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?

Answer. I have no such paper with me.

Question 3.-Have you made examination of the files of the said office to ascertain whether any such voucher is filed there?

Answer. I have not, in reference to that particular sum. Commodore Jones rendered an account to the office of the disposition of a large portion of the military contribution fund. There has been no settlement of his accounts in our office.

Question 4.-Have you here the account rendered by Commodore Jones? If yea, produce it.

Answer. I have not the account with me.

Question 5.-Have you any other paper from the said office, signed by the accused, touching the sums, or either of them, mentioned in the account read by you in your former answer? If yea, produce and read it. Answer. I have Commodore Jones's order on Purser Buchanan, and his receipt on the back of it, as follows:

FLAG-SHIP OHIO, La Paz, July 13, 1848.

SIR: By the account rendered of your collectorship at the port of Guaymas, from the 11th of April of the present year to the 24th day of June, when that port was restored to Mexico, under the treaty of peace, I perceive that the net proceeds remaining in your hands applicable to Mexican hostilities, is $3,226 49-three thousand of which, in dollars, you will bring on board this ship, and for which I shall receipt to you. The balance of $226 49 you will retain, subject to the order of Commander John Rudd.

Very respectfully, &c.,

THOS. AP C. JONES, Commander in-chief U. S. Naval Forces, Pacific Ocean.

To MCKEAN BUCHANAN, Esq.,

Late Collector of Customs at the port of Guaymas.

UNITED STATES SHIP OHIO 74,

Bay of La Paz, July 13, 1848.

Received of McKean Buchanan, late collector of the port of Guaymas, the sum of three thousand hard dollars; for which I hold myself accountable to the honorable Secretary of the Navy.

($3,000.)

THOS. AP C. JONES,

Commander-in chief.

And also the following:

UNITED STATES FLAG-SHIP OHIO,
San Francisco, March 5, 1849.

Received of McKean Buchanan, late collector of the port of Guaymas, the sum of seventy-six dollars and fifty-two cents, being the balance in

his hands as collector; and for which I hold myself accountable to the honorable the Secretary of the Navy. ($76 52.)

THOS. AP C. JONES,
Commander in chief.

Cross-examined by the accused.

Question.-Did not Commodore Jones, during the years 1848, 1849, and 1850, on several successive occasions, transmit to the Navy Depart ment abstracts of his accounts current, accompanied by vouchers, for his expenditure of a large portion of the military contribution fund, and already exhibited to the court; which abstracts contain, as debits against him, the identical charges you now produce in court?

Answer.-Commodore Jones rendered, I think, two accounts of the kind mentioned, some time within the period indicated.

The judge advocate objects to any evidence of the contents of such papers. The witness will produce them, if they are in the possession of the government.

The accused states that he does not press for further answer to the question.

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

The judge advocate states that, until the papers from the Fourth Auditor's office are produced, he cannot proceed further.

Thereupon the court is adjourned until to-morrow morning, at halfpast 10 o'clock.

JANUARY 16, 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 makes the following statement to the court: The accused having, by his cross-examination of Lieutenant Green and other witnesses, given evidence for the purpose of imputing to Lieutenants Green and Craven a spirit of cavil and insubordination in the matter of the courtmartial of which they were members, and which did not organize until the third day after that named in the precept, the judge advocate now offers in evidence a paper addressed by the accused at that time to the president of that court for the purpose of showing the view then taken by the accused of the doubt which had been suggested as to his jurisdiction. The paper being long, and principally composed of arguments on matter of law, the judge advocate proposes to read only the introductory passages, which alone affect the present object, producing the whole paper, and tendering to the accused the use of the whole or any part of it in evidence.

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

The accused does not understand the fact to be as above supposed by the judge advocate. His recollection is, (and he appeals to the minutes of evidence to sustain his recollection,) that the circumstance of Lieutenant Green's having objected to serve on the court martial was brought out voluntarily by himself on his cross examination, probably, but not responsively to any question by the accused. The question went to illwill and malice on the part of the accused towards the witness prior to the 19th October, 1848; and as one instance of such ill-will and malice, the witness referred to his application to be excused from serving on the court, and produced the correspondence between him and the accused on the subject, dated 21st October, 1848. The whole of the subsequent examinations on the subject followed from this voluntary introduction of the subject by the witness; and according to the recollection of the accused, no part purported to be for the purpose of imputing to Lieutenants Green and Craven a spirit of cavil, &c. The accused does not state this by way of objecting to the reading of the paper presented, but by way of protest against the fact of his having brought out the evidence by cross-examination or otherwise, for the purpose supposed, or any other. He holds himself, notwithstanding that paper, free to show, without the slightest inconsistency, that after he wrote the paper, circumstances came to his knowledge showing that the objections to his authority were pushed beyond reason and due respect to the authority of superiors.

THOS. AP C. JONES,

Late commanding, &c.

And thereupon, a member of the court suggesting that the evidence is inadmissible, the court is cleared, and the matter is considered by the

court.

And the court decides that the evidence is admissible.

The court is opened and the decision read.

Samuel L. Harris, corresponding clerk of the Navy Department, heretofore sworn and examined, is now recalled by the judge advocate, and examined as follows:

Question.-Have you here a copy of any paper purporting to have been addressed by the accused to Commander C. K. Stribling, president of a court martial, and bearing date 23d October, 1848? If yea, state how that copy comes to be in the possession of the government.

Answer. I have such a paper here, and now produce it. This identical paper, which purports to be a copy, was received at the department from the accused with his despatch No. 47, dated 15th March, 1849.

The judge advocate reads the three first paragraphs of the paper, and states that this is all which, in his opinion, is pertinent to the matter. The accused desires that the whole paper be read, which is accordingly done, and the same is annexed to the record, marked "January 16, No. 1."

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

Aaron O. Dayton, Fourth Auditor of the Treasury, being duly sworn by the president of the court, is examined by the judge advocate, as follows:

Question 1.-Please to state what office you hoid; and produce from

your office, in the order in which they may have been received there, the accounts, if any, rendered by the accused to the Navy or Treasury Department, of the military contribution fund.

Answer I am the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury Department. The only account of military contributions rendered by the accused, which I have here, is the following: