Answer.-Yes. Question 9.-Did you assign Lieutenant Hall's insanity as a ground. for a new trial in your said application for one? Answer. In a personal application I gave that reason—not in the written one, I think. Question 10.-Was the personal application before or after the written one, and how long before or after? Answer.-After. I have no recollection of the precise time; but it was very early after, perhaps the next day after receiving an answer to the written one, which answer came, I think, in two or three days after the written application. Question 11.-What new grounds for a new trial did you assign in your verbal application, not comprised in your written one? Answer Lieutenant Hall's insanity is the only one I recollect. I may have mentioned others. Question 12-Was it in your written or in your verbal application for a new trial that you complained of a material part of the evidence in your favor having been omitted in the record, and that Commodore Jones said it was your ignorance, or negligence, that it was not recorded? Answer. I think I complained of it in both. I cannot answer positively whether he said this in the conversation when I verbally applied to him, or in the written answer to the written application; but I think in both. Question 13.-Will you produce Commodore Jones's answer to the written application? Answer. This is it, annexed to a copy of my application. It is read as follows: FLAG SHIP OHIO, Sansalito, April 3, 1849. SIR: Your letter dated the 31st of March has been this day received. There was no necessity for asking my consent for an appeal from any of my official acts or orders as commander of the Pacific squadron. Reference to my address of August 28, 1848, to the commissioned and warrant officers, &c., &c., of the Pacific squadron, will show that the principle upon which I command is, that there are none so high that the law cannot reach, none so low that it will not protect; and I think you, and all under my command, will do me the justice to say that up to this day I have carried out these principles to the strictest letter. Your explanations of the transactions which led to your arrest, trial, conviction, and reprimand, as given in your letter under consideration, present your conduct in a less unfavorable light than the recorded testimony before the court places it. But you must be aware that the reviewing power has no other guide for his decisions than the record of the court, and that consequently the essence of the testimony, usually conveyed through the sense of seeing and hearing, is lost to all who only read the words recorded by the court. You complain of being so much hurried by the court as not to allow you reasonable time to cross-examine the witnesses before the court, not time to introduce a new witness in your defence. The record does not show these facts; but, on the contrary, it is shown by the record, at the close of the examination of each witness, that, neither plaintiff nor defendant having any further questions to put, the witness was allowed or directed to withdraw. If the court have done you the great injustice you allege in your letter, it goes to show how important it is that officers in the navy should better understand their duty as members of courts martial, as they would then not only be more competent to defend themselves, when so unfortunate as to be arraigned, but to do better justice to the accused, when sitting as members of courts-martial. You should have entered a special protest against such haste as you now complain of. The written defence before a naval court martial forms a part of the proceedings, and is always submitted to the court before its judgment is pronounced. It is, in fact, a part of the evidence, and often shows the quo animo of the offence charged. If, therefore, the accused introduces into his defence false doctrines and heresies dangerous to the well-being and efficiency of the navy, to support him in overt acts against the rules and dis. cipline of the navy, it is not only competent for the approving power, in carrying out a sentence of reprimand, to animadvert upon the errors of the defence, but it is his bounden duty to do so, unless the defence is of such character as to require the defendant to be brought to a new trial on charges founded on a wanton abuse of the privilege of defence. Formerly, and until very recently, and even now in some cases, the written defence is not received by courts martial until advised by the judge advocate, who strikes from it all irrelevant, reproachful, and insult. ing language. This purging of the defence is considered by many as too great a restriction upon the freedom of defence; but the most ultra latitudinarians upon the privilege admit, that, while the accused is at liberty to express himself very freely in his defence, he is responsible for all he does say in such defence to the court before which he pleads. But if the court to whom the objectionable defence is addressed fail to notice the objectionable matter in the defence, it then, as already said, becomes the duty of the revising or executing power to notice the defence in the reprimand, or by a new trial, as in his judgment inay seem most expedient and conducive to the public service. Whatever communications or appeals you may be disposed to make to the honorable Secretary of the Navy, in accordance with the rules of the service, I shall not fail to forward to Washington by the earliest oppor tunity. The same necessity which dictated your recent order to the St. Mary's (viz: that ship having but one lieutenant for duty on board of her) still exists; consequently your order cannot be revoked. Respectfully, &c., THOS. AP C. JONES, Commander in chief U. S. Naval Forces, Pacific Ocean.. Lieutenant F. STANLY, U. S. sloop St. Mary's. Question 14.-Why did you not assign Lieutenant Hall's insanity as a ground for a new trial in your first and written application? Answer.-It may have been an accidental omission. Question 15.-You said on Saturday that your application to Commo dore Jones for a new trial, after you were reprimanded by sentence of court martial in March, 1849, was accompanied by a letter, or the copy of a letter, from a witness before the court that tried you, stating that his testimony was not properly or fully recorded by the court; who was that officer? Answer.-Lieutenant Buchanan, of the marines. Answer. I believe Commodore Jones retained that letter. I got a second letter to the same effect from Mr. Buchanan, which I placed before the Secretary of the Navy since my return home. I have neither of them, nor any copy of them. Question 17.-In which of your applications, written or verbal, did you refer to and deliver that letter to Commodore Jones? Answer. I am not certain. Question 18.-What was the manner in which you say Commodore Jones returned your salutations in the streets of San Francisco, and from which you inferred some grounded malice against you? Answer. The manner of looking at me as I passed, following me with his eye; and the quick jerk of his hand. It is impossible for me to describe it exactly. Question 19. You stated, while under examination on Saturday, that you were singled out by Commodore Jones for trial, from two other officers who were equally liable to the same charges upon which you were tried in March, 1849. Do you know that those officers, or either of them, were officially reported to Commodore Jones? Answer. I believe they were not. The fact was reported in relation to one of them, and his name mentioned; but whether for Commodore Jones's action or not, I do not know. Question 20.-You say it was by malice you were brought before both courts. Say by whose malice. Answer. By the malice of Commodore Jones, acting through Commander Long and Commander Johnston. Question 21.-Were you not aware that in ordering the courts and framing the charges against you, the commodore acted upon complaints officially reported to him by Commanders Long and Johnston? Question 22.-Were you not particularly informed of the nature of the complaints so reported, and in what manner informed? Did you read these reports? Answer. I do not recollect seeing Commander Long's report; the reprimand contained a copy of it. I saw Commander Johnston's, and replied to it as he suggested. I have the reply, and beg to produce the letter and the answer. I knew that Commander Long had reported me, and supposed the charges which I was tried on were framed on his report. I had no other information of the nature of Commander Long's report than I have stated. Question 23.-Do you mean to charge those reports of Commanders Long and Johnston with wilful falsehood and malice? Answer.-No; I do not. Question 24.-How did Commodore Jones act upon Commanders Long and Johnston to induce them to make their complaints against you? Answer. I have no knowledge, and can only infer how he operated on them. Question 25.-What officers were they who you say were in equal fault with yourself, and yet were not brought to court-martial; and what had they done which in your opinion should have subjected them to trial? Answer Mr. Buchanan had staid on shore all night at the same time and under the same circumstances with myself, except that he had not asked permission, and I had, and had been told I could not be absent all night. The other officer was Lieutenant Harrison; but I think he was on the sick list at the time, and do not know that he was attached to the ship. Question 26.-Was either Lieutenant Buchanan or Lieutenant Harrison ever reported, and by what officer, to the commodore, as absent without leave, or as charged with any offence? Answer.-Captain Long reported the circumstance, and mentioned the name of one of them, as will appear by the reprimand. The accused here tenders to the court, to be read, the original repri mand as written by him, and as read to the witness in execution of the sentence of the court. The judge advocate assents that it be read, and it is read accordingly; and is appended to the record, marked "Stanly, A. B.” Question 27. Did you consider your transfer from a guard or prison. ship (the Warren) to the fine first-class cruising sloop St. Mary's, a very severe punishment? Answer.-Yes; because the order transferring me, being upon the rep rimand, was degrading, and as punishment; and because I had been on that station about thirty four months, and the St. Mary's was bound on a cruise of six months. I was then expecting a leave of absence from the Navy Department. Question 28.-May not the promulgation of your orders to the St. Mary's simultaneously with the publication of your reprimand have been induced by Commodore Jones's desire to restore you to the confidence of all in the squadron, and to relieve you from serving under a commander who had so recently preferred charges against you? Answer.-No; the order was read by the judge advocate, and I was required to stand to hear it read, as I had been to hear the reprimand. No one ever suggested that it was done for the objects mentioned in the question. Question 29.-Do you not know that Lieutenant Harrison, of the navy, was not at any time attached to the Pacific squadron up to the time of your leaving California for the Atlantic States? Answer. I know that he was, but am under the impression that he was not on duty at the time referred to in my evidence. Question 30.-To what ship was he attached, when you say he was attached to the squadron? Answer. I know he was there during nearly the whole of the war; I think he was attached to the Cyane. Question 31.-Where was the Cyane in the year 1849? Answer. I do not know Lieutenant Harrison was there after the Cyane had returned home. Question 32.-Do you mean to say that Lieutenant Harrison was at tached to any ship of the Pacific squadron, for duty, at any time during the year 1849, while you were on that station? Answer. I do not mean to say so; I do not know whether he was or not. Question 33. Did you not, in a communication to the Navy Department, state that your application to Commodore Jones for some nominal duty on shore, in order to permit you to visit the interior, was induced by the leaves granted to Lieutenants Revere, Harrison, and others, by the Navy Department? Answer. I wrote such a paper; but whether those were the officers designated by me, I do not recollect. I think I also assigned as a reason that there were several officers from Commodore Jones's squadron on nominal duty about that time. Question 34.-Name the officers from Commodore Jones's squadron who you say were on nominal duty at that time. Answer. About that time Lieutenant Pickering and Commander Johnston had been travelling about the country for a month, I think, to pick up deserters; Lieutenant McCormick was on shore on some nominal duty, engaged in his private business. I only recollect those officers. Question 35.-What month and what year was Commander Johnston and Lieutenant Pickering employed on shore in pursuit of deserters? Answer. About the same time or just before I made my application for some nominal duty; I think that was in March, 1849. Question 36.-To what ship was Commander Johnston attached at the time you state he was upon nominal duty on shore? Answer. He was not attached to any ship, I think. Lieutenant Pickering was attached to the St. Mary's. Question 37.-Do you not know that Commander Johnston and Lieu. tenant Pickering not only were looking for deserters, but that they brought in more deserters as the fruits of their labors than all the officers of the squadron during the winter of 1848-'49? Answer.-I do not know that they brought in any. Question 38.-Do you not know that they apprehended some ten or twelve of the St. Mary's men, who had deserted with one of her boats and made good their escape to the Contra Costa, where they were apprehended and tried subsequently by a court martial? Answer. I do not know that they apprehended them, or brought them back. It being now the usual hour of adjournment, the further cross examination of the witness is suspended; his testimony, as hereinfore recorded, is read over to him, and is acknowledged to be correctly recorded; and the court is adjourned until to-morrow morning, at half past 10 o'clock. JANUARY 14, 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 produces to the court, and tenders to the accused, to be used on this trial as far as may be competent or material for him, the original records of the two trials of Lieutenant Fabius Stanly, which are found to have been returned by the accused to the Navy Department |