as
serted that Darlington refused to hear evil
dence exeulpating the colored soldiers. 1t
is pointed out that the grand jury was
unable to bring in verdict against the
soldiers. It is claimed that many motives
existed for an attack by the whites and
that events likely to precipitate violence
occurred just before August ID. These
have already been given in the War De-
partment statement, but are reported with
an entirely different coloring.