Commander Z. F. Johnston, United States navy, a witness for the defence, being duly sworn by the president of the court, is examined by the accused as follows:

Question 1.-Where were you, and on what duty were you employed, from November, 1848, to July, 1850?

Answer. From November, 1848, to April, 1849, I was residing on shore at San Francisco, except three or four weeks when I lived on board the Ohio, being a member of a court martial. About the 22d of April I was ordered to the command of the St. Mary's. We sailed from San Francisco on the 11th of May, on a cruise along the coast of Chili and Peru; returned to San Francisco in October, 1849; and about the 1st of November I was ordered to the command of the Savannah; but, about the same time, I received an order from Commodore Jones to proceed to Monterey, and close up the naval store at that place. About the 1st of January, 1850, I returned to San Francisco, and resumed my command of the Savannah, and continued in the command of that ship till about the 1st of July, 1850.

---

Question 2 What were you doing on shore, at San Francisco, from November, 1848, to April, 1849? Under whose orders, and for what pur pose, were you ordered to the Pacific?

Answer.-1 was ordered by the Secretary of the Navy to the Pacific, to report myself to Commodore Jones, for duty in that squadron. I took out with me a leave of absence for Captain Shields, (who commanded the Preble, and who had applied to return on account of ill health,) with the understanding that I should succeed him in the command of that ship. The Preble had been despatched to China before I arrived; and there being no duty for me, I remained on shore at San Francisco, waiting orders, and occasionally serving as a member of a court-martial.

Question 3.-Do you know that, within the dates specified in the last question, any inconvenience to commerce and trade was experienced in California from want of silver and gold coin as a circulating medium? If yea, please give particulars.

Answer. There was great inconvenience, and I heard great complaints among the merchants of San Francisco for the want of specie. They complained that the government kept all the money-the army on one side, and the navy on the other. All the money collected at the custom-house was paid over to Captain Folsom, of the quartermaster's department of the army. The price of gold-dust was then eleven or twelve dollars, which was greatly below its value; and this is a sufficient indication of the scarcity of coin.

Question 4.-Please state the effect, so far as it fell within your observation, which the coin put in circulation by the orders of Commodore Jones, and by the officers and ships of his squadron, in the autumn of 1848, had upon the commerce of the county; and whether it proved beneficial, and in what degree, to all classes-consumers as well as producers, and importers of goods into California?

Answer. I do not know that I am merchant enough to answer that question. I know there was scarcity of coin; and that the merchants. advertising their goods, always stipulated that a certain portion of the price should be paid in coin, in order to meet the demands of the cus tom-house. I had applications to borrow money to pay duties; and in one instance I mentioned it to the officers of the Ohio, who sent their own funds on shore, and bought gold-dust with them.

Question 5.-Did not the coin put in circulation by the squadron in the autumn and winter of 1848-49 raise the price of gold-dust at San Francisco?

Answer. Yes, at that time there was very little coin in the country. It was only after the arrival of the steamers that much coin was brought into the country.

Question 6.-Did Commodore Jones ever give you an order or assign you to "nominal duty," to enable you to engage in private adventure or travel for pleasure in California?

Answer.-Never.

Question 7.-For what purpose did you head a party of officers and some men of the Pacific squadron, on an expedition from San Francisco to the Contra Costa, in January, 1849? Name the officers who accompanied you. How long were you absent?

Answer. We went for the purpose of apprehending a boat's crew, of ten men, who had deserted from the St. Mary's with the boat. Commander Crowninshield reported the fact to me, and requested me to look after the men. In consequence of my conversation with him, I volunteered to Commodore Jones to head a party, and, with his assent, selected the party.

The officers were Lieutenant Pickering, Acting Master Moore, and Midshipman Bowen. I was absent four days and nights; and we appre hended nine of the boat's crew and four other deserters.

Question 8.-Did Commodore Jones ever approach you in any way, directly or indirectly, officially or unofficially, with a view to prejudice you against Lieutenant Stanly or any other officer under his command? Answer.-Never, and I should regard an insinuation of the kind as a slander upon Commodore Jones and myself.

The examination of this witness is closed. The judge advocate declines any cross-examination. The testimony of the witness, as recorded, is read over to him, and is acknowledged to be correctly recorded, and the witness discharged.

Commander C. K. Stribling is recalled by the accused for further examination, and is examined by the accused as follows:

Question 1.-Examine the papers now shown you, purporting to be the proceedings and report, and the supplemental proceedings and report, of Colonel Burton and yourself as a board of commissioners, appointed by Commodore Jones, to inquire into the losses sustained by inhabitants of Lower California, &c. &c.; and say if it be the true proceedings and report of said commissioners, officially returned by them to Commodore Jones; and whether it be subscribed by Colonel Burton any yourself in the proper hand writing of both?

Answer. It is the original paper signed by Colonel Burton and myself, being minutes of the proceedings of a board ordered by Commodore Jones for the purpose mentioned in the question. There was a duplicate sent to the commanding military officer.

The accused states that he only desires to read to the court the recapitulations of claims allowed; and that any other parts of the paper may be read by the judge advocate in evidence to the court.

The recapitulation of the original awards is read as follows, that is to say:

The whole paper is annexed to the record, and marked "January 21, No. 1."

Question 2.-Were there any claims (of the same nature as those passed) preferred to the board and disallowed? If so, for what reason? Was it that the commissioners thought them unjust, or that the documents were not prepared with proof? and state what obstacles, if any, to the obtaining of the requisite evidence, were alleged before the board by the documents.

Answer. There were two classes of claims rejected by the board: 1st. For want of sufficient evidence in consequence of the claimants belong. ing to a portion of the country then in the occupation of Mexico; and from which, therefore, they could not procure evidence to substantiate their claims. 2d. Such as were evidently unjust, or not coming within the order under which the commissioners were acting. I recollect one case particularly; a man named Davis, an American, who was prevented from visiting La Paz during the whole time the commission was sitting, and I have reason to believe that he had as just a claim as any that were allowed, to the amount of about $4,000.

Question 3.-Examine the letter now shown to you from Colonel Burton to Commodore Jones, dated June 19, 1850, and say if it be Colonel Burton's handwriting?

Answer. I recognise it as Colonel Burton's handwriting.

The letter is read as follows:

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA, June 19, 1850.

DEAR SIR: I have the honor to send you, herewith, the claim of Peter Davis, esq., for loss of property, &c., in Lower Calfornia during the time that country was occupied by our forces. His claim appears to me to be well substantiated.

Among the claims remaining unpaid is one of Juan José Romero for six hundred and a few dollars. I learn that this portion of the claim properly belongs to the Rev. Padre Ramirez.

Romero was not in Monterey when the last payments were made by you; and on account of your directions respecting these payments, Padre could not receive this amount. He requests me to ask you if he can be paid this claim, as Romero is in Lower California, and probably will not return to this country.

Yours, very truly,

Commodore TH. AP C. JONES,

HENRY S. BURTON, Captain.

Commanding U. S. Pacific Squadron.

Question 4.-Examine the paper to which your attention is now called in a volume of my correspondence with the Navy Department, and say whether it is not subscribed by you at the time it bears date?

Answer.-Yes.

The paper referred to is the paper purporting to be interrogatories by the accused and answers by the witness, heretofore read to the court, and spread upon the record as part of despatch No. 52. The examination in chief is here closed.

Question by the judge advocate.

Question.-Examine the minutes of proceedings, and report and sup plemental proceedings and report, referred to in your testimony this morning, and say when the board adjourned sine die, and what appears to be the sum total of accounts of refugees passed and allowed by that board?

Answer. It appears by the record that the board adjourned sine die on the 17th of August, 1848. The sum total appears by the recapitulation in the record to be thirty-seven thousand five hundred and ninety-six dollars and fifty cents, ($37,596 50,) which includes all the cases passed and allowed by the board, numbering in all sixty-four cases passed and allowed.

The examination is closed.

The testimony of the witness, as hereinbefore recorded, is read over to him, and is acknowledged to be correctly recorded, and he is discharged. Commander A. K. Long, United States navy, a witness for the defence, being duly sworn by the president of the court, is examined by the accused, as follows:

Question 1.-Where were you serving in the years 1848 and 1849? Answer. In the Pacific, partly on the coast of California and partly on the coast of Mexico, under the command of Commodore Jones.

Question 2.-While serving under the command of Commodore Jones, did he ever approach you, directly or indirectly, officially or unofficially, to operate upon you to the prejudice of Lieutenant Stanly or any other person under your command?

Answer. He never did, and no such attempt was ever made. I do