Question 1.-What commission did you hold in the navy, to what ship were you attached, on what station, and under whose command were you, in the autumn of 1848?

Answer.-I am, and was then, a lieutenant in the navy. I was on board the Ohio, serving in the Pacific squadron, under the command of Commodore Jones.

Question 2.-State the facts in regard to a certain special order, (No. 2,) issued by Commodore Jones, touching the liberty of watch-officers, so far as you took any step by way of remonstrance against the same. State all the facts as if specially interrogated.

Answer.-Special order No. 2 was promulgated on the 19th October, 1848 That portion restricting watch-officers from going on shore, I thought, from its partial operation, had been issued by Commodore Jones under the belief that the watch-officers of the squadron had neglected their duties. I felt aggrieved under its operation; and the next morning, October 20, immediately after breakfast, I had an interview with Captain Stribling, to request him to forward a letter to the commodore on the subject of that order. I have here a copy of the letter. The original is in the hands of the judge advocate.

The judge advocate states that he has inadvertently left it at his office. The accused waives any objection to the copy, and the witness proceeds: This is a copy of the letter which I offered to Captain Stribling, to for ward to the commodore; and I read it as follows:

"U. S. FLAG SHIP OHIO,

"Monterey, October 20, 1848.

"SIR: May I be permitted to call your attention to that part of special order No. 2, dated the 18th instant, and promulgated yesterday, which stops all liberty on shore to watch officers. I have charge of a watch, and am not conscious of having performed my duty in such an improper manner as to be deprived of the usual indulgences not withheld from the

other officers.

"I do, therefore, most respectfully request that the same privilege for exercise and relaxation from duty may be granted to me which is not withheld by that order from my messmates who are not watch-officers. "I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

"J. B. MARCHAND, Lieutenant.

"Commodore T. AP CATESBY JONES,

"Commanding U. S. Naval Forces, Pacific Ocean."

Captain Stribling, after reading it, said that Mr. Green had had a conversation with him upon the same subject, a short time before, on that morning; that he had told Mr. Green he would lay the subject before the commodore; that it was unnecessary to forward this communication; and advised me to withhold it until after his interview with the commanderin chief, when, if the result should not be satisfactory to me, he would forward it. I then took the letter from Captain Stribling, and retained it. On the evening of the same day, at the tea table, Mr. Armstrong, the first lieutenant of the Ohio, informed me verbally that the special order No. 2 was changed so as to include all but non-combatants. The next evening the confidential communication from Commodore Jones to Lieutenants Green, Craven, and myself, and others of the class, was

shown to me by Mr. Green. On the 26th of the month, officers were, by another order of that date, permitted to go on shore, under certain restrictions. I took no further step as to special order No. 2. I have stated the extent of my objection to it, and all that I did in regard to it, so far as I now recollect.

Question 3.-Was there any combination or concert of action between you and Lieutenant Green, or Lieutenant Craven, or any other officer, when you prepared your letter for the commodore, and called on Commander Stribling in relation to said special order?

Answer. No, sir; none whatever.

Question 4.-Was there any other objection to it, made or entertained by you, than the unjust distinction which it made between watch officers and others, as stated in your letter to the commodore?

Answer.-No other reason.

The examination in chief here closes, and the witness is cross-examined by the accused as follows:

Question 1.-Did you, at any time between the 20th of October, 1848, and the 9th day of April, 1849, acknowledge the receipt of the aforesaid confidential address or explanation?

Answer. I did not.

Question 2.-How long have you been acquainted with Commodore Jones?

Answer. I had merely been introduced to Commodore Jones before I joined the Ohio, and presume that he has no recollection of the circum. stance. I had no intercourse with him until I joined the Ohio.

Question 3.-Had you any reason, previous to the publication of special order No. 2, to suppose that Commodore Jones entertained any ill-will or malice towards you?

Answer.-I had not.

Question 4.-Did you not, in conjunction with Lieutenant Jos. F. Green, write, sign, and forward to the Secretary of the Navy, through Commodore Jones, a certain letter, bearing date about the 9th day of April, 1849, in which letter you denounce Commodore Jones's official despatch No. 34 to the Hon. Secretary of the Navy, as containing a "wilful and malicious falsehood?"

Answer. I did, in conjunction with Lieutenant Green, forward a communication to the Navy Department, and used therein the language quoted by the question.

Question 5.-Are not the charges against Commodore Jones, now on trial before this court, based in part on complaints made by you to the Secretary of the Navy?

Answer. I have no doubt of it.

Question 6.-Do you not consider yourself personally interested in the issue before this court, and that, in giving evidence against Commodore Jones, you are testifying in your own behalf?

Answer I do consider that a conviction under the charge and specification which is based upon despatch No. 34 will clear my character from the imputation contained in that despatch. I made a complaint upon that subject, and am here now to testify to the facts in relation to it.

Question 7.-While the Ohio was lying at La Paz, Lower California, in July or August, 1848, did you authorize Lieutenant Jas. McCormick, Commodore Jones's flag lieutenant, to ascertain from Commodore Jones

if an application for leave of absence, or short furlough, for yourself and as many other officers of the squadron as might be necessary to conduct a mercantile voyage from the coast of Mexico to California, would be favorably received? If yea, what was Commodore Jones's reply?

Answer. I never did so authorize Lieutenant McCormick, nor did I ever hear of such a proposition being made by him.

Question 8.-Was not a trading voyage agitated, or talked of, among the officers of the squadron, while at La Paz?

Answer. An officer, who did not belong to the Ohio, I think, sug gested a voyage of that kind; but it was not entertained by the officers of the ship, to my knowledge: and I, for one, at least, did not think of the possibility of such a thing.

Question 9.--Do you not know that, before the sailing of the Ohio, in December, 1848, from San Francisco for the coast of Mexico, Lieutenant James McCormick applied to Commodore Jones for leave of absence, to take charge of a schooner called the "Greyhound," or some other vessel then at San Francisco, which schooner was to have accompanied or followed immediately after the Ohio, to bring back a cargo of Mexican or other goods suitable for the California trade, which goods were to have been purchased at Mazatlan, with gold dust taken there by the gun room officers of the Ohio?

Answer. I have no recollection of such a circumstance.

Question 10.—Have you, since your return to the United States from your late cruise to the Pacific, made any written complaint to the Navy Department against Commodore Jones?

Answer. I wrote a letter to the Secretary, a copy of which I have in the ante room here, and can produce it.

The witness is desired by the judge advocate to produce it. He does so; and it is read, as follows:

"PHILADELPHIA, September 4, 1850.

"SIR: On the 9th April, 1849, I had the honor to forward to the Navy Department a joint letter with Lieutenant Joseph F. Green, complaining against Commodore Thos. Ap Catesby Jones, then in command of the Pacific squadron, for maliciously wilful injury done us and Lieutenant T. A. M. Craven in a certain letter from him to the department, dated Monterey, October 25, 1848, and numbered 34, which was published in various papers throughout the Union, immediately after its receipt in Washington.

"Upon my return to the United States, about ten months ago, in a con. versation with your predecessor, he informed me that the subject would be examined on the return of Commodore Jones, whom he had recalled. The newspapers, some time since, announced his arrival at Washington; and I most respectfully request a knowledge of the action of the Depart ment upon the subject since his return.

"I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
“J. B. MARCHAND,

"Hon. W. A. GRAHAM,

"Secretary of the Navy.'

"Lieutenant.

This is the only paper I have addressed to the department concerning Commodore Jones since my return to the United States.

Question 11.-Do you know how long Lieutenant Green kept Commodore Jones's confidential explanatory communication of the 20th of October, 1848, before he showed it to you, and how long before it was sent or shown to Lieutenant Craven? State the day, and the hour of the day, you first saw or read the aforesaid communication.

Answer.-1 do not know, of my own knowledge, when Lieutenant Green received it: he informed me, when he showed it to me, that he had just received it, which was late in the afternoon, or possibly after night, of the 21st of October. I cannot say when it was sent or shown to Lieutenant Craven.

Question 12.-Have you any reason to suppose that your letter of the 20th of October, 1848, remonstrating against special order No. 2, ever reached Commodore Jones's eye or ear before you read it in court this day?

Answer. I think it had never been seen by Commodore Jones. As I had shown it to Commander Stribling, I do not know whether he had heard of its contents or not.

The cross-examination is here closed.

Question by the judge advocate.-When you exhibited that letter to Captain Stribling, to be forwarded to the commander-in chief, did Captain Stribling call your attention to anything in the letter which could be offensive or disrespectful to the commander in chief? Did he give any other reason for your withdrawing it than you have stated already? If yea, what was it?

Answer.-I do not recollect that he gave any other reason than that he was going to have an interview with the commodore, at the instance of Lieutenant Green; and he promised, if the result of that interview should not be satisfactory, he would then forward the letter.

The testimony of the witness is here read over to him, as hereinbefore recorded, and is acknowledged to be correctly recorded, and he retires. And the court is adjourned until to-morrow morning, at half past 10 o'clock.

JANUARY 7, 1851-Half-past 10 o'clock a. m.

The court met pursuant to 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. Lieutenant Edward M. Yard, being duly sworn by the president of the court, is examined by the judge advocate, as follows:

Question 1.-Upon what station, in what capacity, and on board what ship, were you on duty in the autumn of 1848?

Answer. I was serving on the Pacific station on board the sloop of war Dale, under the immediate command of Commander Rudd, Commodore Jones commander in chief. I was the senior lieutenant of that ship. Question 2.-Was Lieutenant T. Augustus Craven on duty with you on board that ship, and how long, or up to what time?

Answer -He was on duty on board that ship from the commencement of the cruise in the latter part of May, 1846, till the latter part of October

or beginning of November, 1848. He was then transferred to the sloop Warren; afterwards rejoined the Dale about the beginning of March, 1849, at San Francisco.

Question 3.--Had you constant opportunities of observing his conduct and deportment as an officer during the time he served with you? State what it was, and whether it was characterized in any degree by lack of zeal or restiveness under necessary restrictions?

Answer. I had constant opportunities of observing his conduct and deportment as an officer during that time. Mr. Craven was at all times an attentive, obedient, and skilful officer. I never discovered at any time during the cruise any lack of zeal in him in the performance of his duties.

Question 4.-Was there any thing in his conduct or deportment, so far as it fell under your observation, which could justly subject him to the charge of being "tainted with the gold mania?""

Answer. Not in the most remote degree.

Question 5.-Are you aware of his having embarked in traffic or any speculations, or of his having made any effort to be relieved from duty to better his fortunes in California?

Answer. I am not.

Question 6.-State the facts and circumstances touching the return, through you, to Lieutenant Craven, of a certain letter, addressed by him to Commodore Jones, in relation to a certain special order No. 2 concerning the liberty of watch-officers.

Answer.-On board the Ohio, at Monterey, somewhere about 20th October, 1848, Captain Stribling called me into his cabin and handed me a paper, which he said was a letter addressed by Mr. Craven to Commodore Jones, to be delivered with a message by me to Mr. Craven. He requested me to say to Mr. Craven that the order, as applied to watch-officers, he did not believe the commodore intended to be invidious, and on that account he regretted that any difficulty should grow out of it. He furthermore stated that it was his intention to see Commodore Jones in relation to the order. He also mentioned that he had received a letter from Mr. Marchand relative to the same order, addressed to Commodore Jones, which he had induced Mr. Marchand to withdraw; that Mr. Green had also had an interview with him relating to the same subject, whom he had dissuaded from taking any further action in regard to it. He also directed me to say to Mr. Craven, that if he still wished the letter to be presented to Commodore Jones, if he would return it to him again he would lay it before him. In compliance with the request of Captain Stribling, I delivered the letter to Lieutenant Craven immediately on my return to the Dale with the message.

Question 7.-Did Lieutenant Craven, in your presence, use any language of denunciation, or indulge in any public conversation touching said special order No. 2?

Answer. He never used any language of denunciation, in my presence, relative to said order. I am not aware of his having indulged in any public conversation with regard to said order. He spoke of it to me. I do not know of his having spoken of it to his other messmates, or in their presence and hearing, at the time; but on the passage from San Francisco to the United States it was frequently spoken of.

Question 8.-(By a member of the court.)-Did he ever converse about it at the mess table?