anchor in the bay of San Francisco, Upper California, this 5th day of October, 1849.

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

To Captain PHILIP F. VOORHEES,

United States Navy.

The following supplemental order was read:

FLAG SHIP SAVANNAH,

Bay of San Francisco, October 8, 1849.

To Captain Philip F. Voorhees, president of the naval general court-martial ordered to convene this day on board the United States sloop of war Warren, at anchor in this bay:

SIR: Upon assembling the officers detailed for forming a naval general court-martial this day on board the Warren, (as ordered by my warrant bearing date October 5, instant,) and to you directed, should one or more not be in attendance, you will not on that account delay proceeding to trial, provided any legal number not less than nine be present. Inform me of the organization of the court when sworn in, and the names of any absentees ordered to report as members.

Respectfully, &c.,

THOS. AP C. JONES,

Commander-in chief U. S. Naval Forces, Pacific Ocean.

N. B. In the event of being obliged to organize the court with any number less than thirteen, the odd number must be preserved by the withdrawal of the junior officer detailed.

THOS. AP C. JONES.

The following warrant of the judge advocate was next read to the

court:

FLAG-SHIP SAVANNAH,

San Francisco, Upper California, October 5, 1849. SIR: By virtue of the power and authority vested in me, a commanderin-chief of the United States naval forces on the Pacific station, to order and direct the convening of naval general courts-martial, I do hereby appoint you judge advocate of a naval general court-martial to be convened on board of the United States sloop Warren, at 10 o'clock a. m., on Monday, the 8th instant, with full power and authority to administer oaths, summon witnesses, &c., &c.; and to do all lawful acts as naval judge advocate within the limits of my command; and for so doing this shall be unto you a full and sufficient warrant and authority.

Given under my hand and seal, on board the U. S. frigate Savannah, in the bay of San Francisco, Upper California, this fifth day of October, 1849.

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

WM. NORRIS, Esq.,
Judge Advocate.

Lieutenant F. Stanly was now asked whether he had any objection to any of the members of the court ordered to sit upon his trial.

He said that he had not.

Lieutenant C. Ap R. Jones, the junior member, now withdrew, in compliance with the order contained in the before-written paper.

The president and members were now sworn by the judge advocate, and the judge advocate by the president, as provided by the 36th article of the act for the better government of the navy of the United States, approved April 23, 1800.

The charges and specifications were being read, when an objection was made by Lieutenant Stanly to the reading of the charges and specifications in the presence of witnesses; said objection is hereto appended, and marked C.

The court was cleared.

The court was again opened, and its decision made known.

It was, that the protest of Lieutenant Stanly should be sustained. The witnesses were accordingly notified that they should withdraw from the court, and they withdrew.

The charges and specifications were read before pleading, to which Lieutenant Stanly handed in a paper, hereto appended, marked D.

The court was cleared to debate, and, after a full discussion, it was again opened, and its decision read. It was, " that the exception of Lieutenant Stanly to the jurisdiction of the court above mentioned shall not be sustained."

The accused being now arraigned before the court, was asked whether he was guilty or not guilty of the matter contained in the charges and specifications of charges; to which he pleaded not guilty.

Z. F. Johnston, commander, &c., was called as a witness on the part of the government, and, being duly sworn, said: About the time referred to in my letter, while we were lying at Callao, which letter is the basis of the charges and specifications in this case, I inquired of Lieutenant Pickering what officers were absent from the ship. He replied that Lieutenant Stanly was. I asked if Mr. Stanly was not on the sick report. He replied that he was, but that Lieutenant Stanly had informed him, when he asked permission to go on shore, that he had the surgeon's permission. The doctor passed along the gangway about this time, and I asked him if he had given Mr. Stanly permission, or had recommended him to go on shore. He said that he had not given him permission, and that Lieutenant Stanly had not asked it; that he certainly should not have recommended, such a day as that, a ride over the road to Lima for

Note.-This was a most extraordinary decision, and I believe it to be without precedent in the annals of military trials. The uniform practice is to read the charges and specifications to all the witnesses collectively before any are examined; and in important cases, and especially when the charges and specifications are voluminous, it is the practice to read to each individual witness, where he is called to the stand, the charge and specification in support of which he is called to give testimony. Had these fundamental rules and cardinal points, so necessary to confine witnesses to the subject-matter before the court, and to bring out the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, been adhered to, it is manifest from the evidence recorded, and the elaborate apology which the court felt called on to make in justification of its inconsistent findings and sentence, that the accused would have been found guilty of both charges, and all the specifications alleged against him.

THOS. AP C. JONES, Commander-in-chief Pacific Squadrons.

neuralgia. Mr. Pickering then said that Lieutenant Stanly had told him (Mr. Pickering) that he had permission; that he (Mr. P.) had asked him (Lieutenant S.) the question_twice. I then asked Mr. Pickering what officer was going to Lima, and told Mr. Marchand to tell Mr. Stanly to return to the ship immediately. Lieutenant Stanly returned on board the next day, and came into the cabin and said, "Captain Johnston, I am informed that you are under the impession that I have been absent from the ship without leave." I told him that I certainly was under that impression; the surgeon had told me that he had not given him permission to go on shore, nor had recommended his going. Mr. Stanly replied that he had the surgeon's permission; that he had been up to have a tooth drawn. I then observed, "Very good, Mr. Stanly."

Charge II, specifications 1st and 2d.-Lieutenant Stanly addressed a communication to me, hereto appended and marked No. 3, which communication forms part of the charges and specifications; and in that letter he refers to a long explanation entered into with me at Callao, in which explanation reference was made to a conversation purporting to have taken place between Doctor Bee and Doctor Addison relative to drawing a tooth. This explanation never was made: this part of the letter is not correct. The only explanation that Mr. Stanly made has already been given by me in my testimony under the first charge.

Question by the judge advocate.-When lying at Callao, as specified in your letter marked No. 1, was Mr. Stanly on the sick list?

Answer. He was.

Question by the judge advocate.-Was there a general order that no one on the sick list should leave the ship without the surgeon's permission? Answer. There was a general order that no one on the sick list should leave the ship without permission of the surgeon, and a recommendation that going on shore was necessary for health.

Question by the court.-Did you or did you not give Lieutenant Stanly permission to leave the ship at any time whilst he was on the sick list? if so, state at what time.

Answer. I do not remember that I ever gave Lieutenant Stanly permission to leave the ship while on the sick list, except on one occasion when he volunteered to go ashore and look for some deserters.

Question by the court.-Please look at your letters now forming a portion of the records of this court, and embraced in the specifications, and say if they are correct, and if the signatures to the same are your own. Answer. They are correct, and the signatures are my own.

Question by the accused.-Do you know that the order which obliges a person who is on the sick list to obtain the surgeon's recommendation to go on shore, was communicated to Mr. Stanly?

Answer. I do not know that it was. I only know that he stated to me that he had the surgeon's permission.

Question by the accused. If I was ignorant of that order, was not I complying with the usages of the service and the regulations of the ship in getting the doctor's assent to my going on shore?

Answer. Yes; if Mr. Stanly had the doctor's permission, he was com plying with the usages of the service and the regulations of the ship. Question by the accused.-In your last letter, you accused me of telling a falsehood: are you still under that impression?

Answer. Yes, I am still under that impression, if the falsehood refer

red to consists in the assertion of Mr. Stanly, that he had received the doctor's permission to go on shore at all.

The following question was objected to by a member, and the court was cleared to deliberate. The court was again opened, and the accused called in. It was decided that the question might be put.

Question by the accused.-Do you believe that the falsehood rests so clearly on me, that if I do not clear myself of the charge, you must consider it a stain on my character?

Answer. Certainly I do.

Question by the accused.-Has not Mr. Pickering informed you that he did not ask me twice?

Question by the accused.-Were you on board the ship when I went on shore at the time alluded to?

Answer. I am not positive, as to whether I was or was not.

Question by the accused.-Have you not been under the impression, until within a few days, that you were on board, asserting it, and saying you saw me go over the side, &c.?

Answer. I have no doubt that I may have expressed the impression that I saw Mr. Stanly go over the side: I do not know whether I did, or did not.

Question by the accused.-Have you not said you would try and recall your report, and did not believe that I intended to mislead or deceive Lieutenant Pickering?

Question by the accused.-Do you believe that I tried to deceive Lieutenant Pickering, when I informed him I had the doctor's permis sion to go on shore?

The witness declined answering the question. The court was cleared to deliberate on the question. It was again opened, and the accused brought in, and the decision of the court read. It was decided that the witness should not be compelled to answer the question.

The evidence of the witness was read over to him, and being found correct, he withdrew.

Whereupon the court adjourned, to meet again on Monday, October 22, 1849, at 10 o'clock.

U. S. SLOOP-OF WAR WARREN, BAY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

October 22, 1849, Monday, 10 o'clock a. m. The court met pursuant to adjournment Present: the president, all the members, and the judge advocate. The court was declared to be opened, and the accused and witnesses came in. The proceedings of Saturday last (20th instant) were read and found to be correct.

Commander Z. F. Johnston was called in as a witness, and his exam. ination, which was commenced on Saturday, was continued. Having been already sworn, he said:

Question by the court.-In what particular has the official course of Lieutenant Stanly been calculated to destroy discipline, and to break down distinctions important to the good of the service?

Answer. I would state to the court that the last paragraph of my letter No. 1 was intended to carry out the usages of the service, which requires commanders to state the character and conduct of the officers under their command.

It was not designed by me that the expression of my opinion, contained in the paragraph alluded to, should form a charge or a specification against Lieutenant Stanly.

Question by the court.-Was it immediately after Lieutenant Stanly came on board at Callao, that he informed you that he had the doctor's permission to leave the ship?

Answer. I think it was. I am not positive.

Question by the judge advocate.-Could Lieutenant Stanly have gone to Lima by simply going off the sick list?

Answer.-If it had been his liberty day, he could certainly have gone to Lima by going off the sick list, and with the permission of the first lieutenant. It is my impression that the day in question was not the liberty day of Mr. Stanly.

Question by the judge advocate.-Do you know whether there was or was not any particular inducement why Mr. Stanly should wish to go to Lima at the time referred to?

Answer.-1 do not know whether there was or was not.

Question by the court.-Did Mr. Stanly, or did he not, acknowledge having violated an order of the squadron, after having remained out of the ship all night at San Francisco, as stated by you?

Answer. He did acknowledge having violated an order of the squadron on that occasion.

Question by the court. Did you consider the surgeon's permission (to one on his report) to go on shore equivalent to a recommendation? Answer.-No, I did not.

Question by the judge advocate.-Was your order to Mr. Pickering, in San Francisco (relative to prohibiting those on the sick-list from going on shore) given in writing. If so, can you produce a copy of that order? Answer. The order was not given in writing.

Question by the court.- Did Lieutenant Stanly, or did he not, express regret to you for having violated a general order of the squadron? If so, state the conversation in which it took place, as nearly as you can recollect?

Answer. He did express regret at having violated a general order of the squadron. He said that he had been on a frolic, and had remained out of the ship on that account; and that he regretted having done so. I then observed to Mr. Stanly that his course was a very suicidal one; that the watch-officers of the ship must have a very strange opinion of him, when they saw him volunteering to go on shore for deserters at night, and being ashore and frolicking, and yet being unable to keep his reg ular watch.

He then observed that the thing should not occur again. I replied that I would pass it over.

The evidence of the witness was then read over and found correct. Question by the accused.-Have I not on every occasion displayed a promptness in obeying your orders? If not, on what occasion?

Answer. Mr. Stanly has not always displayed a promptness in obeying my orders; one occasion was when I ordered lookouts to be stationed in the gangways; I observed that the lookouts were not in their places, and sent a midshipman to inquire of Mr. Stanly why they were not there. He replied, through the midshipman, that he had not observed it.

Question by the accused.-Did I not tell you on that occasion that I