your thus acting; there are several facts, having a strong bearing upon my case, which I beg to recapitulate.

I was the last officer ordered to the Dale by the Navy Department. On the arrival of the ship at San Francisco, in December, 1846, against my wishes and arguments, it was decided that I was a supernumerary; and, as such, I was detached from the Dale, and ordered to the blockhouse, (a small building, with but one apartment, fourteen feet square;) in which, with thirteen men, I lived for three months during the rainy season, the roof not sheltering us, as by every shower we were wet. When the station on shore was given up, I was ordered to the Warren, and from her again to the Columbus; neither of which orders was solicited by me, though willingly obeyed.

When the Columbus was on the eve of leaving the station, I learned that Commodore Shubrick wanted lieutenants for the squadron, and volunteered to remain, but requested Commodore Biddle to order me to the Congress: he informed me that he had that morning turned over the squadron to Commodore Shubrick, and advised me to call and have his views. I did so, and Commodore Shubrick told me that, if ordered to report to him, he would assign me to that ship where most needed, saying, "he could not promise me orders to the Congress, but that to whichever ship I was ordered, in her I should remain, and return to the United States." This, sir, was the point on which I was solicitous-a permanent station in the squadron, a matter of much importance to me in my family arrangements.

When Commodore Biddle ordered me to report to Commodore Shubrick, he gave me a letter, of the contents of which I am ignorant; but which I believe procured me orders to the Congress, as Commodore Biddle said to me he thought it would. On being ordered to that ship, I could at length fix upon a time (though then remote) when I might be expected home, and wrote to my family that I should be home in the Congress. I did this under reliance on the promise made by Commodore Shubrick.

In the Congress I remained several months, when I was peremptorily ordered to the Dale, no reasons whatever being assigned for the change but that I was not a supernumerary, and Lieutenant Smith was. When I wished to remain in the Dale, I was ordered from her as a supernumerary; and again, when all wished to leave her, I was sent back as not being her supernumerary; and Commodore Shubrick gave as another reason for the change, that Lieutenant Smith, whom I relieved here, was in bad health. I might, myself, urge a claim of the same kind, for my health is far from good; but, sir, I will base my case upon what I consider its stronger merits; and, as a man of feeling, you will see that my past hardships have furnished my present claims, which I lay before you with confidence in your power to weigh and redress them. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

Commodore THOS. AP C. JONES,

FAB. STANLY, Lieutenant.

Commanding United States Squadron.

Witness. I would remark that Commodore Shubrick was at La Paz, or daily expected, when this letter was written. It was written that it

might be shown to Commodore Shubrick, as containing what I had personally said to Commodore Jones.

Question 14. Did you request Commodore Jones to show your letter of the 13th of July, 1848, to Commodore Shubrick?

Answer. I do not recollect; I think I told him that was the object of it. I was afraid that verbal conversation might be misunderstood by Commodore Jones or Commodore Shubrick, and I wished Commodore Jones to have the letter to refer to, when he talked with Commodore Shubrick on the subject. I kept no copy of it, and had no recollection that I had written and signed a formal letter, but thought it was a mere informal memorandum.

Question 15.-By whose order were you detatched from the Dale, as a supernumerary, and ordered to the block house mentioned in said letter; by whom ordered to the Warren, and from her again to the Columbus; by whom were you peremptorily ordered from the Congress to the Dale; and by whom were you ordered from the Dale as a supernumerary, and again sent back to the same ship as not a supernumerary, as set forth in your said letter?

Answer. I was detached from the Dale by Captain Mervine.

A member of the court here interposing, and suggesting that the ques tion calls for irelevant matter, the accused submits the following paper:

The witness has said he never complained to Commodore Jones of any of his predecessors; the object of this question is to contradict and dis credit him by showing that, in the letter in question, he did so complain. THOS. AP C. JONES,

Late Commander Pacific Squadron.

The court is cleared for deliberation.

The paper is read, and the court decides that the question be answered as put.

The court is opened, and the decision announced.

The witness proceeds as follows:

And either he or Captain Hull, who commanded the shore station, ordered me to the block house. I was ordered by Captain Hull from the shore to the Warren. When the block-house was broken up, Commodore Biddle ordered me to the Columbus. He also ordered me to report to Commodore Shubrick, who ordered me to the Congress. Commodore Shubrick ordered me to the Dale. Captain Mervine ordered me from the Dale, as a supernumerary. Commodore Shubrick ordered me to the Dale, as not a supernumerary, to do duty in place of Lieutenant Smith, whose health was bad. I do not know that Commodore Shubrick's orders were more peremptory than orders generally are; they were nothing more than coinmon orders, I believe.

Question 16.-Have you not reported Commodore Jones to the Secretary of the Navy for alledged misconduct and harsh treatment to you while under his command in the Pacific station?

Answer-Yes; I reported through Commodore Jones.

Question 17. Do you not know that Commodore Jones has also reported you to the Navy Department for repeated misconduct in Washington since your return from the Pacific? If yea, how do you know it? Answer.-I know that he has reported me for what he conceives misconduct, but what I know not to be misconduct. The Secretary of the

Navy sent me a copy of the report, with a letter, giving me the privilege of replying if I desired; and I did reply, and have heard nothing of it

since.

The cross examination of the witness is here concluded.

The witness desires to read to the court certain letters and papers referred to in his cross examination yesterday, but not then read; and they are read accordingly, and are annexed to the record, marked "Stanly, X Y."

The testimony of the witness, as herein before recorded, is read over to him, and is acknowledged to be correctly recorded, and he retires. Lientenant Edward L. Handy, U. S. N., being duly sworn by the president of the court, is examined by the judge advocate, as follows:

Question. Did you receive from the accused at San Francisco, when you were about to sail for Panama in the Southampton, a package ad. dressed to Lieutenant Stanly. If yea, what instructions were given to you by the accused in relation to the delivery of that package, and when and where did you deliver it?

Answer. I received from Commodore Jones, on board the flag-ship Savannah, then off Sansalito, near San Francisco, on or about the 8th November, 1849, a communication, which he directed me to deliver to Lieutenant Stanly when the Southampton should be within one or two days' sail of Panama. We sailed on the 9th November. When I supposed the ship to be about that distance from Panama, I handed the communication to Lieutenant Stanly. This was the 25th December, and I endorsed on it the date when I delivered it.

Examined by the accused.

Question 1.-Do you recollect refusing Lieutenant Stanly to go and come freely between San Francisco and the Southampton, between the time of his reporting to you for a passage to Panama and the receipt of your final sailing-orders? Did you require him to sleep on board the Southampton every night?

Answer. I do not recollect that I refused him permission. I remember that the day before we sailed he said he wanted to go up to San Francisco to collect some money that was due him. I said, "You know what time we expect to go to sea; and if you are left, it will be your own look out." The ship was then under sailing orders. He was merely a passenger. I have no recollection of restricting his liberty at any time. Question 2.-How long before the Southampton arrived at Panama did you deliver to Lieutenant Stanly the cominunication from Commodore Jones?

Answer. I delivered it on the 25th, and I am under the impression that the ship arrived on the 29th or 30th of December. I expected to have got in before, but the wind was not favorable.

Question by the judge advocate.- When Lieutenant Stanly reported on board the Southampton, were you in daily expectation of sailing? Answer. I expected to go to sea very soon; I do not recollect precisely the day of his reporting. It was but a short time before the ship sailed -probably two or three days.

Question by same.-Do you recollect Lieutenant Stanly asking your permission to go up to town on two different days, and your assenting to his doing so?

Answer. I have no recollection of it at present.

Question by same. Did he go up to town on the occasion when you say he applied to you?

Answer. He did; and I think he returned that afternoon, but it is so long ago that I have very little recollection about it.

Question. How far from the town of San Francisco were you lying then?

Answer. About seven miles.

Question by the accused.-Did not ten days at least elapse between Lieutenant Stanly's reporting on board the Southampton for a passage and the sailing of that ship for Panama? If yea, where did Lieutenant Stanly spend most of his time, on board the Southampton or in San Francisco?

Answer. I cannot say how many days--I have no recollection. He was on board the ship the greater part of the time; I cannot say particularly.

The testimony of the witness as hereinbefore recorded is read over to him, and is acknowledged to be corectly recorded.

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

JANUARY 15, 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 record of the proceedings on yesterday is read and approved.
The accused appears and attends the court.

George M. Head, clerk in the office of the Fourth Auditor of the Treas ury, and heretofore sworn and examined, is recalled and examined by the judge advocate, as follows:

Question. Have you here such files and papers of the office of the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury as will enable you to exhibit whether any, and what, balance of the military contribution fund stands charged against the accused? If yea, produce them, and state therefrom what that balance appears to be.

The question having been read, the accused tenders the following pa per to the court, the original of which is annexed to the record, (marked Accused, 15th January:")

The accused has no objection to every account, receipt, or communication of any kind transmitted by him either to the Navy Department or to the Fourth Auditor; accordingly, such of the papers now offered in evidence as are of either description he readily admits. But his objections growing out of evidence are these:

1. One of the accounts (No. 8,851) is not any account ever rendered by him, or by any person, to the Secretary of the Navy or Fourth Auditor, but is an official statement, made more than a year ago, in the Fourth Auditor's office, of the settlement of McK. Buchanan's account as collector of Guaymas.

2. The question is, "whether any, and what, balance stands charged against the accused, and calls upon him to state therefrom (that is, from the accounts) what that balance appears to be."

The evidence consisting entirely of written documents, the sole office of the witness is to authenticate them. It is not competent for him to

state any fact merely inferred from their contents.

If there appears any

balance, it appears from the written evidence, and that is the best and

only proof of the balance.

THOS. AP C. JONES, Late Commanding Pacific Squadron.

Which paper is read, and the court is cleared.

And thereupon the judge advocate makes the following statement to the

court:

The judge advocate states to the court in writing, as he stated orally in offering the testimony, that his object in offering it is to support the 2d specification of the 4th charge, by showing that the accused neglected the duty imposed upon him by the official letter recited in that specification. The judge advocate had no intention to offer such papers as the accused supposes.

The paper proposed to be given in evidence is a paper countersigned by the accused; and is, therefore, competent evidence to be adduced against him for what it is worth.

That paper purports to show, over the signature of the accused, that a certain amount of money of the contribution fund was received by him from Purser McKean Buchanan, at a certain time.

The judge advocate proposes to show by the witness, negatively, that there is no voucher in the office of the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury absorbing or reducing that amount, and that the same stands against the accused at the treasury; and, to throw the burden of proof upon the accused, to show affirmatively that he did fulfil his duty in the specific case. To obviate all difficulty the judge advocate, with permission of the court, will substitute the two following questions for that which is objected to, to wit:

Question 1.-Have you any account from the files of the Fourth Auditor's office purporting to be signed by the accused, and charging him with the receipt of any portion of the military contribution fund? If yea, produce and read it to the court.

Question 2.-Have you any other voucher or paper from the files of that office purporting to show that the sums stated in that account to have been received by the accused were paid into the treasury by the accused, or disbursed by him on public account? If yea, produce it.

The court, having considered the objection, decides that the evidence offered is admissible.

The court is opened, the accused is in attendance, and the proceedings in closed session are read.

The accused states that he has no objection to the evidence as now offered. The witness is recalled and examined by the judge advocate, as follows:

Question 1.-Have you any account from the files of the Fourth Auditor's office purporting to be signed by the accused, and charging him with the receipt of any portion of the military contribution fund? If yea, produce and read it to the court.

Answer. I have such a paper, and now produce it, and read it to the court, as follows: