Answer. He was under my command until some time about the 25th of October, 1848, and his conduct and deportiment met my entire approbation in every respect, with the exception of the paragraph in that letter which I did not approve. I objected to the language, "I am not aware of having committed any offence which should occasion such restraint." My reason for objecting to it was that it carried with it the insinuation that order No. 2. was given for punishment; and, in my opinion, the order did not have that bearing. This is the only thing I did not approve in his conduct. So far as I had opportunities of judging, he was not in the least tainted with the gold mania.

Question 6.- Did you, in the latter part of February, 1849, apply to have Lieutenant Craven re-transferred to your ship?

Answer. Yes, I made verbal application to the commodore.

Question 7.-Was the application immediately granted? and if not, what followed your application?

Answer. The commodore told me he would think about it, and would like to see Lieutenant Craven; and I had a message conveyed to Lieutenant Craven, or told him myself, that the cominodore wished to see him. Afterwards he was ordered to the ship.

Cross examined by the accused.

Question 1.-State what passed between you and Commodore Jones at the time you made a verbal application for Lieutenant Craven's restor ation to the Dale, and the time and place of your application.

Answer. I was in the cabin of the Ohio, and she was then lying in the port of San Francisco. I do not recollect the day-about the latter part of February, or 1st of March, 1849. The commodore, in that conversation, said it had been his intention to try Mr. Craven by a courtmartial. This, with what I have before stated, is all I recollect of the conversation.

Question 2.-Did not Commodore Jones inform you that he had already received a written application from Lieutenant Craven, to be restored to the Dale?

Answer. I do not recollect that he did. It might have been so. Mr. Craven had previously expressed to me a wish to come back to the Dale, and I think I told him at that time he had better make an application. He was then attached to the Warren, lying in the harbor.

Question 3.-At what place, what day, and what hour of the day, was the letter of Lieutenant Craven, dated 19th October, 1848, to which you have referred in your examination in chief, presented to you?

Answer.-On or about the day of its date; I do not recollect the hour. Question 4.-Were Lieutenant Craven's original and duplicate letters of the 19th of October, 1848, presented for your signature at the same time? If nay, what time elapsed between the presentation of the original and duplicate?

Answer. As I have stated before, I was not aware that there was but one; but the duplicate bears my signature. It must have been presented the next day. Only one night elapsed between my two conversations with Mr. Craven on that subject.

Question 5.-Had not the officers assembled on board the Ohio for the purpose of forming a naval court-martial, when, or before, Lieutenant Craven presented his duplicate letter for your passport?

Answer. As well as I recollect, I think the court was in session when he handed me a letter to be forwarded to the commander-in-chief. I was a member of a court sitting there, and sailed as soon as it got through. I got under way on the 2d November, but the wind failing I anchored that night, and left early in the morning of the 3d for the coast of Mexico.

By the judge advocate.

Question. Is it your impression that the court was sitting when the first letter was handed to you by Lieutenant Craven?

Answer. I am under that impression, though I cannot be positive. Question 5.-The letter appears to bear date the 19th of October. Would your attention be drawn to the date of a paper of that kind presented for your signature; and if it bore date the 19th, and was presented to you the 23d, would you, in the regular course of duty, forward it without dating your own endorsement?

Answer. I think I might have forwarded it without regard to the date; and I am not in the habit of dating my endorsements of that kind.

Question 6-Can you say whether the first letter was handed to you by Lieutenant Craven before or after the signal made, "communicate with the shore you may," the date of which may be ascertained by the logs? Answer. I do not recollect.

Question 7.-In your conversation with Commodore Jones about Mr. Craven, did he say any thing about having it in contemplation to send that officer on any surveying duty?

Answer. He said he might want his services for surveying duty. I am not positive what it was that he said he might want him to survey. Question 8.-Was any message sent by Commodore Jones to Lieutenant Craven, touching certain duty he had performed through you or Purser Buchanan in your presence, about the time the Dale sailed for the United States?

Answer. He told me to tell Mr. Craven that he was much pleased with the survey of the bay of Monterey made by him, and that he had intended to speak to him or write to him, but had not had time to do so; and requested me to deliver that message to him, which I did.

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

And thereupon the court is adjourned until to-morrow morning, at half-past 10 o'clock.

JANUARY 10, 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 states to the court that Major Hill, of the army, a witness for the defence, now in attendance, being about to go upon duty to a distant part, he will, at the suggestion of the accused, and with permission of the court, suspend the examination of witnesses in support of the charges, and call Major Hill to be examined for the defence. No objection being made,

Major Henry Hill, of the United States army, is called into court, and, being duly sworn by the president of the court, is examined by the accused as follows:

Question 1.-Please state to the court where you were serving from the 1st of July, 1848, to the 1st of November of the same year; and what op portunities you had of intercourse with the officers of the squadron under Commodore Jones's command at different places on the Pacific station.

Answer. I was paymaster in the United States army, as I still am. About the 4th July, 1848, I was at Monterey, and went thence in the Southampton to La Paz. I remained there on shere some three weeks. From there I went overland to San José, the extreme point of the peninsula, and thence to Monterey in the United States ship Warren. We ar rived there about the 17th or 18th of October, perhaps a little later; the residue of the time up to 1st November I was at Monterey. While at La Paz I was very frequently on board the different ships of the squadron, and with the officers on shore.

Question 2.-Did the account of the discoveries of the gold nines reach La Paz while you were there; and what was its general effect on all classes, military, naval, and civil?

-

Answer. I think the Southampton brought the first news of the dis covery of gold to any extent in Upper California. As to the effect, it had the effect which it would have had anywhere else as the discovery of gold in large quantities in any country would have. It was a good deal talked of. As to the military and the navy, they were of course affected in the same way by it; the citizens more so, because there were a good many expeditions gotten up to the mines or to San Francisco with goods.

Question 3.-Did the news excite any extraordinary spirit of speculation? If so, in general, how was it with the officers of the squadron, and what propositions were made to you, and by whom, to join in any such speculation? State its nature, and the parties concerned.

Answer. It did excite considerable speculation in general. As to the officers of the squadron, I do not know, excepting as to Mr. E. Beale, of the navy, who had on foot a proposition to get up a party to buy or charter a vessel, and take goods from Mazatlan up to San Francisco. I know of only one-that was Mr. Beale. He said others were concerned. This project was spoken of by some of the officers. Some of them discouraged the idea, and thought it would not be profitable. I paid little attention to it, and do not recollect much about it. It was Mr. Beale who applied to me. I refused to have anything to do with it. I believe it was not gotten up at least, I have no knowledge of its having been carried into execution.

Question 4.-Do you know anything of the embarrassment and depression of trade at San Francisco, or other ports of Upper California, especially to the import trade, from the scarcity of a circulating medium, in October, 1848; and how long such embarrassment and depression continued from the same cause; and about what time the pressure from the scarcity of a legal currency was relieved by arrivals of steamers freighted with large amounts from American, Mexican, and other ports? Answer. I know that silver was very scarce at Monterey and San Francisco; it was required for custom-house purposes. They were paying a heavy premium for silver, to get goods through the custom-house. How far it depressed or embarrassed trade, I cannot say; I believe it

continued so up to the 1st of January, 1849-at which time I left for Los Angeles. The same thing existed at Los Angeles from the time I reached there till about the 15th of March, when I left there. The first steamer arrived at Monterey about the 22d of February, I think.

Cross examined by the judge advocate.

Question 1.-Did not Colonel Mason, the then governor of the Territory, in the autumn of 1848, issue an order authorizing the custom-house dues to be paid in gold dust, at its current market value?

Answer. I have no personal knowledge of such an order-never having seen it.

Question 2.-Do you know the fact, that gold dust was commonly received at its market value in payment of custom house dues?

Answer I do not.

Question 3.-You speak of the silver coin being required at the custom-house. Was there any premium upon silver over gold coin?

Answer. There was very little American coin in the country-none, in fact, worth speaking of. Mexican dollars were sought for, to go through the custom-house, in preference to coined ounces. The Mexican gold ounce was worth sixteen dollars in Mexican dollars. There were other coined ounces which did not pass for so much.

Question 4.-In testifying to the effect produced upon the naval officers on the Pacific station by the news of the gold discovery, do you mean to be understood as saying that there was any such impression or effect produced by the news as interfered with the discipline of the squadron, or the prompt and zealous discharge of their duty by the officers? If you do, please to name the persons you refer to, and state any facts upon which you base that opinion.

Answer.-None; I meant to say nothing of that sort.

The testimony of the witness, as hereinbefore recorded, is read over to him, and is acknowledged to be correctly recorded; and he is discharged from further attendance.

Lieutenant John J. Almy, of the United States navy, being duly sworn by the president of the court, is examined by the judge advocate, as follows:

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

Answer. I was on board the United States ship Warren, and was the first lieutenant of that ship on the passage from Lower to Upper Califor nia, and lying at Monterey, from November till the middle of February, 1849.

Question 2.-Was Lieutenant T. Aug. M. Craven on duty on board that ship at any time during the period covered by your last answer; and had you opportunities of observing his conduct and deportment as an officer; and have you knowledge of his general character as an officer? If yea, please to state what it is.

Answer.-Mr. Craven was on board the Warren. He joined her, I think, about the last of October, and remained till about the 1st of March of the following year. I was, of course, in a position to know him well and thoroughly as an officer, and know his general character as an officer.

His character was most excellent and exemplary in every particular; most attentive to his duties, and correct in his deportment.

Question 3.-Was there anything in his conduct or deportment, so far as it fell under your observation, indicating that he was tainted with the gold mania?

Answer. Nothing at all. On the contrary, I heard him express a wish, with many others, to get away from the coast of California, and go to sea.

The examination is closed here. The accused states that he has no cross-examination to make.

The testimony of the witness, as herein before recorded, is read over to him, and acknowledged to be correctly recorded; and he retires.

Lieutenant William E. Boudinot, of the United States navy, being duly sworn by the president of the court, is examined by the judge advocate as follows:

Question 1.-On what duty were you, on board what ship, and in what capacity, in the month of October, 1848?

Answer. I was on board the Ohio, in the capacity of master.

Question 2.-Were Lieutenants Jos. F. Green and J. B. Marchand on duty on board that ship at that time?

Answer. They were.

Question 3.-Had you opportunity of observing their conduct and deportment? and if yea, was there anything in the conduct or deportment of either of them indicating a restlessness or lack of zeal in the discharge. of his duty, or subjecting him to the suspicion of being tainted with the gold mania?

Answer. I was the messmate of those officers, and had frequent op portunities of knowing whether they evinced any restlessness. I never remarked any lack of zeal, or anything in their conduct, subjecting them to the suspicion of being tainted with the gold mania. Lieutenant Marchand is the most particular man in the discharge of his duties I have ever seen in service. The same remark is applicable to Lieutenant Green?

Cross-examined by the accused.

Question 1.-Did you not know, about the time that Commodore Jones's special order No. 2 was issued, (October 18, 1848,) that Lieutenants Green and Marchand both remonstrated against that order? If yea, what was the ground of their remonstrance?

Answer. I knew that an order was issued by the commodore concerning the liberty of officers. As I understood it, the objection made to it was, that it included the watch-officers, and not the non-combatants. That is my recollection of it. The objection was, also, that the restric tion implied a censure.

Question 2.-Did you ever know Lieutenant Green or Marchand to go in pursuit of deserters from the Ohio? Was not Lieutenant Marchand officer of the watch on the evening of the 17th of October, when several men of the Ohio seized one of her boats, and ran off with it?

Answer. I do not recollect ever having heard them offer to go in pur