in September last, and are now produced from the files of the depart

ment.

The accused states that they may be considered as in evidence; and copies thereof are annexed to the record, marked "Stanly court-martial No. 1," and "Stanly court-martial No. 2."

Lieutenant Fabius Stanly is recalled and further cross examined, as follows:

Question 1 by the accused.-Examine the paper now shown you, and say if that is not the only written application you ever made to Commodore Jones for a new trial on the charges brought against you by Commander Long, in 1849?

Answer. I believe this paper contained the only written application I ever made to him on that subject.

The paper is read, as follows:

U. S. SLOOP ST. MARY'S, March 31, 1849. SIR: After a careful considering of your reprimand, I regret to perceive that, in your opinion, the offence of "premeditated and wilful disobe dience of orders" was proven against me before the honorable court.

"Lieutenant Stanly's efforts to convince the court, by a parity of false reasoning and vain boasting, that his remaining out of the ship all night in express violation of orders, reiterated almost at the instant of the lieutenant's leaving the ship to go on shore, evinces a recklessness of disposition or inexcusable ignorance of his obligations to his country and to his su periors," &c.

Knowing myself innocent of the offence that caused the censure is the strong inducement for this communication, to make a plain narration of the facts which I think I can prove.

Wishing to visit a valley about a half-mile beyond the mission, and fearing that I might be [so] delayed there by business, not on the way by accident, as to make me miss the sunset boat, I asked, if such should be the case, for permission to remain on shore. The request was refused. I went on shore, and immediately left for the valley. I had not the least fear of being detained on the way by any accident, and was confident that I could accomplish the object of my visit-partially, at least. Although I have been the trip more than once, some eighteen months ago, I got confused in the multiplicity of new roads;-this was proven. Aud when I got as far as the mission, we were too tired to proceed. We rested here, and tried to obtain horses to return to San Francisco-this was proven, but, I understand, not recorded-both by sending about and by inquiring ourselves. This took up some time, and the sun was now dipping behind the hills. Believing that we could not get back by sunset, if at all that night, I consented to remain. Lieutenant Buchanan and myself shared the same bed, and left before daylight, giving up the visit for which we had come thus far, from a disposition to obey as nearly as possible the orders; and, after losing some time in the confusion of the many paths, reached the boat about seven o'clock.

I hope it will be evident that my remaining at the mission all night, "not having come out until" I "unwittingly recalled the witness," could not have been from any wish of mine to keep it back. I believe that the same question that "brought out" that we remained at the mission, "brought out" also that we were on foot, and not on horses, as the court up to that moment supposed.

The above, sir, I would have proven, had not the honorable court continually hurried me by asking, after every question, "Have you any more questions to put, Mr. Stanly?" while I was writing a question with every haste; and by saying "they had but little time, and much business waiting." The few questions that I did put seemed to annoy the president of the court, so that once he made remarks, which caused me to observe to the court that their frequent declarations of want of time prevented my asking many questions to disprove the above charge, and also from having summoned a witness of my own for that purpose. I understood the court to intimate that it was unnecessary.

I do not, sir, intend to reflect upon the honorable court or its president. I would be glad to be tried on this charge before them again, and I beg this to be considered an application on that subject. My "final salutation," sir, had no other object than, as I had objected to the legality of the court, I conceived that I was pleading before the honorable Secretary of the Navy, and therefore submitted my defence to him. I regret it was displeasing to you. That it was unprecedented I was not aware, but we cannot always confine ourselves to precedents. As to my intending to hold a rod in terrorem over the court, I respectfully disclaim any such in

tention.

The bitter language of your reprimand, as applied to me personally, seems to have been provoked more by the defence before the court than by any offence of which the court found me guilty, and sentenced me to be publicly reprimanded. I deem it a duty which I owe to myself and to my corps most respectfully to refer the question for the decision of the honorable Secretary of the Navy, whether a commander-in-chief of a squadron has by law the right, in carrying out the sentence of a reprimand for a specific offence, to travel out of the record to indulge in caustic criticism upon the defence of the accused, which was not in itself, or meant to be, disrespectful to any one?

I do hereby also respectfully appeal from your orders, in that reprimand, to this ship.

I do hereby also respectfully appeal to the honorable the Secretary of the Navy from every communication that has passed between us—from the one that caused my detachment from the Dale to the one which I have the honor to address at this time.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

Commodore A. C. JONES,

FABIUS STANLY, Lieutenant.

Commanding United States Naval Forces in the Pacific.

Question 2.-Is the letter now exhibited to you, the original and only written application you made to Commodore Jones for orders to nominal duty on shore, to enable you to travel in the interior?

Answer. This is a letter from me to Commodore Jones, and is the only one on that subject I transmitted to him. It is not an application to travel in the interior. I had previously prepared a similar application, and submitted it to Commander Stribling some four months before, and he advised me to withhold it till the ship returned from the islands and was returning home, as my application was for leave to take effect at that time. He said he would mention it to Commodore Jones.

The paper is read as follows:

UNITED STATES SHIP DALE, March 2, 1849.

SIR: I respectfully beg leave to renew my application of November last for a leave of absence or some nominal duty, until I can communicate with the Navy Department, that will allow me to visit the interior. I am sensible that I have no claim to such a request but such as rests on your disposition, and the belief that the views of the department are manifested in the leave of Lieutenant Harrison and in the duty of Lieutenant Revere. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

FAB. STANLY, Lieutenant U. S. N.

Commodore T. AP CATESBY JONES,
Commanding Pacific Squadron.

Forwarded:

The witness proceeds as follows:

JOHN RUDD, Commander.

The application referred to in the aforegoing letter is that which Com mander Stribling said he would verbally communicate to the commodore. The answer to this written application was orders to the Warren, the only ship in the squadron from which officers were not allowed to remain on shore after sundown.

Question 3. Do you not know that the commander of the Warren had equal discretion with all other captains in granting indulgences to his officers? and can you now say that you were not informed about the time you were ordered to the Warren, that that order was given for your express accommodation, that you might be in place to avail yourself of a leave of absence should the Secretary of the Navy grant one?

Answer. I know that he had not equal power to grant indulgences of the kind referred to, if Captain Long spoke the truth; and I know it, also, if the fact that we were under no circumstances allowed to remain on shore after sundown, while other officers were, is sufficient evidence of it. I know that Captain Long addressed a letter to the captain of the fleet inquiring whether such indulgence might be granted, and that he got an answer which he said would not justify him in doing so. I saw both the letter and the reply. I received a letter from Commodore Jones in answer to one applying for permission to remain on board the Dale-which firstmentioned letter I have, but not in court-which letter referred to the reason mentioned in the question; but it was not received by me or looked upon by others as any thing more than a sarcasm, I think I have the letter, and can produce it to-morrow.

Question 4.-Did you see those letters which you say passed between Commander Long and the captain of the fleet before the 5th March, when you applied to Commander Long for leave to stay out all night?

Answer. I saw them after his letter was written-I think in conse quence of my application, and the conversation which passed between him and myself. I do not recollect whether the date of that application was 5th March.

Question 5.-It was after you were in arrest, then, that Captain Long showed you the restrictive orders from the captain of the fleet?

Answer. I think it was while I was under suspension that I saw them. Commander Long did not show them to me; I think it was the 1st lieu tenant who showed them in the wardroom.

Question 6.—Did you know, when you wrote your letter of 2d March

to Commodore Jones, that Lieutenants Revere and Harrison had just ar rived at San Francisco in the first of the mail steamers from Panama, (on the 28th of February, 1849,)-Lieutenant Revere appointed by the Secretary of the Navy superintendent on the government lands in California, Lieutenant Harrison on furlough or leave of absence from the Secretary of the Navy?

Answer. I think I heard of Lieutenant Revere's duty. I did not know when they had arrived. I must have known that Lieutenant Harrison was on furlough or leave of absence from the Navy Department.

Question 7.-Do you.not know that Commander Johnston was sent to the Pacific by the Secretary of the Navy to take command of the Preble, which ship was in the East Indies when he arrived at San Francisco; and that when he and Lieutenant Pickering went in pursuit of the St. Mary's deserters, Commander Johnston had never been attached to any ship in the squadron ?

Answer. I believe so. He was expecting to be ordered to one of the vessels.

Question 8.-When was Lieutenant McCormick ordered to the "Warren" as her first lieutenant? Did you ever see his orders to the "Warren,' or any order of Commodore Jones's assigning him to nominal duty to allow him to embark in private adventure?

Answer. I never saw such orders. I do not recollect the date inquired of in this question.

Question 9.-Do you not know that Commander Johnston was authorized to grant you permission to leave the St. Mary's at Valparaiso or Callao, should you desire to return home from either of those places in July or August, 1849?

Answer. I did not, until after I had returned from that cruise to San Francisco, when Commodore Jones's nephew reported it on board, and I heard it in that way. I have no other knowledge of the fact.

Question 10.-How often were you transferred from ship to ship, and from ship to shore, during your late cruise in the Pacific?

Answer. When I first got there, I was ordered to take command of the block house, the duty being too hard for the previous officer. When the block-house was given up, I was ordered to the Warren. When Commodore Biddle arrived, he ordered me to his ship. When he was about to leave, upon my suggestion to Commodore Biddle and Commodore Shubrick's application for officers, I was ordered to the Congress. From the Congress I was ordered to the command of the outpost at Mazatlan perhaps the most responsible duty at Mazatlan. This was under an order from Captain Lavalette. I remained there till my command was weakened by sickness and wounds, and I was relieved by an other party, and ordered on board the Congress again. From the Congress I was ordered by Commodore Shubrick to the Dale, to take the place of Mr. Smith, who was in bad health. That was the ship I had come out in. From the Dale I was ordered, by Commodore Jones, to the Warren. From the Warren to the St. Mary's, by him also; and from the St. Mary's to the Southampton by him also, as passenger; and in that vessel I came to the isthmus, on my way home.

Question 11.-How many of these transfers resulted from captains applying for you, or expressing a wish to have you under their command?

Answer. I do not know that there was one. I do not think it is customary, on foreign stations, for such applications to be made.

Question 12.-You have said, in the course of your examination, that you had been intrusted with the most important commands or duties during the Mexican war, and had always given entire satisfaction to your commanding officers. Why, then, did you complain to Commodore Jones of injustice at the hands of his predecessors in command of the Pacific squadron?

Answer.-I did not complain of injustice by his predecessors. I com plained that it had been decided by Commodore Shubrick, that Lieutenant Smith was a supernumerary on board the Dale; whereas Captain Mervine had previously decided that I was the supernumerary. And I'submitted the same question to Commodore Jones after he took com mand. My reason for applying to Commodore Jones was, that Commo dore Shubrick had referred to the condition of Lieutenant Smith's health, as a reason for not treating me as the supernumerary; and that when I ap plied to Commodore Jones, I considered that reason as no longer existing, Mr. Smith's health having improved.

Question 12.-Your leave of absence from the Secretary of the Navy, authorizing you to return to the United States, is dated 18th June, 1849, and Commodore Jones's endorsement shows that it reached him at San Francisco the 18th of August, and that you were then absent on duty at Callao, and did not rejoin Commodore Jones till the 3d of October; and when you did return, charges for misconduct during your absence were hanging over you, on which you were very soon after tried by court mar. tial, and not released from that court until the 29th of October; and that in about ten days thereafter, by Commodore Jones's order, you sailed from San Francisco in the Southampton, free of expense, direct for Panama, where you arrived on the 25th December. Now, what difference in time would it have made to you, if the leave of absence had been delivered to you at San Francisco, when you received the order to take passage in the Southampton, instead of being delivered to you as soon as you reached Panama?

Answer. If the leave had been delivered to me at San Francisco, I could have got to Panama about a month and a half sooner, I think. I do not know, however, at what time the steamer sailed. My complaint was not for loss of time, but of reputation and of property.

Question 13 Examine the letter now shown you, addressed to Commodore Jones, dated United States sloop Dale, La Paz, July 13, 1848, and say if you did not deliver it in person to the commodore at the time and place aforesaid?

Answer. That letter is not in my handwriting, but is signed by me. I do not remember the circumstances, and will read the letter, which may recall them to my mind.

I have read the letter. I recollect that I called on Commodore Jones and delivered it to him as containing the reasons for my application to him. It is as follows:

U. S. SLOOP DALE, La Paz, July 13, 1848. SIR: At Guaymas, I made a verbal application to be ordered to the Congress. You impressed upon me that you would be governed by an equal justice to all under your command, and I have felt confidence in