Answer. I have no recollection of any such conversation, except at the mess table on the passage from San Francisco to the United States. The examination in chief is here closed.

And the witness is cross examined by the accused, as follows:

Question 1.-Can you say positively whether it was on the 19th, 20th, or what day or hour Captain Stribling sent for you to go into the Ohio's cabin, when what you have narrated about Lieutenant Craven's letter took place?

Answer. I cannot; I remember very well the hour, but neither the day of the week or day of the month.

Question 2.-Did not Commander Stribling charge you with the delivery of a written communication from him to Lieutenant Craven at the same time he handed Lieutenant Craven's letter to be by you returned to Lieutenant Craven?

Answer. He gave me but the one communication and the message.

Question 3.-Do you not know that Lieutenant Craven, like other officers of the squadron, invested his pay or other funds in gold dust in California in the autumn of 1848, and afterwards exchanged the dust for coin at Mazatlan?

Answer. I have no knowledge of the fact of Lieutenant Craven having done so.

Question 4.-Do you not know of some difficulty between Lieutenant Craven and Captain Stringham at the New York navy-yard, growing out of Lieutenant Craven's insubordinate conduct?

The judge advocate objects to the question.

The court is cleared, and having considered the objection, it is overruled by the court, and the question is allowed to be put.

The court is opened and the decision is announced.

The accused modifies the question by stating that the period referred to is before the late cruise in the Pacific, and while Captain Stringham commanded the New York yard.

Answer. Of my own knowledge I know nothing about it.

Question 5.-Was not Lieutenant Craven's remonstrance to the commodore, against the said order, a subject of remark among the officers of his class?

Answer. I do not remember to have heard any discussions or remarks relative to the matter at the time of its occurrence.

Question 6.-Did he not, between the 19th and 26th of October, 1848, in your hearing, speak of the order as an insult or wrong not only to himself, but to his class of officers?

Answer. Not in the language used in the question. He spoke to me of the order as being invidious to his class.

Question 7.-Have you any reason to believe, and what reason to believe, that Lieutenant Craven put a curb on his tongue, and refrained from speaking to the officers of his class, of the order, as a common insult or wrong to all of them alike?

Answer. I have no reason to believe that he put a curb on his tongue. All I know is, that he did not indulge in such conversation on board the ship in my hearing.

Question 8.-Were you not informed of Lieutenant Craven's having written and forwarded his letter of remonstrance to Commodore Jones before it was mentioned to you by Captain Stribling, on board the Ohio, and from whom did you get such information?

Answer.-Mr. Craven had told me that he meant to write to the commodore, touching that portion of the order which related to watch officers; and Captain Rudd had told me that he had forwarded such a letter for him.

Question 9.-Do you know on what day, at what hour, and at what place, Lieutenant Craven, of the Dale, first received Commodore Jones's explanatory communication headed "confidential," addressed to Lieu. tenants Green, Marchand, and Craven?

Answer. I do not.

Question 10.-Did you at any time, between the 20th of October, 1848, and the 1st day of March, 1849, hear Lieutenant Craven express himself as satisfied with Commodore Jones's explanations of special order No. 2? Answer. No, sir.

Question 11.-Examine closely the paper now put into your hands, and say whether you ever saw it before? If yea, state when, where, and under what circumstances it was presented to you.

[The paper exhibited to the witness is the paper marked "Craven No. 1," and produced by Lieutenant Craven upon his examination January 3d.]

Answer.-1 cannot swear that this is the paper which was handed to me by Captain Stribling; but I recognise in it the handwriting of Mr. Craven, as also the endorsement of Captain Rudd.

The accused states that he has no further questions to put to Lieutenant Yard.

The examination of the witness is here closed. His testimony, as hereinbefore recorded, is read over to him, and is acknowledged to be correctly recorded, and he is discharged.

Lieutenant Marchand is recalled, at the request of the accused.

Question by the accused.-At your interview with Mr. Preston, Secretary of the Navy, to which your letter presented to the court yesterday alludes, did you understand the Secretary as saying that Commodore Jones had been recalled in displeasure, or to answer the complaints then on file at the department against him?

Answer. He merely made use of the expression, "I have recalled Commodore Jones, and upon his return the subject-matter will be investigated," or be laid before him; or to that effect.

The testimony is read over to him, and acknowledged to be correct, and he is discharged.

The judge advocate makes the following statement to the court:

The accused having requested the court to rescind the order allowing Lieutenant Craven to remain in court for the reason (among others not specified) that he (the accused) "finds it necessary to re examine Lieu. tenant Craven after Lieutenants Green, Marchand, and Yard shall have been examined," and these officers having been all fully examined, the judge advocate now proposes to recall Lieutenant Craven for further crossexamination by the accused, with the view that he may remain in court after such cross examination shall have been concluded, to acquaint the judge advocate with the details of matters arising under the 2d specifica tion of the 3d charge.

The accused objects, and asks time to prepare a paper setting forth the grounds of his objection, which is granted.

And afterwards he presents to the court the following paper, which is ead by his counsel:

To the President and Members of the Court:

The accused objects to permission being given to any one of the three witnesses (Lieutenants Green, Marchand, and Craven) upon whose rep. resentations and complaints the charges now under trial were founded, to be present and assisting the prosecution, whilst his associates or any other witnesses are under examination, whether before or after his own examination and cross-examination.

The accused understands, from good authority, that one of these witnesses (Lieutenant Craven) proffered himself as prosecutor, and desired to be officially recognised and named as such; and that the Secretary declined the proffer for the express reason that these three lieutenants were witnesses upon whose testimony some of the charges depended; and that if one of them were placed in the relation of prosecutor to the charges, he would be privileged to be present at the examinations and cross-examinations of his associates, and to examine them.

Although the judge advocate and the accused have concluded, for the present, their examinations and cross-examinations of these witnesses, yet the witnesses are not discharged, but are still held to attendance on the court, and for no conceivable reason but that the contingency is anticipated as probable of their being recalled for re examination to repel, or to explain, or to corroborate, some fact or circumstance that may be disclosed in the testimony of witnesses yet to be examined.

The accused also anticipates the occasion as very likely to arise, of his having himself to put further questions to the three witnesses above named, and especially to Lieutenant Craven, by way of cross examination. The accused did not mean to limit the occasion on which a further cross examination of Lieutenant Craven might occur to facts disclosed by his two associates, Lieutenants Green and Marchand; it was not necessary to specify other grounds of objection at the time. He now deems it equally, and perhaps more probable, that in the evidence to be given by other witnesses, from whom he expects to elicit circumstances going to contradict or discredit the evidence of Lieutenant Craven, and some other witnesses, facts may be stated upon which it may be quite expedient to question Lieutenant Craven as well as his associates in the complaints upon which this prosecution is founded, in order to bring his and their evidence to a fair test of accuracy and consistency-a test resulting from their future examination as to circumstances bearing on their evidence already recorded and expected to be disclosed by other witnesses; and to which test their representations or denials, placed in immediate contrast or comparison with the circumstances yet expected to be proved, are indispensable.

It is obvious enough that any attempt to bring the evidence of a witness to that test may be frustrated, if he is allowed to be present and hear the evidence in extenso, from which the identical circumstances upon which his further cross examination is to proceed are deduced, so as to afford him an opportunity to con over the expediency and the effect of such answers as he may be called to give

THOS AP C. JONES, Late Commanding Pacific Squadron.

And thereupon the court is closed for deliberation; and having made up their opinion and decision, the court is opened and the same is announced by the judge advocate, as follows:

Regularly, the cross-examination of the witness should have been made and completed when his examination in chief was concluded. In fact, he was then cross-examined, and dismissed from the stand without any reservation by the accused. The judge advocate then stated that, as the witness had now been fully examined and cross examined, he desired permission for him to remain in court, to assist him with the details of matters arising under the 2d specification of the 3d charge. The accused did not intimate to the court that he desired further to cross examine the witness, and assented that the court should use its discretion upon the application of the judge advocate. Subsequently, the accused expressed the wish to recall the witness for further cross examination, after Lieuten ants Green, Marchand, and Yard should have been examined; and requested the court to rescind, in the mean time, the order which it had passed; and it was rescinded accordingly.

The time indicated by the accused for the further cross-examination of the witness having now arrived, the court thinks it reasonable that the application of the judge advocate be granted; and that Lieutenant Craven be now recalled for further cross examination, and, when so cross-examined, that he be allowed to remain in court for the purpose suggested by the judge advocate; but he will not be allowed to give further testimony for the prosecution thereafter; and it is ordered accordingly.

The usual hour of adjournment having arrived, the court is adjourned until to morrow morning at half-past 10 o'clock.

JANUARY 8, 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. The judge advocate gives notice that, with the assent of the accused, he has discharged Lieutenants Green, Marchand, and Yard, from any further attendance upon the court.

Lieutenant Craven is recalled by the judge advocate for further crossexamination by the accused.

The accused tenders the following paper, which is read by the judge

advocate:

"The accused, expecting that, in the ensuing examinations of other witnesses to the same charge and specification to which Lieutenant Craven has been examined, matters will be disclosed making it necessary to cross-examine him on such matters, declines to resume his crossexamination at present.

"The accused desires that, when Lieutenant Craven's cross-examination is resumed, it may be finally gone through with on all points. "THOS. AP C. JONES, "Late Commanding Pacific Squadron."

Commander C. K. Stribling being duly sworn by the president of the court, is examined by the judge advocate as follows:

Question 1.-State upon what service you were, and in what capacity, in the autumn of 1848?

Answer. I was captain of the fleet, by order of the Secretary, and commanded the Ohio, by appointment from Commodore Jones, in the Pacific squadron.

Question 2.-State the facts which occurred between you and Lieutenants Green, Marchand, and Craven, respectively, in relation to a certain special order No. 2, touching the liberty of watch-officers, at or about the time of the promulgation of that order.

Answer. Soon after the promulgation of the order, Lieutenant Green, who was a lieutenant on board the Ohio, sought an interview with me. He represented that he had objections to writing on matters of the kind, and that he sought a personal interview for the purpose of explaining his views in relation to that order. He stated that he considered the order as invidious, making a distinction between the sea officers and the non-combatants: I endeavored to explain to him that no such distinction, I was sure, was contemplated by the commodore. After some further conversation, I told him that I would bring the matter before the commodore. I cannot, at this distance of time, recollect the particulars of the conversation. He then left me. Soon after, I received a note from Mr. Marchand, or about that time, before or after. I sent for Mr. Marchand, and ex plained to him what I considered to be the intention of the commodore in issuing that order. He then, at my request, withdrew the note, upon my stating that I would bring the matter to the notice of the commodore. Some time after this-how long I do not recollect-1 received a note from Lieutenant Craven, of the Dale, addressed to Commodore Jones-I think in relation to the special order No. 2. Having had the conversation before on this subject with Lieutenants Green and Marchand, and believing the note of Mr. Craven exceptionable, I returned it to him, accompanying it, to the best of my recollection and belief, with a note. I have no copy of it. The next day he sent back the note to Commodore Jones, with another one, which I think was addressed to myselfI am not sure-requesting that the matter might be laid before the commodore.

The paper addressed to Commodore Jones, marked "Craven No. 1," produced by Lieutenant Craven on his examination, 3d January, is here shown to the witness by the judge advocate, with this question:

Question 3.-Is this the note, or either of them?

Answer. I believe that to be the first note received by me from Lieutenant Craven, referred to above.

Question 4.-You say you delivered Commodore Jones the other two notes-one of which you think was addressed to yourself: Where and in whose possession did you last see them?

Answer. I do not recollect that I have seen them since I delivered them to Commodore Jones.

The judge advocate requests the accused to produce them, and he does so. They are exhibited to the witness, with the following question: Question 5.-Look at the papers now exhibited to you: are they the two notes referred to by you in your last answer? and if yea, read them to the court. Compare that which is addressed to Commodore Jones with that which you returned to Lieutenant Craven, and say whether they are duplicates, or wherein they differ.

Answer. The two papers are the same referred to in my last answer; and I read them as follows: