The person charging this material is re- 
 sponsible for its return to the library from 
 which it was withdrawn on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books 
 are reasons for disciplinary action and may 
 result in dismissal from the University. 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
 L161 — 0-1096 
 
TWENTY-FIFTH INFANTRY 
 
 COMPANIES B, C, AND D 
 
 I do not ask for these soldiers either pardon or clemency, but vindica- 
 tion from the charge of crime, of which I am convinced they are abso- 
 lutely innocent. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF * 
 
 HON. MORGAN G. BULKELEY 
 
 IN THE 
 
 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 MAY 4, 1908 
 
 “Even a Senator of the United States might better form his own 
 opinions rather than adopt those even of the highest authority, when 
 the only question involved is one of justice.” 
 
 AVASIIINTGrTONT 
 
 1908 
 
 4181G— 7?3S 
 
Digitized by the internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 I 
 
 https://archive.org/details/twentyfifthinfanOObulk 
 
"aJell V\ 
 
 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. MORGAN G. BULKELEY. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the bill (S. 5729) to correct 
 the records and authorize the reenlistment of certain noncommissioned 
 otBcers and enlisted men belonging to Companies B, C. and D of the 
 Twenty-fifth United States Infantry who were discharged without honor 
 under Special Orders, No. 26(5, War Department, November 9, 1906, 
 and the restoration to them of all rights of v/hich they have been .de- 
 prived on account thereof — 
 
 Mv. BULKELEY said : 
 
 Mr. President : The duties imposed upon the Committee on 
 < y Military Affairs under the terms of the resolution instructing 
 / that committee to investigate the affray at Brownsville, Tex., 
 on the night of August 13-14, 190G, were of an exceptional char- 
 acter. The conclusions of such investigation involved not only 
 the honor of the Army, but the good character, both as men and 
 soldiers, of all the men of the battalion of the Twenty-fifth In- 
 fantry stationed at Fort Brown, Tex. (Companies B, C, and 
 D), but collaterally the four regiments of colored troops of the 
 United States Army, of which those companies whose conduct 
 is now in question have become the prominent representatives, 
 and by whose conduct, in a measure, the future status of the 
 colored soldier in the Army of the United States is to be deter- 
 mined. 
 
 The committee entered upon this investigation with a determi- 
 nation, if possible, to probe all the circumstances connected with 
 the affray; to elicit all the facts so far as they could be ascer- 
 tained; to obtain all the evidence, both direct and circumstan- 
 tial, that would enable the committee to identify the guilty par- 
 ticipants, whether soldiers or others possibly guilty, and have 
 perfonhed all these duties with which they were intrusted, and 
 have gathered and reported all the evidence now obtainable. I 
 am of the opinion that a visit by the committee to the scene of 
 the affray and a personal inspection of the military post of Fort 
 Brown, the city of Brov/nsvilie, and the surrounding country, 
 an examination on the ground of all conditions there prevailing, 
 both by day as well as by night, would have greatly aided the 
 committee in drawing just and fair conclusions from the mass 
 of evidence submitted for consideration. All the preliminary 
 investigations upon which the order of the President dismissing 
 the troops from the Army appear, from the records, to have 
 been instituted on the theory that the men of the battalion sta- 
 tioned at Fort Brown were guilty participants in the affray. 
 See orders General Garlington (p. 109, S. Doc. 155) ; 
 
 The I’resident directs that you proceed to the places named in the ac- 
 companying letter and endeavor to secure information that will lead to 
 the apprehension and punishment of the men of the Twenly-fiftli In- 
 fantry believed to have participated in the riolons disturl)ance which 
 41816—77:58 3 
 
4 : 
 
 occurred in Brownsville, Tex., on the night of the 13th of August, 
 1906. * * * And in this connection the President further author- 
 
 izes you to make known to those concerned that unless such enlisted 
 men of the Twenty-fifth Infantry as may have knowledge of the facts 
 relating to the shooting, killing, and riotous conduct on the part of the 
 men with the organizations serving at Fort Brown, Tex., on the night 
 of August 13, 1906, report to you such facts and all the circumstances 
 within their knowledge which will assist in apprehending the guilty 
 parties, orders will he issued from the War Department discharging 
 every man in Companies B, C, and D of the Twenty-fifth Infantry with- 
 out honor, etc. 
 
 Mr. BURIiOWS. To wliom was tlie order issued? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. To Major Blocksom. The investigation 
 of the citizens’ committee appointed the day after the affray in 
 Brownsville from the inquiries instituted indicate the same 
 thought; and I will read a question and answer That were 
 propounded not only to one but to almost every vritness who 
 was called before the committee. 
 
 Investigation by citizens’ committee, page 82, Senate Docu- 
 ment No. 155 : 
 
 Q. We are inquiring into the matter of last night, with a view to 
 ascertaining who the guilty parties are. We know they were negro 
 soldiers. 
 
 Page 85: 
 
 Q. You know the object of this meeting. We know that this outrage 
 was committed by negro soldiers. We want any information that will 
 lead to a discovery of whoever did it. 
 
 Page 110: Orders to Lieutenant-Colonel Lovering, September 
 24, 190G: 
 
 Sir : By direction of the division commander, I inclose you here- 
 with the affidavits of * * * with reference to certain troubles 
 
 which occurred at Brownsville, Tex., between soldiers of the Twenty- 
 fifth Infantry and civilians. 
 
 Hearings, part 2, page 11 : Report of Major Blocksom and 
 M. D. Purdy, assistant to the Attorney-General : 
 
 1. Testimony with reference to the assembling of the soldiers, the 
 shooting from the barracks behind the garrison wall, the climbing over 
 the garrison wall, and the shooting into the houses on the Garrison 
 road, etc. 
 
 Page 162, part 2 : Affidavit of Major Blocksom : 
 
 * * * I am a major and inspector-general in the United States 
 
 Army ; that on the 22d day of December, 1906, I was duly authorized 
 and directed by the Secretary of War, through the proper official 
 channels, to go to Brownsville and other places in the State of Texas, 
 for the purpose of investigating the shooting affray committed in the 
 city of Brownsville on the night of the 13th of August, 1906, in which 
 it was alleged that certain members of Com.panies B, C, and D of 
 the Twenty-fifth Infantry were implicated, etc. 
 
 I bave been particular to recall all tbe orders issued on wbich 
 this order of dismissal was founded, including some extracts 
 from the proceedings of the citizens’ committee to verifj^ my 
 conclusions — that up to the commencement of the investigation 
 by the Senate Committee on Military Affairs it was practically 
 assumed by the military, executive, and civil authorities that 
 the troops, or some of them, were guilty of the “ shooting up 
 of the town,” notwithstanding their persistent denial on all 
 occasions of participation in the affray or any knowledge of 
 parties engaged in the murderous raid — such protestations of 
 innocence and lack of knowledge were at once construed as 
 eufiicient evidence of an additional crime, “a conspiracy of 
 silence ” to shield the guilty ones, of whom, it was assumed, 
 41816—7738 
 
5 
 
 they must necessarily have knowledge. I have never had called 
 to my attention, Mr. President, in view of the testimony sub- 
 mitted to your committee, a more relentless pursuit of men 
 accused of crime without an opportunity to be heard in their 
 own defense, except to protest their innocence, or guilty knowl- 
 edge which was at once construed as I have before indicated. 
 It seems to me, Mr. President, that up to the time of the inves- 
 tigation by your committee the elementary principle of the 
 criminal law as laid down by the Supreme Court of the United 
 States has been, unwittingly perhaps, violated. I venture, as a 
 layman, to quote: 
 
 The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of 
 the accused is the undoubted lavv^, axiomatic and elementary, and its 
 enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our crim- 
 inal law. (156 U. S., 453.) 
 
 And in the same case: 
 
 A reasonable doubt, as that term is employed in the administration 
 of the criminal law, is an honest, substantial misgiving, generated by 
 the proof or the want of it. It is such a state of the proof as fails to 
 convince your judgment and conscience and satisfy your reason of the 
 guilt of the accused. 
 
 And in 155 Plnited States, page 439, Justice Brewer says: 
 
 In a criminal trial the burden of proof is on the Government, and 
 the defendant is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt ; and 
 when testimony contradictory or explanatory is introduced by the de- 
 fendant, it becomes a part of the burden resting upon the Government 
 
 to make the case so clear that there is no reasonable doubt as to the 
 inferences and presumptions claimed to fiow from the evidence. 
 
 This prosecution up to this point, Mr. President, might more 
 rightfully be called a “ persecution,” for up to the hour of their 
 dismissal these troops had never been given the opportunity of 
 a hearing, either in a civil or a military court, if I except the 
 proceedings before the grand jury of Cameron County, in which 
 they could not participate and which resulted in a failure to 
 find an indictment against the soldiers under arrest and selected 
 by Captain McDonald, of the Texas Bangers, as those most 
 likely to have been participants in the affray. In fact, Mr. 
 President, I am bound to say that in all these preliminary pro- 
 ceedings, and continued down through your committee's investi- 
 gation, there seemed an earnest desire on the part of every de- 
 partment of the Government connected with the military estab- 
 lishment to establish the justness and integrity of the orders of 
 dismissal, rather than to accord to these men the “ presumption 
 of innocence” or the benefit of “a reasonable doubt” of their 
 guilt. 
 
 For nearly two years these soldiers of our Armj% with other- 
 wise an untarnished record, have borne the odium of accusa- 
 tion and the disgrace of dismissal from the Army without honor 
 uncomplainingly, enduring all these months confinement to post, 
 additional and onerous military duties, l)Oth by day and night, 
 in an effort to extort an admission of guilt, satisfied that time 
 would disclose the real peri)etrators of the great crime with 
 which they were charged; that their good clxiracter as soldiers, 
 and in civil life since their forced I'etireinent from the Army, 
 would win for them that measure of justice to which tliey feel 
 they are entitled. 
 
 41816—7738 
 
At this point, Mr. President, in view of what I have already 
 said and in reply to the earnest appeal and timely suggestion 
 of the Senator from Idaho, in which I heartily concur, that — 
 
 It is our duty to say to the people of this country that the party 
 which gave the colored man his freedom will also teach him that this 
 Government can only be preserved by observing the law. 
 
 To this warning to the negro I would add that in the adminis- 
 tration of the law by executive, judicial, or administrative 
 authority the citizen and the soldier is equally entitled to its 
 observance and protection. It seems to me proper before pro- 
 ceeding to a discussion of the evidence in this case to review 
 for a moment the claimed authority of law on which the dis- 
 missal of the soldiers of the Twenty-fifth Infantry is founded: 
 
 The fourth article of war, regulating the separation of 'an enlisted 
 man from the military service, reads as follows ; 
 
 “Art. 4. No enlisted man, duly sworn, shall be discharged from the 
 service without a discharge, in writing, signed by a field officer of the 
 regiment to which he belongs, or by the commanding officer when no 
 field officer is present ; and no discharge shall be given to any enlisted 
 man before his term of service has expired except by order of the Presi- 
 dent, the Secretary of War, the commanding officer of a department, or 
 by sentence of a general court-martial.” 
 
 The authority for a discharge from the military service is 
 vested in a field officer of a regiment to which the enlisted man 
 belongs or by the commanding officer when no field officer is 
 present, and this power is limited only to the case of an en- 
 listed man discharged before his term of service has expired, 
 when the discharge must be issued by the same officer, upon the 
 approval or order of the President, the Secretary of War, the 
 commanding officer of a department, or the sentence of a 
 general court-martial. It is evident from the wording of this 
 fourth article that it 'was intended, and the practice and prece- 
 dents in the Army would lead to the conclusion, that, in the 
 case of individual enlisted men, the high reviewing officers 
 named in article 4 — the President, Secretary of War, or the 
 commanding officer — 'were to decide finally on the propriety of 
 the separation of the soldier from the service prior to the ex- 
 piration of his enlistment, and on the approval of the officer 
 named the usual official named in article 4 issued the discharge. 
 It conferred no powers, except of final review and approval, 
 upon the President, Secretary of War, or any other official, 
 except that the sentence of the court-martial might terminate 
 the service prior to the expiration of the term of service. For 
 the protection of the soldier paragraph 146 of the Army Regu- 
 lations provides : 
 
 146. The character given on a discharge will be signed by the com- 
 pany or detachment commander, and great care vill be taken that no 
 injustice is done the soldier. If the soldier's service has been honest 
 and faithful, he will be entitled to such character as will warrant his 
 reenlistment — that is, to character at least “ good,” Where the com- 
 pany comraender deems the service not honest and faithful, he shall, 
 if practicable, so notify the soldier at least thirty days prior to dis- 
 charge, and shall at the same time notify the commanding officer, 
 v/ho will in every such case convene a board of officers — three, if prac- 
 ticable — to determine whether the soldier’s service has been honest 
 and faithful. The soldier will in every case be given a hearing 
 before the board. 
 
 If the company commander is the commanding officer, he will report 
 the facts to the' next higher commander, who will convene the board, 
 ffhe finding of the board, wlien approved by the convening authority, 
 fihall be final. Discharsre without honor on account of “service not 
 honest and faithful ” will be given only on the approved finding of a 
 board of officers, as herein prescribed. 
 
 41816—7738 
 
7 
 
 When an honorable discharge is given, following the action of the 
 board, the fact will he noted on the discharge and on the muster rolls. 
 
 The proceedings of boards convened nnder this paragraph, showing 
 all the facts pertinent to the inquiry, will he forwarded by the review- 
 ing authority direct to the military secretary of the Army. 
 
 In the case of these soldiers none of the precautions provided 
 by this article of war appear to have been complied with. The 
 provision of paragraph 14G of the Army Regulations — 
 
 The soldier will in every case be given a hearing before the board^ — 
 
 provided for in the article cited, and without whose approval 
 no discharge without honor could be issued — 
 
 Discharge without honor on account of “ service not honest and 
 faithful ” will be given only on the approved finding of a board of offi- 
 cers, as herein prescribed — 
 
 was most certainly disregarded; it is not claimed that any such 
 action was taken or forwarded to the military secretary of the 
 Army by the reviewing authority, as required. No court-mar- 
 tial was ever held to try these soldiers for the offense with 
 which they were charged, and which, if committed by them at 
 all, was certainly of the gravest and most serious character 
 and subject to the cognizance of either military or civil au- 
 thority, as described in the opinion of the Judge-Advocate-Gen- 
 eral addressed to the Secretary of War under date of Novem- 
 ber 23, 1906 (S. Doc. 155) : 
 
 If a soldiei’ commits an offense of so serious a character as to war- 
 rant his discharge by way of punishment, charges are preferred and 
 the case is tried by a general court-martial. 
 
 These soldiers were never allowed the benefits of either a 
 hearing before the board of review, provided, or a trial before 
 a general court-martial, at which they could appear and be 
 heard, before their enforced dismissal and separation from the 
 Army. 
 
 It is true that charges were preferred under the sixty-second 
 article of war against the men of the Twenty-fifth Infantry 
 (twelve in all), selected by captain McDonald, of the Texas 
 Rangers. I quote the charge and specification in the case of 
 Sergt. George Jackson, of which similar charges and specifica- 
 tions were filed against each of the twelve men : 
 
 Charge and specification preferred against Sergt. George Jachson, Com- 
 pany B, Twenty-fifth Infantry. 
 
 Charge. — Conduct to the prejudice of good order and military dis- 
 cipline, in violation of the sixty-second article of war. 
 
 Specification. — In that Sergt. George Jackson, Company B, Twenty- 
 fifth Infantry, did, without authority, take from the barracks of his 
 or other company stationed at Fort Ilrown, Tex., one magazine rifle, 
 calil)er .30, model 1003, and did, singly or in company with other party 
 or parties unknown, take part in a disturbance in the streets of Browns- 
 ville, Tex., in which disturbance one citizen of said town was killed 
 and another wounded, by loading with ball cartridges and firing said 
 rifle in said streets of said town and causing damage to property of in- 
 habitants of said town. 
 
 This on or about August 13, 1900. 
 
 II. Cl.w IM. Sui'rr.ioE. 
 
 First Lieutenant. I'ntialion Adjutant. 
 Twenty-sixth Infantry, Officer Preferring Charge. 
 
 Witnesses; Sergt. James It. Reid, Company B; i»rivate Jobn Ilollo- 
 mon, (tomjjany 15; Sergt. Darby W. (). Biowner. (’onipany C; Coi'i)!. 
 ('harles II. Madison, Company C ; Coipl. Willie II. Milb'r, ('otiijjany C; 
 1‘rivate Charles IV. Askew, (’ompany C; I'rivate .lames W. Newton, 
 4181G— 7738 
 
8 
 
 Company C ; Private Oscar W. Reid, Company C ; Corpl. David Powell, 
 Company D ; Private Joseph H. Howard, Company D ; Private James C. 
 Gill. Company D. 
 
 In confinement since August 25, 190G. 
 
 Rate of pay : $23 per month. 
 
 Previous convictions : None. 
 
 [First indorsement.] 
 
 Fort Sam Houstois^ Tex., August 28, 1S06. 
 
 Respectfully forwarded to the military secretary. Department of 
 Texas, recommending trial by general court-martial. Under paragraph 
 9G2, Army Regulations, these charges have been investigated by the 
 undersigned, as far as practicable with the means at hand, and I am 
 of the opinion that it is doubtful if the allegations as set forth can be 
 substantiated. 
 
 C. J. T. Clarke, 
 
 Major, Tioentg-sixtJi Infantry, Commanding. 
 
 And for whom warrants were issued by the civil authority — 
 Judge Welch, one of the district court — but for what purpose? 
 Avowedly and only as the sufficient answer to the demands of 
 the sheriff of Cameron County for the surrender of these men 
 to the civil authorities — that they were held to answer for a 
 military offense, and for the further reason that authorities 
 both at Washington and at Fort Brown did not believe that 
 these men would receive fair treatment from citizens or author- 
 ities. 
 
 I ^uote now, for I think it is important as showing the situa- 
 tion there, from official documents, and all my quotations with 
 a single exception during my discussion of this subject w'ill be 
 from the documents presented with the reports of your commit- 
 tee and now on the files of the Senate. I quote from the official 
 record. Senate Document 155, page 4G : 
 
 [Telegram.] 
 
 Camp Mabry, 
 
 Austin, Tex., August 23, 1005. 
 
 IMilitary Secretary, 
 
 Mar Department, Washington, D. C.: 
 
 Following telegrams received from Brownsville this date : 
 
 Adjutant-Gexeral, Camp Mabry, 
 
 Austin, Tex.: 
 
 Have placed 3 sergeants, 3 corporals, and 6 privates in confinement 
 in guardhouse here on warrants issued by Judge Wells, of charge of 
 murder, conspiring to murder, etc., to be kept in confinement until re- 
 quired by judge. I do not believe these men will have unbiased trial 
 here. An effort, in my opinion, should be made to have them tried 
 elsewhere. I also fear for their safety if turned over to civil authori- 
 ties. in case of mob violence, although authorities assure absolute pro- 
 tection. Feeling here still very bitter. Request opinion on my action. 
 
 Pexrose, Commanding. 
 
 Brownsville, Tex., August 23. 
 
 Chief of Staff, Camp Mabry, 
 
 Austin, Tex.: 
 
 Battalion Twenty-fifth will probably get away to-night. Warrants 
 have been issued for murder, conspiracy to murder, etc., against 3 
 sergeants, 3 corporals, G privates, and 1 ex-soldier. They will be turned 
 over to post commander — Captain Preston, Twenty-sixth Infantry — for 
 safe-keeping, and placed in post guardhouse until required by district 
 judge. Don’t know when this will be ; probably early part of next 
 month ; possibly earlier. Authorities pledge themselves able to keep 
 prisoners from violence. Feeiiug here high. 
 
 Blocksom, Major. 
 
 In view of the excited state of feeling among citizens at Browns- 
 ville, I recommend tliat the Department of Justice be asked to take 
 immediate steps for jiroper defense of these men, and that a change of 
 venue be secured to some locality not affected by local excitement. I 
 4181G— 7738 
 
9 
 
 do not believe that the lives of these men will be safe if they are 
 turned over to the civil authorities at Brownsville, nor will their wit- 
 nesses be safe If sent back to that place. In view of present feeling', 
 action looking to the immediate transfer of these men to another place 
 of confinement pending trial is urged. 
 
 McCarkey, 
 
 B rigadicr-Gencra 1, Com m cm di ng. 
 
 [Telegram.] 
 
 Camp Marry, 
 
 Austin, Tex., August 23, 1906. 
 
 Military Secretary, 
 
 War Department, Washington, D. C.: 
 
 Following received : 
 
 “ Brownsville, August 23. 
 
 “ Military Secretary, Department of Texa,s ; 
 
 “One corporal,” 2 privates, my company (D), ordered placed arrest 
 and left here in connection shooting of August 13. I believe these 
 men absolutely innocent, and do not believe will receive fair treat- 
 ment from citizens and authorities. Request these men sent in arrest 
 with company, to be tried before impartial tribunal, or that capable 
 officer detained here care for their interests. 
 
 “ Lyon.” 
 McCaskey. 
 
 Brigadier-General, Commanding. 
 
 As I have before sn?:gested, the reason why these charges were 
 preferred under the sixty-second article of war are set forth in 
 the letter of General Ainsworth, The Military Secretary here at 
 .Washington, now the Adjutant-General, under date of August 25. 
 Page 54 : 
 
 [Telegram.] 
 
 The Military Secretary’s Office, 
 
 Washington, August 23, 1906. 
 Commanding-General, DErART.MENT of Texas, 
 
 San Antonio, Tex.: 
 
 Confidential. After conference between Acting Attorney-General 
 and Acting .Tudge-Advocate-General, it has been decided that enlisted 
 men of battalion of Twenty-fifth Infantry en route to Fort Reno must 
 be held without privileges and under strict surveillance as being in 
 military custody either as offenders or witnesses in Brownsville case: 
 also that if attempt is made by State authorities to serve additional 
 process against Individual soldiers of said battalion as offenders or 
 witnesses the men must not be surrendered, but return to process 
 must be made in each case to the effect that soldier is in military cus- 
 tody, and that as military jurisdiction has already attached com- 
 pliance with process must be deferred. If you can reach battalion 
 commander by wire, direct him to take this course should occasion 
 arise, and act accordingly yourself, if necassary. 
 
 By order Acting Secretary of War : 
 
 Ainsworth. 
 
 The Militarg Seeretary. 
 
 I’age 57 : 
 
 [Inclosure. — Telegram,] 
 
 The Military Secretary’s Office, 
 
 Washington, August 27, 1906. 
 
 The Commanding General, Department of Texas, 
 
 San Antonio, Tex.: 
 
 The action of the State judge In vacating warrants already issued 
 against accused soldiers of Twenty-lifth Infanti-y now detaiiu'd at 
 Fort Sam Houston, Te.x., as reported in your telegram of August 
 2G, leaves no charges pending against these soldiers. You will there- 
 fore cause military charges to he formally preferred against sabl 
 soldiers under sixty-second article of war, alleging pari icipal ion, j'lther 
 directly or by way of conspiracy, or lioth, in Brownsville dislurbance. 
 Orders for trial on said charges must not issue until invest Igat i«)n 
 now under way Is completed and acted upon here. Should lU'W 
 
 warrants issue by State authorities for said nccusiMl soldiers, <»r 
 should tliey make demand upon you for the surrender of said soldiei'S 
 for trial by State courts, make return thereto iu eacli case that soldiers 
 4181G— 7738 
 
10 
 
 are now held in military custody for trial for the military offenses 
 involved in their alleged participation in Brownsville disturbance and 
 that compliance with State process must be deferred, and report your 
 action to The Military Secretary. 
 
 Instruct commanding officer, Fort Reno, to hold all soldiers of the 
 three companies of Twenty-fifth Infantry at his post as witnesses in 
 military investigation now proceeding of Brownsville disturbance and in 
 military trials which may result therefrom ; also to place in confine- 
 ment such soldiers of these companies as there is reasonable evidence 
 to believe implicated in said disturbance, either directly or by way of 
 conspiracy, or both, and to prefer formal charges against said soldiers 
 under the sixty-second article of war. Orders for trial on such charges 
 must not issue until investigation now under way is completed and 
 acted upon here. Should attempt be made by State authorities to serve 
 additional warrants or subpoanas at Fort Reno, instruct commanding 
 Officer to make return thereto that the soldiers are held by military au- 
 thorities for trial for military offenses involved in their alleged partici- 
 pation in Brownsville disturbance, or as witnesses in such* trials, and 
 that compliance with State process must for the present be deferred. 
 
 By order Acting Secretary of War : 
 
 Ainsworth, 
 
 The Militarij Secretary. 
 
 (Copy to the Department of Justice, August 28, 1906.) 
 
 Page 51 ; 
 
 [Telegram.] 
 
 The Military Secretary's Office, 
 
 V/ashingtoiij, August 2ti, 1906. 
 Commanding General, Department of Texas, 
 
 Camp Mahry, Austin^ Tex.: 
 
 Confidential. Following telegram just sent to commanding officer, 
 Fort Brown, Tex., wffiere battalion of Twenty-fifth Infantry has been 
 held since morning : 
 
 “ Confidential. All men of Twenty-fifth Infantry wdio are now in cus- 
 tody of military authorities, including those for whom warrants have 
 been issued by civil authorities, will be sent immediately with battalion 
 to Fort Sam Houston and delivered to military authorities there. They 
 will be held there until they can be turned over safely to civil authori- 
 ties. Battalion will remain at Fort Sam Houston until sufficient white 
 troops reach there to guard and protect prisoners. Battalion will then 
 proceed immediately to Fort Reno. This movement of accused men 
 should not be announced in advance, and should be made so as to 
 avoid attracting attention or bringing on conflict with civil authorities. 
 There is no intention of taking these men beyond jurisdiction of 
 State of Texas or of withholding them from civil authorities a moment 
 beyond time wlien they can be turned over safely. It is not believed 
 safe to leave them at Fort Brown, as the one company to be left 
 there is insufficient to do wmrk of shipping property and supplies and 
 at same time guard prisoners so as to prevent their escape or protect 
 them if need be. You can make this explanation if it becomes neces- 
 sary. The President himself directs the action herein ordered. Y'ou 
 are" authorized to make all necessary arrangements with railroad com- 
 panies without referring matter to higher authority, and to arrange 
 for holding train at San Antonio for reembarkation of battalion. Make 
 movement quietly and discreetly. By all means avoid conflict if pos- 
 sible, but see that accused men and battalion are protected from vio- 
 lence during movement. Instructions have been wired to department 
 commander, if possible, to have troops meet your train at San Antonio 
 and relieve you of accused men, so that you can proceed direct to F'ort 
 itcno. Communicate with Department commander at Camp Mabry, if 
 possible. Start your movement at earliest possible moment. 
 
 “ By order Acting Secretary of War : 
 
 “Ainsworth, 
 
 “The Military Secretary.’^ 
 
 Pages 95-OG : 
 
 Office of Ignited St.\tes Attorney, 
 
 Southern District op Texas, 
 
 Laredo, 'Tex., Scptemhcr 6, 1906. 
 
 lion. W.M. H. Moody, 
 
 Attorney-General, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Sir : I beg leave to submit the following report covering my investi- 
 gations in the matter of the negro soldiers at Brownsville, Tex. : 
 
 August 28, ultimo, I received a telegram from United States Attorney 
 TilcLemoro requesting me to go at once to Brownsville, Tex., “ consult 
 41816—7768 
 
11 
 
 with military and civil authorities and report in detail situation and 
 facts whether in your opinion accused soldiers can now get fair trial 
 at Brownsville and be afforded protection by civil authorities against 
 mob violence ; if not whether civil authorities will consent to change 
 of venue, * * * report to Attorney-General.” I immediately 
 
 started for Brownsville via Monterey and Matamoros, Mexico, being 
 the quickest route. I was fortunate on my journey to encounter several 
 prominent persons who had been in Brov/nsville the night of the trouble 
 with the negroes and afterward. In order to arrive at an opinion 
 of the feeling and conditions existing in Brownsville, I began a series 
 of questions with them as well as others I met who could give me 
 information on these points. After arrival In Brownsville I interro- 
 * gated and consulted the military officer making an inspection for the 
 War Department, Major Blastock [Blocksom], county judge, mayor of 
 Brownsville, chairman of the Citizens’ Protection Committee, ex-district 
 judge, collector of customs, inspector of customs, and citizens generally, 
 poor, rich, and indifferent races, endeavoring, as nearly as possible, to 
 feel the pulse of the entire body corporate, and judge of the sentiment 
 existing. 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. I ask the Senator if it is not true that in 
 an official report made by Major Blocksom he also expressed 
 the opinion that there conld not be a fair trial in Brownsville? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. ‘I think you will find that in the record. I 
 do not happen to have it among my quotations, but I want to 
 quote a few words from the assistant United States attorney, 
 to whom this question was submited by the military authorities. 
 Assistant United Statea Attorney Hamilton continues ; 
 
 I found the officials, and with very few exceptions all the citizens, 
 most frank and courteous in expressing their views and opinions on 
 the matter, and I had no difficulty in determining that such a prejudice 
 existed against the accused negro soldiers that a fair trial or any trial 
 could not be obtained in Cameron County. In fact, some of the best 
 citizens expressed the wish that the soldiers might not be returned 
 to Brownsville even for a trial, as they feared that, although the citi- 
 zens had acted with the greatest prudence hitherto and refrained from 
 any violence toward the soldiers, some firebrand might start trouble, 
 and, once commenced, no telling where it might end. I also consulted 
 with the State district judge and district attorney. They agreed that 
 it would be impossible to try the case in Cameron County, and the 
 judge gave me to understand that the cases, if any indictment were 
 found, would be transferred to some county free from prejudice, pos- 
 sibly Nueces. In going over the evidence with the officials we were 
 impressed with the difficulty of identifying any of the culprits, and 
 there is great likelihood that no indictments can be found. The gov- 
 ernor of Texas has offered a reward of .$500 for evidence leading to the 
 conviction of the guilty ones, but it has produced no evidence thus far. 
 My telegram to you from Brownsville covered this matter briefiy. As 
 to mob violence, I believe the hot-heads v/ere governed by the prudence 
 of the best counsel to refrain from any overt act. but that this was 
 brought about mainly by the fact that there was a battalion of soldiers 
 that would have to be overcome to reach the accused, I think, can be 
 little doubted. 
 
 Were the accused to be taken hack to Brownsville for trial, should 
 indictments be found, and such trial result in an acquittal. I fear, 
 unless the accused wei'e well guarded, there miglit be trouble before 
 they could reach a place of safety. The city of Brov/nsville. v/ithout 
 doubt, has suffered a terrible and unreasonable attack by soldiers, who 
 should have acted just the opposite in affording them protection, and 
 they are righteously indignant. As iny instructions did not include a 
 finding of the facts concerning the attack and the crime committed, I 
 presume it is not desired. If, however, details of the attack and facts 
 connected are desired, they can readily l)e had from the War Department 
 from Inspector-General, as Major Blastock [Blocksom] and I know 
 that he was very careful in gathering an unbiased mass of information 
 and facts. 
 
 The chances are that unless the soldiers clean up their own quar- 
 ters or turn State’s evidence no conviction can ever be had of the guilty 
 who have caused the disturbance and trouble. 
 
 I trust that I have fully covered the information desired in this 
 report, and have the honor of being. 
 
 Your obedient servant, h. C. IIamiltox, 
 
 Assistant United Hlatcs Attorney. 
 
 41816—7738 
 
12 
 
 PRECEDENTS. 
 
 The records of the Regular Army fail to disclose any prece- 
 dent for the discharge of a large body of enlisted men at one 
 time, either prior to or at the end of their enlistment. 
 
 I quote from letter of The Military Secretary, General Ains- 
 'Amrth, under date of December 10, 1906, addressed to the Secre- 
 tary of War ; 
 
 No record of the summary discharge from the Regular Army, prior 
 to the recent discharge of a battalion of the Twenty-fifth Infantry, of 
 a considerable number of enlisted men at one time has been found. 
 
 Cases of the discharge of individual enlisted men without honor and 
 without trial by court-martial are not infrequent. The official records 
 show that during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1906, discharges with- 
 out honor were ordered by the War Department, without trial by court- 
 martial. in the cases of 352 enlisted men of the Regular 'Army. Of 
 these 86 were discharged on account of “ fraudulent enlistment,” 113 
 on account of ” desertion,” 8 on account of “ desertion and fraudulent 
 enlistment,” 107 on account of “ imprisonment under sentence of civil 
 court,” and 38 on account of “ having become disqualified for service 
 through own misconduct.” 
 
 I ask that the letter from which I have just quoted may be 
 printed in full in the Record. 
 
 Pages 312-313, Senate Document 155 : 
 
 MEMORANDUM P’OR THE SECRETARY OF WAR. 
 
 The secretary to the President, in a letter dated December 7, 1906, 
 advises the Secretary of War that the President wishes him to “ give 
 him some instances, of which he knows there must be many, where 
 the Department, the commanding generals of departments, or colo- 
 nels of regiments have discharged men or mustered them out without 
 honor in any other way without court-martial.” 
 
 A memorandum, furnished by The Military Secretary to the Secretary 
 of War and by him transmitted to the secretary to the President on 
 the 5th instant, contained a list of a number of instances of the sum- 
 mary discharge from the volunteer service during the civil war of large 
 numbers of men because of misconduct on their part. 
 
 No record of the summary discharge from the Regular Army, prior 
 to the recent discharge of a battalion of the Twenty-fifth Infantry, of 
 a considerable number of enlisted men at one time has been found. 
 
 Pases of the discharge of individual enlisted men without honor, and 
 without trial by court-martial, are not infrequent. The official records 
 show that during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1906, discharges with- 
 out honor were ordered by the War Department, Mfithout trial by court- 
 martial, in the cases of 352 enlisted men of the Regular Army. Of 
 these. 86 were discliarged on account of “ fraudulent enlistment,” 113 
 on account of ” desertion,” 8 on account of “ desertion and fraudulent 
 enlistment,” 107 on account of “ imprisonment under sentence of civil 
 court,” and 38 on account of “ having become disqualified for service 
 through own misconduct.” 
 
 In addition to the discharges without honor ordered by the War De- 
 partment, a considera))le number of the discharges issued by subordi- 
 nate military authorities must, under paragraph 148 (2-d), Army 
 
 Regulations, have been discharges without honor. That paragraph re- 
 quires the blank form for discharge without honor to be used when a 
 soldier is discharged: “(d) Where the service has not been honest and 
 faithful — that is, where the service docs not warrant his reonlistment.” 
 The number of such rSischarges can not be ascertained without an ex- 
 amination of the record of each of the many enlisted men who were 
 ^discliarged during the year. Such an extended examination has not 
 been made, because it is believed that the foregoing statement with re- 
 gard to the discharges without honor ordered by the War Department 
 is sufficient to show the general practice of the Department with regard 
 to such discharges. 
 
 F. C. Ainsworth, 
 
 The Military Secretary. 
 
 War Department, 
 
 The Military Secretary’s Office. 
 
 December 10, 1906. 
 
 This letter shows to what extent and for what reason, in 
 individual cases 01115 % the powers conferred on the President, 
 41816—7738 
 
13 
 
 Secretary of War, and so forth, by the fourth article of war 
 have been exercised. The otRcial records show that during the 
 fiscal j’ear ended June 30, 1906, discharges without honor were 
 ordered by the War Department, without trial hy court-martial , 
 in the cases of 352 enlisted men of the Regular Army. Of these 
 there were discharged — 
 
 Eighty-six on account of “ fraudulent enlistment.” 
 
 One hundred and thirteen on account of “ desertion.” 
 
 Eight on account of “ desertion and fraudulent enlistment.” 
 
 One himdred and seven on account of “ imprisonment under 
 sentence of civil court.” 
 
 Thirty-eight on account of “ having become disqualified for 
 service through own misconduct.” 
 
 These are the causes for the discharge without honor of the 
 individual enlisted men on the order of the President or of the 
 Secretary of War, without a trial, during the year 1906. 
 
 And again, under date of December 5, General Ainsworth 
 writes to the Secretary of War : 
 
 A protracted examination of the ofRcial records has thus far resulted 
 in failure to discover a precedent in the Regular Army for the dis- 
 charge of those members of three companies of the Twenty-fifth In- 
 fantry who were present on the night of the 13th of August, 1906, 
 when an affray in the city of Brownsville took place. 
 
 In an effort to seek precedents an attempt is made to show 
 that in the case of Company G, Eighth Infantry, United States 
 Army, occurring in 1860, at that time a part of the command of 
 Lieut. Col. Robert E. Lee, that a precedent can be found ; but 
 in that case the men of the offending company were not dis- 
 missed, but simply transferred to other companies of the same 
 regiment and prohibited from reenlistment at the expiration of 
 their respective terms, and the latter portion of the order was 
 disregarded, if ever issued, as the Army records show. The 
 Military Secretary adds; 
 
 In view of the foregoing statement it will be seen that the action 
 taken in 1860, in the case of Company G, Eighth Infantry, is not a 
 precedent for the action taken in 1906 in the case of the members of 
 the Twenty-fifth Infantry. 
 
 Permit me, Mr. President, also to call attention and to have 
 included in full in the Record as a part of my remarks, without 
 reading that part from which I quote. Senate Document 155 and 
 Appendix : 
 
 Pages 311-312 : 
 
 Instances of the siimmarjf (Uschnrpe of ichole organizations for mis- 
 conduct; also of the summary discharge, without honor, of individual 
 
 enlisted men. 
 
 MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF WAR. 
 
 The Secretary to the President, in a letter dated December 1, 1906, 
 advises the Secretary of War that the President would like to have 
 him “look up any precedents (Lee’s or others) for the action taken 
 in discharging the battalion of the Twenty-fifth Infantry, and if there 
 exist any such, send them to the President.’’ 
 
 A protracted examination of the odicial records has thus far resulted 
 in failure to discover a precedent in the Regular Army for the discharge 
 of those members of three companies of the 'rwenty-tifth Infantry who 
 were present on the night of August 13, 1906, when an affray in the 
 city of Brownsville took place. 
 
 The case referred to as “ J^ee’s ’’ by the Secretary to the I’resident is 
 undoubtedly the case of Company G, Eighth Infantry, concerning 
 which an interview with Mr. .1. G. Hesse was recently iiublished in the 
 Washington I’ost. In that interview it was stated that, by order of 
 41816—7738 
 
14 
 
 Lieut. Col. Robert E. Lee, the member,? of Company G were transferred 
 to other companies of the same regiment and prohibited from reenlist- 
 ing on the expiration of the terms of enlistment under which they were 
 then serving. A search for papers containing details of the occurrence 
 has resulted in failure to find them, the original papers having been 
 returned in 1860 to the Department of Texas, where they were un- 
 doubtedly lost or destroyed at the time of the surrender of the troops 
 in that department to the Confederate military authorities. 
 
 The records shov/, however, that on March 18. 1860, members of 
 Company G, Eighth Infantry, at Fort Davis, Tex., took from the guard- 
 house a citizen who was confined there and, without opposition from 
 the guard, hanged him to a tree near by until he was dead. The 
 records also show that by order of the regimental commander twenty- 
 seven men of this company were detached from the company and 
 attached to other companies of the regiment, “ to restore their dis- 
 cipline,” and that twelve other men of the company wmre transferred 
 to other companies by order of the regimental commander without the 
 cause of transfer being stated. The regimental orders are not on file, 
 and it is impossible to state whether the reenlistment of these trans- 
 ferred men wms or wms not prohibited ; but as the records show' that 
 some of the transferred men did reenlist, it is evident that if an order 
 prohibiting their reenlistment wms given it was not carried into effect. 
 
 In view of the foregoing statement it will be seen that the action 
 taken in 1860 in the case of Company G, Eighth Infantry, is not a 
 precedent for the action taken in 1906 in the case of members of the 
 Tw'enty-fifth Infantry. 
 
 In the volunteer service during the civil war there occurred numerous 
 instances of the summary discharge of large numbers of men because 
 of misconduct on their part. Following are some of those instances : 
 
 The members of Company A, First Eastern Shore Maryland Infan- 
 try Volunteers, w'ore mustered out of service August 16, 1862, by order 
 of the general commanding the Eighth Army Corps because they re- 
 fused to serve in Virginia. 
 
 The members of Company K, First Eastern Shore Maryland Infan- 
 try Volunteers w'ere dishonorably discharged without trial, July 2, 
 1863, pursuant to the order of the general commanding the Eighth 
 Army Corps, subject to the approval of the Secretary of War, for 
 refusing to leave tlie section of the State in w'hich it was claimed 
 that they had enlisted to serve. The action was approved by the Sec- 
 retary of War July 23, 1863. 
 
 The First Regiment, United States Reserve Corps (Missouri Infan- 
 try). was mustered out of service during September and October, 1862, 
 pursuant to orders of the War Department, on account of the regi- 
 ment being in a state bordering closely on mutiny as a result of alleged 
 misunderstanding as to the terms of enlistment. 
 
 Companies II, I, and K, Fifth Missouri Cavalry, and Company G, 
 Fourth Missouri Cavalry, were mustered out of the service of the 
 United States w’ithout trial by court-martial, in pursuance of orders 
 from headquarters District of Mis.souri, dated September 20, 1862, 
 by reason of mutinous conduct and disaffection of the majority of the 
 mem.bers of those companies. 
 
 Company C, Fremont Body Guard, was summarily discharged by 
 order of Major-General Haileck, November 30, 1861, on account of the 
 members resfusing to be consolidated with any other organization of 
 Missouri volunteers. 
 
 The members of Company G, Tenth New' Jersey Infantry "Volunteers, 
 W'ere discharged w'ithout trial April 8, 1862, pursuant to orders from 
 the War Department, because they refused to do duty as infantry, 
 claiming that they wmre deceived into the belief that they were entering 
 the cavalry branch w’hen they enlisted. 
 
 The Eleventh Regiment, New' York Infantry Volunteers (First Fire 
 Zouaves), w'as mustered out of service June 2, 1862, pursuant to orders 
 from the War Department, by reason of general demoralization, nu- 
 merous desertions, and at the request of officers and enlisted men of 
 the organization. 
 
 The Sixtieth Regiment, Ohio Infantry Volunteers, was summarily 
 discharged November 10, 1862, pursuant to a telegram from the War 
 Department, because the regiment wms “ disorganized, mutinous, and 
 worthless.” 
 
 F. C. Aixsw’oaTii, 
 
 The Militarij Beevetanj. 
 
 W.AR Depart M EXT, 
 
 d'liE Military Secretary's Office, 
 
 December o, 1906. 
 
 41816—7738 
 
15 
 
 Pages 539-540: 
 
 Appendix 4. 
 
 The Military Secretary’s Office, 
 
 War Department, 
 
 Washington, D. C., December 1, 190G. 
 
 My Dear Mr. Loeb : Herewith I send you a clipping from the Wash- 
 ington Post of November 28, 1906, containing the article referred to 
 in your note of thts morning. 
 
 The “ Captain ” Hesse referred to in that article was Corpl. .Tohn C. 
 Hesse, of Company G, Eighth Infantry, and he was clerk at regimental 
 headquarters at the time of the occurrence. Subsequently, when the 
 regiment was surrendered to the Confederates by General Twiggs, Cor- 
 poral Hesse saved the regimental flags by wrapping them around his 
 body, under his clothing, and brought them north in safety, receiving 
 afterwards a medal of honor for his action. 
 
 Mr. Hesse has been a clerk in the War Department since 1861, and 
 is now a chief of division in The Military Secretary’s Ofiice. 
 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 F, C. Ainsworth, 
 
 . The Military Secretary. 
 
 Hon. William Loeb, .Tr., 
 
 Secretary to the President, Washington, D. C. 
 
 [Inclosure.] 
 
 [From the Washington Post, Wednesday, November 28, 1906.] 
 
 LEE punished TROOPS ENTIRE COMPANY DISB.INDED BECAUSE OF LYNCH- 
 ING LIKE THE BROWNSVILLE CASE CAPT. J. C. HESSE TELLS OP 
 
 AFFAIR DOWN IN TEXAS JUST BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR WHICH IS A 
 
 PARTIAL PRECEDENT FOR PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT’S NOW FAMOUS ORDER 
 
 SOME FEATURES IDENTICAL. 
 
 A case somewhat similar to the recent dismissal, by Presidential 
 order, of the three companies of colored troops because of the trouble 
 at Brownsville, Tex., is that of the discharge of Company G, of the 
 Eighth Regiment, at Fort Davis, Tex., in the summer of 1860. 
 
 In the Brownsville incident, as a result of the alleged rioting of the 
 soldiers, one man, a bartender, was killed. The victim in the Fort 
 Davis affair 'also was a bartender, he having been lynched by unknown 
 parties, supposed to be soldiers, after he had killed a member of the 
 company by striking him with his fist. The soldiers at Brownsville 
 were ordered dismissed without honor by the 1‘resident, while the sol- 
 diers at Fort Davis were transferred to other companies and not dis- 
 missed until they had served out their terms of enlistment. 
 
 The latter incident occurred during the Administration of President 
 Buchanan, l)ut there -is no record that the action in the case was taken 
 by virtue of any order given by him. The responsibility for the order 
 was assumed liy Robert E. Lee, later the famous Confederate general, 
 who was at that time in command of United States troops in Texas. 
 
 NO RECORD OF DISMISSAL. 
 
 Possibly on account of the civil war breaking out soon after the 
 incident, or it might have been because of the destruction of the records 
 in the case before they reached the Vfar Department, it is thought no 
 official record of the dismissal of the company is in existence. At least 
 so says Capt. .T. C. Hesse, who is probal)ly the only surviving meml)er 
 of the company, now employed in the ofiice of The Military Secretary 
 of the Army. 
 
 Captain Hesse, in speaking of the occurrence yesterday, said he had 
 often regretted he had kept no diary during liis Army service, refer- 
 ring especially to the affair at Fort Davis, which he said ho regarded 
 as one of the most interesting of liis career. Although ho was trans- 
 ferred with the other sixty-five members of the company, and it was 
 ordered that at the end of his enlistment he should not be allowed to re- 
 enlist, Captain Hesse, through a iiersonal appeal to Colonel Lee, and on 
 account of his previous record for integrity, was absolved from any 
 blame in the matter and was given a clear record. He had been trans- 
 ferred to Company A of the Eighth Regiment, and at the end of his 
 term he enlisted a.gain and served with honor in the civil war. Before 
 the end of the war he was transferred to Washington to take up work 
 in the general .service. 
 
 FLED FOR HIS LIFE. 
 
 “ It happened on the night of St. I’atrick’s Day in 1860,” said Cap- 
 tain Hesse. “After tattoo some of the soldiers went into a saloon, 
 where, in the midst of a quarrel, the barkeeper struck one of the men 
 41816—7738 
 
16 
 
 on the neck, causing his death. The occurrence caused great excite- 
 ment among the men, and the barkeeper fled for his life. Soon after 
 he turned up at post headquarters and appealed that he be saved from 
 the hands of the mob, which he said was pursuing him. He was 
 ordei'ed placed in the guardhouse and the guard was increased. 
 
 “ The next night the corporal of the guard took four of the men for 
 the purpose of making the ‘ grand rounds.’ During the absence of the 
 corporal and the men the guardhouse was forced open and the bar- 
 keeper taken away. The corporal, returning a half hour later, insti- 
 tuted a search, with the result that the barkeeper was found hanging 
 to a tree dead, his body yet v>^arm. 
 
 ‘* The alarm was given immediately to the officer of the day, who 
 ordered that an investigation be made of the quarters of the soldiers 
 and of every other person at the fort. As a result it was found that 
 every man was in his bunk, where all apparently had been asleep for 
 several hours. The mystery has never been cleared up, so far as I 
 know, to this day. 
 
 “ However,” continued Captain Hesse, “ seven enlisted men were ar- 
 rested on suspicion of being implicated in the lynching, and were taken 
 to El Paso, 150 miles distent, in which town was located the nearest 
 civil court at that time. There they were tried and acquitted. 
 
 LEE OKDERED DISBANDMENT. 
 
 ” Col. Washington Seawell, who was the commanding officer of the 
 fort, reported the affair to Colonel Lee, who was in command of the 
 Department of Texas, with the result that an investigation was made 
 in the manner prescribed by the Army Regulations. The inquiry, al- 
 though rigid, failed to fasten the blame on any person, and at its con- 
 clusion Colonel Lee ordered the company to be disbanded and the mem- 
 bers transferred to other companies to be discharged at the end of 
 their enlistments without honor — that is, without the right to reenlist 
 in the Army.” 
 
 Tlie precedents of the civil war cited as a justification for 
 the discharge of the battalion at Brownsville seem to me, Mr. 
 President, absolutely inapplicable to this case, and I quote 
 likewise from Senate Document 155, page 312 ; 
 
 Memorandum furnished by The Military Secretary. 
 
 Members of Company A, First Eastern Shore Maryland Volunteers, 
 mustered out of the service August 16, 1862 (presumably honorably 
 discharged), because they refused to serve in Virginia. 
 
 Members of Company K, same regiment, were dishonorably dis- 
 charged, without trial, July 2, 1863, for refusing to leave the section 
 of the State in which it wms claimed that they had enlisted to serve. 
 
 First Regiment, United States Reserve (Missouri Infantry), mustered 
 out on account of the regiment being in a state bordering on mutiny 
 on account of an alleged misunderstanding as to the terms of enlist- 
 ment. 
 
 Company C, Fremont Body Guard, discharged on account of mem- 
 bers refusing to be consolidated with any other organization of Mis- 
 souri Volunteers. 
 
 Company G, Tenth New Jersey Infantry, because they refused to do . 
 duty as infantry, claiming that they were deceived into the belief that 
 they Avere entering into the cavalry branch when enlisted. 
 
 These cases would seem sufficient to establish the conclusion 
 that in no essential particular do they stand as a precedent for 
 the action we are now considering in the case of the Twenty- 
 fifth Infantry. 
 
 PREVIOUS AFFRAYS. 
 
 It is true, Mr. President, that previous affrays to that at 
 Brownsville have occurred in the Army, at posts garrisoned by 
 both white and colored soldiers of the Regular Army, notably, 
 tlie one referred to by the distinguished Senator from Idaho as 
 occurring at Fort Sturgis, Dak. T., and, to again quote from Sen- 
 ate Document 155, pages 328, 320, 331, 541, and 542: 
 
 Headquarters Department of Dakota, 
 
 Fort iincUing, Minn., November 10, ISSo. 
 
 Respectfully returned to the Adjutant-General of the Army, through 
 the headquarters of the Division of the Missouri. 
 
 The inclosed letter is, in the main, a just and temperate account of 
 the occurrences at Sturgis City and Fort Meade, of which it speaks. 
 
 41816—7738 
 
IT 
 
 I should take exception to but one of the statements wliicli Mr. Caul- 
 field makes. He states, as an ascertained fact, that “Doctor Lynch ” 
 was assassinated hy a colored soldier. Doubtless he is fully convinced 
 of the truth of this statement ; but I submit that the inclosed copy of 
 a report from Colonel Sturgis of the testimony given before the cor- 
 oner’s jury impaneled to determine the cause of Doctor Lynch’s death, 
 shows that while'^ a case of grave suspicion was made out against 
 the soldier, Hallon, the evidence was by no means conclusive. Of 
 course since the brutal murder of Hallon by the mob of Sturgis 
 City it has been impracticable to determine the question of his guilt 
 or innocence. I inclose a copy of the proceedings of a board of officers 
 convened by order of Colonel Sturgis to inquire into the facts con- 
 nected with the killing of Bell. The conclusions of the board confirm 
 the statements of INIr. Caulfield. 
 
 It is not probable that all the persons who were concerned in the 
 murder of Bell will be detected and punished. Four men have been 
 arrested, and if the evidence against them be sufficient to establish 
 their guilt they will, without doubt, bo confined and tried. In their 
 cases the machinery of the law v/ill act speedily. 
 
 I do not recommend the removal of the colored troops from Fort 
 Meade. It is not alleged that they, as a body, have committed any 
 crime or have been guilty of any disorder. Certain men belonging to 
 one of the companies are accused of a most serious crime, but there 
 is nothing to connect with it the other men of their company or any 
 of the men of the other companies. There is no evidence to show 
 that the peace of Sturgis City, in the future, is threatened by any of 
 them. I do not believe that it is seriously threatened by theni. 
 
 I have had much experience v/itii colored troops, and I have alv/ays 
 found them as well behaved and as amenable to discipline as any 
 white troops that we have. The characteristic submissiveness of their 
 race is manifested in the readiness with which they yield to military 
 control. 
 
 They are much more temperate than our white troops, and crime and 
 disorders resulting from intoxication are comparatively rare among 
 them. 
 
 The situation at Fort Meade is an unfortunate one. It is very un- 
 desirable that a military post and a frontier town should stand in such 
 close proximity to each other as Sturgis City and Fort Meade do ; un- 
 fortunate possibly for the town, uncpuestionably unfortunate for the 
 post. But the post was established before the town was founded, and I 
 do not think that there would have been any town but for the post. 
 Still the evils which result from this juxtaposition are not absolutely 
 unavoidable. 
 
 The military authorities at the post v/ill, I am sure, do their part to 
 prevent the commission of crime, and if the civil authorities of the 
 town will do theirs as well there will be no occasion whatever for ap- 
 prehension. 
 
 I take it for granted that in the Territory of Dakota the keeping of 
 houses of ill-fame is prohibited by law, but notwithstanding the law 
 there are in the town two brothels which would appear to have been 
 established for the express purpose of catering to the taste and pan- 
 dering to the passions of the colored troops, for they are “ stocked ’’ 
 with colored prostitutes — negresses and mulattoes. 
 
 They are, I am assured, places of the vilest character, and it was at 
 one of them that the affray of September 19 occurred. Had no such 
 place existed, it is most improbable that any affray would have oc- 
 curred, and if the people of Sturgis City suffer such places to exist 
 they must, I submit, expect the natural result of their existence — 
 frequent broils, and from time to time the commission of the most 
 serious crimes. And I submit further that until the people of the town 
 shall have suppressed these dens, which equally debauch the troops of 
 the post and threaten their own safety, they will not be in a position 
 to ask the Government to change its garrison. 
 
 Aufued H. Terry, 
 BrUjadicr-Gcncrul, Commandinrj. 
 
 It is sad to say that the conditions as expressed in this com- 
 munication of (xeneral Terry exist too mncli in connection with 
 almost all onr Army posts and in their immediate vicinity; and 
 it is not out of place to say that such conditions existed in the 
 immediate vicinity of I'ort Brown and had existed there for 
 a great many years, as the testimony and the records of inves- 
 tigation by your committee show. 
 
 4181G— 7738 2 
 
18 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President, will the Senator allow me to 
 interrupt him? 
 
 The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Connecticut 
 yield to the Senator from Ohio? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. I do not know whether the Senator calls 
 attention or not to the fact, which I think ought to be noted 
 at that point in his speech, that the company to which the 
 men belonged who participated in the shooting affray upon 
 which he is commenting was not one of the three companies 
 that were at Brownsville; and, in the second place, there was 
 no trouble whatever to ascertain who the men were and iden- 
 tify the men who were guilty of participating in that shooting 
 affray. Another thing which should be noted is that that hap- 
 pened twenty-five years ago. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. In 1885. 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. And with one exception, there is no man 
 in that battalion of the Twenty-fifth Infantry who was in the 
 service and was in the battalion at that time. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. That was in 1885, as I have stated, and 
 I am glad to have the Senator call my attention to the fact, 
 because I wish to add that, in all the affrays that have oc- 
 curred in the Army and in connection with colored troops in the 
 Army, this particular battalion of the Twenty-fifth Infantry 
 has never in the remotest way been connected with any of 
 them. 
 
 I was about to read the indorsement of the War Department. 
 This was during the Administration of a Democratic President 
 and a Democratic Secretary of War, Mr. Endicott, and it is 
 in reply to a letter addressed by a citizen of Dakota Terri- 
 tory, who had applied to have the troops removed. 
 
 War Department, 
 'Washington, December 1SS5. 
 
 Sir: In reply to your letter of the 27th of September last comment- 
 ing upon the outrages committed at the town of Sturgis, Dak. Ter., by 
 colored soldiers of the Twenty-fifth Infantry, stationed at Fort Meade, 
 and suggesting the removal of the colored troops to some other post 
 and the substitution of white soldiers in their place, I have the honor 
 to invite attention to the inclosed copy of the report of Gen. A. II. 
 Terry, commanding the Department of Dakota, to v/hom the matter was 
 referred, and to say that both the Department and the Lieutenant- 
 General of the Army concur in the views as expressed therein by 
 General Terry. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 Wm. C. Endicott, 
 
 tiecrctary of War. 
 
 lion. B. G. Caulfield, 
 
 Dcadwood, Dale. T. 
 
 I want to say in this connection, because one of the charges 
 against these men is a conspiracy of silence, that there was no 
 difficulty at Fort Sturgis, where the affray to which I have al- 
 luded occurred, or at New Orleans, or where other affrays oc- 
 curred, in obtaining the necessary evidence from their com- 
 rades, colored or white, when they believed them guilty of par- 
 ticipation in any crime. 
 
 Appendix 5. 
 
 New Orleans, La., December .}, J906. 
 
 Sir: About six years ago Harry McDonald, a white United States 
 soldier, of Fort St. riiilip. La., while intoxicated, followed James Butler, 
 a white citizen, at night to his home above Fort St. Philip and tried to 
 force Butler to take him into his house. The latter refusing, McDon- 
 4181G— 7738 
 
19 
 
 aid shot and killed him. After McDonald’s return to the fort, news of 
 the homicide having spread, the latter was suspected, arrested, and 
 searched ; his revolver was carefully examined, its recent discharge dis- 
 covered, and every soldier, from the commanding officer to the humblest 
 private, united then and there and at the trial in ferreting out all the 
 evidence in their power about this crime. The accused was convicted 
 of murder, and is now in the Louisiana Penitentiary for life. 
 
 Again, about four years ago, at the same fort, Harry Morgan, a pri- 
 vate in one of the United States Artillery companies, was charged with 
 killing John H. McCloskey in a drunken brawl at night in one of the 
 groggeries which cause so many similar crimes in this country. Though 
 his fellow-soldiers, believing Morgan was not guilty of this crime, raised 
 a fund for his defense, every soldier and employee at that fort volun- 
 teered all they knew, both before and at the trial on the witness stand, 
 about this case. Morgan was acquitted by a jury of white citizens in 
 Plaquemines Parish. 
 
 Once since then, in my official capacity, I tried and convicted United 
 States soldiers of a lesser offense — assault and battery — committed 
 above Fort Jackson, on the west bank of the Mississippi River, and 
 again the white comrades in arms of the accused told the whole story 
 of the trouble. Each of these cases occurred out of hearing of the 
 forts, and but for the evidence of their brother soldiers, either then 
 with the accused or who subsequently identified them with the crimes, 
 there would have been a failure of justice. 
 
 In my own district twenty-two years ago, after a dispute over race 
 precedence at a liquor bar at Dedrick Wischusen’s store, in the parish 
 of Plaquemines, Charles Campbell, a colored man, drew a pistol there 
 and shot Theodore Tripkovich, a splendid type of an Austrian, dead. 
 A jury, drawn by Republican commissioners, largely composed of col- 
 ored men, to their eternal credit, sent Campbell to the scaffold for this 
 crime, and he was hung. 
 
 The true friends of the colored people will teach them, as you are 
 doing, that crimes can ijot be condoned or concealed by them without 
 its reacting terribly on the race. 
 
 Respectfully, James Wiekinsox, 
 
 District Attorney, Twenty-ninth Judicial District. 
 
 lion. TnEODORE Roosevelt^ 
 
 President of the United States. 
 
 These cases are all of record. 
 
 J. W. 
 
 Tills report of General Terry and its approval by Secretary 
 Endicott, indicate the character of almost every affray in the 
 Army whether by white or colored troops, for both classes are 
 included as disclosed by Army records. 
 
 An effort has been made in accord with all these preliminary 
 investigations, to construe the proceedings of the court and its 
 rendered verdict, in the case of the court-martial of Major Pen- 
 rose, commanding at Fort Brown on the night of the affray — 
 and w’ho was charged with “ neglect of duty ” — as a verdict ren- 
 dered against the soldiers. I will ask here leave to insert witli- 
 out reading, the charges and specifications on which Major Pen- 
 rose was both tried and acquitted, as taken from the records of 
 the court (see pp. 4 and 1248) : 
 
 [Extracts from proceedings of a general court-martial convened at 
 
 Headquarters Department of Texas, San Antonio, Tex., February 4, 
 
 1907, in the case of Maj. Charles W. Penrose, Twenty-fifth United 
 
 States Infantry.] 
 
 (Page 4) : The accused was then arraigned upon the following 
 charge and specifications : 
 
 “ Charge. — Neglect of duty, to the prejudice of good order and mili- 
 tary discipline, in violation of the sixty-second article of war. 
 
 ^^Specification I . — In that Maj. Charles W. Penrose, Twenty-fifth 
 United States Infantry, commanding the post of Fort Drown, Tex., 
 after being on the morning of August 14, 190(5, between 1 and 2 
 a. m., duly informed by the mayor of P>rownsville, I'ex., one Doctor 
 Combe, that soldiers of his command had shot and killed one civilian 
 of the city of Brownsville, Tex., and badly wounded a lieutenant of 
 police of that city, did immediately thereafter and until daylight 
 wholly fall and neglect to take or order sufficient measures or action 
 by prompt inspection of guns or pistols or otherwise, or any duo 
 41816—7738 
 
20 
 
 exercise of discipline, to detect the men engaged in said attack and 
 killing, or any of them, or to restrain or bring them to justice for 
 said crime. This at Port Brown, Tex., August 14, 1906. 
 
 ^'Specification II. — In that Maj. Charles W. Penrose, Twenty-fifth 
 TJnited States Infantry, being aware of the feeling of resentment in 
 Ms command toward citizens of Brownsville, as a result of assaults 
 upon certain individuals of the command, and having been notified 
 by a Mr. Evans, of Brownsville, about 5 p. m. August 13, 1906, of 
 an attack upon his wife by a soldier of the command, and knowing of 
 the inflame.d feeling existing in the town toward the soldiers as a 
 result thereof, did nevertheless fail to give any orders to Capt. E. A. 
 Maclclin, Twenty-fifth Infantry, officer of the day, requiring special 
 vigilance on his part or that of the guard or to make frequent inspec- 
 tions or any inspections during the night after 12 o’clock, and did 
 wholly fail and neglect to take or order sufficient measures or pre- 
 cautions to hold at the post the men of his command, or in any manner 
 to vratch, restrain, or discipline said men ; by reason of which failure 
 certain men of his command, to the number of about tv.^elve or more, 
 were enabled to assemble, and did as.semble, armed with rifles, and did 
 proceed to the town of Brownsville, Tex., and did then and there 
 shoot and wound and kill certain citizens thereof. This at Fort 
 Brown and Brov/nsville, Tex., August 13 and 14, 1906.” 
 
 To which the accused pleaded as follows : 
 
 To the first specification. Not guilty. 
 
 To the second specification. Not guilty. 
 
 To the charge. Not guilty. 
 
 The jtidge-advocate here addressed the court as follows : 
 
 After a long investigation, covering weeks, the court vtas 
 closed, and the accused. Major Penrose, was acquitted of th<; 
 charge of neglect of duty, but found guilty under an amended 
 specification, on which he had not been tried. The court, how- 
 ever, acquitted him, and the verdict of the court was approved 
 by the department commander, as appears from the following 
 extract from the record : 
 
 Pago 124S : 
 
 * * *. The court was closed, and finds the accused, !Maj. Charles 
 
 W. Penrose, Twenty-fifth United States Infantry— 
 
 “ Of the first specification : ‘ Not guilty.’ 
 
 “ Of the second specification : ‘ Guilty, except the words ‘ being aware 
 of the feeling of resentment in his command toward citizens of Browns- 
 ville, as a result of assaults upon certain individuals of the command, 
 and ; ’ and the word ‘ inflamed ; ’ and the words ‘ special vigilance on 
 his part or that of the guard or to make ; ’ and the words ‘ and did 
 v/holly fail and neglect to take or order sufficient measures or pre- 
 cautions to hold at the post the men of his command or in any manner 
 to watch, restrain, or discipline said men, by reason of which failure ; ’ 
 substituting for the words ‘ hy reason of which failure ’ the words 
 ‘ after which ; ’ and except the words ‘ to the number of twelve or more 
 were enabled to assemble and ; ’ and of tbe excepted words ‘ not guilty 
 and of the substituted word ‘ guilty.’ 
 
 ‘‘ So that the second specification, as amended, shall read as follows : 
 
 “ ‘ Specification II : In that Maj. Charles W. I’enrose, Twenty-fifth 
 United States Infantry, having been notified by a Mr. Evans, of Browns- 
 ville, about 5 p. m. August 13, 1006, of an attack upon his wife hy a 
 soldier of ihe command, and knowing of the feeling existing in the 
 town toward the soldiers as a result thereof, did nevertheless fail to 
 give any orders to Capt. E. A. Macklin, Twenty-fifth Infantry, officer 
 of the day, requiring frequent inspections, or any insi>ections, during 
 the night after 12 o’clock, after which certain men of his command 
 did assemble, armed with rifles, and did proceed to the town of Browns- 
 ville, Tex., and did then and there shoot and wound and kill certain 
 citizens thereof. This at Fort Brown and Brownsville, Tex., August 
 13 and 14, 1906. And the court attaches no criminality thereto on 
 his part.’ ” 
 
 ” Of the charge : “ ‘ Not guilty.’ ” 
 
 “And the court does therefore acquit him, Maj. Charles W. Penrose, 
 Twenty-fifth United States Infantry.” 
 
 The judge-advocate was then recalled, and the court, at 7.05 p. m. 
 adjourned sine die, 
 
 Of.o. Ln Roy Brown, 
 
 Colonel Ticcnty-sixth Infantry, President. 
 
 CiiA.s. E. IlAT, .Tr., 
 
 Captain, Acting Judge- Advocate, Judge- Advocate. 
 
 41816—7738 
 
21 
 
 Headquarters Department of Texas, 
 
 San Antonio, Tex., March 25, 1901. 
 
 In the foregoine? case of Maj. Charles W. Penrose, Twenty-fifth United 
 States Infantry, the proceedings, findings, and acquittal are appro v^ed. 
 
 Wm. S. McCaskby, 
 
 Brigadier-General, U. S. Armg, Commanding Department. 
 
 I submit, Mr. President, that the soldiers were iieitlier db 
 rectlj" or indirectly parties to that trial ; that they were never 
 summoned nor appeared before the court, except possibly as wit- 
 nesses, either in person or by counsel. I am not familiar with 
 the powers or practice of a court-martial ; but it looks strange 
 to a lajnnan that an indictment or, as in this case, charges and 
 specifications, to which an accused officer has pleaded and sub- 
 mitted himself for trial can, after the evidence and arguments 
 are concluded, be so amended and changed as to suit the whims 
 of a court as to the character of the verdict they shall render. 
 At all events. Major Penrose was acquitted of the charge of 
 “ neglect of duty,” although found guilty under one of the 
 amended specifications. If this finding can be construed as im- 
 plicating the soldiers in this affray — that is, the acquittal of 
 Major Penrose and a verdict of guilty against the soldiers — it 
 might be likened, Mr. President, to frontier justice in the early 
 days as some of us were accustomed to hear it, of the trial of an 
 accused for murder and the conviction of his neighbor for horse 
 stealing. 
 
 Mr. FOPAKER. Mr. President 
 
 q'he VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Connecticut 
 yield to the Senator from Ohio? 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. I dislike to interrupt the Senator, and I 
 will not do- it if he has the slightest objection 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I have no objection ; it is a relief some- 
 times to be interrupted. 
 
 IMr. FORAKER. But it occurrrd to me that I ought to call 
 attention there, for fear the Senator may not do it, to the fact 
 that at the time when the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Borah] 
 insisted that these soldiers had been court-martialed and found 
 guilty they were not soldiers -at all, for as a result of their 
 discharge without honor they were not in the Army and were 
 not subject to court-martial. That is not extraordinary, though, 
 measured by other circumstances and features of this most 
 extraordinary case. Trying a neighbor for horse-stealing when 
 he was not charged with anything is not a circumstance to 
 what has been done here. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. Before leaving the discussion of this part 
 of the case, ISIr. President, I desire to call to the attention of the 
 Senators that, at one period, November 18, 1906 — and in this I 
 shall be obliged to disagree for a moment with my distinguished 
 friend from Ohio in some portion of his remarks — in a mo- 
 ment of inspiration it occurred to the Secretary of War that a 
 possible injustice had been done to these soldiers, that the pro- 
 cedure which led up to the suspending of the order dismissing 
 the soldiers of the battalion might have been irregular from the 
 standpoint of law, practice, or i)recedent, or that new and fur- 
 ther evidence might be produced. What I v;ant to call the at- 
 tention of Senators to is the fact that there was a time when 
 the Secretary of War seemed to disagree with the I’resident. 
 
 I will read the order of November IS, IJKK), when, as perhaps 
 you will all remember, the President was absent on a trip to 
 4181G— 7738 
 
22 
 
 view the great canal being constructed on the Isthmus, To- 
 gether with that I will read another order, under date of No- 
 vember 20, 1906, directing the discharge of the soldiers of the 
 Twenty-fifth Infantry to continue, Senate Document No. 155, 
 j)ages 187 and 189 : 
 
 [Telegram.] 
 
 War Department, ’November IS, 1906. 
 
 The Commanding General, Department op Texas, 
 
 San, Antonio, Tex.: 
 
 Secretary of War directs you suspend action under order for dis- 
 charge men of Twenty-fifth Infantry until further orders from here. 
 Telegraph acknowledgment of this. 
 
 Ainsworth, 
 
 The Military Secretary. 
 
 Two days later, however, for some cause not disclosed by the 
 official record, he issued another order, directing the discharge 
 to proceed. 
 
 [Telegram.] 
 
 The Military Secretary's Office, 
 
 Washington, November 20, 1906. 
 Commanding General Department op Texas, 
 
 San Antonio: 
 
 Secretary War directs you proceed with discharge of members of 
 Twenty-fifth Infantry as originaliy ordered. Telegraph acknowledg- 
 ment receipt of this and subsequent action. 
 
 Ainsworth, 
 
 The Military Secretary. 
 
 I have been unable to obtain from the records or from the 
 
 office of the Adjutant-General the correspondence or telegrams 
 that passed between the President and the Secretary of War. 
 Under date of April 25, 1908, I wrote the Adjutant-General, and 
 received his reply, dated April 27, 1908, as follows : 
 
 United States Senate, 
 Washington, April 25, 190S. 
 Maj. Gen. F. C. Ainsworth, United States Army, 
 
 Adjutant-General, IFar Department, Washington, D. C. 
 
 My De.ar General : It is shown by the official documents in regard to 
 the discharge of the colored soldiers at Brownsvilie, as contained in 
 Senate Document No. 155, that on November 18, 1900, the Secretary 
 of War issued an order suspending the execution of the order for the 
 dismissal of these soldiers ; that on the 20th of November, 1906, the 
 record shows that the Secretary of War directed the immediate execu- 
 tion of the President’s original order. 
 
 I fail to find anything in the official record relative to the reasons for 
 the suspension, and later for the renewing of the President’s order of 
 dismissal. Are there any records, documents, or otherwise showing that 
 the President directed the carrying out of the original order? 
 
 I understand that the President, at the time when the orders of the 
 Secretary of War were issued, was either on a voyage to or at Panama. 
 If there be any such communications addressed to or received from the 
 President, or other records relating to the suspension of and later the 
 renewing of the President’s order of dismissal I would respectfully ask, 
 if you can properly do so, that I be furnished with a copy of the same. 
 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 M. G. Bulkeley. 
 
 War Dep.irtment, Adjutant-General’s Office, 
 
 Washington, April 27, 190S. 
 
 lion. M. G. Bulkeley, 
 
 United States Senate. 
 
 My Dear Senator : In response to your letter of the 25th instant 
 relative to the suspension and subsequent renewal of the order for the 
 dischai’ge of certain colored soldiers. I beg leave to say that the 
 printed record contains copies of absolutely all the documents relating 
 to the matter that are on file in my office. Nothing has ever reached 
 4181G— 773S 
 
23 
 
 my office or come to my knowledge relative to the reasons for the sus- 
 pension and subsequent renewal of the order for the discharge of these 
 men. 
 
 Very respectfully, F. C. Ainsworth, 
 
 Adjutant-General. 
 
 I am therefore compelled to rely upon the press reports oi 
 that period for the information which I have sought from the 
 official records of the War Department. Of course I can not 
 vouch entirely for their accuracy, hut I find no record any- 
 where of the denial of their truthfulness. I ask that the article 
 from the Washington Post of November 21, 190G, from which 
 I quote, may be printed in full as a part of my remarks. It is 
 the best record I can obtain of the reason for the suspension of 
 the order of the President and its renewal. 
 
 ]Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Is the article wdiich the Senator is 
 about to read from the Washington Post coincident with the 
 order of the Secretary of War suspending proceedings against 
 these soldiers? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I will give the dates. The date of the sus- 
 pension order is November 18 ; the date of its renewal Novem- 
 ber 20; and the article I quote is dated November 21, appar- 
 ently written in view of all the circumstances which had tran- 
 spired and which were transpiring during these two or three 
 days. 
 
 [The Washington Post, November 21, 1006.] 
 
 TAFT'S BOLD STEP. 
 
 ♦ * ***!(! * 
 
 Is there danger that the suspension by Secretary Taft of the 
 President’s order dismissing the three colored companies of the 
 Twenty-fifth Infantry, without honor, will cause friction between the 
 President and the man who has been his chief lieutenant the past two 
 years ? 
 
 This is the question public men and Army officers are asking each 
 other when they discuss this situation privately. 
 
 The situation is an embarrassing one for the President, whichever 
 horn of the dilemma he may take. After reviev/ing the facts in this 
 case, as submitted to him, the President issued the now famous order 
 that put a whole battalion of men out of the service dishonorably, and 
 then started for the Isthmus. Some comment has resulted because the 
 order was not promulgated until after the election. The action of the 
 President was supposed to be final, and if criticism followed it might 
 be reasonably supposed that the incident in large measure would be 
 forgotten before the President again reached Washington. 
 
 TAFT ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY. 
 
 If this was the expectation. Secretary Taft succeeded admirably in 
 reviving public interest and intensifying the criticism of the President’s 
 original order. Of course, the President could not be expected to know 
 of the deluge of complaints and protests with which the Department 
 was flooded after his departure, nor did he know that the New York 
 Republican Club had condemned his action and called for fair play for 
 these colored troops. 
 
 Secretary Taft did know these things, however, and he assumed 
 the responsibility of suspending the Executive order until the Presi- 
 dent could be heard from. Now, with the matter afresh in the public 
 mind, the President must add to the weight of these protests by com- 
 pelling submission to his original order, if he overrides the Secretary, 
 or admit that he may have acted hastily if he rescinds his order and 
 reopens the case. Which he will do may be known to-day, by which 
 time Secretary Taft hopes to be in communication with the President. 
 
 Meanwhile the War Secretary will say nothing. He refused yestei’- 
 day to say more than “ I can’t discuss the case until to-morrow.” 
 This was interpreted to mean that the Secretary could say nothing 
 until he had heard from the I’resident and received his instructions. 
 The Secretary also declined to say whether he had been in communica- 
 tion with the I’resident by wireless. 
 
 4181G— 7738 
 
24 
 
 COXFEKS WITH OLIVER, 
 
 Secretary Taft arrived in Washino'ton from New York yesterday 
 r.ftei-noon and went at once to his office, where he summoned General 
 Oliver, Assistant Secretary of War ; Major-General Ainsworth, Mili- 
 tary Secretary, and Brig. Gen. Thomas II. Barry, Chief of Staff, for 
 a conference. This conference lasted more than an hour, and before 
 it was concluded Mr. Loeb, Secretary to the President, also was sum- 
 moned to the Department. Mr. Loeb was called into the conference 
 presumably to give some information concerning the time when the 
 President was expected to reach Porto Rico and the possibility of 
 getting access to him over the cable, a much more satisfactory method 
 of communication than by v/ireless. 
 
 It was suggested yesterday after the conference that Secretary Taft's 
 reason for refusing to talk vras his knowledge of the fact that the 
 President would not rescind his order, and that it had been decided 
 not to make this decision public until it was possible to accompany 
 it with copies of the reports of Colonel Bixby and General Garlington, 
 These reports have been in the hands of the Public Printer for several 
 days, and it is expected that they will be ready for distribution to-day. 
 
 It is hoped by officials of the War Department that their publica- 
 tion will set at rest the agitation which the President’s order has 
 aroused, as they are regarded by the officials as showing clearly the 
 necessity for the dismissal of the negro soldiers, and that the action 
 taken by the President was the only thing that could be done under 
 the circumstances. 
 
 This surmise, on the other hand, is discounted by the positive state* 
 ment from a reliable source that officials here have not been in com- 
 munication with the President since he left Colon, and that nothing 
 has been heard from him on the subject of the dismissal of the troops. 
 
 DISPATCH FROM PRESIDENT, 
 
 A message from the President, however, had reached Gilchrist 
 Stewart, of the Constitutional League, in New York City, in which the 
 President declined to suspend his order discharging the colored troops 
 unless the facts as known to him were shown to be false, but express- 
 ing his willingness to hear new facts bearing on that case. 
 
 Mr. Stewart cabled to President Roosevelt at Ancon, Panama, as 
 follows : 
 
 “ Republican county committee unanimously denounces discharge of 
 colored soldiers. Parsons, Olcott, Bennet, committee petitioning De- 
 partment. Newspapers emphatic. Developments and new facts war- 
 rant. Ask immediate suspension order.” 
 
 The President's reply contained the following : 
 
 “ Unless facts as known to me are shown to be false, the order will 
 under no circumstances be revoked, and I shall not for one moment 
 consider suspending it on a simple allegation that there are new facts 
 until these new facts are laid before me. Inform any persons having 
 new facts to have them in shape to lay before me at once on my re- 
 turn. and I will then consider whether or not any further action by me 
 is called for. 
 
 “ Theodore Roosevelt.-*^ 
 
 NO WIRELESS COMMUNICATION. 
 
 At the Department yesterday, it was explained that the reason the 
 President was able to reply to Mr. Stewart’s cablegram, was that Mr. 
 Stev, art’s inquiry was sent early Saturday and reached Colon before the 
 cable office closed, while Secretary Taft’s message was not sent until 
 Saturday night, and doubtless m.issed the President. Since the Louisi- 
 ana left Colon, both Secretary Taft and Secretary Loeb have been out 
 of communication with the President, although repeated efforts have 
 been made to pick up the ship by wireless. A message from the Presi- 
 dent, given out at the White House Monday, evidently was sent by 
 regular telegraph from Colon and not by wireless from the Louisiana. 
 
 Pains were taken to show that Secretary Taft had not attempted to 
 go over the head of the President in his absence, but had merely di- 
 rected that the execution of the order be suspended. He has acqui- 
 esced in the delay in putting it into operation in order to afford the 
 President an opportunity to reconsider if he wishes to do so. 
 
 Some Army officers contend that if the President had knowledge 
 of the sentiment which his action has created and the criticism which 
 it has caused, he might reopen the case and give the men affected an 
 opportunity to defend themselves. Being out of the country, he has 
 not had an opportunity to know how a large portion of the public 
 regards the drastic course he took. Officials of the War Department 
 contend, however, that the public will be thoroughly enlightened and 
 approve the course of the I’resident as soon as the report of General 
 Garlington is published. 
 
 4181G— 7738 
 
25 
 
 The War Department had no advices yesterday confirming the press 
 dispatches from Fort Reno that twenty-five members of the Twenty- 
 fifth Infantry already have been discharged under the original order. 
 So far as the Department knows, it was said, only seven members of 
 the battalion alleged to be responsible for the riot at Brownsville have 
 been dismissed, and these were soldiers who w'ere arrested at San 
 Antonio and were dismissed from the service after the courts failed 
 to substantiate charges that the men participated in the riot at Browns- 
 ville. 
 
 At this point I will end the discussion of that phase of the 
 question, as to the propriety and the legality and the prece- 
 dents for the dismissal of these troops, and I will talk for a few 
 moments of Brownsville, its characteristics, and the surround- 
 ing country, and I shall quote during these remarks from no 
 less authority than Texas citizens themselves and those who 
 live in and are familiar, and have been for years, Avith that 
 part of the country. 
 
 BKOWXSVILLE AND ITS CIIAEACTEIUSTICS. 
 
 Fort Brown, Tex., is a military post established during the 
 Mexican v/ar, 1840, and is contiguous to the city of Browns- 
 ville, near the mouth of the Rio Grande River ; it had a popu- 
 lation in 1900 of 0,305, as given by the Bureau of the Census, 
 whose authority I append : 
 
 Depap.tment op Commerce and Labor, 
 
 Bureau op tub Census, 
 Washington, April i}, 190S. 
 
 lion. Morgan G. Bulkeley, 
 
 United States Senate, Washington, D. G. 
 
 Dear Senator Bulkeley ; In response to your telephonic request of 
 to-day, I take pleasure in giving you below, the data specified in regard 
 to Brownsville, Tex., with the exception of the number of naturalized 
 citizens, which was not tabulated at the Tv/elfth Census for cities with 
 less than 25,000 inhabitants : 
 
 Population, 1000. 
 
 Total, white, G,287 ; negro, 18 G, 305 
 
 Male 2, 831 
 
 Female 3, 474 
 
 Native born 3, 843 
 
 Male 1, 755 
 
 Female 2, 088 
 
 Foreign born 2, 4G2 
 
 Male 1, 070 
 
 Female 1, 38G 
 
 Males 21 years of age and over 1, 324 
 
 Native white 500 
 
 Foreign white 810 
 
 Negro 5 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 W. S. Rossiter, Aeting Director. 
 
 It is, and alvrays has been, necessarily a frontier post; it is 
 separated from the business and residential portion of the city 
 by a road, knoAvn as the Garrison road, and oftentimes called 
 Fifteenth street; and it is in close proximity to this residential 
 part that the affray occurred on the night of August 13-14, 1906. 
 This post has been garrisoned since its establishment by both 
 white and colored soldiers, commanded by distinguished and 
 well-known officers of the Army, to the entire satisfaction of 
 the citizens of Brownsville and without serious discrimination 
 against the soldier, except that we find in the evidence that the 
 police were more aggressive against the soldier for slight of- 
 fenses, for the reason that the soldiers’ lines, if inflicted, wore 
 always paid in cash. The Mexicans, if lined, were sent to the 
 county jail or the workhouse. 
 
 4181G— 7738 
 
2G 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. To work out tlie fine? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. To ^York out tlie fine. Tliis is the testi- 
 mony of Captain Kelly. He was a soldier of the civil war, in 
 the Union army ; settled at Browmsville at the close of the war, 
 forty years ago and more ; and is one of its most prominent and 
 reputable citizens. He is jmesident of a bank, and was the pre- 
 siding officer of the investigating committee of the citizens of 
 Brownsville immediately after this affray. 
 
 [Testimony of Captain Kelly, vol. 3, p. 2528.] 
 
 Q. Now, Captain, I will get you to state, during the entire time the 
 Twenty-sixth was there, did you hear any complaints from the officers 
 of any oppressive treatment whatever by the policemen of Browns- 
 ville against the soldiers? — A. I never heard an officer say so Jit all. I 
 know there were two or three conflicts between drunken soldiers and 
 Mexican policemen, and I have no doubt that the Mexican policemen 
 when they got a man who was drunk did not treat him well. 
 
 Q. Whether he was a soldier or not? — A. Well, particularly if he 
 were a soldier. 
 
 Q. Did not treat him well? — A. That is to say, I think they would 
 strike a soldier harder and get him to the police station as fast as they 
 could, for two reasons : First, w'hen he was fined, he ahvays managed 
 to pay his fine. His comrades made it up. That appeared to be one 
 of the reasons why they were very likely and very anxious to run a 
 soldier in when they got a chance. I suppose there was some sort of 
 divvy about the fines. I do not know that of my own knowledge. If 
 they ran a Mexican in, he was simply sent to labor on the streets. 
 
 Q. He had no money to pay his fine? — A. No money to pay his fine. 
 
 By Senator Foraker : 
 
 Q. What was the other reason? 
 
 Senator Warner. He said one reason was that a soldier would pay 
 his fine, and the other was that a Mexican did not. 
 
 These peaceful conditions seem to have been maintained in 
 Brownsville, as between the citizens and the soldiers, up to the 
 time of the order for the battalion of the Tw^enty-fifth Infantry 
 to occupy the post. 
 
 The maintenance of this post, for the protection of the city 
 of Brownsville and its people, both from foreign invasion and 
 from the lawless inhabitants in the surrounding territory, was 
 insisted upon w’hen the question of its abandonment was being 
 considered by a board of Army officers in 1901 ; I will quote the 
 strong and urgent reasons urged by officials and civilians alike 
 for the retention of this and other posts on the Rio Grande 
 frontier ; 
 
 [Extracts from the location and distribution of military posts. House 
 
 Doc. No. 618, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, pp. 380 to 389, in- 
 clusive.] 
 
 7. FORT BROWN, TEX. 
 
 * * ¥ * * * x: 
 
 [Telegram.] 
 
 Dallas, Tex., October 2, 1901. 
 
 Secretary of War, Washington, D. C.: 
 
 It is rumored that the Department contemplates abandoning Fort 
 Brown, in this State. The importance of this post to effect the pro- 
 tection of the people of the lower Rio Grande frontier can not be 
 overestimated, and I earnestly ask that the fort be maintained. 
 
 C. A. Culberson. 
 
 War Department, 
 
 A D.T U T A NT- G E N E R Ali^ S O F F I C E, 
 
 Washington, D. C., October 10, 1901. 
 Hon Charles A. Culberson, U. S. Senator, 
 
 Dallas, Tex. 
 
 Sir : The Secretary of War directs me to acknowledge the receipt of 
 your telegi-am of the 2d instant, in which you remark that it is rumored 
 that the abandonment of Fort Brown, Tex., is contemplated, and stat- 
 41816—7738 
 
27 
 
 ing that the importance of this post for the protection of the people 
 of the lower Rio Grande frontier can not he overestimated, and asking 
 that the fort he maintained ; and replying thereto to inform you that 
 your request will receive due consideration. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 n. C. CoRBi>r, 
 
 Adjutant-General, Major-General, United States Army. 
 
 Dallas, Tex, October f, 1901. 
 The Secretary op War, Washington, D. G. 
 
 Sib : I have just learned v/ith astonishment that the War Depart- 
 ment is contemplating the abandonment of Fort Brown, at the mouth 
 of the Rio Grande, on the Mexican frontier of Texas. I do not under- 
 stand how such a step could meet with a moment’s favorable consid- 
 eration by any one familiar with the siuation and necessities of tha^ 
 frontier, for there is no more important post in all the military estab- 
 lishment of the country from a strategic point of view. It is at the 
 mouth of the principal river of our western border, commanding 1,700 
 miles of exposed frontier liable at any time to require prompt and ef- 
 fective military aid. The recent development of railroad facilities has 
 rendered its support comparatively cheap, and there is every reason 
 why it should be retained and strengthened instead of being abandoned. 
 The importance of that post was demonstrated in the civil war of 1861-^ 
 1865, and its great utility for international defense is appreciated to 
 the fullest by Mexico, as that Government maintains its chief garrison 
 just across the river at Matamoros. I v>rish to protest most vigorously 
 against the discontinuance of Fort Brown as wholly unwarranted and 
 in the nature of a public calamity to the people of Texas, if not of the 
 entire Union. 
 
 In speaking thus emphatically, I do not do so from hearsay, for I am 
 entirely familiar with the situation there, as I have traversed the region 
 along the Rio Grande and at its mouth, in the vicinity of Brownsville 
 many times, and am thoroughly acquainted with the conditions and pos- 
 sibilities of that frontier. 
 
 The details and facts connected with the post will be presented to 
 you by others more directly interested locally, but in the name of the 
 people of the whole State I desire to enter my most earnest objection 
 and protest to the proposed action of the Denartment in abandoning 
 this critical and important military establishment. “ 
 
 I have the honor to be, with great respect, 
 
 Your obedient servant. 
 
 Dudley G. Wooten. 
 
 non. Elihu Root, 
 
 Secretary of War, Washington, D 
 
 Senate Chamber^ 
 Austin, Tex., October 3, 1901. 
 
 . G. 
 
 Sir : I have the honor to herewith transmit you copy of senate con- 
 current resolution No. 8, passed by the senate and house of renresento- 
 tives of the State of Texas October 1, 1901. 
 
 With continued high regards, I have the honor to remain, sir. 
 
 Yours, obediently. 
 
 W. B. O'Qdinn, 
 
 Secretary Senate, State of Texas. 
 
 It was thought of enough importance for the legislature of 
 the State of Texas to pass a series of resolutions of the same 
 character, which I will ask to have included as a part of my 
 remarks. 
 
 Senate concurrent resolution 8. 
 
 Whereas it has come to the knowledge of the Texas legislature that 
 the Federal Government contemplates the early abandonment of Fort 
 Brown, located in the town of Brownsville, Tex. ; and 
 
 Whereas the abandonment of said fort would mean the removal of 
 one of the most important Federal posts on the Mexican frontier, it 
 being at the mouth of the Rio Grande, and guarding the frontier for 
 more than 140 miles ; and 
 
 ^ Whereas the town of Brownsville and the town of Matamoros are 
 important to the commercial world, and especially the town of Browns- 
 ville, which receives a goodly amount of ocean traffic ; and 
 
 Whereas the Mexican Government considers the town of Matamoros 
 and country tributary thereto as of sufficient commercial, military stra- 
 tegic importance to justify said government in maintaining at the said 
 town of Matamoros a strong military post ; Therefore be it 
 41816 — 7738 
 
28 
 
 liesolved hy the senate of the State of Texas (the house of repre- 
 sentatives concurring) , That we do hereby protest against the contem- 
 plated action of the Federal Government, and most earnestly request of 
 the l*resident of the United States and the Secretary of War to con- 
 tinue said post and all other military posts on the Rio Grande. 
 
 Be it further resolved. That our Senators and Representatives in 
 Congress and the governor of this State be, and they are hereby, re- 
 quested to take up this matter with the proper officials of the Federal 
 Government and urge the continuation of the military post at Fort 
 Brown : and 
 
 Resolved further. That the secretary of the senate be, and he is 
 hereby, instructed to immediately mail, a copy of this resolution to the 
 President of the United States, the Secretary of War, each of our Sena- 
 tors and Representatives in Congress, and to the governor of this State. 
 
 The State op Texas, Senate Chamber. 
 
 I, W. B. O’Quinn, secretary of the senate of the State of Texas, do 
 hereby certify that the forgoing is a true and correct copy of senate 
 concurrent resolution No. 8, as passed by the senate and house of 
 representatives on October 1, 1901. 
 
 W. B. O’Quinn, 
 Secretary of the Senate. 
 
 I will also quote from a letter written by the governor of 
 Texas : 
 
 Executive Office, 
 Austin, Tex., Octohcr J/, 1901. 
 
 Sir : I beg to herewith inclose you a copy of a resolution adopted 
 by the legislature of Texas in reference to the contemplated abandon- 
 ment of Fort Brown, and to earnestly request that the post be main- 
 tained. It is quite important that troops be held at the mouth of 
 the Rio Grande River, in order to insure peace and order on that 
 portion of our frontier. In my judgment, its location is such as 
 makes it of exceeding importance, and I earnestly trust that the 
 Department >vill retain it at its present strength. 
 
 I have the honor to be, yours, very respectfully, 
 
 Joseph D. Sayers, 
 
 Governor of Texas. 
 
 The Secretary op War, 
 
 Washington, D, C. 
 
 House op Representatives, United States, 
 
 Beaumont, Tex., Novemher 20, 1001. 
 
 Hon. Secretary of War, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir ; A resolution of the Texas legislature protesting against 
 the abandonment of Fort Brown, near Brownsville, Tex., has been for- 
 vmrded to you. I beg hereby to join in this protest, and respectfully 
 request that this fort be continued. 
 
 Very respectfully, S. B. Cooper, 
 
 Memher Congress, Texas. 
 
 Huntsville, Tex., Octoher 5, 1901. 
 
 The Secretary of War. 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir : Our people are very much stirred up over the prospective 
 abandonment of Fort Brown as a military post. 
 
 Permit me to earnestly urge upon you the propriety of continuing 
 the protection of the Rio Grande section by maintaining this fort. 
 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 Thos. II. Ball, M. C. 
 
 Sherman, Tex., Octoher h 1901. 
 
 Hon. Elihu Root, 
 
 Secretary of Ifa?', Washington, D. C. 
 
 Sir : It has been called to my attention that the War Department has 
 been contemplating the abandonment of Fort Brown, at Brownsville, 
 Tex. 
 
 As one of the Representatives from Texas, feeling a deep interest in 
 the welfare of her people, and being well aware of the exposure and 
 difficulties our people on the Mexican border have been subjected to, I 
 most earnestly urge the increase of the frontier protection, the continu- 
 ance of Fort Brown, and the location of adequate military forces along 
 the Rio Grande border to insure protection of American interests. I 
 41816—7738 
 
29 
 
 would respectfully suggest that the maintenance of forts and military 
 garrisons along the Rio Grande would not be attended with any ex- 
 traordinary expense, and that no part of the frontier of the United 
 States is more in need of a constant, watchful guard than that bordering 
 on the Republic of Mexico. I trust that a consideration of this matter 
 will result in an increase, and not in a decrease of this protection. 
 Although located myself in the northern part of Texas, I feel that the 
 interests of the southwestern portion of the State, which is developing 
 so rapidly, should not be discouraged, nor should American interests be 
 allowed to suffer for want of adequate protection. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 ' C. B. Randell, M. C.. 
 
 Fifth District of Texas. 
 
 Gonzales,- Octoher 7, 1901. 
 
 Hon. Eliiiu Root, 
 
 Secretary of War, Washington, D. C. 
 
 My Dear Sir : My information is that your Department contem- 
 plates the abandonment of Fort Brown, at Browmsville, Tex., and I 
 write you to earnestly protest against this action. I trust you will 
 pardon me for saying that, in my judgment, a throrough investigation 
 will convince you that such action will be both unwdse and unjust. 
 It is true that now our relations v/ith Mexico are extremely friendly, 
 on account of w'hich wm all rejoice ; still, the situation is such that the 
 maintenance of the fort will be an aid to continued security, and pre- 
 vent any uprising of lawlessness along the border, which is so far from 
 the seat of government of both countries. 
 
 From letters and telegrams I have received, it is evident that the 
 people of the State in that section are much stirred up, and great dis- 
 satisfaction w’iil result from the abandonment of the fort. 
 
 Doubtless my colleague, the Hon. Rud. Kleberg, wdio is now in Wash- 
 ington, v.^ill interview you in the matter. I heartily join him in his 
 efforts in this matter. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours. Geo. F. Burgess. 
 
 House of Representatives, United States, 
 
 Washington, D. C., October 26, 1901. 
 
 The Secretary op War. 
 
 War Department, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Sir : I beg to submit for your consideration the telegram I received 
 some time ago, during your absence from the city, with reference to 
 Fort Brown, at Brownsville, Tex., of wdiicli I spoke to you to-day. 
 The gentlemen signing the message are all prominent citizens, and their 
 statements are perfectly reliable. I trust that Fort Brov/n and the 
 posts along tise Rio Grande generally may be maintained, as I believe 
 they are necessary both as strategic points as wmli as necessary pro- 
 tection against marauding bands on the border between the United 
 States and the Republic of Mexico. 
 
 Very respectfully, Rudolph Kleberg, 
 
 Member of Congress. 
 
 I have quoted all these letters, or portions of them, not to 
 show the character of the population of Brownsville but to show 
 the character of tlie population that lives in the surrounding 
 territory on both banks of the Rio Grande, both in Mexico 
 and in the United States, and the opinion of the people of 
 Texas themselves as to the necessity not only of protection from 
 across the river, but from the lawless people who occupy this 
 territory. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Michigan. IMr. President, if it will not in- 
 terrupt the Senator from Connecticut, I should like to ask him 
 a question. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott in the chair). Does 
 the Senator from Connecticut yield to the Senator from Michi- 
 
 gcan? 
 
 Mr. BTJLKELEY. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I should like to know whether it 
 developed in the course of the hearing that the Mexicans came 
 freely to Brownsville, the Mexican soldiers mingling with the 
 American soldiers. Did that develop in the hearing V 
 4181G— 7738 
 
Mr. BULKELEY. There is abundant testimony as to that. 
 There was a ferry running in close proximity to Fort Brown, 
 and it was a constant matter of visit from one place to the 
 other by the soldiers. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Did it develop at all that the Mexi- 
 cans came over at any time and rioted in the city of Browns- 
 ville? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. If the Senator will listen to the letter 
 which I am going to read, I think he will be convinced that at 
 one time the city of Brownsville had been in the hands of the 
 lawless people who inhabit this territory for two or three days 
 at a time, when it was almost impossible to secure, help, and 
 they even had to call on the Mexican Government to protect 
 Brownsville. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I noticed in your statement a mo- 
 ment ago that the governor of Texas and other public men 
 felt that this garrison should be strengthened. Of course that 
 was not from fear of war, but probably from fear of rioting. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. It was merely for the protection of the 
 people against raids from the other side and their own side of 
 the river. I think the next letter will disclose the point. 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. “ Marauding bands ” is the expression. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Michigan. “Marauding bands?” 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. That is the expression employed by one of 
 the petitioners for the post to be continued — in order to pro- 
 tect the citizens of Brownsville against the marauding bands. 
 
 Mr. PILES. I should like to ask the Senator from Connecti- 
 cut what is the color of the uniform of the Mexican soldiers. 
 
 ]\Ir. BULKELEY. I do not think it is in the testimony, and 
 I do not know that I can give it. But I shall not make any 
 charge against the Mexican soldiers as marauders in this town. 
 I have another theory which I will develop later. I do not 
 think there is any occasion to lay this raid to Mexican soldiers. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. It is not material from your standpoint. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I do not think there is any charge on the 
 part of anybody against them, whatever their uniforms were. 
 Some questions have been raised in regard to the character of 
 the guns they used, and whether it was possible that the ammu- 
 nition used in United States arms could be used in IMexican 
 guns. But I do not recollect that any question was raised. 
 
 Mr. FORAKER rose. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. Possibly the Senator from Ohio can state. 
 
 Mr, FORAKER. My recollection is there is some testimony 
 on that point; that the uniform of the Mexican soldiers is 
 somewhat like ours, though not exactly the same shade of light 
 color. There is a difference of shade. That is my recollection 
 as to what the testimony is. As the Senator from Connecticut 
 proceeds, I will try to find out. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. The letter I am about to read 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. I want to joint with the Senator in this 
 connection in saying that no one means to suggest that this 
 was done by Mexican soldiers. All I understand that the Sena- 
 tor is undertaking to do here is to show bj'^ these statements 
 from Texas citizens as to why a garrison should be continued 
 at Brownsville, that the people at that point needed the pro- 
 tection of a garrison as against the marauding bands which in- 
 41S1G — 7738 
 
fested that locality. That was their own expression. That is 
 the reason w^hy I used it. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I am about to read a letter from a mem- 
 ber of the Texas legislature, written at that time. The question 
 which was being considered by a board of Army officers was 
 the abandonment of undesirable and unnecessary Army posts, 
 and Fort Brown was among the number. They were not con- 
 fined to the frontier. They were ail under consideration. It 
 v/as a lengthy hearing. This [exhibiting] is only one volume of 
 the report, and these letters that I am quoting from are all con- 
 tained in' this volume. 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. It was in 1901. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. 1901. I will read this letter, to which I 
 invite the attention of Senators who have made inquiries of me. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. What is the date? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. December 2, 1901, written to the board of 
 Army officers making the examination. 
 
 Rio Grande City, Tex., 
 
 December 2, 1001. 
 
 Liout. Gen. Nelson A. Miles, 
 
 V/aiiUiii(jtQn, D. G. 
 
 Dear Sir : 
 
 ^ * # * # * * 
 
 Now, if a party of bandits, cattle thieves, or revolutionists cross from 
 Mexico — and the river is no obstacle — the first thing they would do 
 would be to cut the wire, and then they would have full sweep for a 
 week or ten days, until word could be gotten to Laredo and troops sent 
 on the long march here. We could doubtless oppose some resistance, 
 especially to a small party, but remember that this frontier is inhabited 
 almost entirely by Mexicans, few of Avhom, in the case of revolutionists 
 coming over, would be inclined to take part with us, and some might 
 even actively assist the revolutionists. Starr County (in v/hich Fort 
 Ringgold is situated) contains over 11,000 people, and of these less than 
 100 are Americans and negroes. The proportions are about the same 
 in the adjoining counties of Zapata and Hidalgo, though in Cameron 
 County (the site of Fort Brown) the proportion of Americans is slightly 
 larger. All this was shown clearly at the time of the “ Garza revolu- 
 tion ” in 1891, when several troops of cavalry and companies of infan- 
 try of our Army, aided by State rangers and deputy sheriffs, found 
 themselves for a long time unable to capture these few revolutionists 
 on account of the nature of the country and the sympathy of many of 
 the people with their cause. The history of Mexico shows that many 
 of the revolutions that have distracted that country had their origin 
 and found their strongest support on both sides of this frontier. I am 
 informed that President Diaz himself started his revolution at, and 
 was equipped from, Brownsville. If our neutrality laws and our obliga- 
 tions to a friendly nation are to be observed, troops must be maintained 
 at one or two points betv/een Laredo and the mouth of the Rio Grande, 
 to cut off in the bud incipient revolutions starting up here. 
 
 I think that the time of the great cattle raids is over, but a period 
 of disturbance, to be feared upon the death of Mexico's strong ruler, 
 might cause their renewal. They were common on this frontier up to 
 a few years ago. In 18b9 the War Department withdrew all troops 
 from the lower Rio Grande posts, and the consequence was the great 
 Cortina raid from Mexico, when the robber general Cortina seized the 
 city of Brownsville, killed the chief of police and a few other citizens, 
 and held a carnival of robbery, outrage, and crime, until, at our ui*gent 
 solicitation, the Mexican authorities of Matamoros sent over a com- 
 pany or two of troops to protect our people, and moved the rest of 
 the regiment down to the river bank, ready to cross if needed. The 
 War Department did what it could to remedy the original mistake, and 
 hurried troops down (under command of Col. Robert E. Lee, if I re- 
 member aright), but the march was long, and tliey would not have 
 arrived in time to prevent a general massacre but for the timely and 
 illegal action of the Mexican authorities. That, sir, was a time — 
 
 And I wish Senators would pay particular attention, because 
 this is from a Texas citizen — 
 
 That, sir, was a time not only of danger, but of abasement 1o our 
 people, when they saw their town in possession of robbers, the Amcri- 
 4181(5 — 7738 
 
32 
 
 can flag at the post filthily dishonored, their Government helpless to 
 aid them, and the preservation of their lives and the honor of their 
 women due only to the kindly but humiliating assistance of a friendly 
 nation. Nor was it an easy task for our troops to overcome this banil 
 of robbers. The campaign lasted two or three months, and was con- 
 ducted all up and down the river with varying fortunes, including one 
 most inglorious defeat, before they were driven back crushed into Mex- 
 ico. The archives of the War Department must contain a full account 
 of this great raid, as well as of the many smaller ones, both before and 
 since, that have plagued our people and demonstrated the usefulness 
 of a standing army in time of peace. 
 
 As to riots and uprisings originating on this side of the river, they 
 are no longer to be expected. Yet v^e can not forget the great riot here 
 in 1888, when only the presence of the troops prevented a massacre. 
 It will be remembered that on that occasion the wire was cut by the 
 rioters (fortunately, just too late) and the town was in -their hands, 
 but Colonel Clendenning got out his Gatling guns, turned out his troops, 
 and with a strong hand protected the refugees from the mob until the 
 arrival of State Rangers and deputies from other counties restored 
 order. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Vv^ho signed that letter? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. It was addressed to General Miles, and 
 is signed by G. W. Seabnry, representing the eighty-fifth legis- 
 lative district. 
 
 But, apart from what the troops accomplish by their actions, their 
 mere presence holds in check the lawless element always to be found on 
 frontiers, and has been of the utmost value to this section and the 
 country in general. Local protection is generally to be expected from 
 local sources, but we stand here to protect not only ourselves, but the 
 whole interior, from the lav/lessness and crime of refugees from Mex- 
 ican justice. As we suffer so much for the country, I think it not un- 
 reasonable for the country to aid us through United States troops and 
 State Rangers. 
 
 I do not deny that the expense of these posts is great, but they are 
 worth to the country at large vastly more than the amount expended 
 on them. If there were no people here to protect, the enforcement of 
 our laws and obligations of neutrality alone, not to speak of interna- 
 tional complications, would imperatively demand their retention. * =' * 
 Very trul}% yours, 
 
 G. W. Seabury, 
 
 Reprcsentutive, Eightij-fifth Legislative District. 
 
 Rio Grande City, Tex., Dcccmhcr 5, 1901. 
 President Theodore Roosevelt, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 
 Honorable Sir : I understand that the United States troops are to 
 be removed from the Texas frontier posts. Forts Ringgold and Brown. 
 I trust I may be pardoned if I say that in the opinion of all hero it 
 would be a most unwise and detrimental move for the peace and quiet 
 of the frontier, keeping the resident population in a constant state of 
 fear and unrest, besides retarding progress in the way of immigration, 
 which is just now for the first time beginning to come this way. We are 
 now having peace, quiet, and progress from the fact that the United 
 States troops are present, and it is only the knowledge of that fact 
 that keeps the turbulent element (mostly Mexicans) down, saving us 
 from raids, robberies, and loss of life. I know v/hereof I write, having 
 lived on the frontier for over fifty-two years, having knowledge of and 
 have experienced much of it. I will call your attention to the Cor- 
 tina raid in 1859, just after the removal of the troops. In 1888 the 
 presence of the garrison, during the Garsa-Seebre trouble, saved the 
 lives and property of the Americans here, when if the Mexicans could 
 have reached Seebre and Dillard, the twm Americans connected wuth the 
 alfair, they would not have stayed their hands until every American 
 in the place had been killed ; but the two named above fied to the post 
 for security, thus saving themselves and other American citizens. Also, 
 during the Spanish-American war in 1898. we wmre threatened by raids 
 ostensibly gotten up by Spaniards in Mexico, under the pretense of 
 patriotism, but in reality for the purpose of plunder, only the presence 
 of United States troops keeping them in abeyance. 
 
 Our position here is none too secure, conditions now' being the same 
 as ever. We hope and trust this stop will be well considered in the 
 interest of the law-abiding citizens and the Texas frontier. 
 
 An American Citizen. 
 
 4181G--7738 
 
33 
 
 Mr. PILES. I should like to inquire of the Senator whether 
 these riots he speaks of were participated in by Mexican 
 soldiers, according to the showing he has made? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. No. In that case the Mexican soldiers 
 came across the river and helped to drive out the band of 
 robbers who had Brownsville in their possession. 
 
 Mr. PILES. In the riots spoken of in this letter, were the 
 participants confined altogether to piembers of robber bands? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I think so ; and cattle thieves. 
 
 Mr. PILES. Mexican cattle thieves? 
 
 Mr. NELSON. Revolutionists. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. Revolutionists who inhabited this territory. 
 
 Mr. PILES. As to any of the riots referred to by the Sena- 
 tor from Connecticut, I will ask if there is any showing that 
 the participants shot up private houses in Brownsville, or 
 whether it was confined to riots in the streets or even to raids, 
 on mercantile establishmeiits and saloons. I wish to know 
 whether any of the riots were carried so far as to make assaults 
 on private residences? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I have read all of the extracts that seemed 
 to me pertinent. The town of Brownsville was for two or 
 throe days on one occasion in possession of these robbers, and 
 that I thought should be distinctly understood. The robbers, 
 not soldiers, took possession of the Government post and pulled 
 down and trailed in the dirt the American fiag; and it was not 
 until the Mexican soldiers were appealed to to come and rescue 
 the city from this lawless element that Mexican soldiers were 
 sent over and finally drove them out before United States 
 troops could reach the point. 
 
 I have quoted thus freely from these appeals from the people 
 .of the Texas frontier, in order to call attention to the char- 
 acter of the population and the dangers arising to the settled 
 communities from the outlaws from both sides of the Rio 
 Grande and contiguous to these communities. I regard these 
 facts as important in view of previous raids into the settled 
 towns as alluded to in the correspondence, and also in 
 view of what we find more than once in the evidence before 
 your committee, that on the night of the raid at Brownsville 
 and shortly before the firing commenced, a party of horsemen, 
 greater or less in number, vrere heard rapidly riding over the 
 county road but a short distance outside the reservation and 
 directly connecting with the Garrison road, or Fifteenth street, 
 where the firing shortly after commenced. 
 
 ] have in my remarks various affidavits and statements of the 
 few persons and soldiers who were awake at the time the 
 affray commenced. I will quote: 
 
 [S. Doc. No. 155, p. 512.] 
 
 r<-i-soiially appeared before me, the undersigned authority, one William 
 Harden, a private of (’ompany 13, Twenty-fifth Infantry, who, being 
 duly sworn according to law, deposes and says, as follows : 
 
 “ I was in the post hospital at Fort Drown, Tex., asleep on my 
 bunk, on the night of August 1.3, 1000, when the shooting took place 
 at that post. The shooting woke me uj). I got up and came out on 
 the front porch toward town with the hospital steward and the other 
 patients. When I got out on the hospital porch I hoard a bunch of 
 mounted people gaIloi)ing along the wire fence from east to west along 
 the north boundary of tlie i)ost. 3'hey were coming from the northeast 
 corner of the wire fence. They ojicned up a tire near where the wire 
 fence .puns the wall, in rear of the first set of bari’acks. 
 
 41810—7738 3 
 
84 
 
 That was in the neighborhood of this county road. 
 
 “ They fired a few shots here, I don’t know exactly how many, and then 
 rode on along the wall to where most of the firing took place — in rear of 
 B and C Company barracks. Firing ceased soon after call to arms 
 sounded. Some six or seven bullets came over the hospital. We got 
 behind those big brick pillars. The bullets were lead bullets, because 
 they had a coarse hum and did not sing like a steel bullet. It was too 
 dark to see any persons. I knew nothing about any trouble. 
 
 “And further the deponent saith not. 
 
 “ William Hakden, 
 “Company B, Tiventy-fifth Infantry ” 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before me, at Fort Reno, Okla., this 25th 
 day of September, 190G. 
 
 Samuel P. Lyon, 
 
 Captain, Ticenty-fifth Infantry, Sumntarp Court. 
 
 [Testimony of William Harden, pp., 598-599.] 
 
 Q. That is the roadway inside of the reservation? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. There is a roadway outside of the reservation? — A. Yes, sir; 
 there is a roadway outside. I heard these two rapid shots that way, 
 outside, eastward from the hospital, and I jumps up and runs out on 
 the porch, and I meets Nolan and Sanborn, and when I got out on the 
 porch I heard a crowd of horses galloping ; when I got out they had 
 got pretty near the corner and had gotten about the corner of that 
 fence. They had got about where the barbed-wire fence connected 
 with the wall, and they opened up some shots, and then they -galloped 
 on down to the main gate and opened up — I don’t know how many 
 shots — I guess a hundred or more shots were fired there. Sanborn, 
 being a first-class private in charge, he made myself and Nolan get be- 
 hind the pillars in the old hospital building thei*e. That is an old 
 Spanish building, a big old building, and we got behind those pillars 
 to keep from getting hit with stray bullets coming from the southeast 
 over the hospital. lie made us get behind there to keep from getting- 
 hit. And these was lead bullets. 
 
 Q. How many did you hear? — A. I heard some seven or eight bullets 
 go over the hospital. 
 
 Q. What else did you hear that you can tell us about? — A. After he 
 made us get behind these brick abutments, the call to arms went, and 
 about three or four minutes after the call to arms went firing ceased. 
 And the last shot that was fired was fired away downtown. It was an 
 old musket or shotgun of some kind, fired away downtown. We all had 
 formed on the porch there, and had talked there and wondered about 
 the shooting, and he made us patients go to bed. 
 
 Pages 601-C02 : 
 
 Q. I think we understand that. Now, you got out (without going 
 over all this), and you heard the.sc horsemen galloping by? — A. When 
 I got out I heard these horses galloping just before the road turns to 
 go down to the barracks. 
 
 Q. You have been in the service how long? — A. Since 1905, the last 
 time. 
 
 Q. IIow long before that? — A. I went out on a short-order furlough 
 at Fort Logan. I v,mnt cut in 1903 and I was out until 1905, when I 
 reenlist6d. 
 
 Q. From the sound of these men galloping by, how many men were 
 there? — A. As nigh as I can get at it from my knowledge. I guess there 
 was from twelve to fifteen. You know this — if I may ask the Senator 
 a question. 
 
 * * * * * * # 
 
 Q. IIow do you know how many horsemen there were?— A. I don't 
 know. I said from my knowledge it might have been twelve or fifteen 
 horses. 
 
 Q. They were making no noise, of course? — A. They were making 
 a lot of noise. 
 
 Q. They were not trying to keep it seci’et, at all? Are you certain 
 they were making a noise? — A. They were galloping. I heard their 
 hoofs against the ground, of course. 
 
 Q. Were the riders making any noise? — A. No, sir; the riders were 
 not making any noise ; only I heard their galloping. 
 
 (}. There was no hollering? — A. No, sir; no hollering. 
 
 Q. No shouting? — A. What is that? 
 
 Q. No shouting by the men on horseback? — A. No, sir; the men 
 couldn’t shout on horseback unless they were hollering. 
 
 (}. When the men were galloping, the firing was right toward the 
 hospital ? — A. Yes : but wait a minute. 
 
 4181G— 7738 
 
Q. Yes ; I will. — A. When the first shot was fired the horses gal- 
 loped around, and when they got to the joining of the wall they 
 opened up a fire again, and then when they got down to the gate then 
 all this firing commenced. That is when the man made me and the 
 other men get down behind the brick abutments. 
 
 [Testimony of Samuel Wheeler, pp. G42-643-C45.] 
 
 Q. What was the conversation you had with General Garlington? — 
 A. He asked me about the knowledge I had of this shooting. 
 
 Q. You told him? — A. Yes, sir; I told him, and when he explained 
 it to me, then I went on to tell him that I thought that the people of 
 Brownsville did this shooting, myself, and he said “ Never mind 
 about that ; just answer such questions as are asked of you.” So I 
 quit. I was a soldier, and subject to orders, and didn’t wish to give the 
 General any insubordination ; and so he said that would do. 
 
 Q. He asked you to tell all you knew of this shooting? — A. No, sir; 
 he did not ask me to tell all I knew about the shooting. 
 
 Q. Did you understand that he wanted you to tell all you knew 
 about it? — A. I might have. 
 
 Q. Were you ready to tell all you knew about it? — A. I have tried 
 to always. 
 
 Q. Vfere you ready to teli all you knew if he had asked you to tell 
 all you knew? — A. Y"es, sir. 
 
 Q. Did he ask you to tell him about hearing those horses galloping 
 by ? — A. I hadn’t gotten to that point. 
 
 Q. He never refused to let you tell him about that? — A. I was 
 telling him about the shooting. I didn’t know whether the horses 
 had anything to do with the shooting ; only I knev/ I heard some horses 
 going very rapidly. 
 
 Q. Was that a horse or some horses? — A. I said “horses” in the 
 first beginning, I think, sir. It wasn't one horse, I am sure. 
 
 Q. liow many horses? 
 
 Senator Foeaker. He said three or four horses. 
 
 Senator Warner. I did not hear the three or four. I did not hear 
 the witness say that. 
 
 By Senator Warner : 
 
 Q. .Tust approximate, as near as you can, how many horses you 
 heard. — A. Well, sir, it seemed to me it might have been about four 
 horses — three or four horses. I didn’t see them ; I only heard them. 
 
 Q. Then when you heard those horsemen going that way, the fu- 
 sillade was over? — A. No, sir; that was during the fusillade, during 
 the shooting, sir. That was right along during the shooting. It 
 seemed as though he must have had an awful gun. I could hear the 
 reports from it, it seemed like a mile, down through the tov;n. 
 
 Q. But confining it to this other point, now, as to those horses gal- 
 loping, when was that, in reference to the fusillade you heard? — A. 
 Right along the latter part of it. 
 
 Q. So that if there was anyone upon those horses, they could have 
 had nothing to do with the fusillade down in the direction of Elizabeth 
 street? — A. They could have had a good deal to do with it. It might 
 have been another party down there. They could have connected 
 with it. 
 
 Q. Yes ; another body. But that body you heard up there going 
 
 out Adams street A. I didn’t say they were going out Adams 
 
 street. I don't know what street they were going out. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Q. Well, whether one or more ; did you think at the time that that 
 had notliing to do with the shooting, and therefore did not make the 
 statement? — A. That the horses passing by at that time 
 
 Q. Yes; had nothing to do with the shooting? — A. Had nothing to 
 do with the shooting. 
 
 Q. No, sir? — A. No, sir; I don’t believe any horses would travel 
 with that force that those horses w’ere traveling with, unless some- 
 thing was forcing them along. It is not usual for horses to travel 
 with the force that these horses were traveling with without some- 
 body is driving them. The horses seemed to be traveling with great 
 speed. 
 
 And you thought those horses were mounted, then?— A. I thought 
 they must have been mounted by some one, and tlu' onc.s they were 
 mounted by must have been connected with this shooting. 
 
 It was also in ovuRuict' l)(‘for(‘ yonr ooniinittoo (soo tostiinony 
 of caistoni ollifTV.s and others) of the d(!Si)(‘rato eneounttM's witli 
 41810 — TT.’hS 
 
36 
 
 smugglers and criminals; that this adjacent territory was in- 
 fested with bandits and robbers, as well as deserters from the 
 Army, One custom officer — and he is the one that committed 
 the assault upon the soldier Newton — testified that during his 
 term of service he had made more than 600 arrests. With this 
 admitted criminal population constantly under the surveillance 
 of the officers of the law, would it be, IMr. President, a wild 
 stretch of one’s imagination to locate, with reason, the so-called 
 “ conspiracy ” to raid the city of Brownsville, and in connection 
 with the lawless element located there to seek vengeance on the 
 officers of the law, both local and national, who had so often 
 brought them witliin the clutches of justice? Aiid if, in their 
 murderous raids against officials, they should disregard, en- 
 danger, or take the lives of unoffending citizens it would not 
 be an unnatural conclusion. 
 
 Brownsville itself is essentially a town of Mexican charac- 
 teristics ; its population is largely of Mexicans or of Mexican or 
 Spanish descent, and the predominating language used by all is 
 the Spanish. Its police force is composed of Mexicans, v/ho 
 speak the English language indifferently or not at all. Its 
 streets are poorly lighted, as was stated by the President in one 
 of his messages, from which I quote : 
 
 The streets are poorly lighted, and the night was very dark. 
 
 This statement is fully corroborated by Major Penrose and 
 every one of his officers, who repeatedly testified — and their 
 testimony is uncontradicted — that it was impossible in the open 
 grounds of the post to distinguish or identify their own men, on 
 account of the darkness, at a greater distance than from 5 to 
 10 feet. 
 
 On the map furnished by the Government as an exhibit and 
 appended to Senate document 155 (the little map, which Sena- 
 tors will find on their desks, is a reduction of this map) the 
 lights of the city are clearly indicated. I shall be glad to have 
 Senators examine it, if they choose, for their own information. 
 
 Beference to this map furnished by the Government as an ex- 
 hibit (S. Doc. No. IGG), on which the street lamps are indicated, 
 shows conclusively that on the route covered by the raid there 
 were but four city lamps, including Elizabeth street; and on 
 Garrison road, or Fifteenth street, extending the whole front of 
 the reservation, not a single lamp is located, and the only light 
 this whole distance on this road was a single lamp at the post 
 gate used by pedestrians. The Senator from Missouri [Mr. 
 Warner] is mistaken wdien he locates two lamps over the main 
 gate, as examination of photo Exhibit No. 5 clearly shows — as 
 well as the testimony of Major Penrose on this point — that on 
 Co wen alley, the location of the principal part of the shooting, 
 there is not a single lamp, public or private, its entire length 
 from Fifteenth street to Twelfth, and on Thirteenth street — the 
 route taken by the raiders — there is a lamp located at the cor- 
 ner of Elizabeth, also one at the corner of Washington street, 
 300 feet apart. 
 
 Hearings, volume 3, pages 3021-3022 ; 
 
 By Senator Rulkeley ; • 
 
 Q. Where was the light at the gate? — A. Right on one of the posts, 
 the post on the cast side of the gate. There is a small gate. Thei-e 
 is a large gate to the wagon road, and there is a small gate to the 
 4181G— 7738 
 
37 
 
 footpath, and it was on the post, or I think there was an iron rod that 
 went over the gate, and it was suspended from that. I think that 
 shows in one of the pictures. 
 
 Q. There was only one lamp there? — A. Only one lamp. 
 
 Q. And that was over the pedestrian gate? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Bulkeley. Not three lights. 
 
 * H: » 
 
 By Senator Fop.akeu : 
 
 Q. I show you the picture in the Purdy report. — A. No. 5. 
 
 Q. Does that correctly represent the lamp over the little gate? — A. 
 Yes, sir ; I think that lamp is right there. There is no lamp beyond 
 that at all. 
 
 Q. There were no lamps that night over the big gatepost? — A. No, 
 sir ; there was no light over the big post. I don’t think they are fixed 
 for lights at all. 
 
 On Cowen alley, wliere the principal part of the shooting 
 took place, there is not a single lamp, public or private, its 
 entire length — from Fifteenth street to Twelfth — and on Thir- 
 teenth street, the route taken by the raiders, there is a lamp 
 at the corner of Elizabeth; also one at the corner of Washing- 
 ton street. The lamps are 300 feet apart, and they are kero- 
 sene lamps of 8 candlepower only, as testified to by Lien- 
 tenant Leckie, who was sent to Brownsville for the purpose 
 of an investigation of all the surroundings. Among other 
 things, he investigated the location and the character of the 
 lamps and their candlepower. All Senators know for them- 
 selves the amount of light furnished by an 8-candlepower kero- 
 sene lamp on a public, street well shaded with trees. 
 
 Q. It has been suggested here by a question, I don’t know whether 
 you know or not, that the fort has been dismantled since, that it had 
 been dismantled when these pictures were taken, and perhaps the 
 lamps that had been over the post at the big gate had been removed. 
 Have you a recollection whether there were any lamps over the post? — 
 A. I think not, sir. 
 
 Q. .Just the one lamp ? — A. I think there was just that one lamp lighted. 
 
 Cowen alley is midway between these two lamps and about 
 120 feet from either. It is testified to by an Army officer that 
 these lights are of but limited candlepower and that their re- 
 flection radius does not extend beyond a distance of 20 feet, 
 which, taken in connection with the fact (see testimony of 
 Mayor Combe) that these streets are fairly well covered with 
 shade trees, would indicate that these few lights, located as I 
 have indicated, would furnish little, if any, help in the identifi- 
 cation of the raiders by people aroused from their slumbers at 
 midnight looking out into the oblivion of midnight darkness. 
 Major Blocksom, page 427, Senate Document No. 155, said: 
 
 None of the individual raiders were recognized. Streets are poorly 
 lighted, and it was a dark night. Those who saw them were busy 
 trying to keep out of sight themselves. 
 
 These quotations, with the map exhibits of the street light- 
 ing, I believe to be unquestionable, and there is little, if any, 
 conflict of testimony as to the darkness of the night, so that it 
 seems unnecessary to quote further from the testimony to 
 establish these points. 
 
 The soldiers of the Twenty-fifth Infantry were not welcome 
 as a garrison for Fort lirown. Soon after the order was issued 
 for their location at that post a remonstrance against such 
 action was forwarded to the War Department. (See S. Doe. 
 No. 155, p. .301.) 
 
 41810—77:18 
 
38 
 
 [Extract from the Annual Report of the Secretary of War for the year 
 
 1906.] 
 
 DISCIPLINE THE BUOWNSYILLE AFFRAY. 
 
 I am very sorry to record a most serious breach of discipline and 
 the commission of a heinous crime by certain members of a battalion 
 of the Twenty-fifth InfantiT, Companies B, C, and D, on the night of 
 the 13th and the morning of the 14th of August, at Fort Brown, 
 Brownsville, Tex. 
 
 In June last objection was made to the stationing of this battalion 
 at Fort Brown by a resident of Brownsville in a letter transmitted 
 through Senator Culberson^ to which the following answer was made : 
 
 It is proper to state at this point that the citizen of Browns- 
 ville who wrote this letter which was forwarded to the War 
 Department and who had testified before your committee criti- 
 cised one of the citizens of Brownsville in a public speech in 
 the city, and the next morning he was ruthlessly shot on the 
 streets of Brownsville by the son of the witness, showing that 
 there is not an entire regard even in the city of Brownsville 
 for the lives of their own white citizens. 
 
 War Department, 
 ’Washington, June 1906. 
 
 lion. C. A. Culberson, 
 
 United States Senate, Washington, D. O. 
 
 My Dear Senator : I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your 
 note of June 1, transmitting a letter from Mr. Sam P. Wreford, of 
 Brownsville, Tex., stating certain objections to the stationing of negro 
 troops at Fort Brov/n, and in reply to say that the matter of possible 
 objections of this character was very carefully considered before the 
 order was made, and I regret that I can not see my way clear to 
 rescind it. 
 
 The fact is that a certain amount of race prejudice between white 
 and black seems to have become almost universal throughout the coun- 
 try, and no matter where colored troops are sent there are always some 
 who make objections to their coming. It is a fact, however, as shown 
 by our records, that colored troops are quite as well disciplined and 
 behaved as the average of other troops, and it does not seem logical to 
 anticipate any greater trouble from them than from the rest. Friction 
 occasionally arises with intemperate soldiers wherever they are sta- 
 tioned, but the records of the Army also tend to show that white sol- 
 diers average a greater degree of intemperance than colored ones. It 
 has sometimes happened that communities which objected to the coming 
 of colored soldiers have, on account of their good conduct, entirely 
 changed their view and commended their good behavior to the War 
 Department. 
 
 A change of station was necessary for these colored troops, and one- 
 third of the regiment (a battalion) had already been sent to Fort 
 Bliss, Tex., more than six months ago. Since tliat time no complaint 
 concerning their conduct has reached the War Department, so far as 
 I know. It was also necessary to send the entue regiment to the 
 same locality, and to have sent it anywhere else would have involved 
 two moves for the battalion now at Fort Bliss within about six months. 
 This would have been an injustice to the troops concerned, and would, 
 in addition, have entailed considerable extra expense upon the Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Trusting this explanation may be satisfactory to your constituents, 
 I remain. 
 
 Very truly, yours, Wm. IT. T.vft, 
 
 Secretary of War. 
 
 The battalion was accordingly sent to Fort Brown in command of 
 Maj. C. W. Penrose, and arrived there July 28, 1906. Soon after its 
 arrival unfortunate differences arose between the enlisted men and 
 some townspeople. As is usual iu such cases, there was contradictory 
 evidence as to the cause for the troubles, though they Avere doubtless 
 due primarily to the resentment of certain of the townspeople at the 
 proximity of a negro battalion. The instances of friction were numer- 
 ous and notorious enough to be the cause of much discussion in the 
 barrack rooms of the three companies. The feeling of the enlisted men 
 was also aroused by a discrimination insisted on in most of the saloons 
 of the town, in which separate bars were provided for them. No serious 
 injury was done to any of the colored soldiers, although one of them 
 was knocked down by a Government official named Tate with a clubbed 
 revolver for jostling his udfe, as he charged, and another was pushed 
 41816—7738 
 
39 
 
 off a gang plank by a customs inspector into the mud of the Rio 
 Grande, because drunk and disorderly, as it was claimed. 
 
 Under date of August 17, the following telegram was ad- 
 dressed to the Secretary of War (S. Doc. No. 155, p. 23) : 
 
 [Telegram.] 
 
 Dallas, Tex., August 11, 1906. 
 Secretahy of War, Washington D. C.: 
 
 Some time ago I called your attention to the danger of locating 
 negro troops in Texas, especially at Brownsville. The I'ecent out- 
 rageous conduct of such troops there fully justifies the fact of the 
 people of that locality. Can not these troops be removed at once? 
 
 C. A. Culberson. 
 
 Lieut. Harry S. Grier, S. Doc. No. 155, pages 115-116 : 
 
 ^ sf: if: ^ 
 
 Q. Did you hear any of the people of Brownsville make any remarks 
 about the colored soldiers? — A. I did. 
 
 Q. What did they say? — A. The very first day on our arrival in 
 Brownsville I registered at the Miller Hotel, and in conversation with 
 the clerk in regard to colored troops being sent to Texas he stated that 
 the people were much opposed to their coming, and they mustn’t take 
 any undue liberties or there would be trouble. 
 
 Q. Do you know his name? — A. I do not, except he is night clerk 
 in the Miller Hotel. On several occasions I have heard people explain- 
 ing, not in a resentful way, what was customary for the colored people 
 to do in that part of Texas, especially about drinking in bar with 
 white men. 
 
 Q. Did you ever see any soldiers mistreated in Brownsville? — A. No, 
 sir ; I did not. 
 
 Major Blocksom reports, August 20, 1906 (S. Doc. No. 155, 
 p. 71) : 
 
 Brownsville, Tex., 
 
 August 20, 1906. 
 
 The Military Secretary, United States Army, 
 
 Washington, D. C.: 
 
 Causes of disturbance are racial. People did not desire colored troops 
 here, and showed they thought them inferior socially by certain slights 
 and denial of privileges at public bars, etc. 
 
 * * * * * * # 
 
 Page 65, iintler date of August 29 : 
 
 * * * * sS 
 
 I met many sterling people in Brownsville. The majority of good 
 business men recognize the proper ethics of the situation, but many 
 others of a somewhat lower class think the colored soldier should be 
 treated like the negro laborer of the South. It must be confessed the 
 colored soldier is much more aggressive in his attitude on the social 
 equality question than he used to be. 
 
 Very respectfully, A. P. Blocksom, 
 
 Major, Inspccto r- Genera L 
 
 jMcCaskey, brigadier-geueral, commanding Soutliwostern Di- 
 vision and Department of Texas, August 17, 1906 (S. Doc. No. 
 ]55, p. 24) : 
 
 [Telegram.] 
 
 Camp Mabry, Austin, Tex., August 11, 1906. 
 
 Military Secretary, 
 
 War Department, Washington, D. €.: 
 
 Unsatisfactory conditions at Fort Brown and Brownsville continue. 
 Citizens appeal to State officials, on account of abject fear of women 
 and children, to have present garrison removed. Commanding officer. 
 Fort Brown, of even date, wires situation grave. One-third garrison 
 guarding other two-thirds and preventing ingress to or egress from 
 post. Remarkable and unmilitary situation. Citizens of Brownsville 
 entertain race hatred to an extreme degree, making it necessary to 
 divert competitors returning from Fort Sill, fi'he provocation given 
 soldiers not taken into account by civilians. Recommend temporary 
 abandonment of Fort Brown as a military station and tliat troops now 
 there be sent to Fort Reno, Okla. 
 
 McCaskey, 
 
 lirif/ad ier-General , ('onunanding 
 Soutincestern Dirinion anil Depai tiiieii t itj Texas. 
 
 4181G— 7738 
 
40 
 
 Major Blocksom again reports, August 29 (Senate Doc. Xo. * 
 155, p. Gl) : 
 
 1. The soldiers heard they were not to go to Camp Mabry because 
 Texas troops had threatened to use ball cartridges against them in 
 maneuvers. They knew Colonel Hoyt made a request that the Twenty- 
 iifth be not sent to Texas. 
 
 2. The people did not desire the colored troops and thought they 
 should not be sent here. I learned this 'before the rumored abandon- 
 ment of Brown from prominent citizens, members of the committee 
 of safety, etc. I think requests were sent to Senators, Congressmen, 
 etc., to use their influence in the matter, but am not positive. If a 
 fact, it is probably known at the War Department. 
 
 3. Soldiers of the Twenty-fifth were not allowed to drink with white 
 people at the principal bars in town, though in some cases saloon keep- 
 ers put up a separate bar for their use. this having an opposite effect 
 to that intended. The bartender was killed in such a saloon. 
 
 Second Lieut. E. P. Thompson, Twenty-sixth Infantry, makes 
 the following affidavit (S. Doe. No. 155, p. 514) ; 
 
 San Antonio, County of Bexar, The State of Texas, ss: 
 
 Personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority, one Edwin 
 P. Thompson, who, being sworn, deposes and says ; 
 
 That he is a second lieutenant in the Army of the United States ; 
 that in such capacity he served at Fort Brown, Brownsville, Uameron 
 County, State of Texas, from September 4, 1903, until August 13, 1906 ; 
 that when it was known that a battalion of the Twenty-fifth United 
 States Infantry was to garrison the post many derogatory Temarks were 
 made before its arrival by some citizens in reference to the colored sol- 
 diers in words as follows, or words to the like effect : “ We don’t want 
 the damn niggers here ; ” “ Niggers will always cause trouble ; ” “ To 
 hell with the colored soldiers ; we want white men,” and that he is 
 unable to fix any one of such remarks upon any one citizen owing to 
 the frequency with which like remarks were made and the period of 
 time covered ; that various minor clashes occurred between the indi- 
 vidual citizens of the town and the soldiers ; that one Teofilo Crixell, 
 a saloonkeeper of Brownsville, Tex., told him that a row had occurred 
 in the “ White Elephant ” saloon, owned by one Vicente Crixell, in 
 words to this effect, to wit : That one Bates, a Federal officer, was at 
 the bar drinking when a colored soldier entered and asked for a drink ; 
 that the said Bates then turned to the soldier and said no nigger could 
 drink at the same bar with him. and that upon the soldier remarking 
 that he was as good as any white man said Bates drew his revolver 
 and hit the soldier over the head : said Bates then going to the police 
 headquarters and offering to pay his own fine. 
 
 Further deponent saith not. 
 
 E. P. Thompson, 
 
 Second Lieutenant, Txeenty-sixth Infantry. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before me this 27th day of September, 1906. 
 
 L. M. Purcell, 
 
 Second Lieutenant, Ticenty-sixtli Infantry, Judge- Advocate. 
 
 Testimony of this cliaracter might be multiplied from both 
 officers and men, but I will not weary the Senate with further 
 extracts from the record testimony. These few indicate the 
 feeling on the part of at least many of the civilians of Browns- 
 ville and their opposition to the location of colored troops at 
 Fort Brown. 
 
 IDENTIFICATION OF THE RAIDERS. 
 
 This involves one of the important questions of this investi- 
 gation. The so-called “ identification ” of eyewitnesses is en- 
 titled to most careful consideration. I am satisfied from listen- 
 ing to and reviewing the testimony, taking into consideration 
 the character of the night, the midnight hour at which the raid 
 occurred, the dimly lighted and shaded streets on the greater 
 part of the route followed by the raiders, and streets and alley 
 not lighted at all, that such identifications as are testified to 
 by numerous witnesses were absolutely impossible. I would 
 not accuse all of these witnesses of untruthfulness. They were 
 im])resscd with the fact that the town was being raided, and 
 41816—7738 
 
41 
 
 that whatever forms they saw in the darkness was necessarily 
 a soldier — that consequently they must be negro soldiers, as 
 they were the only ones located in that vicinity. 
 
 An additional fact adding another possible difficulty in dis- 
 tinguishing the character or identity of the raiders may be 
 found in the testimony — uncoutradicted — that the old clothing 
 or’ uniforms of the troops were thrown away and appropriated 
 by the Mexican scavengers, and that they were constantly seen 
 upon the streets clad in these discarded uniforms. (See testi- 
 mony of Sergeant Frazier, p. 62-93, vol. 1, Hearings ; also affi- 
 davits of numbers of men to the same effect, S. Doc. 155, p. 232, 
 233) : 
 
 Mr. SCOTT. Will the Senator from Connecticut allow'^ me? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. Certainly. 
 
 ^Ir. SCOTT. If I remember rightly, the Senator from Idaho 
 [Mr. Borah] the other day said it was impossible for these 
 uniforms to be worn unless people had stolen them. Was it not 
 in evidence that the Twenty-sixth Regiment threw a great 
 many of their khaki uniforms and old hats and caps away? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. Yes; I will come to that in a moment. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT. I thought it was a rather peculiar statement 
 at the time the Senator from Idaho made it. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. Mr. President 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dick in the chair). Does 
 the Senator from Connecticut yield to the Senator from Idaho? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. I think if the Senator from West Virginia 
 will look over my remarks, he will find that I did not make 
 the statement in the language that he quotes. But if it should 
 occur that the uniforms were secured, I should like to have the 
 Senator who is on the floor explain how these marauders from 
 the outside got hold of them. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I think I can do that to the Senator’s 
 entire satisfaction in a few moments. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT. There is no question about it. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I will for the moment say they could 
 have been readily secured from these discarded uniforms, both 
 from the refuse left by the Twenty-sixth and from the dis- 
 carded uniforms of the Twenty-fifth. I will present evidence 
 showing that when they left Fort Brown the discarded uniforms 
 were dumped upon the heap and taken by these scavengers, 
 Mexican boys, and citizens. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT. And their hats and caps also. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. Mr. President 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Con- 
 necticut yield further to the Senator from Idaho? 
 
 iNIr. BULKELEY. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. Just for a question. Do I understand the Sen- 
 ator’s contention to be that this raid was done by citizens of 
 Brownsville, or by people who came into the town that night 
 from the outside? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I stated early in my remarks, I think 
 quite clearly, that in my belief the raiding was done by the law- 
 less element from outside of Brownsville, aided by the lawless 
 element located therein. 
 
 41810—7738 
 
Mr. BORAH. The contention, then, as I understand it, is 
 that there were some people who came into Brownsville that 
 night on horseback or otherwise and participated? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. The evidence so shows. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. And that the people within the town joined 
 Vvith those from the outside? 
 
 Mr. SCOTT. Certain people. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I stated my theory that the lawless ele- 
 ment — not the peaceful, well-behaved citizens of Brownsville, 
 but the lawless element that resided within and without the 
 city, smugglers and others, who were constantly under the sur- 
 veillance and within the clutches of the officers of the lav/ — 
 t^onnived at this conspiracy which I am trying to show. Here 
 is an affidavit with thirty-six names attached thereto : 
 
 Affidavit T. — General affidavit — relative to citizens weariny old caps, 
 
 etc. 
 
 Territory of Oklahoma^ County of Canadian, ss: 
 
 Personally appeared before me the undersigned, duly authorized to 
 administer oaths in and for the county and Territory aforesaid, the 
 Sollowing-named persons, who certify that they were members of the 
 Twenty-fifth United States Infantry, stationed at Fort Brown, Tex. ; 
 
 Affiants allege that soon after arrival at said fort they discarded all 
 their old uniform, such as caps and uniform, and threw the same out 
 in the rear of the garrison, and that many boys and men soon there- 
 after were seen by us wearing the said uniform that had been discarded, 
 and that it was a common sight to see the same, as herein alleged. 
 
 Affiants further allege that during their stay at Fort Brown they 
 did not \vear any caps, but all wore hats. 
 
 Thomas .T. Green. 
 
 Temple Thornton, corporal Company D. 
 
 .Tohn K. .7 ones. 
 
 Barney Harris. 
 
 • Henry W. Brown. 
 
 .Tames Newton. 
 
 Winter Washington. 
 
 Alonzo Haley. 
 
 .Joseph Shank. 
 
 Zachariah Sparks. 
 
 George W. Hall. 
 
 .Toseph .Tones. 
 
 Charles Dade. 
 
 Strowder Darnell. 
 
 Henry Borse. 
 
 AVilliam Van TTouk. 
 
 Robert (his x mark) Williams (mark made 
 by reason of afflicted right hand). 
 
 Edward Jordon 
 
 Jacob Frazer, first sergeant Company D. 
 
 Len Reeves. 
 
 John A. Jackson. 
 
 Elmer Peters. 
 
 Robert L. Rogan. 
 
 Dorsie Willis. 
 
 Elias Gant. 
 
 Albert Holand. 
 
 Richard Crooke. 
 
 George W. Newton. 
 
 John Slow. 
 
 Jerry E. Reeves, sergeant. Company D, 
 Twenty-fifth Infantry. 
 
 Henry Robinson. 
 
 Walter Johnson. 
 
 James H. Ballard. 
 
 Luther T. Thornton, sergeant, Company D, 
 Twenty-fifth Infantry. 
 
 William R. Jones. 
 
 Samuel Wheeler. 
 
 Soi'gt. ]Mlugo Sanders 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Who signed this document? 
 
 41.S1G— 7738 
 
43 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. It is signed by about forty or fifty soldiers 
 of the Twenty-fiftli Infantry. 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Con- 
 necticut yield to the Senator from Ohio? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. FORAKER, There is no contradiction of the testimony 
 on that point. The citizens of Brownsville, one and all, who 
 testified on that point, said that the khaki clothing was com- 
 monly worn by Mexicans and by all kinds and classes of citi- 
 zens; that you could go into any store and buy a suit of khaki 
 made up, which in the nighttime 5 feet away from yon could 
 not be distinguished from the uniform which the soldiers wore. 
 The policemen wore that kind of uniform. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I think the testimony which I am about 
 to read will fully justify the remarks which the Senator from 
 Ohio [Mr. Fosaker] has so kindly made. 
 
 Sergt. Mingo Sanders was a soldier of twenty-five or thirty 
 years’ experience in the Army. All of his officers at that time, 
 and all the officers that had been connected with the regiment 
 during his long service, testified as to his standing as a soldier 
 and as a man. 
 
 On page 339, volume 1, Hearings, Sergt. Mingo Sanders tes- 
 tifies : 
 
 ♦ ♦ * # * * * 
 
 Q. I want to ask you a question on another line. Do you know what 
 kind of uniform the" policemen of Brownsville wear? — A. They wore a 
 khaki uniform. 
 
 Q. The same material as that of the uniforms of the soldiers? — A. 
 Yes, sir ; they were the same material, almost. 
 
 Q. Are they Americans or are they Mexicans, those policemen? — A. 
 They are Mexicans. 
 
 Q. If you know ? — A.* They are Mexicans, so far as I seen ; Mexican 
 police. 
 
 On page 362, Q. M. Sergt. Thomas J. Green testifies : 
 
 ♦ *»***!(' 
 
 Q. Did you, while you were at Brownsville, see any of the policemen 
 of Brownsville? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What kind of uniform do they wear? — A. Khaki. 
 
 Q. Similar to what the soldiers wear? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What kind of hat did they have on? — A. The campaign hat. 
 
 Q. The campaign hat? — ^A. Yes, sir; only they had a gilded cord 
 around it. 
 
 By Senator Foraker : 
 
 Q. Did any of the citizens there wear khaki clothing? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Senator Taliaferro : 
 
 Q. How many policemen did you see? — .V. I couldn't tell you, sir. 
 
 Q. .Tust approximately. — A. 1 have seen a good many of them, from 
 time to time. 
 
 Q. And you remember distinctly that they wore khaki uniforms? — 
 A. The policemen — that is, those men that were told to me to be police- 
 men — had khaki uniforms. 
 
 Q. And hats like yours, except with a different kind of cord? — • 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Senator Foraker ; 
 
 Q. I will ask if you saw Mexicans running around there with khaki 
 clothing on, or not? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Was that an unusual thing, to see citizens dressed in khaki ?^ — 
 A. Yes, sir ; lots of citizens W'ore khaki. 
 
 Q. It was not unusual to see it? — A. No, sir. 
 
 By Senator Overman : 
 
 Q. How many policemen were there in that town, do you know 
 A. No, sir ; I never was in the town ever three or four times the whole 
 time I was down there. 
 
 4181G— 7738 
 
44 
 
 Q. How many policomen did you see? — A. I have answered that 
 question. 
 
 Q. You say every policeman you saw had on khaki. How many did 
 you see? — ^A. I don't know. Every policeman I saw had on khaki uni- 
 form and a campaign hat. 
 
 Q. Was that the same man that you sav/ each time? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. How many did you see? — A. I couldn’t say. 
 
 Q. Can’t you give me an estimate? — A. No, sir; it would he just as 
 impossible to tell you how many policemen there are in Brownsville as 
 how many there are here in Washington. 
 
 To impeach the testimony of many if not the greater number 
 of these eyev/itnesses it only seems necessary to quote from 
 the official utterances. Under date of January 12, 1907, the Sec- 
 retary of War writes to the President (S. Doc. No. 155, part 2, 
 p. 17) : 
 
 There is a conflict as to the circumstances growing out of the evi- 
 dence of the witnesses, which is entirely natural in respect to transac- 
 tions during the daytime, and still more natural in respect to the 
 transactions and the direction of sounds during the night, and there 
 are some things about the evidence of McDonald, Mrs. Odin, and of 
 Preciado, who testify with such detail as to seeing the negro soldiers — 
 the one at garrison wall, the next at the alley of Miller’s Hotel, and 
 che third at the Tillman saloon — which, in view of previous statements, 
 shake some the weight of what they say. Mrs. Odin’s statements bear 
 evidence of being affected by conversations with her husband, and 
 there is a somewhat suspicious agreement as to exact details between 
 their two statements. 
 
 Again, the Secretary of War addressed a commnneiation to 
 the President in sending an additional affidavit in the case of 
 Preciado, who, if anyone’s testimony was good for anything, 
 was in the best position of anybody that night to see and 
 identify the soldiers if the raiders were soldiers. I call your 
 attention to the statement of the Secretary of War. 
 
 Senate Document No. 155, part 2, page 19 : 
 
 Letter of the Seeretary of IFar to the President relative to additional 
 testimony in the Brotcnsville case. 
 
 War Depaetj^ient, 
 Washington, January It), 1907. 
 
 My Dear Mr. President : In my letter transmitting the additional 
 evidence in the Brownsville case, I had occasion to comment on the 
 circumstances which impaired the weight to be given to the evidence of 
 I’aulino I’reciado, in which he stated that he saw’ the four or five men 
 W’ho killed the barkeeper, and recognized them as negro soidiers, admit- 
 ting on examination that he had not made such a statement before, ex- 
 plaining it by saying that he w’as not asked. Since sending you the 
 evidence and my letter of transmittal, I have come across what pur- 
 ports to be, and w’hat I believe to be, a copy of a report of Preciado's 
 evidence before the grand jury, w’hich expressly contradicts and im- 
 peaches his evidence upon this point. I ask that this be forwarded to 
 the Senate with your message and the other papers. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Wm. H. Taft, 
 
 Secretary of IFa?’. 
 
 The President. 
 
 Grand Jury Room, Septemher 10, 1006. 
 
 Paulino Preciado, being duly sw’orn, deposes and says: 
 
 “ I live in Brownsville, Tex. ; on the night of the shooting I was in 
 the Ruby saloon, belonging to ISIr. Tillman, near midnight. We, myself, 
 Antonio Torres, Nicolas Sanchez Alanis, and Mr. Tillman, were sitting 
 in the yard, when w’e heard some shots. Tillman got up at once and 
 left us. We remained w’ith the bartender, Frank Natus ; the latter 
 closed tlie doors toward the street; in the meantime the shooting be- 
 came heavier, fl’lien the bartender w’^ent to close tne door toward the 
 alley. He went about 20 feet toward the door, wdien a volley v.’as 
 fired. Natus exclaimed, ‘Ay Dios,’ and fell down ; 1 saw’ him because 
 1 was looking in Ib.at direction when the shots were fired. I saw’ I w’as 
 in danger and went to one side. I could not see anybody in the alley, 
 as it was dark out there and I was in the light. I heard no word 
 4181(5—77:58 
 
45 
 
 spoken. I hid in a corner where a brick wall protected me nntil the 
 shooting was over, then I went to close the alley gate. While I was in 
 the corner I received a slight flesh wound on the left hand, and another 
 passed through my coat and vest, breaking my spectacles, which I 
 carried in the left breast pocket of my coat, but did not hurt me. I 
 think I received the shots at the time Frank Natus fell, but did nofl 
 notice it at the time. When the shooting Avas over I went and opened 
 the front door, and asked the crowd of people who were there if there'" 
 was an officer amongst them. Mr. Victoriaao Fernandez came forward, 
 and I told him w’^hat had happened. 
 
 “ Paulino S. Preciado.-’^ 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 10th day of September, 190G. 
 
 Wm. Volz. 
 
 Foreman Grand Jury. 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President 
 
 The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Connecticut 
 yield to the Senator from Ohio? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I do. 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator will allow me, I should like 
 to interject there, for the benefit of Senators who are not fa- 
 miliar with this record, that this man Preciado, whom the Sec- 
 retary of War thus disposes of, is the only man w"ho, according 
 to his testimony, claimed to have the benefit of artificial light 
 to distinguish the men who were doing the firing. 
 
 j\rr. CULBERSON. Mr. President 
 
 Tlie VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Connecticut 
 yield to the Senator from Texas? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I do. 
 
 Mr. CULBERSON. I will ask the Senator from Ohio if the 
 gentleman who sat in the window of the hotel, the Miller 
 House, did not declare that he saw them by the light in the 
 street? 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. It was shown by the testimony that there 
 was no light whatever in the street at that point. 
 
 Mr. CULBERSON. The Senator does not, I think, directly 
 answ'er the question. Did not the gentleman — I have forgotten 
 his name just for the moment 
 
 Mv. BULKELEY. Odin. 
 
 Mr. CULBERSON. Who was in the Miller House, declare 
 that he saw the soldiers by the light in the street? 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. I do not knoAV the witness to whom the 
 Senator refers, but I do know that the testimony shows that 
 there was no light by which anyone could have seen any sol- 
 dier in the street at the point where it was claimed he saw 
 them. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. Noav, Mr. President, diverging from the 
 remarks I have written, I want to reply for a moment to the 
 question which was first interjected by the distinguished Sen- 
 ator from Texas [Mr. Culuerson], as to the witness who 
 was impeached to some extent — and the Secretary of War 
 impeaches the testimony of his wife on account of col- 
 lusion between the two as to the details of the testimony 
 that they should present to this committee — the facts 
 are, Mr. President, that tliere was no light whatever within 
 150 feet of the point where Odin testified ho saw those 
 colored soldiers by the aid of artificial light. One light 
 was located on the corner of Washington and Thii-teenth 
 streets, and the other light at the corner of Thirteenth street 
 41810—7738 
 
46 
 
 and Elizabeth street — more than 300 feet apart, and it is tesi- 
 fied that none of these city lamps was more than 8 candlepower. 
 Mayor Combe, in his testimony, in answer to some inquiries 
 which I made myself, testified that the streets were compara- 
 tively full of trees ; and Lieutenant Leckie says that the 
 reflective power of all these city lamps — “ the reflective radius,” 
 as he expresses it — was not to exceed 20 feet. If that testi- 
 mony is correct, I would ask the Senator from Texas, or any 
 other Senator, what possible aid from those lamps could this 
 man, sitting with his wife, and whose testimony has been 
 equally impeached with that of his wife, secure from those 
 small 8-caudlepower lamps, with a reflective radius of 20 feet, 
 when they were at least 150 feet away from the locality where 
 this man Odin said he saw these troops? 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. President 
 
 The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Connecti- 
 cut yield to the Senator from Michigan? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I do. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Michigan. According to the map that is 
 upon Senators' desks, there seem to be but six street lamps 
 within a radius of about that many blocks. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. There were only four. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Four, between Twelfth street and 
 the fort? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I think the Senator could not have been 
 here when I ex])lained the location of those lamps. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Michigan. No. 
 
 Mr. BULKEIjEY. From Cowen alley from Fifteenth street 
 to Twelfth street, “which is the route taken by the raiders, as 
 far as Thirteenth street there is not a single lamp, public or 
 private. From Cowen alley to the corner of Thirteenth and 
 Washington streets, which was the extreme point over which 
 the raiders traveled, there is only the lamp at the corner of 
 Thirteenth and Washington streets. So that on the direct route 
 over which the raiders went there was not a single lamp from 
 the fort to the corner of Thirteenth and Washington streets, 
 where the first and only lamp was located. There was a 
 light on Elizabeth street, 20 or 30 feet from Cowen alley, and 
 there was another one on the corner of Washington and Thir- 
 teenth streets, which is an equal distance from the alley. Those 
 are all the lights that were in all this territory. 
 
 The Secretary of War says the testimony of Mrs. Odin 
 should be impeached because of the evident collusion with her 
 husband as to the details of their testimony. That it corre- 
 sponds so closely in its details is evidence of that fact. I make 
 the claim, Mr. President, and I believe it is a fair one, that the 
 evidence of Mr. Odin and Mrs. Odin, for the reasons stated by 
 the Secretary of War, even if the facts which they state are 
 true, is not entitled to any credence in this investigation. 
 
 The lieutenant of the police, Dominguez, who lost his arm 
 in the raid, was another of this class of witnesses, but his oppor- 
 tunities to see the raiders were limited to two points (see testi- 
 mony, vol. 3, p. 2114), as the soldiers crossed the alley at Four- 
 teenth street and again as he rode across the alley at its inter- 
 section with Thirteenth street, when, as he testified: 
 
 I was riding fast on borsoback. 
 
 4181G— -7738 
 
47 
 
 Now, to contradict liis testimony, I will state that Policeman 
 Padron was stationed at the comer of Washington and Four- 
 teenth streets, where the lieutenant testifies that he went, look- 
 ing down Fourteenth street, and saw these soldiers crossing this 
 alley by the flash of the guns. 
 
 The policeman, Padron, testifies on page 2145, volume 3, 
 Senate hearings, as follows : 
 
 ******* 
 
 Q. But I want to know whether this firing that lighted up the faces 
 of the men so you could tell their uniforms, whether that was over 
 when the lieutenant arrived? — A. I returned from the corner of 
 Fourteenth and Washington, along Washington, and there I met the 
 lieutenant. 
 
 Q. Did not the lieutenant come to Fourteenth and Washington 
 streets? — A, No; he came to about the middle of the square. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Q. Did the lieutenant go down with you to Fourteenth and Wash- 
 ington ? — A. No ; he did not reach that point. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Q. Did not go dowm to the corner at all? — A. No. 
 
 ******* 
 
 If this testimony of the policeman, Padron, is to be relied on, 
 the lieutenant could not have seen the soldiers at Cowen alley 
 and Fourteenth street, as he has testified; at the only other 
 point of observation, Cowen alley and Thirteenth street, wdiere 
 he testifies he “ was riding fast,” I submit, Mr. President, that 
 looking down into a dark and absolutely unlighted alley from a 
 distance of 30 to 40 feet that any sort of identification would be 
 impossible. 
 
 I now come to the poor Mexican woman who lived with the 
 Cowen family, whose house was located at the corner of Four- 
 teenth street and Cowen alley, facing Fourteenth street. She 
 was evidently, if I could judge by her appearance upon the 
 stand, an ignorant Mexican woman, unable to speak English, 
 and very little qualified, so far as I could observe, to intelli- 
 gently disclose, for many reasons, what she saw or thought she 
 saw that night. 
 
 But I want to call the attention of Senators to the situation 
 and surroundings of the house from which her observations 
 were made. Here is a photograph [exhibiting] which shows the 
 house. If any Senators are interested enough at any tiine to 
 look at the exhibits which are in the files of the Senate, they 
 will find this photograph is No. 12 in Senate Document No. 155. 
 
 I call your attention to the fact that it is located some feet 
 back from the alley, not close to the alley, and is separated 
 from the alley by a closed board fence several feet in height 
 and, as the evidence shows, coming up about to the shoulders 
 of an ordinary man. I say it would have been impossible, 
 looking out from the low windows of this low house over this 
 board fence, which was the height of an ordinary man's shoul- 
 ders, for this woman, who was only at the window for a 
 moment, while the firing was in progress, to bo able to describe, 
 with such completeness as she states, the dress of a man from 
 head to foot — leggings — covered by a board feiic'e — ])elt around 
 the center of his bodj^ — covered by a closed board fence, and of 
 a sufficient height to disclose only the firings that were over 
 the fence. 
 
 So I conclude tliat her testimony is entitled to voiy little, 
 if any. credence, because I can see, and I think any Senator 
 4181G— 7738 
 
48 
 
 who will give it thought for a moment will see, that standing 
 as those men must have been on the ground, and a closed board 
 fence between them and this low Mexican house, which this 
 picture discloses, it was absolutely impossible for anybody, 
 whatever their intelligence, looking out into the darkness, to be 
 .nble, in the detail of leggings and belts, to describe from head 
 to foot the clothing of anyone. 
 
 Now, another witness, and the one to which the Senator 
 from West Virginia [Mr. Scott] referred, I could dismiss with- 
 out a word of comment. I feel certain that, with all her fear- 
 lessness, because she asserted — and her appearance justified the 
 assertion — that she did not stand in fear bf any man — lightning 
 was the only thing she was afraid of — with her appearance on 
 the witness stand, her unfaA’orable impression on the other 
 members of the committee, that little, if any, reliance was given 
 to her testimony. It was impossible in that midnight darkness 
 and looking through the trees of the surrounding properties 
 to see 300 feet away and distinguish with the distinctness which 
 she described the appearance and form of soldiers on the porch 
 of the barracks. The officers of that fort had great difficulty in 
 the open in distinguishing each other and in distinguishing 
 themselves at distances as described by these officers, times 
 without number, of 5 or 10 feet. 
 
 These witnesses whom I have named — this woman, the lieu- 
 tenant of police, Preciado, the two Odins, and McDonald — com- 
 prise almost the entire number of so-called “ eyewitnesses ” and 
 “ identifiers ’’ of these raiders. 
 
 , iMr. FULTON. Mr. President 
 
 The VICE-PPESIDENT. _ Does the Senator from Connecti- 
 cut vield to the Senator from Oregon? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. Certainly. 
 
 INIr. FULTON. Will it interrupt the course of the Senator’s 
 argument if I ask him a question? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. No, sir ; I shall be glad to yield. 
 
 Mr. FULTON. I was a member of the Committee on Mili- 
 tary Affairs while this testimony was being taken, and heard 
 considerable of it, and read it all very carefully. To my mind 
 the testimony was overwhelming that some of the negro sol- 
 diers did the shooting. The Senator takes up the testimony 
 of each individual who testified that he or she saw negro sol- 
 diers, identified them as soldiers, and points out some fact 
 which, to his mind, tends to weaken the testimony of that in- 
 dividual. 
 
 While there is much truth in what the Senator says, and in 
 the criticisms he makes on the individual testimony, there was 
 this fact which appealed to me, and I ask the Senator how it 
 affected his judgment: That immediately after the shooting the 
 people assembled, as naturally they would, in crowds about the 
 town, and there was but one voice from all of the people, and 
 that was that the shooting had been done by the negro troops. 
 There was no dissenting voice in any crowd, apparently. 
 Everybody who at that time said he had seen the persons who 
 did the shooting said it was the negro troops. Nobody seemed 
 to make any other statement. There could have been no con- 
 spiracy extending throughout all the inhabitants of the town 
 to cause them to come together and thus talk and thus designate 
 the j)erpetrators of the outrage. 
 
 4181G— 7738 
 
49 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. There is no evidence whatever to sub- 
 stantiate even the suggestion that in this assembled crowd 
 there was a single one of the so-called “ eyewitnesses.” There is 
 every evidence to my mind that this assembled crowd to which 
 the Senator has alluded embraced a very different class of 
 men, to which I shall allude at a later period of my remarks. 
 
 Mr. FOliAKER. I want to say one thing, if I may be per- 
 mitted to interrupt the Senator to say it. 
 
 Mr. BULKhlEEY. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. It is in answer to the suggestion of the 
 Senator from Oregon. 
 
 The testimony to which he refers did not appeal to me at all, 
 because, without an exception, the men who merely heard the 
 firing and who did not pretend to see anybody were convinced 
 froin the first shots, according to their own testimony, that it 
 was the negroes and nobody else. 
 
 Take the case of Mr. Hammond, who was sitting at the Miller 
 Hotel and heard the shots. Fie immediately announced “ The 
 negroes have broken out at the garrison and are shooting up the 
 town.” Nobody had told him anything. The state of mind was 
 such that the citizens of that town seemed to jump to the con- 
 clusion, whether they saw something or did not see something, 
 that the soldiers were doing the shooting. 
 
 Mr. FULTON. It would perhaps be quite natural that per- 
 sons who did not see those who were actually engaged in the 
 shooting, but who heard the shooting come from the direction 
 where the troops were, should surmise it was the troops who 
 were doing the shooting. But I think the Senator from Con- 
 necticut is mistaken when he says none of those who saw the 
 shooting were in the crowds that assembled. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY". Does the Senator from Oregon claim there 
 is any evidence to show there was one man in the crowd who 
 claimed to have seen the shooting? 
 
 Mr. FULTON, l^es. I have the evidence here. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. Except possibly the policeman. 
 
 l\Ir. FULTON. The policeman and some of the others ; those 
 who were around in saloons. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY'. I think if the Senator will wait until I 
 reach that point, he will see the character of that crowd. 
 
 Mr. FULTON. But what I desired particularly to call the 
 attention of the Senator from Connecticut to, and to ask him 
 to explain, because it is a fact which has great inlluence in my 
 mind, is that either the negroes did the shooting or somebody 
 else did. The shooting was done. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. There is no doubt about that. 
 
 Mr. FULTON. Everybody among the citizens of the town, 
 when they met the next morning and when they met immedi- 
 ately after the occurrence, said it was the negro troops. Some 
 of those people 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY'. They naturally were not going to charge 
 themselves witli it. 
 
 Mr. FULTON. Some of those peo[)lo had seen tlie parties 
 who did the shooting, and they told others. Everybody who 
 said it was the negro troops was not an eyewitness, but some 
 of them had been. It is a most remarkable fact that not a 
 single person in all that town pretended to have seen anybody 
 else than negro soldiers. 
 
 4181G— 7738 4 
 
50 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I will reach that at a later period in my 
 discussion. 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President 
 
 The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Connecticut 
 yield to the Senator from Ohio? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. Certainly. 
 
 INIr. FORAKER. I should like to ask the Senator from Ore- 
 gon if he thinks that any more remarkable than that a body 
 of ten or twenty men should march through the town shooting 
 right and left, with every man in the town himself armed, with 
 his bedroom Dill of rifles and pistols, and with armed police- 
 men about, and that the marchers should suddenly disappear and 
 no human being be able to tell in what direction they went? 
 
 Mr. FULTON. If the Senator from Connecticut will allow 
 me 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I do not want to yield for any discussion 
 between Senators. 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. I only mention that to show how many re- 
 markable things there are connected with this case* 
 
 Mr. FULTON. I do not want to intrench upon the time of 
 the Senator from Connecticut 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I am perfectly willing to answer any ques- 
 tion ; but if Senators want to discuss this question, I wish they 
 would discuss it in their own time and not mine. 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. The Senator from Connecticut is quite 
 right. 
 
 Mr. FULTON. I was only undertaking to answer the Sen- 
 ator from Ohio. 
 
 Mr. WARREN. Will the Senator from Connecticut yield to 
 me for a moment? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. With pleasure. 
 
 Mr. WARREN. Of course I realize that any Senator who 
 rises and is recognized can proceed, but I want to remind the 
 Senate of one thing. This Brownsville matter is not up regu- 
 larly, nor is there pending a motion to take it up. It is up on 
 the courtesy of the Senate, extended always to a Senator vrho 
 has a prepared speech. The Senator from Connecticut has 
 shown an unwillingness to be interrupted in the general flow of 
 his remarks. I hope he will be permitted to proceed, and I 
 hope so, because I think we ought to get some of the appropria- 
 tion bills into the hands of conferees. At least some of the 
 members of the Senate are involved in a great many conferences, 
 and some of the conferences are of a nature that will take a 
 great deal of time. 
 
 Mr. FULTON. Mr. President, just a word. 
 
 The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Connecticut 
 yield to the Senator from Oregon? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. PULTON. I was perhaps the offender in this instance, 
 because I asked a question. I only want to say that while I 
 recognize the importance of considering the appropriation bills, 
 when the courtesy is extended to a Senator to make a speech I 
 think we will have to insist upon our right to ask questions when 
 there is something we want to have explained. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I recognize fully the propriety, in order to 
 meet the views of many Senators and others, of getting the ap- 
 propriation bills through the Congress as rapidly as possible. 
 
 4181G— 7738 
 
51 
 
 But I believe that the questions involved in this discussion, 
 involving justice to fellow-men and servants of the Republic, 
 are of enough importance to postpone for a few minutes or for 
 a few hours the discussion even of financial measures. 
 
 Mr. WARREN. Mr. President 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I am not criticising the Senator from 
 Wyoming. 
 
 Mr. WARREN. I agree perfectly with the Senator. Only 
 I think that he will agree with me that when we enter into 
 a general discussion of this question we ought to take it up 
 with that understanding and go on with it. I think he is right 
 about the importance of it, and I hope we will take plenty of 
 time before we get through to thrash it out so that everybody 
 will understand it. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I have no doubt we will. 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. We will have plenty of time to discuss it 
 thoroughly before the Congress adjourns. 
 
 Mr. WARREN. Of course we will. That is right, There 
 will be no division of sentiment on that. 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. No. 
 
 ]Mr. BULKELEY. Now, these witnesses, whom I have named, 
 whom the Government, even, through the Secretary of War, has 
 discredited — and it needed no words of mine to discredit their 
 testimony — with the policeman, comprise practically all the so- 
 called eyewitnesses. So far as concerns policemen other than 
 those already referred to — I think Dominguez, as the lieutenant, 
 is the only one I have referred to — I shall content myself with 
 quoting from the testimony of Captain Kelly, one of Browns- 
 ville’s most prominent citizens, chairman of the citizens’ com- 
 mittee which conducted the first investigation of this affray, 
 as to their character for truth and veracity. 
 
 Testimony of Capt. AVilliam Kelly, page 25G1 : 
 
 ♦ * * * H: * * 
 
 Q. Mayor Combe has testified that Policeman Padron told him that 
 he fired his revolver, down on Washington street, in that direction. — A. 
 Yes. As to Policeman Padron, I am very much about that as I am 
 about the negroes. 
 
 Q. You do not believe the policemen, either? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Well, I don’t cither. 
 
 Senator Taliaferro. You agree on one point, anyway. 
 
 By Senator Frazier : 
 
 Q. You do not mean to say that Padron’s evidence given here as 
 detailing the facts of the shooting of Dominguez was not true? — A. I 
 do not know ; I have not read that. I do not know what he testified 
 to. But I mean the Mexican of that class is very liable to lie, if he 
 thinks he might lie. 
 
 By Senator Overman ; 
 
 Q. Is that the character of Dominguez?— A. Very much. 
 
 By Senator Foraker: 
 
 Q. They are all that way, are they not? — A. Yes, sir. There are 
 some of them 
 
 Q. But these policemen, you think, are a very shiftless and unre- 
 liable lot? — A. They are not the best of the Mexicans, by a long 
 W'ays. 
 
 Q. The way they acted would seem to indicate that.— A. Yes ; that 
 is one thing. I believe that the men Mrs. Leahy hid in her liouse, or 
 wherever she put them, were not tlie only ones that sought similar 
 shelter somewhere. 
 
 Q. Then, whatever they would say you would take with a good dca! 
 of allowance? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. And bo very careful about it?— A. I would certainly consider 
 whether it was in accordance with the other facts. 
 
 4181G— 7738 
 
52 
 
 By Senator Warner : 
 
 Q. You have known Dominguez a good while? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. The lieutenant of police? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. lie is an honest and truthful man ? — A. Yes ; an honest and 
 truthful man, and a very courageous man. 
 
 By Senator Taliaferro : 
 
 Q. Then you did not understand Senator Overman’s question a 
 while ago, when he asked you if Dominguez was the kind of a Mexican 
 that you were describing? — A. No, no. Dominguez is not like that. 
 I am not very certain about it, but I think he is not a Mexican. I 
 think his father was a Greek. 
 
 * * * * V it * 
 
 Pages 2552, 2553: 
 
 * * * « ^ * 
 
 Q. The testimony shows that there were nine or ten policemen on 
 cuty that night? — A. Oh, they were on duty all over town, I judge. 
 I do not know where they were. My belief is that most of the Mexi- 
 can police were in hiding ; that is my personal belief. 
 
 Q. We understand that two of them were. — A. That is my belief. 
 
 Q. You know Mrs. Leahy? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 CX She keeps a hotel? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. We understand that she took care of two of them. — A. I have 
 tieard that she secreted two of them in her house ; 5'es. 
 
 Q. But that would leave seven or eight out in the town who could 
 bave followed those men? — A. I do not think they were really follov,^- 
 ing those people. 
 
 Q. Do you think there was any trouble, when twenty or thirty of 
 these men were marching through the streets and shooting up the 
 town, for somebody to have shot and killed some of them? If they 
 had done that, we would have had no trouble at all in knowing whether 
 they were soldiers or not. — A. There were no citizens out, as I under- 
 stand it, until those soldiers went back in the barracks. 
 
 With the impeachment of most of the witnesses by the Sec- 
 retary of AVar in his communication to the President, the im- 
 peachment of the balance of them, almost every one, by the evi- 
 dence of the chief citizen of the town, the chairman of the in- 
 vestigating committee. Captain Kelly; the surroundings of the 
 night and its darkness; the poorly lighted streets of the city, 
 mostly not lighted at all, the evidence is convincing to me that 
 any attempted or supposed identification of the soldiers, if sol- 
 diers they were, was absolutely impossible. 
 
 An investigation of visual observations, or powers of vision 
 at night under conditions similar to those in Brownsville, was 
 conducted by Army officers at Fort McIntosh (Lieutenant Blyth, 
 Lieutenant Harbold, Lieutenant Wiegenstein, and Colonel 
 Stucke). Colonel Stucke was not an Army officer. He was 
 an engineer ’svho happened at that time to be located in the vicin- 
 ity of Fort McIntosh. 
 
 As a result of such observations Lieutenant Blyth testifies. 
 Hearings, volume 2, pages 1990-1993 : 
 
 Q. Now, go ahead and describe what that experiment was. — A. He 
 arranged to have the men go down there at night. We did not know 
 how he was going to conduct it at all. After everything was ready we 
 went out at about half past 8 in the evening and stood on the edge of 
 an arroyo. The men were down underneath. When the first volley 
 was fired Major O’Neil shouted to him and asked him which way the 
 men were facing. We could not tell. Lieutenant Wiegenstein laughed 
 and said that was a part of the test ; that he did not care to say. He 
 wanted us to find out for ourselves. 
 
 Then we moved down about 50 feet farther, I should say, along the 
 edge of the arroyo. Two more volleys were fired, and some fired at 
 will, but all we could see was the flash of the rifle. We could not see 
 the rifle that fired it. 
 
 Q. Have you any memorandum that shows the distances at which 
 you w'ere making the observation ?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. riease produce the memorandum and tell us how far the squad 
 was away from you when the first firing which you have mentioned 
 4181G— 7738 
 
was done. — A. The first firing on the horizontal was 50 feet and 4 
 inches, and the vertical height was 21 feet and 2 inches. 
 
 Q. That was which firing, the second or the first V — A. It was the 
 first. 
 
 Q. You were that far distant? — A. Yes. sir. 
 
 Q. And at that distance could you distinguish the men? — A. No. sir. 
 
 Q. Could you tell whether they were v.^hite men or negroes or Mexi- 
 cans? — A. The light was not sufficient for us to tell which way they 
 were facing even. 
 
 Q. You could not even tell that? — A. No. sir. 
 
 Q. Could you tell anything about the diiferent articles of clothing 
 they wore? — A. No, sir. 
 
 O. Was there a further firing? — A. Y’es, sir. 
 
 Q. Where did that take place? How far were you from them? — 
 A. That was 24 feet on the horizontal and 20 feet 7 inches above them. 
 The results were the same. 
 
 Q. Then there was another trial ? — A. Yes. sir ; we moved down then. 
 
 Q. You moved down or they moved down? — A. We moved down to 
 another place. That was 69 feet 2 inches away and 20 feet 5 inches 
 above them ; and looking almost into their faces, when the volleys 
 were fired, all we could see was the flash, that was all. 
 
 Q. You could not tell anything about their faces, you mean? — A. 
 We could see nothing but the flash. 
 
 Q. And you could tell nothing about their clothes? — A. No, sir; 
 we could not even see the rifles that were fired. 
 
 Q. Y^ou could not even see the rifles? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Could not tell whether they were Krags or Springfields or Win- 
 chesters or what? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Was there any other firing, still another test? — A. Yes, sir; 
 after that they marched down one arroyo and came up another, almost 
 directly underneath us, in single file, but we failed to distinguish 
 anyone, could not tell who they were at all. They were halted then 
 underneath . us, at that time 20 feet and 5 inches below and 18 feet 
 and 7 inches from us. Then the' flash of the rifles would come, and 
 the eye would involuntarily close. The closer it got, the more the 
 noise of the report and the flash of the rifle attracted your eye. 
 Before you could take your eye away to look for anything else, the 
 light would disappear, so it was impossible to see anything. 
 
 Q. Did you make any further tests ? — A. Y'es, sir ; we brought the 
 
 men up 
 
 By Senator Foraker : 
 
 Q. After these firings in the arroyo, what happened next? — A. We 
 brought the men up on the bank — took them up on the road. The 
 road was about 8 feet wide. We divided ourselves into two parties, 
 one party on each side of the road. The moon was shining, and it was 
 a clear starlight night, so there was a good light. The men were 
 marched past, in single file, between us, and we wanted to see if we 
 could distinguish the features of the men. After they all passed by 
 I asked Major O’Neil to have a number of white officers march past, so 
 I could get the exact distance to us from them, to see if I would get 
 the same impression that I did from the soldiers going by. Lieutenant 
 Wiogenstein came back and laughed and said : “ Then you don’t know 
 that there arc v/hite men in the line?” I said: “No; I did not know 
 that.” So the detail was halted and T went up and scanned each man’s 
 face. We were about 2 feet from them at that time. I peered right 
 into their faces, and I myself picked out one man who was a little 
 lighter colored than the remainder, and he turned out to bo a INIoxican. 
 The other men 1 did not distinguish at all. After we had passed he 
 told me that there was a white man in the center of the line, and also 
 a man who, I believe, was an Italian. 
 
 Q. Did you have any further experiments? — A. That night, after the 
 moon went down, we went out and had the same experiments. 
 
 (i. With the same results? — A. And with the same results. The only 
 difference was that after the moon went down, and at a greater dis- 
 tance — we were 09 feet and 2 inches away — when the rifles were fired 
 by volley what I saw was just a long line of legs with dark material. 
 It .seemed to be long trousers that the men had on, but after the ex- 
 periment was over and they were brought up on the bank I found that 
 they had on khaki breeches and loggings. So I received a false im- 
 pression. 
 
 Q. And you observed as closely as you could? — A. Y'es, sir; we cau- 
 tioned one another to watch. Not only that, but after the first volley 
 was fired we cautioned one another to watch where the faces should be^, 
 
 Q. What interest had Colonel Stucke, if any, in that investiga- 
 tion? — A. None whatever; no interest at all. He was there as a guest 
 of Major O’Neil to dinner and went out with us after dinner. 
 41816—7738 
 
54 
 
 Q. He is not connected in any way with the command? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Were you all of one mind as to the result of the investigation?— 
 A. As far as it went. It was impossible to distinguish features by the 
 flash of a rifle, or to distinguish color or complexion. 
 
 Q. After nightfall, w'hen the firing was in the dark? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you have any further experiments? — A. We had another one 
 on the 11th of March at night. At that time Captain Lewis and 
 Lieutenant Harbold and myself were the observers. 
 
 Q. Was that of this same general nature? — A. Of the same nature 
 as in the arroyo. After the firing in the arroyo we came up and 
 went into my house, and went upstairs and looked out of two windows, 
 3 feet away, down, and the men were marched past underneath the 
 windows, and we failed to recognize any features or any complexion. 
 We could distinguish from the light shining out from my window on 
 the first fioor that they had on shirts made of dark mate.rial of some 
 kind, and lighter trousers, but what they were we could not tell. 
 
 Q. Yes. — A. Then they were moved around in front of the house and 
 marched across the parade ground, and in rear of a light, and when 
 they got about 60 feet away we were unable to see them. They dis- 
 appeared entirely from view. They were brought back and marched 
 between a street lamp and my porch — we were all sitting there — the 
 distance being about 20 paces. We afterwards measured that. We 
 did not recognize anyone. Then they were brought around, and right 
 along on the sidewalk in front of the house, which is only 5 paces 
 away, and at that distance we failed to recognize Lieutenant Wiegen- 
 steiu, who was in the center. We did not know he was there. He was 
 the only white man in the lot. 
 
 Q. What was the character of the night? Was it an unusually dark 
 night? — A. The stars were shining, and there was no moon. 
 
 Q. The stars were shining, and no moon ? — A. Yes, sir ; with a street 
 lamp only 20 paces away. 
 
 Q. Now, if anyone were to say that looking out of a window of a 
 dark night he or she saw a gun fired, and recognized by the flash of 
 that gun, it being a high-power rifle such as you have in use, the face 
 of a man as that of a negro, and w’as able to detect that he had 
 freckles on his face, what would you think of that kind of a statement, 
 from your observation and experience?^ — A. I would not believe it. 
 
 Q. Yon would not believe it? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. And what would you believe of a statement of similar character, 
 to the effect that by the flashes of rifles it could be determined whether 
 the hats worn by the men shooting the rifles were black hats or gray 
 hats, or whether they had cords around them or not? — A. With our 
 rifles the experiments showed that the flash of a rifle was not sufficient 
 to show you anything. 
 
 Q. You could not tell what kind of a rifle it was, even? — A. No, sir; 
 you could not even see the rifle that fired the shots. 
 
 The testimony of all the other officers engaged in this investi- 
 gation was of the same general character and need not occupy 
 the time of 'the Senate. 
 
 These statements would justify the conclusions, from the 
 character of the testimony of at least one of the witnesses, 
 that but little, if any, credence can be given to the record tes- 
 timony as to any satisfactory identification of soldiers that 
 night. 
 
 THE FIRST SHOT. 
 
 The testimony of the citizens of Brownsville, with exceptional 
 cases, is, that the firing was down in the direction of the fort, 
 and no attempt is made to locate it within the reservation. 
 Mayor Combe, who was aroused by the early firing, testifies. 
 
 I was sleeping on the back porch. I dozed off and was not very 
 sound asleep when I heard what I thought to be four or five pistol 
 shots in a southerly direction from my home. 
 
 This would be, as he states later, in the direction of the bar- 
 racks. 
 
 Captain Kelly says — and this testimony is somewhat in ex- 
 planation of the character of the first firing — and shows to 
 my mind conclusively that the firing heard by Mayor Combe, 
 that heard by Captain Kelly and all citizens of Brownsville, 
 41816—7738 
 
55 
 
 was of siicli a character as to come from guns that were not in 
 the hands of troops. Captain Kelly, pages 2528-2529, volume 
 3, Hearings, testifies : 
 
 Q. Did you hear the shooting? — A. Oh, yes; very distinctly. I 
 was in my library reading. I got up and went to the front of th© 
 house and lighted a couple of gaslights there to see if I could se® 
 where it was„ but I was unable to see anything. At first I thought 
 the shots were some Mexican procession, possibly, passing. That is 
 about the only shooting we ever have there. 
 
 Q. What is the character of that shooting? — A. Well, they carry 
 with them fireworks that they make, that they call cuetas — a sort of 
 imitation of Chinese firecrackers— and when they have a procession 
 at night — they have a great many of them, frequently celebrating 
 saints’ days 
 
 Q. A great many saints’ days ? — A. Yes, sir ; quite a number ; and 
 quite a number of nonsaints’ days. They have anniversaries there. 
 They celebrate the birthday of Diaz and the battle of Pueblo, at 
 which he made his first success, and all that sort of thing. The so- 
 cieties turn out, and they fire these cuetas. 
 
 Q. You did not go out of your house? — A. No; I did not go out at 
 all. 
 
 Q. And you knew nothing as to who were charged with doing the 
 shooting up until the next morning? — A. No; nothing at all. I did 
 not know’ anything about it. 
 
 So that this shooting, with all its dangers, does not seem to 
 have been the cause of great trouble to the better part cer- 
 tainly of the citizens of Brownsville. Most of these so-called 
 “ eyewitnesses,” after the five or ten minutes during which 
 this shooting was going on, retired quietly to their homes, as 
 they have testified, and never went on the street to join with 
 the lawless mob that was assembled there and only dispersed 
 by the authorities. 
 
 Major Blocksom, notes. Senate Document No. 155, page 177 : 
 Notes hy Major Blocksom on affidavits taken before Captain Lyon 
 {submitted in Colonel Lovering’s report). 
 
 When at Fort Brown I found a number of men positive that shots 
 w'ere fired toward the post. Their statements were based on flashes 
 from rifles and sounds of bullets only. I could find no evidence of 
 bullets striking anywhere in the post and none has yet been given. 
 My theory (p. 3[44] of my report), sustained by the general trend of 
 evidence given bj'’ soldiers and citizens, is that first shots (especially 
 those toward post) were fired high (for effect only upon the minds of 
 men in the garrison). I heard nothing of the expression “black sons 
 
 of b etc. It will be noticed that the affidavits containing them 
 
 were made by C Company men a month or more after the occurrence. 
 As far as known, the- soldiers of that company were the only ones, 
 wuth one exceptioo, wdio had trouble in town before the 13th of 
 August. Nobody in B Company seems to have heard the expression, 
 though the quarters were much nearer the firing than C Company’s. 
 
 A. P. Blocksom, 
 
 Major, Inspector-General. 
 
 If Major Blocksom’s theory is correct, it sustains and gives 
 a reason why no marks of bullets were found in the barracks by 
 IMajor Penrose or any other ofiicer. They were fired high in the 
 air for a purpose, Mr. President, in connection with the lan- 
 guage that was used with respect to this firing and which Major 
 Blocksom quotes in his reiiort, and which 1 shall not venture 
 to quote here even to sustain my remarks. 
 
 The.se comments of Major Blocksom conformed to the mass of 
 evidence which might be culled from the testimony to the effect 
 that the first shots from mixed arms, especially those toward 
 the post, were fired high, for effect only ui)on the minds of the 
 garrison. I shall content my.self with inserting here but a lim- 
 ited amount of testimony upon this important point, which leads 
 4181C — 7738 
 
np to tile conclusion that the raiders could be looked for else- 
 where than among the men of the garrison. I firmly believe that 
 these first shots and the language used in connection therewith 
 was an effort to draw the men out of their quarters and into a 
 personal altercation without arms, as it must have been well 
 known that they were securely locked in the gun racks. It is 
 hardly conceivable that soldiers would have entered into a con- 
 spiracy to shoot up the town and commence the execution by 
 first arousing the garrison and its officers, as was the effect of 
 this shooting, and then escape detection and punishment. 
 
 Lieut. Henry S. Grier, who was the adjutant of- the post, 
 testifies, Hearings, volume 2, page 1G99 : 
 
 Q. Did you hear any bullets at all that night that you remember? — • 
 A. I thought when I was coming across the parade ground to the east 
 about up in front of the commanding officer’s quarters I heard a scat- 
 tering of shot on the ground, but I would not be positive about it. It 
 might have been something else ; some other noise. 
 
 Q. That it is the only thing you heard that sounded like bullets? — A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Warner. He has not said they sounded like bullets. 
 
 A. I said it sounded more like shot. 
 
 Q. Did you mean shot as though A. Yes ; like buckshot from a 
 
 shotgun, or something of that kind. 
 
 Mafias G. Tamayo, the scavenger, who went on duty every 
 nigbt about 11 o'clock, and wlio was in tlie best position of any 
 one, for lie was awake and performing bis duties when the 
 shooting commenced, testifies. Hearings, volume 2, pages 120G- 
 1207: 
 
 Q. Got down on the ground and picked up a can and emptied it? — 
 A. Yes, sir ; and then I set it on the ground. I heard the first shot. 
 
 Q. Where was that tired from ? — A. I think it was tired from right 
 along this alley here [indicating on map]. 
 
 Q. What did you do after that? — A. I heard a lot of shooting. 
 
 Q. Then what did you do? — A. I put my lantern out as soon as I 
 heard the first two shots. 
 
 Q. Tlien what did you do? — A. I stood for a little while facing the 
 place where the firing was going on. 
 
 Q. Yes. — A. And at the same time I could see the galleries, right 
 here [indicating on map], and the place where the firing w’as taking 
 place, right in front of me. 
 
 Q. What was taking place? — A. The firing taking place. 
 
 Q. You are not pointing to the town? — A. No, sir; I am not [point- 
 ing to the map]. 
 
 Q. The firing was in town? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you see any men moving about there before that first shot 
 was fired? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you see any lights about the barracks? — A. No. sir. 
 
 Q. Was there any noise about, anywhere? — A. No, sir; everything 
 was quiet. 
 
 Q. Everything was quiet? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 O. Did you see any men moving about inside the wall near the sink 
 of B Company? — A. No, sir. 
 
 He was witliiu 25 feet of the point where this man Lendall 
 testifies that, looking clown Garrison road, unlighted, 150 feet, 
 ne saw a body of men jumping over the wall. This man Ta- 
 mayo was performing his nightly service and standing between 
 the point where Ivendall was looking ont of a window and 
 within 20 or 30 feet of the point where Kendall saw the men 
 jump over the wall, and he was in close proximity with the wall 
 all the time, stationed between the barracks and the wall. 
 
 Q. Did you see anybody jump over the fence or the wall there in 
 rear of B Company, opposite the mouth of Cowen alley? — A. No, sir. 
 
 O. Or at any otlier place? — A. No, sir. 
 
 If there had been any shots fired from the upper windows of B, 
 C, and D barracks, were you in a situation to have seen them? — A. Yes, 
 4181G— 7738 
 
57 
 
 sir ; I could very easily have seen them, because I could see the bar- 
 racks here — around right here in front of me [indicating on map]. 
 
 Q. Now, were any shots fired from the barracks? — A. Not while I 
 was there ; no, sir. 
 
 Q. How about the first shots?— A. I heard the first shots and then 
 about twenty more shots, and then I drove off. 
 
 Q. When they commenced shooting, then you left immediately r — ■ 
 A. I went away immediately. 
 
 Q. With your cart? — A. Yes, sir. At the same time when I heard 
 this first shot I heard a few bullets going into the post over the ad- 
 ministration building. 
 
 Q. That is important. Which way were they going? — A. They went 
 up into the air. 
 
 Q. Went up in the air? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Could you tell which way? — A. Across that way [indicating Qn 
 map]. 
 
 Pages 1208-1209 : 
 
 Senator Fokake'r. Yes. Now, you have testified before in this case. 
 I want to read you an affidavit that was made on the 14th day of 
 August, IbOO, found at page 75 of Senate Document No. 155. 
 
 (The affidavit referred to is as follows:) 
 
 Port Brown, State of Texas: 
 
 Personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority, one 
 Matias G. Tamayo, scavenger at Fort Brown, Tex., who, being duly 
 sworn according to law, deposes and says : 
 
 “ That at about 12.10 a. m. on the morning of August 14, 1900, he 
 was in rear of the quarters occupied by Company B, Twenty-fifth 
 Infantry ; that about this time a shot was fired by some person un- 
 known in the street just outside the wall dividing the military reserva- 
 tion from the town of Brownsville, Tex. ; that he could hear the bullet 
 and that it appeared to be going in the direction of the Rio Grande 
 River, about parallel to the above-mentioned wall ; that immediately 
 following this one shot a number of other shots were fired, all outside 
 the wall. 
 
 “ lieponent further says that previous to the shooting he saw no 
 soldiers anywhere in reaV of the quarters occupied by the companies 
 of the Twenty-fifth Infantry, and heard no talking or news of any 
 kind ; and that he saw and heard no shot or shots from any of the 
 company barracks. 
 
 “ Matias G. Tamayo, 
 “Scavcnr/cr, Fort Broirn, Tex.” 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of August, 190G. 
 
 Samukp P. Lyon, 
 
 Captain, Twenty-fifth Infantry, Summary Court. 
 
 A most rigid examination and cross-examination by almost 
 every member of your committee failed to confuse this witness 
 or shake the weight of his testimony. Of all the witnesses, 
 he was the one that was awake and in a position to see what 
 was going on immediately behind the wall of the reservation. 
 He was a Brownsville boy, and had but little time to interest 
 himself with the members of the battalion during their two 
 weeks at Fort Brown. 
 
 James II. Howard, Senate Document No. 155, pages 74-75 and 
 1G9: 
 
 Fort Brown, Tkx, August V,, 1906. 
 
 Fort Brown, State of Texas: 
 
 I’ersonally appeared before me the undersigned authority. Private 
 .T. II. Howard, Company 1), Twenty-fifth Infantry, who, being duly 
 sworn according to law, deposes and says : 
 
 “I was a member of the post guard on the night of the 1.1th and 
 14th of August, 190G, I was posted as a sentinel on post No. 2. which 
 extends around the barracks, keeping the buildings on my left, at 
 10.50 p. ra., August 15. At about 12.10 on the morning of the 14th, 
 when between C and I) Company barracks, I heard a single shot, then 
 five or six, and then a regular fusilade. The shots seemed to come 
 from the street in the rear of tlie brick wall back of B Company’s 
 barracks. I thought they were shooting at me, and I looked in the 
 direction of the sounds to see if I could see anybody, but I could not, 
 and then I went to the front of the barracks and gave the alarm, by 
 4181G— 7738 
 
58 
 
 firing my piece three times and calling for the guard. I did not see 
 anybody at all hut the post scavenger, who was at the sinks in the 
 rear of B Company’s barracks. As soon as the shooting commenced 
 he drove away with his cart. 
 
 “ Joseph H. Howard, 
 
 ^‘Private, Company D, Twenty-fifth Infantry.” 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before me this 20th day of August, 1906. 
 
 Samuel P. Lyon, 
 
 Captain, Twenty-fifth Infantry, Trial Offieer, f^ummary Court. 
 
 Fort Brown, State of Texas, ss: 
 
 Personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority, one Joseph 
 H. Howard, private, of Company D, Twenty-fifth Infantry, who, being 
 duly sworn according to law, deposes and says : 
 
 “About 12 midnight, Monday. August 13, 1906, I was a sentinel on 
 guard on post No. 2, which extends completely around the four bar- 
 racks. The first thing that occurred that was unusual was a shot fired 
 in the road opposite where T was at the time, on my post opposite the 
 interval between B and C Company quarters. Several other shots 
 followed in quick succession, and after a short interval what sounded 
 like a fusillade of shots. My first impression was that I was being 
 fired upon. I shouted the alarm after I had looked in that direction 
 and had been unable to see anything. Then I ran to the front of the 
 barracks, passing between B and C Company quarters, and there stayed 
 until the companies had formed, when I returned to that portion of 
 m.y post. I did not see anyone cross my post except men going to and 
 from the closets before taps. After the shooting men were stationed 
 along the wall alongside of my post. At the time of the shooting the 
 scavenger was at work at the closets along the wall. I do not know 
 who did the shooting. The reports sounded like rifle shots to me. I 
 should judge about fifty or more shots were fired. 
 
 “ Further deponent saith not. 
 
 “ Joseph H. Howard, 
 
 ‘^Private, Company D, Twenty-fifth Infantry.” 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me at F'ort Brown, Tex., this 20th 
 day of August, 1906. 
 
 Samuel B. Lyon, 
 
 Captain, Twenty-fifth Infantry, Trial Offieer, Summary Court. 
 
 Howard was the sentry and, when the shooting commenced, 
 fired the alarm from his rifle and called for the corporal of the 
 guard. All the flashes of guns which witnesses have testified 
 as being within the walls of the reservation I think can readily 
 be attributed to the firing of these signal guns in the air by the 
 witness Howard, who was on guard at his post on his own beat 
 at that hour and who performed his duty by discharging a 
 signal of distress, recognized almost everywhere, and calling 
 for the corporal of the guard. 
 
 IMingo Saunders, with a service in the Army of twenty-five 
 years or thereabouts, testifies to the same effect. He was 
 allowed, on account of his long service, to sleep out of quarters, 
 but within the reservation, and he testifies that in proceeding 
 toward the fort the bullets were whizzing over his head. 
 
 Sergt. J. R. Reid, Senate Document No. 155, page 75 : 
 
 Fort Brown, Tex., August 23, J906. 
 
 Sergt. .1. R. Reid, Company B, Twenty-fifth Infantry, stated to me 
 chat he did not have the call to arms sounded (he was sergeant of the 
 guard on the night of the 13th of August) until the shots came so fast 
 that he thought post was attacked. He stated also that he formed the 
 guard before having the call sounded. 
 
 A. P. Blocksom. 
 
 Major, Inspeetor-General. 
 
 Charles E. Rudy, Senate Document No. 155, page lG-1 : 
 l*ersonal!y appeared before me the undersigned authority, one Cliarles 
 E. Rudy, an artificer of Company C. Twenty-fifth Infantry, who, being 
 dnlv sworn according to law. deposes and says as follows : 
 
 '^That he was asleep on the front porch of his company quarters at 
 Fort Brown, Tex., on the night of August 1.3-14, 190(>, when he was 
 awakened about 12 o’clock by a shot. That this first shot seemed to 
 41816—7738 
 
50 
 
 come from the direction of Brownsville, and that right after that shot 
 a number of shots were fired very rapidly near where the first shot was 
 fired. That he got up and went into the quarters, and that by the time 
 he got inside the quarters “ call to arms ” had sounded, and he went to 
 the gun rack to get his gun, but he found the gun rack locked and 
 went to the back door and looked out to see if he could see the shoot- 
 ing, and saw the fiash of a number of guns which were being fired 
 from along the wall which separates Fort Brown from Brownsville, and 
 that it looked as though they were being fired on the outside of the 
 wall. It was so dark that he could not see who was firing, but from 
 the flashes it looked as though about twenty-five or thirty people were 
 firing. From the direction of the flashes it looked as though the par- 
 ties firing were firing in the direction of B Company’s quarters, and 
 high. That as the shooting continued he heard cursing and calls of 
 
 ‘ Come out, you black sons of b , and v/e will kill all of you,’ 
 
 from where the shooting was going on. That he left the door and 
 went to get his rifle and fall in with the company outside of the 
 quarters, and saw no more of the shooting. That he does not know who 
 did this shooting. * 
 
 “And further the deponent saith not. 
 
 “ Chaule.s E. Rudy^ 
 ^‘Company C, Twenty-fifth Infantry.’’ 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before me at Fort Reno, Okla., this 12th 
 day of September, 1900. 
 
 Samuel P. LTO^r, 
 
 Captain, Twenty-fifth Infantry, Summary Court. 
 
 This quoted testimony and a voliiine more which would be 
 merely ciunnlative form the basis of Major Blocksom’s report. 
 
 The failure to get the troops outside of the reservation com- 
 pelled the raiders to pursue their murderous work through the 
 town if their plot to get rid of the soldiers was to prove suc- 
 cessful. It is a remarkable fact that, with an armed police 
 force scattered through the town, no concerted effort was made 
 to interfere, pursue, or follow this band of outlaws. If I were 
 to trace these outlaws to their hiding — and I call the attention 
 of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Fulton] to my statement 
 now, because I think it answers his remark — I should seek them 
 in the crowd of armed men that assembled with the police on 
 Elizabeth street immediately the shooting ceased, looking for 
 a leader to make a further attack on the fort, and were only 
 dispersed l)y the earnest appeals of Mayor Combe. 
 
 .Air. FULTON. Air. President 
 
 The VICE-PIiESIDENT. Does the Senator from Connecticut 
 yield to the Senator from Oregon? 
 
 Air. lUJLKELEY. Certainly. 
 
 Air. FULTON. If it be true that they were there looking for a 
 leader, making an attack on the fort, the Senator can not cer- 
 tainly insist that they had previously organized and attacked 
 the town, because they were disorganized, looking for a leader 
 to attack the fort. 
 
 A\diy attack the fort if somebody in the fort had not attacked 
 them, and why were they looking for a leader to do it? 
 
 Air. BULKELEY. As a part of the conspiracy to drive this 
 garrison away from Brownsville. 
 
 Air. FULTON. If there had been a conspiracy, surely there 
 would have been an organization, and with the organization 
 there would have been leadership. The Senator says they were 
 there looking for somebody to lead them. 
 
 Air. BULKELEY. I have assumed that of the 2n0 or 200 
 men who assembled on Elizabeth street these raiders composed 
 but a .small part of that crowd. It is not claimed by anybody 
 that they exceeded either ten or fifteen in number. 
 
 4181G— 7738 
 
GO 
 
 INIr. FULTON. Nevertheless, I submit if those people had 
 previously organized and were in a conspiracy they had leaders, 
 and had the mob desired a leader they would have led, because 
 they were organized. I submit the Senator will have to find a 
 better explanation than that to show that a mob had gathered 
 there and they were those who had done the shooting. 
 
 Mr. LODOE. There is no evidence of it. 
 
 IMr. BULKELEY. There is no evidence, I admit. I said 
 I would look for their hiding place among this crowd of 
 men who were appealing for a leader to take them down and 
 assail the fort. I refer to the tcbtimony of the mayor on that 
 point. He said, Hearings, volume 3, page 2386 : 
 
 Everybody was clamoriug and standing around there with, these 
 guns, and saying, “ Let's go down to the post,” and, “ Let’s go down 
 and do those fellows up.” I don’t remember the exact language 
 they used, in the excitement of the moment, and I saw that the ex- 
 citement was getting intense, and Judge Parks was standing to my 
 left, and I said, “ Get me a box or something to stand on,” and they 
 brought mo, I do not remember whether it was a box or a barrel, and I 
 got up and I appealed to the people, first, as an ex-Army officer, and I 
 told them, “ I have served with those troops and I know them to be as 
 efficient troops as there are in the world. They are splendidly armed, 
 and if you go down there many a valuable life will be lost.” 
 
 And I tbiuk that was true. Mayor Combe proceeds: 
 
 ” Besides that, you are within the law'. Remain so, and we will get jus- 
 tice.” I spoke in that strain for a few minutes. Then I told them that 
 as mayor of the city I w'ould arrest any man that remained on the street. 
 I then w'ent to several of the most prominent citizens there, bank 
 cashiers and bank directors and county clerks, and so on, and I said, 
 “ Gentlemen, you will assist me in dispersing these people here ; ” and in 
 groups we got them away ; very reluctantly, but they got aw’ay. There 
 remained on the streets the police officers and several of the citizens 
 whom I requested to remain. I told them to arm themselves, if they 
 v/ere not armed. 
 
 This proposed attiick upon the post by these citizens con- 
 forms entirely to my theory that the post was originally at- 
 tacked for the piir])ose of drawing the troops out unarmed, 
 and when that failed these desperadoes, as they had grown to 
 be in their murderous career, were seeking to attack the post 
 as the only remedy. 
 
 This is entirely in accord with the views of Major Penrose, 
 who immediately assembled his command and placed his whole 
 battalion in iiosition to defend the post. 
 
 In this connection, I would say that the first gun, and the 
 only gun, identified in the hands of a citizen, who was alfout to 
 enter Crixell’s saloon, was a Winchester, which the mayor 
 found — as he advanced down Elizabeth street — in front of Crix- 
 elTs saloon or gambling house. The mayor, evidently dis- 
 turbed, exclaimed, “What are you doing with that gun?'’ and 
 took it away from him and did not wait for any talk at all. 
 
 Hearings, volume 33, page 2384 : 
 
 * * * A. * * * I wont on down tho .street, and when I got 
 
 opposite Crixell’s saloon I saw a man about to go into the saloon with a 
 gun in his hand. I afterwards found it to be an old Winchester rifle. 
 
 By Senator Warner : 
 
 Q. The shooting was all over by this time? — A. The shooting was 
 over; yes, sir. I halted him. I knew the man. Ills name was Jose 
 Garza, or Tamayo, or something of the kind. I know him very well. 
 He sometimes has acted as a special policeman. I halted him, and he 
 stopped, and I said, ‘‘What are you doing with that gun?” And I 
 took it away from him. I did not wait for any talk at all, and I said, 
 “ Get in there,” and I put him in the saloon, and Mr. Crixell said, 
 “ That is my rifle.” That is Crixell. the saloon keeper. So I gave the 
 gun to him. They attempted to work the mechanism, and it would 
 4181G— 7738 
 
61 
 
 not work, while I was standing there, right in the saloon. As I 
 walked into the saloon there was a chorus of remarks, such as “ Mr. 
 Mayor, the negroes are shooting on the town.” 
 
 I can readily identify this party as one of the raiders seek- 
 ing shelter in the saloon or gambling house where he would 
 be welcome and from which the soldiers had been excluded. 
 The possibilities are great that this gun was the one described 
 by Mrs. Leahy, which seemed to her keen vision to be out of 
 order when the firing was going on in the vicinity of Cowen 
 alley and Fourteenth street. This gun was owned by Crixell, or 
 claimed to be, and I fail to find any reason for its being on the 
 street in the hands of another person. 
 
 The honorable Senator from Idaho [Mr. Borah] has inti- 
 mated that the love of the soldier for his “ pass,” and their 
 deprivation of the same, was one of the causes that led up to 
 the affray; but I submit, Mr. President, that durmg their two 
 weeks’ stay in Brownsville they had not been deprived of this 
 highly esteemed convenience; it was not until after 5 o’clock 
 of the afternoon of the 13th that any order was issued discon- 
 tinuing or revoking passes, and this, at the earnest request of 
 Mayor Combe, whose testimony on that point I quote. And 
 this was on the afternoon before the “ shooting up ” of the 
 town. 
 
 Mayor Combe testifies, volume 3, page 2382, Hearings; 
 
 I then said to him, in the presence of Mr. Evans, “ Major Penrose, 
 this is a terrible affair. The people in town are very much incensed 
 and excited, and I protest against any of your officers or men I do 
 not remember now whether I said “ officers,” but positively I said his 
 men — “ going into town to-night.” Then I made use of one or the other 
 of these expressions, “ Major, if you allow these men to go into town 
 to-night, I will not be responsible for their lives,” or ” Major, do not 
 allow your men to go out of the post, because there is a great deal of 
 danger in town.” One or the other of these expressions I used — I am 
 not sure w’hich. 
 
 Aud agaiu, in reply to an inquiry. Mayor Combe says. Hear- 
 ings, volume 3, page 2387 : 
 
 “ The citizens are very much excited, and this is terrible,” or some- 
 thing to that effect. He said, ” Major Combe, 1 can not believe it. It 
 has been reported to me that the citizens have fired on the post.” I 
 said, ” No, sir ; that is not so.” We were in conversation some little 
 while ; I do not remember the details now. I said to him, ‘‘ Major 
 Penrose, you will have to keep your officers and men in the post. They 
 can not come into town under any circumstances, and I hope that you 
 will issue that order, because the people are very much excited and 
 very much enraged, and if any of your men^come in, why, it is danger- 
 ous ” — or, I do not remember whether I used that expression — ” I will 
 not answer for their lives.” At any rate, I impi*essed upon him 
 strongly that it would be dangerous for his officers and men to go into 
 the town. He said to me, “ Major Combe, I shall certainl}’’ cooperate 
 with you in this respect. I shall issue an order that none of my offi- 
 cers or men shall go into the town.” 
 
 GUNS, CAP, SHELLS, ETC. 
 
 The articles picked up in the streets of Brownsville appear to 
 have constituted, in connection with the so-called identification 
 by eyewitnesses, the most incriminating evidence against the 
 soldiers, and these two items of evidence appear to have been 
 the basis of the changed opinion formed by Major Penrose, 
 who, up to the time of the appearance of Mayor Combe with 
 these exhibits, had persisted that the attack was made upon 
 his command and the post, which I have before stated he 
 prepared to defend. 
 
 It is claimed that these shells — almost universally exploded 
 cartridges — were picked up in the streets of the city in the 
 4181G— 7738 
 
62 
 
 early morning after the affray, as well as clips, bandoliers, 
 and a cap belonging to a member of the battalion, which cap, 
 although bearing the initial of the soldier and thus readily 
 traced to its owner, suddenly disappeared as a factor after the 
 investigation by the citizens’ committee, before whom it was 
 produced. It was readily proved that this was of that class 
 of articles that had been disposed of or thrown away and ap- 
 propriated by the Mexican scavengers, as heretofore testified 
 by large numbers of the soldiers. Its appearance on the streets 
 at this opportune time and its early use as evidence, as well as 
 its immediate elimination, are, to my mind, strong evidence of 
 the well-conceived conspiracy, and a part of it, to compel the 
 removal of the colored troops from that locality. I append 
 here the testimony of Charles W. Askew, the reputed owner of 
 the cap, and which was marked with his initials. 
 
 Hearings, volume 1, page 560 : 
 
 Q. Captain McDonald? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. How do j^ou know it was by his suggestion? — A. He sent me 
 up there one day. 
 
 Q. How do you know it was hy his suggestion? — A. He sent me 
 up there one day, and I had some caps, and Captain Macklin sent me 
 up there to the" administration building, and he asked me how many 
 caps I had drawn since I had been in the Twenty-fifth Infantry. 
 
 Q. How many caps you had drawn?- — A. Yes, sir. I think they 
 found a cap downtown with my initials in it. 
 
 Q. With C. W. A., isn’t it?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. He found that down the street? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 O. And you think that is what led to your arrest? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Tell us all about that cap. Tell us anything you may have to say 
 about that. — A. I gave the first sergeant one of my old caps when I 
 was at Fort Niobrara, and there was a box of old caps that was shipped 
 down to Fort Brown, and when they got down there they opened that 
 box of old caps, and some of those muchachos, I suppose, found them 
 and got them and carried them away ; and I thii^k that is the way they 
 got that cap. 
 
 Q. Do you know anything about the cap? — A. No, sir; I never saw 
 the cap. 
 
 The shells and bandoliers still remain to be accounted for. 
 It is in evidence, and unchallenged, that a box of exploded 
 shells, etc., was brought down from Fort Niobrara and was de- 
 posited upon the back porch of the barracks of B Company, 
 where they were open to the careful search and appropriation 
 by anyone, as testified to by Sergt. Mingo Sanders. 
 
 It is imcontradicted that such a box was brought and opened 
 and exposed, and finally a guard put on it to protect it from 
 further depredation. 
 
 Hearings, volume 1, page 300-301 : 
 
 Q. You had about 1,G00 shells that you put in boxes? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And took to Brownsvilie because they had not been decapped? — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And you put those out on the back porch after you got there? — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you see that box there? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Was the box open? — A. Yes, sir; the box was open, on the back 
 porch. 
 
 Q. And could anybody have taken shells out of that box? — A. Yes, 
 sir ; anybody that wanted to, because they were compelled — -because 
 the Mexicans was so bad down there, picking up clothing and every- 
 thing that was on the porch, or anything else that was around there, 
 until the commanding officer issued an order to put on that post — to 
 not allow people to pick up and carry away things that didn’t belong 
 to them. 
 
 Q. That was the reason why that guard was put on there? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. And that was some days after your arrival ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 4181G— 7738 
 
Q. Because the Mexicans were running in and picking up everything 
 they could? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What did you see them pick up — A. Caps, clothing, shoes, and 
 these arctic overshoes, and blouses, and trousers, and everything else. 
 They would pick up everything, whether it was serviceable or not. 
 
 Q. All the old cans you would throw out and everything else — they 
 would pick up? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 s;: * * * * 
 
 Q. But you heard these halls going overhead — you have been in 
 battle, have you ? — A. Y"es, sir ; I have ; a good deal. 
 
 Q. You were at El Caney? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. At Santiago? — A. Y'es, sir. 
 
 Q. And in the Philippines? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And you were in engagements in all those places? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. So you have heard a good deal of firing, and you have also heard 
 a good deal of firing on the target range? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Can you tell the committee whether that was what I will call 
 mixed firing, with different arms, or whether the firing was all with 
 the same kind of arm ? — A. It was mixed arms. I suppose there were 
 six-shooters and Winchesters and all calibers, and there may have 
 been some Mausers in it, because it has a keen sound. A Winchester 
 has a very broad sound, like something very loud. 
 
 Q. What kind of a noise did those balls make that went over your 
 head while you were lying down? — A. They made a kind of flat 
 noise. It is a kind of experience that a man must more or less have 
 himself that has been under fire. The Krag bullet and the Mauser 
 bullet, too, makes a kind of whiz. It goes “ the-ee-ew,” — something 
 of that kind [witness imitating sound]. 
 
 Senator Fokakee. I am afraid the stenographer can not get that 
 down. 
 
 By Senator Foraker : 
 
 Q. It makes a keen sound? — A. Yes, sir; and you can’t tell whether 
 the gun is in a tree or on the ground, or close to you or far from you. 
 But these other guns go “ boo-oo,” something like that [indicating 
 sound], what we in our way of determining call a blunderbuss; and 
 that’s the way those guns sound — a loud noise. 
 
 Q. Did that firing sound to you like it was firing from a Springfield 
 rifle, such as you had at that time? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Tlie careful examination by Captain Macklin, detailed by 
 Major Penrose to seek in the Garrison road and vicinity for 
 any evidence to fix the guilt upon participants in the affray, 
 disclosed this remarkable finding, and goes far to establish the 
 distribution of exploded shells upon the streets — obtained in 
 the way described by Sergeant Saunders — of the conspiracy to 
 fix the shooting up of the town upon the garrison. I ask your 
 close attention to the testimony of Captain Macklin in regard 
 to the finding of the “ bunch ” of shells and clips, for the rea- 
 son that it conforms absolutely to the theory that I have 
 formed, that it -would be impossible for cartridges fired from 
 high-po-wer guns by a body of moving troops, the exploded shells 
 ejected from the magazine to fall in such a position as the 
 captain found these shells and clips — seven clips, each ordi- 
 narily containing five shells, and but six exploded shells — 
 which, after the rapid firing described by many witnesses, wmuld 
 hardly be a fair proportion of either class. It is also a re- 
 markable coincidence that, so far as I recall the evidence or 
 have been able to examine it, these shells and clips are all that 
 have been reported as found between the Cowen house, at 
 Fourteenth street, and the Garrison road, or Fifteenth street, 
 where the first and a considerable part of the firing took place. 
 
 Without reading the testimony I will state in a general way 
 that clips and shells, five or six of one and seven of the other, 
 were found in a place about 10 inches in diameter. It is the 
 testimony of Army otticers who appeared before us, and it is 
 the uncontradicted opinion of Army oliicers everywhere with 
 whom I have been able to di.scuss these (luestions, that it is 
 4181G— 7738 * 
 
64 
 
 absolutely impossible that shells and clips fired from a high- 
 power rifle and ejected therefrom, as they must be after each 
 shell is fired, could have landed iu any such position, and the 
 only reasonable conclusion that can be reached is that that 
 “ bunch ” of shells in that narrow space was placed there and 
 never fired from any rifle whatever that night. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Were there any soldiers' caps 
 found there ? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. No; but I described one cap and I gave 
 the information in regard to the cap. It was found and elim- 
 inated at once, because it was shown to be of that character of 
 goods that had been thrown away by the soldiers and discarded 
 by them, and when the soldier himself vras brought by- order of 
 Captain 2»IcDonald before the committee, his testimony was 
 credited and the cap and all disappeared. 
 
 Captain Macklin in his testimony says, in a few words, they 
 were all in a “ bunch ” not over 10 or 12 inches in diameter. 
 
 Mr. PILES. Was the cap found in that bunch. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. No; the cap was found in another place 
 on the Garrison road. It was found on the Garrison road in 
 the neighborhood of Jefferson street. 
 
 Captain Mackiin, Hearings, volume 2, pages 1776-1778 : 
 
 Q. Light enough to inspect? — A. Yes, sii\ 
 
 Q. State, now, whether or not before you started to inspect you made 
 any investigations either inside or outside the wall of the reservation, 
 to see what you could find, if anything at all, as a result of the 
 firing. — A. Yes, sir ; after I went on guard my station was at the main 
 gate. I had there two noncommissioned officers and six men, and 
 during the night I stayed there except the times that I went away to 
 make inspections. Just as soon as the streak of dawn came I walked 
 up and down inside of the wall, looking for shells. Then I went out- 
 side of the gate and went over as far as the telegraph office 
 
 Q. Before you go outside, tell us whether or not you found any 
 shells or anything else inside. — A. No, sir ; I did not find anything 
 inside. I went all along the line there inside and did not find any- 
 thing. Then I went outside, over as far as the telegraph office, which 
 is on the corner of Elizabeth street and right opposite the gate. I did 
 not see anything at all, and then walked down outside of the wall 
 toward the alley, which is directly in the rear, or almost directly ia 
 rear, of B Company quarters. Right there at the mouth of the alley 
 I found six clips, I think it was, and seven shells, or approximately 
 that. 
 
 Q. Six clips and seven shells? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Were they exploded shells? — A. Y'es, sir. 
 
 Q. They were the shells of cartridges that had been fired? — A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And they were of the Springfield rifle? — A. Yes, sir; the Spring- 
 field rifle. 
 
 Q. And the clips were the same? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You had no clips with the Krag- Jorgenson at all, had you? — A. 
 No. sir. 
 
 Q. Now, you found six clips and seven shells? — A. Yes, sir; I think 
 that is the number ; I don’t recollect. 
 
 Q. One clip accommodates how many cartridges or shells? — A. Five. 
 
 Q. They were hardly in proportion. Then? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Now, tell us in what position on the ground — you found these on 
 the ground, did you ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. In what position did you find these clips and shells with refer- 
 ence to each other, and indicate on the map just as nearly as you can 
 where you found them ; the exact spot. You can see the alley indicated 
 there. — A. Just about in that position [indicating]. 
 
 Q. You point to the center of the alley on the town side of Fifteenth 
 street. — A. I have forgotten the width of that alley, but I think it was 
 IG feet, and they were just about in the middle of the alley. 
 
 Q. And they were on the town side of the street that runs along 
 parallel with the wall and outside of it? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Senator Oveumax ; 
 
 Q. How far from the wall?— A. I should say about G or 8 feet — 
 about 8 feet, about half way. • 
 
 4181G— 7738 
 
65 
 
 By Senator Forakbr : 
 
 Q. The road there is 30 feet wide, as I understand it? — A. Not that 
 distance ; no, sir ; I think it is 16. 
 
 Q. No ; the road is shown on the map to he 30 feet wide. It is 
 marked an inch wide, and the map is drawn to a scale of 30 feet to 
 the inch. — A. Very well. 
 
 Q. Did you find these shells in the mouth of the alley or did you 
 find them in the road? — A. I found them right in the mouth of the 
 alley, looking up the alley — you could see up the alley — and when I 
 picked up the shells I stood over them, because there" were a lot of 
 people up the road and they were looking down tovraid the alley. 
 There was a great crowd congregated about. I spread out my feet 
 and stooped down over the shells and picked them up, and they were 
 in a space not over that large [indicating]. They were all in a bunch. 
 
 Q. You indicate a space circular in form and about how large in 
 diametei-? — A. Well, not over 10 inches, sir; 10 or 12 inches in diam- 
 eter. 
 
 Q. Ten inches in diameter. I notice that in your testimony before 
 the court-martial you said a space with a radius" of not more than 12 
 to lo inches. Did you mean radius or did you mean diameter? — A. I 
 meant diameter, sir. 
 
 Q. You want to correct that statement as you now make it? — A, 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Would that be the natural position in which you would expect to 
 find six or seven shells that had been fired out of one of those high- 
 power Springfield rifles? — A. No, sir; it would be impossible to find 
 them that way. 
 
 Q. It would be impossible? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. When one of these cartridges is fired out of a Springfield rifle 
 such as you were equipped v/ith there, how far would the shell be 
 thrown ordinarily by the ejector ?— A. Well, ejecting it rather quickly, 
 I should think it would be thrown at least 8 or 10 feet. 
 
 Q. And then when the shell strikes what happens to it? Does it 
 jump or bounce about on the ground? — A. It depends on the nature of 
 the ground. 
 
 Q. That was in an alley — a roadway. — A. In that place it would 
 stick. It w'as soft ground. 
 
 Q. In soft ground it might not bounce? — A. No, sir; it would not 
 bounce at all. 
 
 Q. Wlien a soldier or anyone else stands and fires one of these 
 rifles, holding it in the same position, does each one of five or six shells 
 fly the same distance and in exactly the same dii-ection, or are they 
 likely to be thrown in different directions? — A. d’hoy would be very 
 much spread about. I do not think any two would drop in the same 
 place. 
 
 Q. They would be scattered over perhaps hov,^ much ground? — A. 
 Well, perhaps at least 4 feet — 3 to 4 feet. 
 
 Q. Now, ('aptain, can you tell us v/hethcr anybody had preceded 
 you there that morning or anybody been there ahead of you to see 
 those shells? — A. I am satisfied no one was there, sir. I went away 
 and made an inspection of my sentinels about 3.30 or 4 o’clock. When 
 I returned the sergeant told me no one had been there. 
 
 Q. What sergeant was that? — A. That was Sergeant Carlisle. I 
 took Sergeant Harley with me on my inspection of the sentinels. 
 
 Q. What kind of men are Sergeant Harley and Sergeant Carlisle? 
 Have you known them well for all these years you have been com- 
 manding that company? — A. Yes, sir; you can depend on them 
 anywhere. 
 
 Q. They are truthful, reliable men? — A. Yes, sir; anywhere. I 
 would go anywhere with them. 
 
 Ma.1or Penrose testifies that he examined some of these shells 
 ])icked up by Captain Macklin, and tliis is important in view of 
 the fact that the shells found in the street in this “ bunch ” 
 and the bullets found in the houses do not correspond or belong 
 with each other. As I said, Major Penrose testifies (Hearings, 
 vol.3, p. 301G) that he examined some of the shells picked up by 
 Captain Macklin ; that they bore the marks and were the shells 
 manufactured at the Frankford Arstmal — a (Jovernment arsenal. 
 The bullets taken from the houses in the immediate vicinity of the 
 firing, on analysis, showed that they were not of the comi)osition 
 of any bullet manufactured at that arsenal, but were of the com- 
 41816—7738 5 
 
66 
 
 position of those made by the Union Metallic Cartridge Com- 
 pany for the Government under the contract to which I have 
 heretofore referred, as well as for commercial sales ; so that it 
 was impossible that these shells found at the mouth of the alley 
 where the firing has been located, or fired from the wall or 
 porch of the barracks as is charged, could have been used in 
 combination with the bullets found in the houses. I append 
 here the analysis of cartridges manufactured at Frankford 
 Arsenal and Union Metallic Cartridge Company, which an- 
 alysis was made at the Sandy Hook Proving Grounds by the 
 Government chemist stationed there. Also from Penrose court- 
 martial, Senate Document 402, part 2, page 1160: 
 
 I don’t know how many cartridges ; I didn't count them. 
 
 Q. Were they cartridges or shells? — A. Shells; empty shells, fired 
 shells. I examined two of them, took them from his hand ; they were 
 Frankford Arsenal shells. 
 
 Q. For what rifle? — A. For our Springfield rifle. I asked him where 
 he had gotten them, and he said right at the mouth of the alley. 
 
 Hearings, volume 3, page 3389 : 
 
 Sandy Hook Proving Ground, 
 
 Fort HaiicocJCj N. J., December 20, 1907. 
 report from the chemical laboratory. 
 
 (Examination of lead cores of caliber .30 ball cartridges, model 1903. 
 
 Laboratory Nos. 4672 and 4673.) 
 
 Two caliber .30 ball cartridges, model of 1903, made by Frankfort 
 Arsenal and two made by the Union Metaliic Cartridge Company were 
 received from the Chief of Ordnance. As directed, quantitative analyses 
 were made to determine the major constituents of the lead cores. These 
 Vv'ere found to be as follows : 
 
 j. 
 
 
 F. A. car- 
 tridge. 
 
 U. M. C. 
 
 cartridge. 
 
 
 Per cent. 
 96.21 
 
 Per cent. 
 95.60 
 
 
 None, 
 
 1.95 
 
 Tin ' 
 
 3.10 
 
 1.45 
 
 
 
 The effect of the addition of tin to lead is to increase the toughness 
 of the metal ; the effect of the addition of antimony is to make the lead 
 brittle. The differences in the composition of the lead cores of these 
 bullets correspond to what are said to be the differences in the shop 
 practice at Frankford Arsenal and the Union Metallic Cartridge Com- 
 pany’s works by casting, for which process the presence of antimony 
 is unobjectionable. The usual traces of copper and bismuth are present 
 in both cases, 
 
 OSWIN W. WiLLCOX, 
 
 Assistant Chemist. 
 
 Examined ; 
 
 T. C. Dickson, 
 
 Major, Ordnance Department, United States Army. 
 
 Also, analysis made at Frankford Arsenal of bullets manu- 
 factured there March 24, 1906. 
 
 Hearings, volume 3, page 3324 : 
 
 Frankford Arsenal, 
 Philadelphia, Pa., December 12, 1907. 
 
 Sir : 1. Referring to first indorsement, O. O. 30803-135, December 10, 
 1907, on the subject of antimony in bullet cores, I have the honor to 
 report that the quantitative analysis referred to in the last paragraph 
 of that indorsement has been completed. 
 
 2. The composition of slugs taken from ball cartridges, model 1903, 
 manufactured at Frankford Arsenal March 24, 1906, is as follows : 
 
 Lead 
 
 Antimon.v 
 
 418i0— 7738 
 
 Per cent. 
 __ 96. 85 
 __ 2. 89 
 
 __ . 26 
 
67 
 
 3. The composition of slues taken from ball cartridges, model 1903, 
 manufactured at Frankfoi’d iJl’senal December 2G, 1905, is as follows : 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 r.ead 90. 90 
 
 Tin 2. 82 
 
 Antimony . 28 
 
 4. The proportions prescribed are 30 parts lead to 1 part tin, or 
 lead 90.77 per cent and tin 3.23 per cent. Antimony is nearly always 
 found in commercial lead and tin. 
 
 Very respectfully, Frank Heath, 
 
 Colonel, Ordnance Department, 
 
 United States Army, Commandiny. 
 
 The Chief of Ordnance, United States Army, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Also, analysis of bullets maiuifactiired by the Union Metallic 
 Cartridge Company. 
 
 Hearings, volume 3, page 3321 : 
 
 CARD ORDER C. SAMPLE NO. 1948. 
 
 Frankford Arsenal, 
 rhiladelphia. Fa., January 26, 1066. 
 Sir : The lead alloy made by the U. M. C. Company, submitted for 
 analysis by Capt. S. Hof, contains — 
 
 • X t:i ccuL. 
 
 Lead 94. 87 
 
 Antimony 3. 29 
 
 Tin 1. 08 
 
 Total 99. 84 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 W. J. Williams, P. I. C., Chemist. 
 
 The Commanding Officer, Franlciord Arsenal. 
 
 (Through Capt. S. Hof, Ordnance Department.) 
 
 Also, another analysis made at the Frankford Arsenal of bul- 
 lets from ammunition of the character issued to the Twenty- 
 fifth Infantry at Fort Niobrara. 
 
 Hearings, volume 3, page 3328 : 
 
 F. A. L. 8001 — SAMPLES 2553 and 2554. 
 
 Frankford Arsenal, 
 Philadelphia, Pa., Dccemhcr 17, 1907. 
 
 Sir : I have the honor to make the following report on the cores of 
 two bullets received from the Ordnance Office, caliber 0.30, model of 
 1903 : 
 
 
 2553 (case 
 marked “ F. A. 
 I. ’06”). 
 
 2554 (“U. M. 
 0. 12. ’05”). 
 
 Lend _ 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 96.. 58 
 3.26 
 0.19 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 95.46 
 
 3.35 
 
 1.16 
 
 Tin _ 
 
 Antimnnv 
 
 
 t Respectfully, 
 
 W. J. Williams, F. I. C., Chemist. 
 
 The Co.MMANDiNG OFFICER, Franicford Arsenal. 
 
 (Through Maj. S. Hof, Ordnance Department.) 
 
 Now, no antimony except the usual trace of from ten one- 
 hundredths to fifteen one-hundredths per cent found in commer- 
 cial lead has ever been traced to a bullet made at the Frank- 
 ford Arsenal. 
 
 41810—7738 
 
G8 
 
 I have included here numerous analyses of bullets manufac- 
 tured at all these places by the Government experts. They 
 were made by the Geological Survey or at the Frankford Arse- 
 nal, and they all attest the same fact and prove conclusively 
 that the Frankford arsenal shell exploded, picked up in the 
 alley in the vicinity of the fort, did not belong with the Union 
 Metallic bullet picked out of the house in the immediate vicinity. 
 And in the entire block from Fifteenth street to Fourteenth 
 street, on which a great part of the firing was done, no other 
 shells have been shown in evidence anywhere than this “ bunch ” 
 of shells picked up by Captain Macklin. 
 
 These several analyses made by the Government experts show 
 conclusively that the bullets found in the Cowen, Ytirrria, and 
 Garza houses, near which the bunch of Frankford Arsenal shells 
 were found, did not belong to the Frankford Arsenal shells, 
 and thus reveals more clearly that the scattered shells about 
 the streets of Brownsville were fired at some other place, un- 
 doubtedly at Fort Niobrara, and wore a part of and in further- 
 ance of the conspiracy to get rid of the negro soldiers and to 
 fix on them “the shooting up of the city.” 
 
 I will not refer further to shells, and so forth, at this time, as I 
 shall have occasion to discuss this subject in connection with the 
 examination of the guns and shells by the Government experts at 
 the Springfield Armory. 
 
 The bullets taken from the houses on the route followed by 
 the raiders, and undoubtedly used during the raid, remain to be 
 accounted for, but I think it the better course to take up the 
 further discussion of shells and bullets in connection with the 
 guns and their examination by the Go’S'ernment experts. 
 
 The Springfield rifles, model 1903, which it is charged were 
 used by the raiders, were distributed to the battalion of the 
 Twenty-fifth Infantry, Companies B, C, and D, at Fort Niobrara 
 April, 1906, and were in use at that post both in target practice 
 and company exercise during the remainder of their stay at that 
 post — the latter part of July, 1906 — when the command was 
 moved to Fort Brown. During the stay at Fort Brown target 
 practice was not engaged in — the range was at Point Isabel, 
 some 20 or more miles away — and I find no evidence that am- 
 munition of any character was expended after their arrival at 
 this post, and there is abundant testimony that at least in one 
 of the companies the ball-cartridge ammunition was taken up 
 and guard cartridge, or limited-range ammunition, substituted. 
 IVe need give but little consideration to the large number of 
 guns in the hands of the soldiers. The experts at the Spring- 
 field Armory — Lieutenant Hawkins, of the Ordnance Depart- 
 ment, and Mr. Spooner, inspector — have located the shell exhibits 
 before the committee, thirty-nine in number, as having been 
 fired from guns Nos. 41019, 456S3, 422SS, and 45624, all belong- 
 ing or assigned to Company B, said company being the one that 
 brought from Fort Niobrara the box of exploded cartridges, the 
 case heretofore alluded to in the testimony of First Sergt. Mingo 
 Saunders. 
 
 Gun numbered 41019 was assigned to Ernest English. 
 
 Gun numbered 422SS v\'as assigned to Thomas Taylor. 
 
 Gun numbered 45624 was assigned to Joseph Wilson. 
 
 Gun num1)ered 45683 was assigned to William Blaney. 
 
 41810—7738 
 
69 
 
 Hearings, volume 2, pages 1318-1319 : 
 
 IV. The above cartridges and cartridge cases v>'^ere all carefully ex- 
 amined under a powerful microscope and also under jewelers’ eyeglasses 
 of varying powers. This examination showed that some of these 
 cartridges had been fired from the same rifles, viz : 
 
 Refer- 
 ence No. 
 
 Group I. — Fired in rifle No. 41010, Company B, Twenty-fifth 
 Infantry. Reference number of rifle and cartridge case from 
 same, No. 95. 
 
 Group II. — Fired in rifle No. 45683, Company B, Twenty-fifth 
 Infantry. Reference number of rifle and cartridge case from 
 same, No. 81. 
 
 Group III. — Fired in rifle No. 42288, Company B, Twenty-fifth 
 Infantry. Reference number of rifle and cartridge case from 
 same, No. 135. 
 
 Group IV. — Probably fired in rifle No. 46524, Company B, Twenty- 
 fifth Infantry. Reference number of rifle and cartridge case 
 from same, No. 126. 
 
 Group V. — These cartridges were not fired, and have insufficient 
 gun marks to identify them with any particular rifle. Num- 
 ber 339 has a slight striker impact, but this imprint is so slight 
 (due to the depressed primer) that it is of no use for purposes 
 of identification. 
 
 All of these men belonged to Company B, all of these guns 
 were distributed to that company, and a box of empty cartridges 
 brought from Fort Niobrara was deposited on the back porch of 
 this company’s barracks when they reached Fort Brown. This 
 examination seems to have located this firing — if it has located 
 it at all — within the ranks of Company B ; and these thirty-nine 
 shells are the only exhibit furnished by Mayor Combe or the 
 district attorney or the War Department or anybody else to your 
 committee. 
 
 The three guns assigned to English, Taylor, and Wilson, if 
 the testimony of the noncommissioned officers in charge is cor- 
 rect, were securely locked in the gun racks, which were not 
 opened until after the firing ceased — the universal evidence of 
 both officers and men — consequently no shells could have been 
 fired from those guns in the streets of Brownsville that night, 
 unless collusion between noncommissioned officers and men can 
 be established, and of this there is not a particle of evidence 
 to warrant. 
 
 Cun No. 450S3 was assigned to Sergt. William Blaney at 
 Fort Niobrara when first received and distributed to the men 
 and remained in his possession, or as his gun, until the expira- 
 tion of his term of enlistment. He iHMUilisfed .June S, 190(5^ 
 41816—7738 
 
 312 
 
 316 
 
 321 
 324 
 
 326 
 
 329 
 
 331 
 
 334 
 
 336 
 
 337 
 301?1 
 302 ? 
 . 307 ? 
 311 
 
 317 
 
 319 
 
 320 
 
 330 
 308 
 310 
 
 318 
 
 322 
 
 323 
 32.5 
 
 327 
 
 328 
 
 332 
 833 
 
 335 
 303 ? 
 301 
 306 
 305 
 
 313 
 
 314 
 
 315 
 
 338 
 
 339 
 
TO 
 
 when he accepted a furlough and was absent from Fort Brown 
 at the time of the affray. The night of his departure he turned 
 over the keys of the storeroom to his successor, Sergt. Walker 
 McCurdy, calling his attention to the fact that his rifle was 
 there. McCurdy testified (p. 1G58, yoI. 3, Hearings) that he 
 inserted in the chamber a slip of paper with “ William Blaney ’’ 
 written upon it, to keep him from issuing it to anybody else; 
 that the gun ytiS in his charge until Blaney’s return to the 
 command at Fort Reno; that he placed said gun in the arm 
 chest at Fort Niobrara ; that it was in the arm chest on the 
 night of August 13, 1006, and that when the gun was returned 
 to Blaney at El Reno the slip of paper marked with his name 
 still remained in the chamber. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Who testified about the pa*per be- 
 ing placed in the gun? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. The quartermaster’s sergeant, who had 
 charge of the guns after Blaney reenlisted and took a furlough 
 and went away. The quartermaster’s sergeant took the gun 
 into the storeroom, inserted a piece of paper in the chamber, 
 and then he delivered it over to Blaney at El Reno when he 
 came back frqm his furlough, where the troops were sent after 
 the affray, and he found this same slip of paper in the cham- 
 ber of the gun. 
 
 IMr. PILES. Mr. President 
 
 The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Connecticut 
 yield to the Senator from Washington? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. PILES. I want to ask the Senator from Connecticut 
 whether this quartermaster’s sergeant is a colored man? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. He was a member of the Twenty-fifth 
 Infantry. 
 
 jMr. PILES. I was in doubt about it. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Michigan. And he put the paper in the gun? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. Yes. He had served four or five enlist- 
 ments ; had been discharged at the close of each enlistment with 
 a good character, such as to entitle him to reenlist again, and 
 the Government was glad to retain him in its service. It was 
 testified to by General Burt, retired, who had once commanded 
 those troops, and by all his ofncers, that he was a man entitled 
 to every confidence. 
 
 I can not refrain from repeating here what was said by an old 
 Army officer, who for twenty years commanded the Twenty-fifth 
 Infantry — and he said it with tears rolling down his cheeks — 
 that he had intrusted, in his absence, his wife and family un- 
 attended to the care of these men while he was engaged in a 
 march of four or five hundred miles over the plains and the 
 desert. 
 
 Lieutenant Lawrason describes the condition of the arm chest 
 when he inspected the same on the morning of the 14th, after 
 the affray. I will here append, at length, his testimony, to- 
 gether with that of Sergeants Blaney and McCurdy. 
 
 Hearings, volume 2, page 1658 (McCurdy's testimony) : 
 
 Q. Who had been quartermaster-sergeant prior to that date? — A. 
 Sergt. William Blaney. 
 
 Q. What hook is that in front of you there? See if you recognize 
 it. — A. This is the company's proi>erty book, sir. 
 
 Q. The company property hook of Companj' B? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 4181G— 7738 
 
71 
 
 Q. Will you turn to that and see what gun Sergeant Blaney had as- 
 signed to him, according to that book, when these new Springfield rifles 
 were issued? — A. (Examining book.) I think it was 45G83. 
 
 Q. 45683?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Now, it has been testified to, I believe, that Sergeant Blaney was 
 absent on furlough. When did he go away on furlough? — A. It was 
 about the same time I was made quartermaster-sergeant — about the 
 9th or 10th of June. 
 
 Q. That is, you succeeded him when he went away on furlough? — • 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Had he returned while you were yet at Brownsville? When 
 did he return? — A. He returned at El Reno. 
 
 Q. He was not with you at Fort Brown at all? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. What was done with his gun when he left to go on furlough 
 the 9th of June, or whatever date it W'as? — A. He took it up and 
 packed it away. 
 
 Q. He turned it in? — A. No, sir; he turned in his own rifle. He 
 will tell you himself that vrlien he returned there was a slip of paper 
 put in the chamber to show whose rifle it was, to keep me from 
 issuing it to anyone else. 
 
 Q. Who put that in there?— A. I put it in there myself. 
 
 Q. What was on that slip of paper? — A. “William Blaney.” 
 
 <5. Now, when he returned, were you still w'ith the conipany? — A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. At El Reno? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And you were still quartermaster-sergeant? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And did you continue as quartermaster-sergeant? — A. Until I was 
 discharged, sir. 
 
 Q. Until you were discharged? — A. Yes, sir, 
 
 Q. Now, what was done in the matter of providing Sergeant Blaney 
 with a gun? — A. I gave him his same rifle back- 
 
 Q. You gave him back that same rifle? — A, Yes, sir. 
 
 Hearings, vol. 2, pp. 1748-1749 (Blaney’s testimony) : 
 
 Q. Were you with the regiment at Fort Niobrara? — A. Yes. sir. 
 
 Q. Were you with the regiment at the time when the new Springfield 
 rifles wore issued to the regiment? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. V/hat position in the company did you hold at that time? — A. 1 
 was company quartermaster-sergeant. 
 
 Q. You were familiar with the property hook of Company B? — A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Was a rifle issued to you at that time? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 (). You yourself v/ere then the quartermaster-sergeant? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 (j. 1‘lease look at the hook I now hand you and tell me what it 
 is. — A. It is B Company’s property book. 
 
 Q. Turn to the account of the men with the rifles and tell me what 
 that property book shows as to your own rifle. — A. For the present? 
 
 Q. Just tell me what it shows. Not as to the present, but as to the 
 new Springfield rifle which was issued at Fort Niobrara in April, I 
 believe it was, 1906. I want the number of your gun.— A. Yes ; this 
 book gives me one rifle, and it is numbered. 
 
 Q. What number? — A. 45683. 
 
 Q. Is that rifle receipted for by you? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Was it issued to jmu as indicated there? — A. Yes; it was. 
 
 Q. Is that the rifle, now that you see the number, that you had while 
 you were at Fort Niobrara? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What time did you leave the company at Fort Niobrara to go on 
 your furlough? — A. On the 8th of June. 
 
 Q. You left some time before the battalion went to Fort Brown? — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you keep that rifle in your possession until that time? — A. 
 Yes, sir ; I did. 
 
 Q. Did you or not use that rifle at Fort Niobrara on target range in 
 target firing? — A. Yes; I used it on the 8th day of June — on the very 
 day that I left, 
 
 Q. On the day that you loft what did you do with your gun? — A. 
 I took it in the storeroom after I got through firing and kept it in 
 there. 
 
 Q. Who succeeded you as quartermaster-sergeant? — A. Walker 
 McCurdy. 
 
 Q. Was he the quartermaster-sergeant and did you turn the gun 
 over to him that night, oi what did you do with it? — No; I took 
 it in the storeroom myself. I had the keys, and I did not turn the 
 keys over to him until that evening. I fired that moiaiing, but I thirdc 
 it was in the evening when I turned the keys over to him. 
 
 41816—7738 
 
72 
 
 Q. When did you next see that ride? Did you call his attention to 
 your own rifle or not before you left there as being turned into the 
 storeroom? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. State whether or not your rifle was marked in any way, if you 
 know, besides the number on it. — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. I only want your recollection. — A. No ; not as I know of. 
 
 Q. You turned it over to Sergeant McCurdy, or I mean you left it 
 in the storeroom and McCurdy succeeded you as quartermaster-ser- 
 geant? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And he came at once into possession of it? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. When did you next see your rifle? — A. At Fort Reno. 
 
 Q. You did not return to your company until it arrived at Fort 
 Reno? — A. No. 
 
 Hearings, volume 2, pages 1581, 1582, 1583 (Lawrason’s testi- 
 mony) : 
 
 Q. Who was in charge of the storehouse, or storeroom, whichever 
 you call it? — A. Quartermaster-Sergeant Walker McCurdy. 
 
 Q. Was he, also, an old sergeant? — A. Yes, sir; he was an old ser- 
 geant of Company B. 
 
 Q. Was he or not a reliable and truthful man? — A. I always be- 
 lieved him to be such, sir. 
 
 Q. He had been in the service many years, had he not? — A. Yes, sir: 
 he had. 
 
 Q. And had everybody’s confidence as a good soldier and a faithful 
 noncommissioned officer? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. lie was the quartermaster-sergeant ; as quartermaster-sergeant 
 what was his duty with respect to the surplus rifles and surplus am- 
 munition — I mean surplus in the sense that it was not in the hands of 
 the men? — A. lie was accountable for it, and it was his business to 
 keep it locked up. 
 
 Q. You went to the storeroom after you locked up the rifles ; who 
 went with you to the storeroom? — A. The quartermaster-sergeant. 
 
 Q. Sergeant McCurdy? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What did you do, and what did you tell him, and in what con- 
 dition did you find the room ; v/as it locked or unlocked when you went 
 to it? — A. It was locked and he opened it. He took out a bunch of 
 keys, as I recollect it, and fumbled around and got the right key and 
 unlocked the door. The storeroom was very small, and we could not 
 put all of our quartermaster property in there, and there was some 
 confusion in the way in which the stuT was piled. We had to remove 
 a lot of company property. 
 
 Q. I will come to that in a minute. What did you tell Sergeant 
 McCurdy you wanted in the storeroom when you went there ; did you 
 tell him or not what you wanted to do until you got into the store- 
 room ? — A. No, sir : when I got into the storeroom I told him that I 
 wanted to see the rifles that he had in the storeroom. 
 
 Q. That is, rifles that he had in his possession? — xV. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you know li4)w many rifles he had in his possession at the 
 time? — A. I did, by referring to the company property book which 
 was kept there. 
 
 Q. We will speak about that presently. Now, go on and state what 
 you did and what he did when j’ou told him. — A. He told me that the 
 rifles were locked up in the arm chests. I told him to open them, and 
 he opened one fuli arm chest that contained ten rifles, and also opened 
 another that, I believe, contained two or three rifles and several old 
 company shotguns. 
 
 Q. Now, before you opened the arm chests, let me ask you whether 
 or not they were easy to get at, or vffiether there was anything on top 
 of them? — A. No, sir; thej’’ were not easy to get at. As I recollect, 
 we removed considerable property before we got the arm chests out 
 and got room to unscrew the lids. 
 
 Q. What kind of property was this? — A. Iron quartermaster bunks 
 and, I believe, some iron uprights to hold mosquito bars — T-shaped 
 things. 
 
 Q. They had been piled on top of these arm chests, had they? — -A. 
 Yes, sir ; and were standing against the wall, between us and the arm 
 chests. 
 
 Q. When had you last before that seen these arm chests, and 
 where? — A. I had seen them at Fort Niobrara, Nebr., before shipment, 
 and when they were unloaded from the wagons and placed in the store- 
 house at Fort Brown. 
 
 Q. Where were these extra guns placed in these arm chests, whether 
 at Fort Niobrara or Fort Brown, or where? — A. They were placed in 
 the arm chests at Fort Niobrara. 
 
 41810—7738 
 
73 
 
 Q. Do you remeru’oer seeing the guns — rifles — put in the arm chests 
 and the arm chests closed up for shipment at Fort Niobrara? — A. I do 
 not believe I was present when the property was boxed up. It was 
 boxed up sometime before our departure, and Captain Shattuck was in 
 command of the company at that time. 
 
 Q. You have told us in what condition you found the chests as to 
 other property being piled on top ; this property was removed, was it, 
 from the tops of the chests? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And then were the chests opened, or not ? — A. They were opened 
 under my supervision and the arms counted. 
 
 Q. State in what condition you found the inside of those chests, as 
 to the arms. — A. The arms were placed in the proper grooves for them, 
 and they were battened dowm, or held down by cleats that fit in the 
 boxes, to prevent their rattling around during shipment. 
 
 Q. They had been fixed that way before they had left Niobrara? — A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And were they in that same condition when you opened them that 
 night? — A. They were in the same condition, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you count the rifles when they were opened up? — A. Yes, 
 sir ; I counted them. 
 
 Q. I will ask you another question, whether or not, before these 
 rifles were shipped from Fort Niobrara, they were coated with cos- 
 moline oil or any other kind of oil? — A. I believe they were coated 
 with cosmoline oil at the time I looked at them at Fort Brown. 
 
 Q. When you looked at them was there any indication that they 
 had been disturbed in any way whatever since they had been boxed up 
 at Fort Niobrara? — A. No, sir; there was not; I did not take out all 
 the rifles ; I could count them without taking them out of the boxes ; 
 I picked up one or two from the top. 
 
 Q. And you did count the rifles in both boxes? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And you remember that the requisite number of rifles were there, 
 added to the other rifles that you found in the racks, and that you 
 counted as away from there, to make up the number of 70? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. There was not a rifle missing, was there? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Now, can you tell us anything about what rifles Avere in those 
 boxes — I mean whether any of those rifles had been assigned at any 
 time previously to anybody, and if so, to whom, in the absence of the 
 property book, or would “you rather have the property book before 
 you go into that? — A. I can state Avithout the property book that quite 
 a number of those rifles that were packed had been used in target 
 firing at Fort Niobrara, Nebr. 
 
 Q. I Avish that you v.muld tell me, as nearly as you can, just Avhat 
 rifles, giving me the names of the men Avho carried them — we Avill get 
 the numbers later — were in that box that had been used in target 
 practice or in any Avay by men to whom they h.ad been assigned before 
 you left Fort Niobrara “for Fort Brown. — A. Well, Sergeant Blaney 
 had taken part in target practice, and his rifle Avas in the box. 
 
 Q. Tell me why he was not with you and Avhy his rifle Avas in the 
 box, before we pass that. — A. He was not with us because he was on 
 furlough. 
 
 Q. IIoAV long a furlough did he have? — A. I believe he had tAvo 
 months, sir ; I am not positive. 
 
 Q. Well, he had reenlisted, had^he not? lie had a furlough on tlmt 
 account? — A. Ileenlisted on the expiration of term of enlistment and 
 then been given a furlough. 
 
 Q. And before he left on furlough ho turned his rifle in? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. And that was in the box? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. He had not returned from his furlough? — A. No, sir; he had not. 
 
 Mr. PILES. Mr. Prosident 
 
 The ATCE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Connecticut 
 yield to tlie Senator from AVashingtou? 
 
 Mr. P.ULKELEY. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. PILES. I Avisli to inquire of the Senator from Connecti- 
 cut whether it is charged tlnit this gun bearing the name of 
 AAMlliam Planey, in which tlie slip of pai)er Avas inserted, Avas 
 one of tlie guns used on the niglit of this raid? 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. It was claimed that it Avas identihed as 
 such by the experts of * the Springtield Armory. Avho located 
 eight or nine or ten shells as having been tired from this gun. 
 
 418IG— 7738 
 
74 
 
 Mr. PILES. I just v/aiited to bring out that point. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. There is some claim that this gun, when 
 examined at the Springfield Armory, bore marks of recent fir- 
 ing; at least it was dirty; but Blaney himself explained that. 
 He said that on the morning he turned in his gun he had been 
 to target practice on the local range in the fort with reduced 
 ammunition, and, as he says, “ I coated it with cosmoline oil.” 
 
 Lieutenant Lawrason .the morning after the affray, when he 
 was ordered by Major Penrose to inspect and account for his- 
 rifles, first examined those in the gun rack and then went to 
 the storeroom. I read from his testimony on pages 1585-1586: 
 
 Q. You made this examination, you and Sergeant McCurdy, your 
 quartermaster-sergeant, and you thorougly satisfied yourself, did you, 
 that those boxes had not been opened since they left Niobrara? — A. 
 Y^es, sir. 
 
 Q. And that every gun was in there that was placed there before you 
 left Niobrara? — A. I believe such to be the case, sir. 
 
 Q. And that not only from the counting of the guns, but from the 
 general appearance, the undisturbed appearance, of the condition in 
 which you found the guns?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And if the boxes had been opened it would have involved the 
 removal of all this baggage which you found on top of them. Before 
 v/e leave that I will ask you another question. You saw the guns put 
 in the racks and locked up. How many keys were there to the gun 
 racks by which those gun racks might have been opened that night? — ■ 
 A. There was only one key, I believe, to each lock. I knov/ that on 
 the bunch of keys the key that would unlock rack No. 1, for instance, 
 would not unlock rack No. 2. 
 
 A careful microscopic examination of tlie marks upon the 
 shells made b3" the firing pins, when compared with the marks 
 upon shells fired from the same guns — all the gnus belonging 
 to this battalion which they had had at Fort Niobrara, after 
 they were sent to Fort Reno, were dispatched to the Spring- 
 field Armory for the purpose of these microscopic experi- 
 ments — were found to be so exactly similar that the ex- 
 jierts found little difficulty in locating the shells or exhibits 
 from the committee in the four guns which I have just con- 
 sidered. The conclusions reached by the experts — Lieuten- 
 ant HaAvkins and Inspector Spooner — were so convincing that 
 they were never questioned either by the committee or any 
 parties interested; but instead of tending to show the guilt of 
 the soldiers, these mute utterances of the marks upon the empty 
 shells attested their absolute innocence — in view of the po- 
 sition of those guns the night of August 13, especially the 
 fourth gun, which, bej-ond anj" question, could not have been 
 in the hands of the soldiers. If these views are correct, the 
 combination of the shells and bullets necessary to establish the 
 finding of a majority of your committee, that these shells and 
 bullets “ in combination ” could only have been fired from a 
 Springfield rifle, model 1903, falls to the ground. 
 
 General Crozier, the chief of the Ordnance Department, has 
 been interested in the subject, and through his orders all these 
 examinations were made. General Crozier says. Hearings, 
 volume 3, page 2854: 
 
 By Senator Foraker : 
 
 Q. That is to say, these bullets are apparently just such bullets as 
 you would expect to find fired out of Springfield cartridges? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. And assuming that these empty shells were the shells that held 
 the bullets, then you would assume that it was a Springfield rifle from 
 which they were fired? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 41810—7738 
 
I have already, I think, to the satisfaction of everyone, if the 
 testimony is correct — and there is nothing to contradict it— 
 separated absolutely the shells from the bullets. The shells 
 came from the Frankford Arsenal and the bullets from the 
 Union Metallic Cartridge Company, both of which make com- 
 pleted cartridges. A shell manufactured by the Frankford 
 Arsenal, found in a house, would not, under any human prob- 
 ability, be associated wnth a bullet manufactured by the Union 
 Metallic Cartridge Company. They do not do business that 
 way. Continuing, General Crozier testified : 
 
 Q. But, aside from that premise, they might have been fired out of 
 either a Krag or a Springfield? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. They might have been fired out of a Krag carbine, also? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. That is to say, the Krag carbine and the Krag rifle and the 
 Springfield rifle all have the same number of lands? — A, Yes, sir; and 
 the bullet is the same for each. 
 
 Q. Each has four lands, and the bullet is the same ? — A. Yes, sir ; 
 and the bullet is the same. 
 
 By Senator Overman : 
 
 Q. You are only speaking as to the bullet now? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 In commenting upon the examination of the guns, shells, and 
 bullets examined by the experts of the Ordnance Department 
 at the Springfield AA'inory, the facts established and the con- 
 clusions reached, the General, in his annual report for the fiscal 
 year ending June 30, 1907, page 30, in discussing these micro- 
 scopic examinations, distinguishing marks, and the location of 
 these shells in particular guns, says, and says truthfully and 
 without bias : 
 
 The bearing of these facts upon the identity of the persons doing the 
 firing and upon the time when the cases and bullets were fired in the 
 guns is not a concern of this Department. 
 
 And they did not attempt to solve it. Under all the examina- 
 tions of the Ordnance Department the evidence, putting all the 
 circumstances of this investigation together, proves conclusively 
 that these shells were, as these marks indicate beyond any man- 
 ner of question, fired upon the target grounds at Fort Niobrara. 
 It is remarkable, in connection with this examination, that 
 all the shells located were in the guns of Company B, who 
 brought from Fort Niobrara the box of empty shells, or cases, 
 heretofore referred to. 
 
 General Crozier testifies (page 2S54) that the bullets taken 
 from the houses might have been fired from a Krag, a Krag 
 carbine, or a Springfield, and if fired from any one of the three 
 would bear the marks of the same number of lands — the Krag 
 and the Krag carbine were not unknown guns in the locality 
 of Brownsville. 
 
 The difficulty in identifying bullets used in different rifles is 
 best illustrated by referring to the testimony of Captain Ely, 
 Twenty-sixth Infantry, to whom was exhibited two perfect car- 
 tridges, and he was asked to tell which was the Krag and which 
 was the Si)ringfield. After a careful examination he selected 
 the Krag for the Springfield bullet. 
 
 I append his testimony. Hearings, volume 3, pages 2G0G-2007 : 
 
 A. (Continiiing.) If I was going to jurlgc which of the two was tlie 
 more probable, I would say more probably the new Springfield, from 
 what seems to me to be the moi'e pointed nose of the bullets. 
 
 Q. Those three bullets when shown to you seemed to be Springfield 
 bullets? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 4181G— 7738 
 
76 
 
 Q. And they were all the same size and all the same general appear- 
 ance except as they were disfigured by meeting with obstructions? — • 
 A. Yes. sir. 
 
 Q. And they seemed to you to have a more pointed nose than the 
 Krag bullets? — A. They seemed to, although I would not say that it 
 was impossible that they should be Krags. 
 
 Q. Now, Captain, is there any difference whatever in the actual 
 form and figure of the two bullets ? — A. I believe so ; yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You think there is? — A. Yes, sir; I have taken them and com- 
 pared them. I have taken the cartridges and compared the two, and 
 it seems to me that there is quite a little difference. 
 
 Q. Is that plainly preceptible? — A. No. sir; it is not plainly per- 
 ceptible. 
 
 Q. It requires very close scrutiny when the bullets are in the car- 
 tridges, before they have been fired? — A. Y'es, sir. 
 
 Q. To detect any difference between them? — A. Yes, sir; it does. 
 
 Q. And is it not next to impossible to detect any difference there 
 may be after they have been fired, if they had gone through any 
 obstruction ?— A. Well, I would hardly say next to impossible, but it 
 is difficult. 
 
 Q. Of the two bullets here which I show you, can you tell which 
 is which? One is a Ktag and the other is a Springfield. — A. I should’ 
 say this was the Springfield. 
 
 Q. See if it is. — A. No, sir ; it is not. 
 
 Q. That is the Krag, isn't it? — A. Yes, sir, 
 
 Q. That shows that you may be mistaken about it, doesn't it, as to 
 the appearance? — A. Yes. sir. 
 
 It is hardly obligatory, Mr. President, in view of the con- 
 clusion I have reached in the matter of the shells and the bul- 
 lets, but I think it proper, in view of the testimony in relation to 
 the composition of the bullets, to state that up to the time of the 
 discovery upon analysis by a Government expert of the Geo- 
 logical Survey it had been expressly claimed that no steel- 
 jacketed bullet had been issued to the Army containing anti- 
 mony. (See letter of General Crozier, Chief of Ordnance.) 
 
 Hearings, volume 3, page 3309: 
 
 War Department, 
 
 Office of the Chief of Ordnance, 
 
 Washington^ December 6, ISOt. 
 
 Hon. Jos. B. Foraker, 
 
 United States Senate. 
 
 Sir : You are informed that the history of jacketed bullets for .30 
 caliber small arms manufactured by this Department is as follows : 
 
 Various experimental compositions were tried, including some in 
 which the core was composed of 97 parts lead and 3 parts antimony, 
 but these were never issued to the service. 
 
 The first ammunition with jacketed bullets, issued to the service in 
 1894, had the core of the bullet composed of 7 parts lead and 1 
 part tin, and the jacket of German silver. In the same year bullets 
 were also issued with a cupro nickeled steel jacket, and the same core 
 composition as above. 
 
 In May, 1898, cupro nickel jackets were also used. 
 
 In the fall of 1900 cupro nickeled steel jackets were abandoned, and 
 cupro nickel alone has since been used. 
 
 On December IG. 1902, the composition of the core of the bullet was 
 changed to 27 parts lead to 1 of tin. 
 
 On March 11, 1903, it was changed to 20 parts lead to 1 part tin. 
 
 On October 24, 1904, it v/as changed to 16 parts lead to 1 of tin, and 
 on March IS, 1905, it was changed to 3G parts lead to 1 of tin. The 
 last mentioned has continued to be the composition to the present time. 
 
 The changes were made to keep the weight of the bullet constant, 
 and were coincident with changes In the thickness of the jacket. It is, 
 of course, possible that slight variations from prescribed proportions 
 may have been obtained in manufacture. 
 
 The cupro nickel jacket is composed of 85 per cent copper and 15 
 per cent nickel. 
 
 The history of the bullet given above is for the Krag rifle ammuni- 
 tion up to March 11, 1903, since which date it applies to the bullets for 
 both the Krag and the model of 1903 rifies, the same bullet being used 
 in, both. 
 
 41816—7738 
 
77 
 
 2. The composition given for the guard cartridge in the handbook 
 for the United States magazine rifle, model of 1903, caliber .30. page 
 46, is in error in giving the composition of the bullet, which should be 
 90 parts lead, 8.5 parts tin, and 1.5 paiis antimony. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 William Crozier, 
 
 Brigadier-Ocneral, Chief of Ordnance. 
 And the Union Metallic Cartridge Company, who had manu- 
 factured bullets for the Government, had likewise insisted that 
 they had never used antimony (see the following letters) : 
 Hearings, volume 3, pages 3336-3337 : 
 
 The Union Metallic Cartridge Cojipany, 
 
 Bridgeport, Conn., June 13, 1907. 
 
 Dear Sir ; Replying to your letter of the 12th instant, making in- 
 quiry concerning the composition of the bullets furnished with the 
 different cartridges, as enumerated, wish to advise as follows : 
 
 Springfield, model 1903 bullet — 36 parts lead, 1 part tin. 
 
 Un jacketed guard cartridge bullet — 9 parts lead, 1 part tin. 
 
 Krag metal-cased bullet — 20 parts lead, 1 part antimony. 
 
 Trusting this information will be of service to you, we are. 
 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 Tub Union Metallic Cartridge Co., 
 
 By J. Orcutt, Manager and Superintendent. 
 
 lion. .Tosepii B. Foraker, 
 
 United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 
 
 The Union Metallic Cartridge Company, 
 
 Bridgeport, Conn., December 6, 1907. 
 Dear Sir : With reference to our telephone conversation of this morn- 
 ing, it is my understanding that you desire to ascertain what particular 
 bullets are represented by the mixtures given, which were as follows; 
 
 
 Lead. 
 
 Tin.; 
 
 Antimony. 
 
 'N’o. 1 
 
 Per cent. 
 95.70 
 95.59 
 96.36 
 
 Per cent. 
 2.02 
 2.11 
 2.05 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 1.97 
 
 1.9S 
 
 1.29 
 
 TSTn. 9 . 
 
 NTo. a . _ 
 
 
 While these mixtures do not represent any bullet which we manufac- 
 ture, they come the nearest to a .30 Government, model 1898, bullet. 
 
 We trust that this information may be of service to you, and remain, 
 Yours, truly. 
 
 The Union Metallic Cartridge Co., 
 
 By Jerome Orcutt, 
 
 Manager and Superintendent. 
 
 lion. .To.seph B. Foraker. 
 
 United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 
 
 The Union INIetallic Cartridge Co., 
 
 Bridgeport, Conn., December 10, 1907. 
 
 Dear Sir : Replying to your telephone communication of the 7th 
 instant, with reference to the composition of the Springfield bullets, 
 190.3 model, wish to advise that they were made in accordance with the 
 specifications furnished by the Government. 
 
 We refer to blueprint B-582, last date of revision being lUarch 27, 
 1905, describing “ Ball cartridges, United States magazine rifle, model 
 1903,” as follows : 
 
 ” Bullet ; Weight, 220 grains ; core, 30 parts lead, 1 part tin 
 (about) .” 
 
 Yours, truly. The TTxio.n Metallic Cartridge C'o., 
 
 By J. Orcutt, Manager and Superintendent. 
 
 lion. Joseph B. Foraker, 
 
 United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 
 
 The letters were all written, as testilied by the siiperintendent, 
 after a careful examiiuition of the records at the factory. 
 AVJien it hecfime necessary to connect the soldiers with the raid 
 41816—7738 
 
78 
 
 throiigli the examination used, it also became necessary to prove 
 the incorrectness of the reiterated statements of both the Ord- 
 nance Department and the contractors. After a visit to Wash- 
 ington and absorbing the breath of official atmosphere, the presi- 
 dent and the inspector of the Union Metallic Cartridge Com- 
 pany had recalled to their recollection — without a record be- 
 fore them— that in filling one contract, and in violation of its 
 provisions, they had manufactured a small part of the alloy of 
 the composition as found by the chemical analysis; and it was 
 also claimed that this particular lot of cartridges had, by 
 chance, fallen into the hands of the Twenty-fifth Infantry at 
 Fort Niobrara; but recollect. Senators, that the shells found 
 by Captain Macklin at the mouth of the alley the morning 
 after the firing, almost before daylight, did not belong with the 
 bullets made by the Union Metallic Cartridge Company. The 
 bullet taken from the post in front of Crixell’s saloon did not 
 prove to be a steel-jacketed bullet, such as were in use by the 
 trooifs, neither was it a guard-cartridge bullet, which also were 
 of different composition from that disclosed by the analysis. 
 
 COURSE OF BULLETS, 
 
 For the purpose of investigation, and to ascertain, if possible, 
 the position from which the bullets found in the houses were 
 fired. Lieutenant Leckie was detailed by General McCaskey, 
 department commander, and visited Brownsville and made a 
 critical and expert examination in the ease of every house fired 
 upon and reached the conclusion that all the shots fired into 
 houses in the near vicinity of the reservation were fired from 
 the street, and could not possibly have been fired from the wall 
 of the reservation or from the porch of the barracks; but an- 
 other officer sent for the like purpose reached an entirely dif- 
 ferent conclusion, and I have no doubt if we had continued to 
 send officers there up to the present day each one looking 
 through a gunshot hole, one or two in line, depending upon 
 his own height, possibly, or his ovvii abilities, or the glance of 
 his eye, could locate a bullet and its course in almost anj’- 
 direction that was wanted. So I am not going to waste any 
 time on that part of it. 
 
 MAJOR PEXROSE^S CIIAXGE OP OPINION. 
 
 After listening to the evidence given at the Penrose court- 
 martial and reading the evidence presented to your committee. 
 Major Penrose renewed his first impression that his command 
 was not involved in the affray, as testified by him. 
 
 Hearings, volume 3, pages 3025-3026 : 
 
 Q. I want to know fully what produced this change in your mind, 
 in your opinion, as to who did that shooting? — A. I am trying to 
 give it to you. Senator. There was another question or two asked of 
 me, if you will remember. 
 
 Q. I want you to explain it fully in your own way. — A. Yes, sir. 
 Well, as I say, the darkness of this night and the finding of those 
 shells — my opinion commenced to change at that time. Then there 
 was the testimony that was produced before this committee as to the 
 experiment that Avas made at the Frankford Arsenal, where they found 
 that eleven shells were fired from one gun. 
 
 Senator Foraker. A Springfield? 
 
 A. One Springfield rifle that had been locked up in the arms chest 
 at Fort Niobrara and was not opened until tlie morning of the 14th of 
 August. They claim that eleven — I think it is eleven — of those shells, or 
 eleven shells, fired from that gun. were found in the streets of Browns- 
 ville. Those shells were brought down from Fort Niobrara to Browns- 
 4181G— 7738 
 
79 
 
 ville. They were open, on the back porch of B Company. They were 
 open there several days. I don’t remember how Ions?. I can see no way 
 in the world that those shells could have been fired in the streets of 
 Brownsville. There is another thing : I think thev were taken out 
 there and put there. That is the reason that I 'have changed my 
 opinion, sir. 
 
 By Senator Lodge : 
 
 Q. You think those shells were put all over the town in order to 
 give the idea that the soldiers did the shooting? — A. I think certainly 
 those eleven shells were, sir. 
 
 Q. Well, but it is in testimony and, I think, uncontradicted, that 
 shells were picked up at a great many points? — A. Yes, sir; so I under- 
 stand. 
 
 Q. Your idea is that they must have been put there, at all those 
 points? — A. That is my idea of it, sir. 
 
 By Senator Oveuman : 
 
 Q. Do you think those freshly fired shells that v/ere found there at 
 the mouth of the alley were brought down from Niobrara?— -A. I think 
 so now. 
 
 Q. And put there? — A. I believe they were, sir. 
 
 Q. Yet you say they were freshly fired? — A. They had the appear- 
 ance to me. They had only been fired a month before. 
 
 By Senator Taliafeeko : 
 
 Q. Who do you think brought them from Niobrara?- — A. B Company 
 brought them down, 
 
 Q. Who do you think distributed them in the streets? — A. I don’t 
 know, sir, unless some of the people of Brownsville. 
 
 Q. How did they get out of the custody of B Company?— A. They 
 were open on the back porch of B Company, and w^ere left there for 
 several days, Senator — this box was. I think the testimony so shows 
 here. 
 
 Q. They were at least more accessible to the members of B Company 
 than they were to the public at large? — A. Yes, sir ; that would be very 
 possible — that they were. 
 
 Senator Scott. I should like to hear the answer to Senator Pettus’s 
 question, if I can get it. 
 
 . By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. If you have anything further to say in answer to the question 
 of the Senator from Alabama, you will, of course, proceed with it 
 and make full answer. — A. I should state in connection with that that 
 there was the behavior of the men before this shooting occurred. They 
 had been an excellent lot of men. We had never had any trouble with 
 them ; they were well disciplined, well drilled, easy to handle. From 
 the time that this shooting occurred none of them was permitted to 
 leave Fort Brown at all. We took them up to Fort Reno, Okla., and 
 there they were confined absolutely to the limits of the post — the post 
 proper. They were not permitted to leave it under any circumstances. 
 I gave them extra drills, extra guard, and had them working at fatigue 
 whenever they were not drilling or on guard, the whole day long. Those 
 men took all that without a murmur or a complaint of any kind. There 
 were five of the men who disobeyed that order and went to town. They 
 were each tried, dishonorably discharged, and sentenced to eighteen 
 months’ confinement at the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kans., 
 and that was reduced by the reviewing authority to six months. Those 
 five exceptions were the only ones that disobeyed any of the orders that 
 were issued at all. Finally the order came for their discharge. They 
 wore discharged at that post, a half a company at a time. They were 
 paid off. They had anywhere from fifty or sixty dollars to, some of 
 them, twelve or thirteen hundred dollars. They went to this little town, 
 which was full of temptations, and, as I stated before, there was not a 
 single man found drunk, nor was there a disturbance of any kind or 
 character reported of these men, and I talked with the chief of police 
 over the telephone frequently. Now, taking into consideration the con- 
 duct of these men both before and afterwards, and what I have before 
 stated, leads me to believe that the men did not do that shooting. 
 
 The Senator from Idaho has noted the absence of a number 
 of men from the post that night, apparently imacconnted for 
 (and my attention has been called to the fact), when api)ai-ently 
 all of the men are reported present. There are some Senators 
 ill this Chamber who are familiar from their own experience 
 4181 G— 7738 
 
80 
 
 with the usual report of a first sergeant after a roll call. They 
 haA^e heard the report made after a great battle, in which many 
 Avere nnaccoiinted for, except as they lay prone on the battle- 
 field and could ansAver to but one call. The usual report of 
 a first sergeant is, “All present or accounted for,” and he ac- 
 counts for the men who are absent either on a pass, as it is 
 his duty to knoAA% detailed for guard duty, or located elsewhere. 
 And these men, the record sIioavs, as I find it in the Senator’s 
 speech, reading from the Kecord : 
 
 I call attention to another matter in this affair. The record shows 
 that — 
 
 Ih'ivate Lee stayed the night at a house in the city. AiVas out that 
 night. (S. Doc., p. 128.) 
 
 Private E. Johnson (p. 132) stayed that night in town with his 
 Avife. 
 
 Private G. Johnson (p. 120) was sleeping at the corral and knew 
 nothing about the matter until he was told about it afterwards. 
 
 Private John Streater (p. 134) was asleep in the corral. Never 
 knew anything about it. 
 
 I’rivate G. Thomas (p. 117) was at a colored woman’s house in 
 Brownsville and did not return until the next morning. 
 
 Private Hardin (p. 131) was absent from the quarters, sleeping at 
 Lieutenant Higgins's quarters, and did not appear until the next 
 morning. 
 
 Private Turner (p. 135) was absent from the quarters, sleeping at 
 Lieutenant Hayes’s. 
 
 I’rivate Kirkpatrick (p. 133) was in the hospital. 
 
 I’rivate John Brown (p. 151) was asleep in the baker shop. 
 
 Ihivate Elmer BroAvn (p. 151) was asleep in the corral. 
 
 Private Newton (p. 140) was asleep in the quarters of Lieutenant 
 “W^est. 
 
 Private Jones (p. 139) was asleep in Captain Lyon’s quarters. 
 
 Private Mapp (p. 141) was asleep in the bake shop. 
 
 Private Halley (p. 144) was asleep in the corral. 
 
 Private John Henry (p. 144) was in the quartermaster’s corral. 
 
 Private Charles W. Hawkins (p. 140) was in tov/n on a pass. 
 
 In addition to these absentees there were absent on duty within the 
 post at the guardhouse four noncommissioned officers. 
 
 Private Miller was out on a pass. 
 
 I haA’C heard, and other Senators hat^e heard, a thousand 
 times the report of the first sergeant — “All present or accounted 
 for.” The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Dick] in his oaaui AA^ay and 
 in his OAvn experience has heard it. 
 
 I knoAA^ that I have already wearied the Senate, but I have 
 felt compelled to quote freely from the record evidence and 
 have draAvn only from the testimony to sustain my conclusions 
 and belief that each and every member of this battalion of the 
 Twenty-fifth Infantry is absolutely innocent of the charge of 
 shooting up the city of BroAvnsville and, consequently, all are 
 guiltless of any “ conspiracy of silence,” for Avhich reasons they 
 were discharged Avithout honor in November, 1906 ; and for these 
 reasons I joined Avith my colleagues from West Virginia, Ohio, 
 and Indiana in the minority report of your committee and the 
 supplemental report attached thereto signed by the Senator 
 from Ohio and myself. 
 
 I should feel, Mr. President and Senators, that I had fallen 
 short of my duty if I failed to record here the lionorable record 
 of the TAventy-fifth United States Infantry, as Avell as that of 
 the TAventy-fourth, and the Ninth and Tenth Cavalry, for they 
 all do honor to the United States Army, in Avhich they appear 
 not only as soldiers, but as Avorthy representatives of their 
 race. l ask to include here, Avithout reading, the official records 
 as furnished me by the IVar Department. 
 
 4181G— 7738 
 
81 
 
 OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE TWENTY-FIFTH REGIMENT, UNITED STATES 
 
 INFANTRY. 
 
 The Twenty-fifth Regiment of Infantry was organized April 20, 1869, 
 by the consolidation of the Thirty-ninth and Fortieth Regiments of 
 Infantry, under the act approved March :>, 1869. From April, 1869, 
 to May, 1870, the regiment served in Louisiana and Mississippi. From 
 May, 1870, to May, 1880, it was stationed in Texas along the Rio 
 Grande frontier. A part of the regiment was sent to the Indian Terri- 
 tory in 1872, serving there to May, 1880, when the entire regiment was 
 sent to South Dakota. It garrisoned posts on the Missouri River to 
 May, 1888, four companies being stationed at Fort Snelling, Minn., 
 from November, 1882, to May, 1888, when the entire regiment was sent 
 to Montana, serving there until April, 1898. It was stationed at 
 Chickamauga Park, Ga., to May, 1898 ; at Tampa, Fla., to June, 1898 ; 
 in Cuba, participating in the Santiago camjiaign, to August, 1898 ; in 
 New York to September, 1898, and in Arizona and New Mexico, to 
 June, 1899. 
 
 Four additional companies were organized at Fort Logan, Colo., in 
 October, 1898, and served there to June, 1899, when the headquarters 
 and eight companies left for the Philippine Islands, the remaining four 
 companies being stationed in Arizona and Texas to September, 1900, 
 when they were sent to the Philippine Islands. 
 
 The entire regiment returned to the United States in August, 1902, 
 headquarters and eight companies being sent to Fort Niobrara, Nebr., 
 and four companies to Fort Reno, Okla. Two companies were on tem- 
 porary duty at Fort Des Moines, Iowa, from December, 1903, to April, 
 1904. 
 
 On July 23, 1906. headquarters and four companies were sent from 
 Fort Reno, Okla., to Fort Bliss, Tex., v/here they are now stationed. 
 Four companies left Fort Niobrara, Nebr., for Fort McIntosh, Tex., on 
 the same date, and are now stationed there. Companies B, C, and D 
 of the regiment left Fort Niobrara, Nebr., July 23 ; arrived at Fort 
 Brown, Tex., July 28, 1906, and left for Fort Reno, Okla., August 25, 
 1906. Company A was on temporary duty at Fort Washakie, Wyo., 
 from April 1 to September 7, 1906, when it left for its present station. 
 Fort Reno, Okla. 
 
 ACTIONS, ETC., IN V/HICH THE REGIMENT OR PORTIONS THEREOF HAVE 
 PARTICIPATED. 
 
 Melvin Station, Tex., May 21, 1871 ; Central Station, Tex., July 28, 
 1872 ; Eagle Springs, .Tex., April 27, 1873 ; Central Station. Tex., 
 October 1, 1873; Carrizo Mountains, Tex., May 18, 1874; Wichita 
 Agency, Ind. T., August 22 and 23, 1874 ; Carrizo Mountains, Tex., 
 February 18, 1876 ; Mackenzie’s expedition into Mexico, June, 1878 ; 
 near Salt Lake, Tex., July 25, 1879 ; Santiago campaign, June and 
 July, 1898; El Caney, Cuba, July 1, 1898: San Juan Hill, Cuba, July 
 
 1-3, 1898 ; near San Mateo, P. I., August 12, 1899 ; near La Loma, 
 
 P. L, October 9, 1899 ; O’Donnell, P. I.. November 18. 1899 ; San 
 Fernando de’Rivera, P. I., December 7, 1899 ; Botolon, P. I., Decem- 
 ber 8, 1899 : Iba, P. I., December 9, 1899, and January 1, 1900 ; Co- 
 mansi and Iba, P. I., January 5 and 6, 1900 ; Mabalacat, P. L, Janu- 
 ary 6, 1900 ; near Castillejos, P. I., Januai-y 29, 1900 ; Tawi Tawi 
 Island, P. I., January 29, 1900 ; Subig, P. I., February 9, 1900 ; 
 
 Botolon, P. I., February 18, 1900 : near Botolon, P. I., February 22. 
 
 1000 ; Candelaria, I*. I., May 6, 1900 ; Palauig, P. I.. May 13, 1900 ; 
 Cabangan, P. L, July 15, 1900 ; near San Antonio. P. I.. September 18, 
 1900 ; Subig, P. I., September 18, 22, and 23, 1900 ;. Castille.ios, P. I., 
 September 25, 1000 ; near Castillejos, P. I., October 25, 1900 ; near 
 Subig, P. I., November 10, 1900 ; near Equia, P. I., February 24, 1901 ; 
 near Botolon, 1*. I., July 2, 1901. 
 
 The regiment lost in Cuba — 1 officer and 7 men killed and 3 officers 
 and 27 men wounded ; and in the Philippine Islands, 1 officer aud 8 
 men killed and 22 men v/ounded. 
 
 OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE TWENTY-FOURTH REGIMENT UNITED STATES 
 
 INFANTRY. 
 
 This regiment was organized November 11, 1869, by the consolidation 
 of the Thirty-eighth and Forty-first regiments of Infantry, as provided 
 for under the act of March 3, 1869. 
 
 It served in ’Texas from November, 1869, to December, 1880; in the 
 Indian Territory to May, 1888; in New Mexico and Arizona to October, 
 1896; in Utah to Ajiril, 1898; in Florida to June, 1898; in Cuba to 
 September, 1899; in Utah and Y'yoming 1o May, 1899; in California to 
 July, 1899; in the I’hilippine Islands to August, 1902 (four compa- 
 nies remained in Wa.shington, Alaska, arul Montana to August, 1J)02) ; 
 in Montana from August, 11)02. to January, 1906; in the Philipiihie 
 Islands to February. 1908, aud is now eii route to the United States 
 since February 15, 1908, and is to lake station at posts in New York. 
 
 41816—7738 -6 
 
82 
 
 ACTIONS, ETC., IN WHICH THE REGIMENT OR PORTIONS THEREOF HAVE 
 PARTICIPATED. 
 
 Scout on the Rio Grande and Pecos, Tex., January 8 to February 
 G, 1870 ; near Fort McKavett, Tex., July 31, 1871 ; near Fort McKavett, 
 Tex., September 1, 1871 ; on the La Pendencia, Tex., May 20, 1872 ; 
 near Rattlesnake Springs, Tex., August 6, 1880 ; Cedar Springs, Ariz., 
 May 11, 1889 ; operations against Santiago, Cuba, June 22 to July 17, 
 1898; San .Juan Hill, Cuba, July 1 to 3, 1898; San Mateo, P. I., Au- 
 gust 12, 1899; near Mexico, P. I., September 27, 1899; Santa A^a, 
 P. I., October 6, 1899 ; St. Augustin, P. I., October 7, 1899 ; Arayat, 
 P, I., October 12, 1899 ; San Luis, P. I., December 3, 1899 ; Naguillian, 
 P. I., December 7, 1899 ; Talavera road, P. I., December 28, 1899 ; 
 Bongabong, P. I., December 29, 1899 ; near Aliaga, P. I., Februray 11, 
 1900 ; near San Vincente, P. I.. April 4, 1900 ; near San Quintan, P. I., 
 May 5, 1900 ; near Lupao, P. 1., July 3, 1900 ; Maniclin, P. I., .July 4, 
 1900 ; near Talavera, P. I., July 31, 1900 ; near Manicling, P. I., Sep- 
 tember 13, 1900 ; near Buloe, P. I., October 10, 1900 ; Pinog, P. -I., Oc- 
 tober 14, 1900 ; Tabontabon, P. I., July 24, 190G : Guelern Barrio, P. I., 
 August 17, 190G ; Anibongan, P. I., September 10, 190G ; Mount Lobi, 
 P. I., September 15, 1906. 
 
 OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE NINTH UNITED STATES CAVALRY. 
 
 Organized under the act of July 28, 1866, and was raised mainly in 
 Louisiana and from recruits in Kentucky. It served in Louisiana to 
 April, 1867 ; in Texas to December, 1875 ; in New Mexico to November, 
 1881 ; in Kansas, Indian Territory, and Texas to April, 1885 ; in Ne- 
 braska and Wyoming to April, 1898 ; in Florida and in Cuba to Au- 
 gust, 1898 ; in New York to October, 1898 ; in Arizona and Utah to 
 August, 1900 ; in Philippine Islands to October, 1902 ; in California and 
 Washington to October, 1904 ; in Kansas and Missouri to March, 1907, 
 and since then in the Philippine Islands. 
 
 ACTIONS, ETC., IN WHICH THE REGIMENT, OR PORTIONS THEREOF, HAVE 
 PARTICIPATED. 
 
 Howards Vrell, Tex., October 1, 1867 ; Eagle Springs, Tex., December 
 5, 1867 ; near Fort Lancaster, Tex., December 20, 1867 ; Fort Quitman, 
 Tex., January, 1868 ; Horse Head Hills, Tex., September 14, 1868 ; 
 Mulberry Creek, Kans., January 29, 1869 ; Pecos and Johnson Rivers, 
 Tex., June 7, 1869 ; Salt Fork of Brazos River, Tex., September IG, 
 1869 ; Brazos River, Tex., September 20 and 21, 1869 ; headwaters of 
 Brazos River, Tex., October 28 and 29, 1869 ; headwaters of Llano 
 River, Tex., November 24, 1869 ; Johnsons Mail Station, Tex., Decem- 
 ber 25, 1869 ; scout on Rio Grande and Pecos, Tex., January 8 to Feb- 
 ruary 6, 1870; scout in Guadalupe IMountains, Tex., January 6 to 
 February 10, 1870; Delaware Creek, Tex.. January 20, 1870; San IMar- 
 tine Springs, Tex., April 3, 1870; Crow Springs, Tex., April 25, 1870; 
 Kickapoo Springs, Tex., May 19 and 20, 1870 ; Bass Canyon, Tex., May 
 29, 1870; Staked Plains, Tex., June 30, 1871; headwaters of Concho 
 River, Tex., July 22, 1871; near Fort McKavett, Tex., July 3L 18(1; 
 near Fort McKavett, Tex., September 1, 1871 ; Howards Well, Tex., 
 April 20, 1872; on the La Pendencia, Tex., May 20, 1872; near Fort 
 Sill, Ind. T., October 4, 1874 ; near Ringgold Barracks, Tex., January 
 20, 1875 ; near Ringgold Barracks, Tex., January 27, 1875 ; Florida 
 Mountains, N. Mex., September 15, 1876; Florida Mountains, N. Jdex.. 
 January 23, 1877 ; Sierra Bccas Grande, Mexico, January 28, 1877 ; 
 Dog Canyon, N. Mex., August 5, 1878; Cormedos Mountains, N. Mex., 
 January 15, 1879; Ojo Caliente, N. Mex., March 8, 1879; Black Range 
 of Miembres Mountains, N. Mex., May 29, 1879 ; O.io Caliente, N. Mex., 
 September 4, 1879 ; Las Animas River, N. Mex., September 18, 1879 ; 
 near O.io Caliente, N. Mex., September 28, 1879 ; near Canada Ala- 
 mosa, N. INIex., September 30, 1879; Cuchillo Negro Mountains, N. Mex., 
 September 29 to October 1, 1879 ; Milk River, Colo., October 2 to 5, 
 1879; White River, Colo., October 10, 1879; San Guzman Mountains, 
 Mexico, October 27, 1879 ; Rio Puerco, N. Mex., January 12, 1880 ; 
 San Mateo Mountains, N. Mex., January 17, 1880 ; Cabello Mountains, 
 N. Mex., January 30, 1880 ; San Andreas Mountains, N. lilex., Feb- 
 ruary 3, 1880 ; Sacramento IMountains, N. Mex., February 28, 1880 ; 
 San Andreas IMountains, N. Mex., April 5, 1880 ; San Andreas Moun- 
 tains, N. Mex., April G to 9, 1880 ; camp near South Fork, N. Mex., 
 April 16, 1880 ; Mescalero Agency, N. Mex., April IG, 1880 ; near Dog 
 Canyon, N. Mex., April 17, 1880 ; Tularosa, N. ISiex., May 14, 1880 ; 
 Cooks Canyon, N. Mex., June 5, 1880; Aqua Chiquita, N. Mex., Sep- 
 tember 1, 1880 ; near Canada Alamosa, N. IMex., January 24, 1881 ; 
 Candelaria Mountains, Mexico, February 5, 1881 ; Mexican line near 
 Fort Cummings, N. Mex., April 29, 1881 ; Alamo Canyon, N. 5Iex., July 
 17, 1881 ; Arena Blanca, N. Mex., July 19, 1881 ; White Sands, N. Mex., 
 41816—7738 
 
83 
 
 July 25, 1881 ; San Andreas Mountains, N. Mex., July 2G, 1881 ; Monica 
 Springs, N. Mex., August 3, 1881 ; Carrizo Canyon, N. Mex., August 12, 
 1881 ; Rio Cuchillo Negro, N. Mex., August IG, 1881 ; near San Mateo 
 Mountains, N. Mex., August IG, 1881 ; jSIcEwer’s Ranch, N. Mex., Au- 
 gust 19. 1881 ; South Pass of Dragoon Mountains, Ariz., October 4, 
 1881 ; Crow Agency, Mont., November 5, 1887 ; near Pine Ridge 
 Agency, S, Dak., December 30, 1890 ; Drexel or Catholic Mission, near 
 White Clay Creek, S. Dak., December 30, 1890 ; operations against San- 
 tiago, Cuba, June 22 to July 17, 1898 ; San Juan Hill, Cuba, July 1 
 to 3, 1898 ; near Palanog, P. I., October 7, 1900 ; Tagilag, P. I., Octo- 
 ber 9, 1900 ; near Pasacao, P. I., October 11, 1900 ; Tagilag, P. I., 
 
 October 11, 1900 ; Camalig. P. I.. October IG. 1900 ; Camalig, P. I., 
 
 October 18, 1900 ; Tagilag, P. I., October 19, 1900 ; near Tagitay, P, I., 
 
 October 2G, 1900 ; near Rurug, P. I., October 28, 1900 ; Tagilag, P. I., 
 
 October 29, 1900 : Camalig, P. I., November 2, 1900 ; near Libog, P. I., 
 
 November 14, 1900 ; near Florista, P. I., November 24, 1900 ; Ban- 
 tonan, P. I., November 24, 1900 ; Umban, P. I., November 2G, 1900 ; 
 Guinobatan, P. I., December 2, 1900 ; near Guinobatan, P. I., Decem- 
 ber 6, 1900 ; near Guinobatan. P. I., December 15, 1900 ; near Guino- 
 batan, P. I., December 17. 1900; near Guinobatan, P. I., December 19, 
 
 1900 ; Ogson Barrio, P. I., December 27. 1900 ; near Camaligan, P. I.. 
 December 30, 1900 ; near IMinalabac, P. I.. January 2, 1901 ; near Bali- 
 gan, I*. I., January 4, 1901 ; near Bololo, P. I.. January 7, 1901 : near 
 Bololo. I*. I.. January 22, 1901 ; near Sipocot, P. I., January 2G, 1901 ; 
 near San Isidro, P. I., January 27, 1901 ; near Bololo, P. 1 ., January 
 31, 1901 ; San Fernando Mountains, P. I., February 9, 1901 ; Bubsoaii, 
 P. I., February 15, 1901 ; near Guinobatan, P. I., February IG, 1901 ; 
 Tagitay, P. I., February 22, 1901 ; near Bulason, P. I., February 25, 
 
 1901 ; near Bonga, P. I., February 2G, 1901 ; near Tinambag, P. I., 
 March 18, 1901 ; near Tinambag, I*. I., March 22, 1901 ; Bonga River, 
 P. I., March 28. 1901 ; near Lumagan, P. I., May 9, 1901 ; near Ragav, 
 P. 1., Mav 12, 1901; near Lupi. 1’. I., May 13, 1901; Guinobatan, P. I.. 
 May 15, 1901 ; Tanarg, P. I., May 19, 1901 ; Mataray. P. I., May 22, 
 1901 ; near Alit, 1*. T., May 22, 1901 ; Ragay, P. I., May 27, 1901 ; near 
 Catbalogan, P. I.. May 27. 1901 ; Gandara River, P. I., May 30, 1901 ; 
 near Ragay, P. I., May 31, 1901 ; near Donsol. P. I., June 4, 1901 ; 
 River Bonga, P. I.. June 27, 1901 ; Mutiong, I‘. I., July IG, 1901 ; near 
 Mutiong, P. I., July 23, 1901 ; near Gapo, P. I., November 12, 1901 ; 
 near San Luis, P. I., February G, 1902. 
 
 OFFICIAL KECOP.O OF THE TENTH REGIMENT UNITED .STATES CAVALRY. 
 
 Regiment was organized under the act of July 28, 18G6. Head- 
 quarters of the regiment was established at Fort Leavenworth, Kans., in 
 August, 18GG, and regiment was mainly recruited in Kansas and in 
 other adjoining States. The organization of the regiment was not 
 fully completed until the spring and summer of 18G7. 
 
 The regiment served in Kansas and Indian Territory from 18GG to 
 Mav, 1873 ; in Texas and Indian Territory to April, 1885 ; in Arizona 
 and New Mexico to ISIay, 1892 ; in Dakota and Montana to April, 1898 ; 
 in Georgia and Florida to June, 1898 ; in Culia to August, 1898 ; in 
 New York to October, 1898 ; in Alabama to January, 1899 ; in Texas to 
 April, 1899; in Cuba to April, 1902 (four troops served in Philippine 
 Islands from April, 1901, to August. 1902) ; in Nebraska and Wyo- 
 ming to Ylarch, 1907, and since then in the Philippine Islands. 
 
 ACTION.S IN WHICH THE REGIMENT OR PORTIONS THEREOF HAVE PAR- 
 TI Cl FATED. 
 
 Saline River. Kans., August 2, 18G7 ; Prairie Dog Creek, Kans., 
 August 21 to 22. 18G7 ; Saline River, Kans., September IG, 18G7 ; Big 
 Sandy Creek, Colo., September 15, 18G8 ; Beaver Creek, Kans., October 
 18, l8G8 ; near Fort Dodge, Kans., November 19, 18G8 ; near Clear 
 Creek, Tex., April G, 1870; near Camp Supply, Ind. T., Jun.e 9', 1870; 
 Snake Creek. Ind. T., June 10, 1870; Camp Supply, Ind. T., June 11, 
 
 1870 ; Fort Sill, Ind. T., April 27, 1871 ; near Red River, Tex., Pilay 12, 
 
 1871 ; Fort Sill, Ind. T., May 17, 1871 ; Foster Springs, Ind. T., Septem- 
 ber 19. 1871 ; Deep River, Ind. T., July 12, 1872 ; Otter Creek, Ind. T., 
 July 22, 1872; near Pea.se River, Tex., August 31, 1873; Flra Creek, 
 Tex., December 5, 1873; Home Creek, Tex., February 2, 1874; Double 
 Mountain, Tex., February 5, 1874; between Red River and Big Wichita, 
 Tex., May 2, 1874 ; Wichita Agency, Ind. T., August 22 to 23, 1874 ; ex- 
 pedition from Fort Sill, Ind. T., October 21 to November 8, 1874 ; North 
 Fork of Canadian River, Ind. T.. December 20, 1874 ; near Cheyenne 
 Agency, Ind. T., Ajiril G. 1875; Battle Point. 3’ex.. May 5, 1875;' near 
 Pecos River, Tex., November 2, 1875; near Saragossa, Alexico, July 30, 
 187G; Lake (^uemado, Tex., May 4, 1877; near Saragossa. Mexico, 
 Septemlter 29, 1877 ; Sierra del Carmen, Pdexico, November 29 to 30, 
 
 4181G— 7738 
 
8 - 1 - 
 
 1877; near Salt Lake, Tex., July 25. 1879; Van Horn Mountains, 
 Tex., September 16, 1879 ; near Pecos Falls, Tex., April 3, 1880 ; Shake- 
 hand Springs, Tex., April 9, 1880 ; Mescalero Agency, N, Mex., April 
 16, 1880 ; Sacramento Mountains, N. Mex., April 20, 1880 ; Rocky 
 Ridge, Tex., July 30, 1880 ; Alamo Springs, Tex., August 3, 1880 ; 
 Camp Safiford, Tex., August 4, 1880 ; Guadalupe Mountains, Tex., 
 August 6, 1880 ; near Rattlesnake Springs, Tex.. August 6. 1880 ; Rat- 
 tlesnake Canyon, Tex., August 6, 1880 ; Ojo Caliente, N. Mex., October 
 28, 1880 ; Penito Mountains, Mexico, May, 1880 ; Black River Moun- 
 tains, Ariz., October 18, 1886 ; Rincon Mountains, Ariz., June 11, 1887 ; 
 Cedar wSprings, Ariz.. May 11. 1889 ; near mouth of Cherry Creek, 
 Ariz., March 7, 1890 ; operations against Santiago, Cuba, June 22 
 to July 17, 1898 ; Las Guasimas, Cuba. June 24, 1898 ; Tayabacoa, 
 Cuba, June 30, 1898 ; San Juan Hill, Cuba, July 1 to 3, 1898 ; near 
 Calbayog, P. I., May 27. 1901 ; near Masalacot, P. I., February 21, 1902 ; 
 near Quinapundan, P. I., February 25, 1902 ; near Quinapundan, P. I., 
 March 2, 1902 ; near Quinapundan, P. I., March 4, 1902 ; near Quina- 
 pundan, P. I., JMarch 5, 1902 ; Mount Masalacat, P. I., March 14, 1902 ; 
 Quinapundan, P. I., March 14, 1902 ; near Quinapundan, P. I., March 
 20. 1902. 
 
 It is as lionorable a record of service on tiie frontier, in Cuba, 
 and in the Philippines as anj' soldiers of the Army possess. If 
 character and good service are entitled to any consideration in 
 the case of any accused, the good character of these men, estab- 
 lished by the evidence of their own officers, their long, faith- 
 ful, and honorable service, both in war and in peace, entitle 
 them to oiir consideration here. 
 
 The advent of the negro soldiers in the Army, Mr. President, 
 does not date in these late years ; they were alike found in the 
 ranks in colonial as well as modern times, and history records 
 that in the Boston massacre, March 5, 1770, regarded as “ the 
 first act in the drama of the American Revolution,” Crispus 
 Attucks — not a soldier, as described by my distinguished friend, 
 the Senator from Missouri, but a slave — was the first to fall. 
 He was buried from Faneuil Hall with the other victims of that 
 event. That event is celebrated down to this day, almost a 
 hundred and forty years since; for a long time on the anni- 
 versary of the day it occurred, and after the close of the Revo- 
 lution on the Fourth of Julj", as the more appropriate day to com 
 Tuemorate an event which really led up to dissolving the rela- 
 tions with the mother country. 
 
 At Bunker Hill the shot which laid low the British com- 
 mandeer as he mounted the redoubt shouting, “ The day is ours,” 
 was fired by Peter Salem, once a negro slave, fighting in the 
 ranks with his white comrades. You will find them brave, 
 patriotic, and heroic, both in victory and defeat, in the eight 
 years’ struggle for the new Republic from Bunker Hill to York- 
 town. 
 
 In the war of 1812 negroes formed their full proportion of 
 the crew of the fleet under Commodore Perry. A writer says : 
 
 Perry speaks highly of the bravery and good conduct of the negroes 
 who formed a considerable part of his crew. They seemed absolutely 
 insensible to danger. 
 
 Another, Commander Shaler, says : 
 
 The name of one of my poor fellows ought to be registered in the 
 book of fame. 
 
 In the civil war negro troops could be found in both armies 
 as they followed the flag of the contending hosts with loyalty 
 until the surrender at Appomattox. 
 
 In the war with Spain the regiments of colored troops of the 
 Regular Army were at the fi’ont in almost every engagement, 
 and at the surrender the Twenty-fifth Infantry and the Tenth 
 41816—7738 
 
85 
 
 Cavalry were accorded an honorable position in the closing 
 ceremonies of the war. 
 
 On the frontier of onr own country and in the newly acquired 
 possessions of the islands of the sea they have filled their places 
 with credit and honor. 
 
 From the conclusion reached both as to the nonparticipation 
 of the members of the battalion in the shooting up of Browns- 
 ville and the consequent injustice of their dismissal from the 
 Army without honor, and the disabilities carried with such dis- 
 missal, I naturally turn to some proper means of relief and 
 restoration. The President, in his last message on this ques- 
 tion, states that Executive authority has lapsed by reason of 
 the time limit and that legislative action is necessary to restore 
 such authority. For many months applications for reenlistment 
 in the Army, or for restoration, have been in the hands of the 
 President or with the War Department, with the only proof the 
 soldiers could furnish of their innocence — their ov;n afiid.‘ivits 
 and certificates of good character and faithful service from 
 their officers — but not one has been acted upon. The President 
 has repeatedly called upon these soldiers to prove their inno- 
 cence to his satisfaction — to a mind already confirmed in con- 
 viction of undoubted guilt — as a condition of restoration and 
 so expressed over and over again. This requirement imposed 
 the additional burden of removing this almost insurmountable 
 bias. 
 
 The bill S. G200, introduced by the Senator from Missouri, 
 simply restores to the President the povrers which have lapsed 
 by reason of time and furnish no adequate relief to the soldier, 
 but reenacts conditions with which it is absolutely impossible 
 to comply. 
 
 The Congress has the pov/er under the Constitution “to raise 
 and support armies ” and “ to make rules for the government 
 of the land and naval forces.” At every session of the Con- 
 gress it is exercising these powers in many ways, as in correct- 
 ing military records of soldiers where an apparent injustice is 
 discovered. I can see no reasons v/hy like action can not prop- 
 erly be taken here, if the Congress is satisfied that the re- 
 sults of the long and patient investigations discloses the facts 
 as I have reviewed and as disclosed in the testimony. 
 
 Mr. FELTON. r>Ir. President, will the Senator allow me just 
 a word right liere? 
 
 jMr. BULKELEY. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. FUT/rON. In view of the fact that I have taken issue 
 with the Senator in his conclusions as to whether or not any 
 of these soldiers participated in this shooting, I wish to say 
 just a word at this time as to my views of what should be 
 done. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. I will be through in a moment. I should 
 like to close up. I do not care to bo interrupted at this time. 
 
 Mr. FULTON. I do not wish to say anything if it will in- 
 terrupt the Senator in the course of his speech. 
 
 Idr. BULKELEY. I will be through in about a moment. 
 
 Mr. FULTON. All right. 
 
 Mr. BULKELEY. The bill S. 5720, introduced by flie Sena- 
 tor from Ohio, protects the (hJveriiment in the conditions im- 
 posed for reenlistmeiit if complied with and requires the only 
 41810—7738 
 
86 
 
 evidence outside of the records of the committee’s investigation 
 which the soldiers can possibly furnish. Such legislation, I be- 
 lieve, is within our power and I trust will be enacted before the 
 close of this Congress. 
 
 Permit me, in closing, Mr. President and Senators, to recall 
 the words of a former commander of the Army, commenting 
 upon the efforts that were making in the Congress to correct an 
 injustice to a high officer of the Army during the civil war. 
 
 It was during the efforts that were made to restore to the 
 Army Gen. Fitz-John Porter, who had been removed by court- 
 martial or by order, and General Schofield, a great soldier and 
 great commander, said, Schofield’s Forty years in the Army, 
 pages 465-46G : 
 
 It suggests the reflection that even a Senator of the United States 
 might better form his own opinions rather than adopt those even of 
 the highest authority, when the only question involved is one of jus- 
 tice and not one of public policy, in which latter case differences of 
 opinion must of necessity he reconciled for the purpose of securing 
 unity of action. 
 
 Mr. President, I do not ask for these soldiers either pardon or 
 clemency, but vindication from the charge of crime for which 
 they have been punished without a hearing or the semblance of 
 a trial by a civil or military tribunal and of which I am con- 
 vinced they are absolutely innocent, but rather relief from the 
 stigma of dismissal from the Army without honor and restora- 
 tion to the rights and privileges of which they have been de- 
 prived and which can only be restored to them by the consid- 
 eration and action of the Congress. 
 
 41816—7733 
 
PHOTOGRAPH OF LARGE WALL MAP USED IN THE COURT ROOM AND REFERRED TO IN THE RECORD AS “THE MAP.’’ 
 Original map is in oiEce of the judge-advocate, Department of Texas, Roger S. Fitch, First Lieut. First Cavalry, J.-A., G. C. M. 
 
 8T 
 
 O 
 
# * >!< !}: # * * * * !i! )1C * « )(! * >[{ 5K )(; ;}: )K )C * * * *