General TYLER. I move that we consider this resolution before the record of yesterday be read. The records of yesterday are not the records of the court till they are approved.

General DANA. I enter my objection to transacting this kind of business until the usual order of business is proceeded with. As to the difference between minutes and records, it is merely technical, to say the least. The record was a complete when we adjourned last night, as perfect as it can be made, with the exception of any clerical errors which may have been made by the clerk in taking the evidence of the witnesses. We have the right to correct the record in any clerical error, but there is no reason for departing from the regular order of business. The fact of interfering with the regular order of business cannot make the record any more complete than it is; neither would it be proper or right, nor can it be entertained, to expunge any portion of the record of this court for the purpose of its concealment from any one.

The PRESIDENT. The question is whether the resolution of General Tyler should be entertained in advance of reading the record.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. I do not see clearly the strength of the point urged by General Tyler in introducing his resolution before the minutes of yesterday's proceedings are read. After the reading of those minutes, before they are confirmed, any member may propose any correction or any alteration he may see fit to make, but until they are read we have no right to proceed with the consideration of any resolution. The proper way would be to read the minutes and the record, and before they are confirmed offer any protest or resolution that any member may see fit. As to our right to correct an error, on that I would like to be heard.

General DANA. I wish emphatically to deny the right of any one of this Commission to try any one of its members. I wish also to deny that any one of its members has been tried or that any attempt has been made to try him. I wish further to deny the right and the power of this Commission to alter its record or to expunge any portion of it. I wish also to state that in my belief no member of this Commission has been attacked in his character, nor has he been put upon his trial, nor has any attempt been made to introduce evidence militating against his character; and that the introduction of evidence before this court attempting to show that any member has expressed opinions prior to the organization of this court which he had an undoubted right to express, and which do not in any way militate against his character, is proper evidence to introduce. As to the evidence introduced yesterday, each member had his own opinion of it and as to its weight. I do not think it is important to go into that discussion; but the attempt to represent that a member of this court has been put upon his trial or his character impugned I consider a mistaken one.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. The question as to altering or obliterating or changing in any way any part of our record admits of no discussion. We clearly have the right. But the question that presents itself is, when any matter appears upon our record that is foreign to our inquiry, that has nothing whatever to do with our investigation, whether it got upon our record by error or by design and forms part of that record, have we the right to correct it? I hold that where any matter foreign to the issue, having no bearing whatever upon the points we are called to investigate, has been introduced upon the record, we have a right to wipe it off. This is a well-established rule. Now, so far as the fact is concerned, if the introduction of this witness yesterday, with the statements he

38 R R-VOL XVI