Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

attached to our ship; but I think I heard him speak of the order on board the Ohio—I think at Monterey—about the time the order was issued.

Question 2.—Were not these complaints frequently repeated?

Answer.—I did not hoar them often repeated: not more than two or three times. I heard very little conversation about the order: some little talk about the time it was issued.

Question 3.—Where did you hear Lieutenant Craven complain of the order—in whose presence, or in presence of any one but yourself?

Answer.—I do not recollect where it was. He had some conversation with me in relation to the general subject of the difficulty between himself and the commodore on board the Ohio. No one but ourselves was present then. That was on the day of the arrival of the first steamer from the United Slates, viz: in February, 1849. I do not recollect the time when he first mentioned the subject of special order No. 2, nor whether any person was present.

Question 4 —What was the nature of the difficulty alluded to in your foregoing answer? Was it not the said special order against which Lieutenant Craven had joined in a remonstrance to the commodore?

Answer.—That was the origin, as I understood, of the difficulty. It was particularly, I think, in relation to the court martial which it wai said Commodore Jones had thought of ordering upon Mr. Craven. I do not recollect the details of the conversation.

Question 5.—Were you not aware at the time, that those three lieutenants, or any of them, had sent in a written remonstrance to the commodore against the said special order: and how and from whom did you come to a knowledge of that remonstrance?

Answer.—I heard that such a remonstrance had been sent to the commodore; but 1 do not remember who mentioned it to me.

Question 6—Were you not shown a copy of it—and by whom?

Answer.— No, 1 have never seen it.

Question 7.—Were you not also aware of Commodore Jones's reply to such remonstrance; and by whom were you informed of it?

Answer.— 1 heard he had replied to it; but never saw the reply, and do not remember who told me about it.

Question 8.—Was not the said remonstrance spoken of in the squadron or in the ship Ohio, as a matter generally known?

Answer.—It was.

Question 9.—Did not the said lieutenants, or some of them, in their conversations about the said special order, speak of it with indignation, as an act of tyranny, or in other resentful and reproachful terms?

Answer.—I do not recollect any of their language stating that it was tyrannical. They certainly were indignant, and considered it an encroachment upon their rights. But so far as they came under my observation, they did not appear to be resentful.

The cross-examination is here closed.

The testimony of the witness, as hereinbefore recorded, is read over to him, and is acknowledged to be correctly recorded.

And the usual hour of adjournment having arrived, the court is adjourned until to-morrow morning at half past 1U o'clock.

Jantjary 3, 1851—Half-past 10 o'clock a. m.

The court met in pursuance of adjournment. Present: the president, all the members, and the judge advocate.

The accused is in attendance.

The record of the proceedings on yesterday is read and approved.

George M. Head, being duly sworn by the president of the court, is examined by the judge advocate, as follows:

Question 1.—State in what public office you are employed.

Answer.—I am a clerk in the office of the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury.

Question 2.—Have you here any account rendered by the accused (Commodore Jones) of the military contribution fund, and any vouchers for credits claimed by him upon that fund? If so, produce them, and state how they came to be in your office.

Answer.—I have some accounts here, rendered by Commodore Jones, with vouchers, showing the disposition of a portion of the military contribution fund. This account is produced from the Fourth Auditor's office, to which it was referred by the Secretary of the Navy. There is no memorandum on the account itself to show when it was received at our office, nor can I now state when it was received.

The account is marked X, Y, Z, and annexed to the record.

Question 3.—Have you among the vouchers produced by you a receipt for §18,000, purporting to be signed by Rodman M. Price, purser? If so, read it to the court, and say when and how it came to be filed in your office.

Answer.—There is a receipt here, as follows:

"No. 8.—Received, San Francisco, August 30,1849, from Commodore Ap C. Jones, commander in-chief of the Pacific squadron, eighteen thousand dollars, for which I am accountable to the government of the United States.

"818,000. RODMAN M. PRICE, Purser."

[Given in triplicate.]

That voucher was transmitted with others by Commodore Jones, in a letter addressed by him to the Fourth Auditor, dated 30th October, 1849, which is as follows:

"Flag-Ship Savannah, "San i-Yaticisco, October 30, 1849. "Sir: Yours of the 19th of June, acknowledging the receipt of vouchers from I to 5, inclusive, forwarded by my letter of the 24th of April, has been duly received. No. 6 (Lieutenant Chandler's receipt for $600) of the series, intended to accompany my letter of April 24, was accidentally left out of the package; it is herewith enclosed; also No. 7, H. Toler's receipt for seventy five dollars; and No. 8, R. M. Price's (purser) receipt for eighteen thousand dollars; which makes the additional sum of eighteen thousand six hundred and seventy Jive dollars, for which please give the credit on the books of your office, and oblige yours, &c,

"THOS. AP C. JONES, "Commander-in-chief Pacific Squadron. u A. O. Davton. Esq.,

"Fourth Auditor, frc."

The accused states that he has no question to put to the witness.

Samuel L. Harris recalled by the judge advocate.

Question 1.—Will you produce the original despatch No. 53 from the accused to the Secretary of the Navy, together with its enclosures?

Answer.—I have it here, and these are the enclosures which are bound with it in the book of despatches, and are marked as received with it.

The judge advocate states that he offers to Tead the despatch, and only such passages of its enclosures as are pertinent to the question of malice, under the 2d specification, 3d charge; and that the accused is at liberty to read any other passages, or all the residue of those passages, if he desires to do so.

The accused desires that they may all be read; and they are read accordingly, as follows:

[No. 53.] Flag Ship Ohio,

Sansalito, April 16, 1849.

Sir: My letter No. 52, explanatory of the circumstances which led Lieutenants J. F. Green and J. B. Marchand to address you their highly indecorous appeal against certain allegations contained in my official despatch No. 34, as published in the "Union," by authority of the Navy Department, was sent in charge of Lieutenant E. F. Beale, who left here on the 12th instant in the steamer Oregon for Panama. A duplicate of that letter accompanies this.

For reasons assigned in the closing paragraph of No. 52, I could not fully review the communication addressed to you by Lieutenants Green and Marchand; nor shall 1 now further trespass upon your time by entering upon a defence against expressions which bear upon their face ample refutation.

Emboldened by the success attending Lieutenants Green and Marchand in obtaining so many certificates to disprove what two of the implicated admit to be true—viz: that Lieutenants T. A. M. Craven, J. B. Marchand, and J. F. Green were "restive" under the operation of my special order No. 2; and that the two former did indite and send to the captain of the fleet, Commander C. K. Stribling, certain letters of remonstrance against said order No. 2, which letters were of such character as, in the opinion of the captain of the fleet, I, as commander of the squadron, could not receive, and consequently were by him returned lo their authors, without meeting the eye of the commander in chief—Lieutenant Fabius Stanly has thought proper to follow suit, by addressing you a communication, marked A A, and to which 1 have appended notes, exposing the chicanery of his incoherent and garbled statements. Lieutenant Stanly's character and temperament are so well known in the navy as to render it unnecessary for me to waste time in defence against any expressions his disordered brain can concoct. Any commander in the navy under whom he has served of late years—among whom I name Commodores Morris and Shubrick, and Commanders McKean and Rudd—can testify as to his troubled spirit.

I confess my deep mortification at thus appearing before you, perhaps an entire stranger to me. I own appearances are unfavorable as to the discipline and subordination in the Pacific squadron—very unfavorable, and deeply to be lamented. Nevertheless, the reality is not so bad as appears to the distant observer; nor have 1 the least fear of not being able tn meet and conquer any opposition or combination of the discontented few.

The arrival here, by the steamer from Panama, of several commissioned and warrant officers of the navy, on leave of"absence or furlough, in pursuit of private adventure, is looked upon by some in the squadron as a grievance, and has been referred to as a precedent binding on the commander of the squadron. As regards like indulgences claimed by lieutenant Stanly, the complaint is futile, but serves to prove how difficult it is for executive or commanding officers to satisfy all.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

THOS. AP C. JONES, Comnumderin chief U. S. Naval Forces, Pacific Ocean. The Hon. Secretary Of The Navy.

"flag Ship Ohio,

"Sansalito, April 18, 1849.

"sir: The publication of an extract from my official letter No. 34 by the Navy Department, as the matter now stands, might subject the officers of the squadron, indiscriminately, to the imputation of being tainted, at a particular time, with the gold mania. Such was never my intention or belief. My complaints of lack of zeal, and restiveness under needful restraint, were intended for the three lieutenants, who, after receiving a most prompt and unequivocal disclaimer of all intention to reflect upon them, or either of them, or to consider their opposition to my orders as resulting from anything else than a misconception of their duties, still persisted in their hostility to my lawful authority—Lieutenants Green and Alarchand treating my disclaimer with contempt, never so much as acknowledging its receipt, in any shape, manner, or form; and Lieutenant Craven's acknowledgment being the return of his first very objectionable letter, dated the 19th of October, 1848, which Captain Stribling had persuaded him to withdraw, accompanied by another, dated the 2lst of October, still more objectionable than the first.*

"What may be your views or feelings in this controversy, I know not; nor do I make the inquiry. It is* sufficient for me to know that you have not lost sight of your true position in the chain of military discipline and subordination, by lending your name to be used as 'ex parte' evidence to disprove what two of the implicated do not deny, viz: that Lieutenants T. A. M. Craven, J. B. Marchand, and J. F.Green were 'restive' under the operation of my special order No. 2; and that the two former did indite and send to the captain of the fleet, Commander C. K. Stribling, certain letters of remonstrance against said lawful order No. 2, which letters were of such a character as, in the opinion of the captain of the fleet,

"'Lieutenant Craven having subsequently, in March. 1849, satisfactorily explained the object and motive of hia remone; ranee against my special order No. 2, 1 restored him to the Dale, from which atiip he hud been detached in October, to be in place lor trial when a proper court-martial could be convened for that and other purposes. He is now on his way home in the Djle; and I regret thai any circumstance should have arisen to make it necessary to introduce hia name in connexion with this subject.

"THOS. AP C. JONES.

"Arati.18,1843."

I, as commander of the squadron, could not receive from inferiors, and consequently were by him returned to their authors, without meeting the eye of the commander-in chief.

"My letter No. 34 was written, as all on board must know, when I was almost overwhelmed with responsibilities such as never before devolved on the commander of an American squadron—all on shore, as well as afloat, looking to me, and calling on me for support and protection; and, to add not a little to my embarrassment, applications for leave of absence, furlough, and the immediate acceptance of resignations from the navy or the squadron, were pouring in upon me in quick succession, all based upon the unpatriotic ground that the applicants could better their fortunes by going to the mines. It was to such applicants, and such alone, that 1 intended to apply the term of 'tainted with the gold mania.'

"The foregoing statement is due to you, sir, and to all who, like you, may be laboring under imputations never intended to apply to any not named or embraced in the foregoing classification; and as the imputations have been widely spread under official sanction, I desire, through you, to make this letter equally public.

"Respectfully, your obedient servant,

"THOS. AP C. JONES, "Commander in chief U. S. Naval Forces, Pacific Ocean.

"Lieutenant Chas. M. Armstrong,

"first Lieutenant of the Ohio."

"Flag-ship Ohio, "Monterey Bay, October 3, 1S49.

"Sir: Your letter of yesterday's date, tendering the resignation of your warrant as a gunner in the navy, was duly received. 1 have no authority to accept the resignation of any commissioned or warrant officer of the navy; and if I had, I certainly would not accept one at this time. Neither can I advise the acceptance of your warrant by the Executive, at Washington, to take effect before the Ohio returns to the United States. Therefore, I return your warrant herewith.

"I consider the tender of a warrant or commission at this time as a great dereliction in officers, inasmuch as such restlessness manifested by officers, who ought to set a better example, cannot fail to render the men dissatisfied, and to encourage desertion. The mere circumstance of sudden or prospective hope of improvement of fortune does not justify any officer of the navy in throwing up his commission on a remote station, where he knows his place cannot be supplied before his ship returns home, and at a time when, more than at any other of my recollection in the course of a long naval life, every officer is required to show in himself a good example of self-denial and devotion to his country's service. "Very respectfully,

"THOS. AP C. JONES, "Commander-in chief U. S. Naval Forces, Pacific Ocean.

"Gunner J. W. Pennington."

« ForrigeFortsett »