advocate; and in compliance with the order therein contained, the court adjourned to meet sine die, but was not dissolved.

"P."

WILLIAM NORRIS,

Judge Advocate.

FLAG-SHIP SAVANNAH,

Sansalito, October 29, 1849.

SIR: When the court-martial meets this day, adjourn sine die, but do not dissolve, as it is probable the proceedings in the case of Lieutenant Stanly will have to be returned for amendment, as soon as I can more thoroughly examine the same, having already discovered two very material errors, viz: Lieutenant Hardy's name does not appear on the record except as an absentee, until we find it signed to the proceedings. 2d. The decision of the court, whereby the charges and specifications were not allowed to be read to the witnesses. The excursiveness, too, of the testimony, the irrelevant matter given in evidence, and particularly the testimony of Lieutenant Duer, except so far as relates to the general character of the accused, is altogether inadmissible in courts of law and justice. THOS. AP C. JONES, Commander-in chief, &c.

Captain PHILIP F. Voorhees,

President of the Naval General Court-Martial.

Proceedings of a naval general court-martial convened on board the United States flag-ship Ohio, lying in the bay of San Francisco, Upper Cali fornia, commencing March 15, 1849, pursuant to the following order:

FLAG SHIP OHIO,

San Francisco, March.

SIR: In virtue of the power and authority vested in me by the 35th article of the act of Congress for the better government of the navy of the United States, (approved April 23, 1800,) as commander-in-chief of the naval forces of the United States at this time employed on the Pacific ocean, I do hereby order and direct you to convene a naval general court martial on board the United States ship-of-the-line Ohio, at anchor in the bay of San Francisco, at 10 o'clock Thursday, the 15th instant, to consist of such captains, commanders, and lieutenants as can be convened without injury to the public service; over which you will preside for the trial of Lieutenant Fabius Stanly, and any others that may be legally arraigned.

The following commissioned officers have been ordered to report to you as members of the court to be convened in compliance with the above

warrant.

Commander JACOB CROWNINSHIELD,

ANDREW K. LONG,
ZACH. F. JOHNSTON,

WILLIAM NORRIS, esq., judge advocate.

And for so doing, this shall be unto you and all concerned a sufficient warrant and authority.

Given under my hand and seal, on board the flag-ship Ohio, at anchor in the bay of San Francisco, this 12th day of February, 1849.

THOS. AP C. JONES,

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

Captain C. K. STRIBLING, U. S. N.

FLAG-SHIP OHIO,

San Francisco, March 11, 1849.

SIR: By virtue of the power and authority vested in me as 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 the United States ship Ohio, at 10 o'clock a. m. on Thursday, the 15th instant, with full power and authority to administer oaths, summon witnesses, and do all lawful acts as naval judge advocate within the limits of my command; and for so doing, this shall be unto you a sufficient warrant and authority.

Given under my hand and seal on board the United States ship Ohio, in San Francisco bay, this 12th day of March, 1849. THOS. AP C. JONES, Commander in chief U. S. Naval Forces, Pacific Squadron. WM. NORRIS, Esq.,

San Francisco.

The president and all the members, and the judge advocate, being present, as follows: Captain C. K. Stribling, president; Commander Jacob Crowninshield, Commander Andrew K. Long, Commander Z. F. Johnston, Lieutenant Joseph F. Green, Lieutenant George F. Emmons, Lieutenant John Hall, members; William Norris, esq., judge advocate;the accused and the witnesses were called in, when the accused, Lieutenant Fabius Stanly, U. S. N., was asked by the president whether or not he had any objections to offer to any of the members of the court now present, and sitting upon his trial. He answered in the affirmative; and presented the following written objections hereto appended, and marked A.

The court was then cleared; and, after a few moments' deliberation, it was decided that the objection should be overruled. The court was then opened, and the decision made known to the accused; when he presented a second objection, hereto appended, and marked B. The court was again cleared, and Commander Long withdrew; and, after deliberating a few moments, it was opened again, and the accused called in and informed that his second objection was entertained by the court. Whereupon Commander Long was informed by the president that he was excused from sitting upon the trial of Lieutenant Stanly, and he accordingly

retired. The court was then duly sworn according to law, and the charges and specifications read to the accused, of which the following is a copy:

Charges and specifications of charges exhibited by the United States of North America against Lieutenant Fabius Stanly, U. S. navy.

CHARGE I.-Disobedience of orders.

Specification.In this: that the said Lieutenant Fabius Stanly did, on or about the sixth day of the present month, A. D. eighteen hundred and forty nine, being at the time attached to the United States sloop of-war Warren, then lying in the bay of San Francisco, Upper California, under the command of Commander A. K. Long, U. S. navy, remain absent from the said U. S. ship Warren during the night of the 6th of March, 1849, and until the morning of the 7th of March, 1849, without the permission of his commander, and after the said Commander A. K. Long (his commanding officer) had, when applied to, expressly refused permission to the said Lieutenaut Fabius Stanly to remain absent from his ship.

CHARGE II.-Treating with contempt his superior and commanding

officer.

Specification. In this: that the said Lieutenant Fabius Stanly, on or about the seventh day of March, A. D. eighteen hundred and forty nine, on board the U. S. ship Warren, at the time lying in the bay of San Francisco, Upper California, in the cabin of said ship, when called upon by his commanding officer, A K. Long, of the U. S. navy, for his reasons or excuse for absenting himself from his ship without permission, as fully set forth in the specification to the first charge, and desired by said Commander Long to make a statement in writing of those reasons or excuses, did reply to the said Commander Long, his superior and commanding officer, in a disrespectful and contemptuous manner, and say to him, "Captain Long, I have made my report; you may put it in writing yourself, sir;" or words to that effect-all of which is contrary to the laws and discipline of the naval service of the United States, and in violation of an act entitled "An act for the better government of the navy of the United States," approved April 23, 1800.

Commander A. K. LONG,
Lieutenant BUCHANAN, of marines,
Witnesses.

The accused being called on to plead, pleaded not guilty. Commander A. K. Long was then called in; and being duly sworn, and having heard the charges and specifications read, testified as follows, on the part of the prosecution:

On the afternoon of the 6th instant, about 1 p. m., Lieutenant Stanly entered the cabin of the Warren, and applied to me for permission to remain on shore all night. This permission was positively denied him. He expostulated, when a desultory conversation ensued, which would not have been permitted had not Lieutenant Stanly said that it was semi official, or friendly. He left the cabin, and soon after left the ship, and did not return until nearly 8 a. m. next morning. I then sent

for Lieutenant Stanly and Lieutenant Buchanan, of the marines, and said to them," Gentlemen, you have absented yourselves from the ship without leave; what have you to say in extenuation?" to which Mr. Stanly replied in words to this effect: "I went to the mission, and the distance was greater than I expected, and I could not return in time." I then said, "Gentlemen, make that statement to me in writing;" to which Mr. Stanly replied: "Excuse me, Captain Long, I have made my re. port; you can put it in writing yourself, sir." Upon which, I imediately told Mr. Stanly that he should consider himself suspended.

The court having declined to put any questions to the witness, he was then examined by the accused.

Question. When I asked permission to remain on shore during the evening, did I not state that I intended to go to the mission on business, and that I asked permission because I might not be able to get back in time for the sundown boat?

Answer. I do not recollect any thing about the word "business" in his application, but he did state that he wanted to make a trip that would prevent him from returning in time to take the sundown boat.

By the accused. Did I not state that I might not get back, or that I would not be able to get back?

Answer. Mr. Stanly might have stated the words " that I might not get back," or, "that I would not be able to get back."

By the accused.-Was my manner respectful in refusing to put my excuse in writing?

Answer. His manner was respectful.

By the accused -Were not these words used: "I beg your pardon, Captain Long; I will repeat it over again, and have no objection to your putting it in writing?"

Answer.-Those were not the words.

By the accused.-Did I not return to the ship in the first boat that came on board on the morning after the night alluded to?

Answer. To the best of my knowledge, he did, as it was reported to me that Mr. Stanly had returned in the market boat.

Cross-examined by the court.

Did you give the accused permission to visit the mission on the 6th instant?

Answer.-I did not.

By the accused.-Did I ask your permission to visit the mission, or simply inform you that 1 intended to do so?

Answer. I have no recollection of the word mission being used on the afternoon of the 6th. The word "trip" was the word used.

By the accused.-Did you refuse me permission to go on the trip alluded to, or simply refuse permission to remain on shore after sundown? Answer. I simply refused permission to remain after sunset.

By the judge advocate.-Did Lieutenant Stanly leave the ship by your permission, immediately after the conversation in question?

Answer. The first lieutenant is authorized to grant permission to officers to be absent from the ship until sundown.

further ques

Neither the prosecutor nor the defence desiring to put any tions to him, the witness withdrew, and Lieutenant Buchanan, of the

marines, was called in on the part of the prosecution, who, being daly sworn, testified as follows: Captain Long requested that Lieutenant Stanly and myself should go into the cabin. We went in, and having spoken to him, he said that we had absented ourselves from the ship without permission, and asked if we had any excuse? Mr. Stanly stated to him that we had gone to the mission; and in going there, became confused about the way, and that we were much longer in getting there than we had expected we would have been.

Captain Long then said, "Put it in writing, sir." Mr. Stanly then told him that he begged to be excused. Captain Long repeated, "Put it in writing, sir." Mr. Stanly then said, "I beg your pardon, Captain Long; I will repeat it over again, and have no objections to your putting it in writing."

The court not desiring to put any questions to the witness, he was examined by the defence.

By the accused.-Did you understand me to refuse to obey the order to make the report in writing?

Answer. I did so understand Mr. Stanly.

By the accused.-Did my reply appear to be an objection, a refusal, or simply a wish to explain?

Answer. What I understood was, that Mr. Stanly did not intend to make the report in writing.

By the accused.-Was my manner respectful or disrespectful?

Answer. It was respectful.

By the accused-Did I not make haste in going and returning from the mission, keeping ahead of the party with whom we were, and sometimes even leaving them out of sight; and did I not several times urge them" to come on?"

Answer. Yes, sir.

By the accused.-Were we not partially lost on going out to the mission; so much so, that on climbing a hill there was some conversation between you and myself as to its direction?

Auswer.-Yes, there was such a conversation.

By the accused.-Please to repeat the exact language used by me in the cabin as you recollect it, from the time when I first entered until I left.

Answer. When we first went in, Mr. Stanly spoke to Captain Long; when Captain Long said: "Gentleinen, you have absented yourselves from the ship without permission; have you any excuses?" Mr. Stanly replied, "We have, sir." He then went on to state that we had gone to the mission; that we became confused as to the proper road, and that we were much longer in getting there than we had expected that we should have been. Captain Long then said, " Put it in writing, sir;" to which Mr. Stanly replied, "I beg to be excused." Captain Long repeated the order, Put it in writing." Mr Stanly then said, "I beg your pardon, Captain Long; I will repeat it over again, and have no objection to your putting it in writing.'

66

The court now informed the accused that there were no further witnesses on the part of the prosecution, and inquired whether or not he (the ac cused) wished to examine any witnesses on the part of the defence. The accused replied in the negative; whereupon the court stated that the trial had closed, and that they were ready to hear the defence; but that they would grant such time as the accused might require for its preparation.