the squadron, a sufficient number of whom, to conduct such a voyage, to obtain furloughs from the commander of the squadron ?

Answer. I heard nothing at all of any such thing discussed seriously. Mr. Beale, who was not an officer of the ship, said something about get ting up an expedition to go from Mazatlan to Monterey, but it appeared to be treated in the ward room as a jest; no one attached the slightest consequence to it, so far as came under my observation.

Question 3.-Was not Lieutenant J. McCormick, Commodore Jones's flag lieutenant, to have been intrusted with a considerable sum of money, placed in his hands by his messmates, including Lieutenants J. F. Green and J. B Marchand, to be invested by Lieutenant McCormick in golddust, in Commodore Jones's contemplated expedition from Monterey to Suter's Fort in October, 1848?

Answer.-I do not know.

Question 4.-Do you know of Commodore Jones being applied to by any commissioned or warrant officers of the Pacific squadron for leave of absence, furlough, or other release from duty in the squadron, to enable such officers to go to the gold-mines, or embark in private commercial adventure?

Answer. Of my own knowledge, I know of no cases.

Question 5. Did you not apply to Commodore Jones to take with him to Suter's Fort $1,000 on your own account, to be invested in gold-dust? Answer. I applied to Commodore Jones to take some money-the amount I do not recollect—to be invested in gold-dust for me, as I understood he was going to the mines; it may have been $1,000.

Question 6.-Have you any recollection of Commodore Jones request. ing you, about the time of the Lexington's final departure from Sansalito for the eastern States, to make, in as small a compass as you conveniently could, an abstract statement of the military contribution fund, which Commodore Jones wished to send in a letter, via Mexico, to the Secretary of the Navy?

Answer.-I do not recollect it.

Question 7.--Examine the abstract now shown you, and say if it is not in your handwriting? If yea, state the circumstances under which that abstract was made out, and by what means it reached the Navy Department.

[The paper shown to the witness is the abstract enclosed in despatch No. 41.]

Answer. The extract is in my handwriting. I presume I gave it to Commodore Jones; I recollect nothing about it, and know nothing as to how it reached the Navy Department. Of some of the items in it I could have had no knowledge, except as derived from Commodore Jones; of others, I had personal knowledge.

Question 8.-is it not quite as likely that you might have forgotten to send on the pay-rolls, if requested to do so by Commodore Jones, as that you should have forgotten all about the abstract of the account, after making it out and handing it to Commodore Jones?

Answer.-I may have forgotten it; but I do not think it is likely. I am very particular in complying with requests of that kind generally. I will further state that I would have been very reluctant to do so in this instance, as I did not wish to open any communication with the department in my own name, as I did not hold myself responsible to any other per

son than to Commodore Jones in regard to that military contribution. fund. That was the ground I took; and I do not think, for these reasons, that I would have forgotten Commodore Jones's request, if he had made it.

Question 9.-As Commodore Jones, and not you, had to make the final settlement of the military contribution fund with the Navy Depart ment, ought not he, and not you, to have retained two sets of pay-rolls? Answer. I can only answer that by saying, that I considered that I ought to have the two sets: so that, in case I were called upon by the government, I could render one of the sets, and retain the other for my own security.

And the cross-examination is here closed.

By the judge advocate.

Question 1.-Was the application which was made to Commodore Jones to invest some money in goid for you, before or after he applied to you to dispose of gold-dust for him at Mazatlan?

Answer. It was before; and it was at Monterey.

Question 2.-Do you mean to be understood as testifying that the news of the discovery of the gold in California produced among the officers any excitement interfering with the discipline of the ship, or influencing their conduct and deportment?

Answer. By no means; I observed nothing of the kind.

Question 3.-Will you state particularly what were the conduct and deportment of Lieutenants J. F. Green and J. B. Marchand in that respect?

Answer. Their conduct was perfectly correct; I observed nothing in them in the slightest degree objectionable..

The accused tenders the following paper to the court; and it is read by his counsel:

"The accused desires that his protest against the admissibility of the twe last questions put by the judge advocate to Mr. Forrest, and the answers thereto, be entered-1st. Because both questions are in the nature of a cross-examination of a witness produced on the part of the prosecution; 2d. Because the first of these questions, and the answer, go to an issue not made under any charge or specification-namely, the conduct of the officers generally of the ship. The accused does not desire to have the said questions and answers expunged, but only to re serve the right to insist in his defence that they are not competent nor relevant evidence, and ought not to weigh aught against him.

"If the court find that any question before put by the accused to the same witness, and the answer thereto, be not proper and admissible, but have been inadvertently admitted without objection, and that the ques tions now objected to have followed the lead of these prior questions, the accused has no objections to the court's going back to the first departure, and striking out all that had been irregularly introduced on either side.

"THOS. AP C. JONES, "Late Commander Pacific Squadron."

And thereupon the court is cleared for deliberation; and having con sidered the matter of the said paper, and come to its conclusion, there

upon the court is again opened, and the judge advocate, by direction of the court, announces their decision as follows:

"The court directs the protest of the accused to be received and entered upon the record.

"The court is of opinion that the questions and answers which were objected to, were properly put and answered, under the circumstances; and that the objections are not well founded.

"The judge advocate has the right to re-examine the witness in chief, and to prove any facts by him pertinent to the issues upon these charges and specifications; and the accused has the right to cross-examine him further as to the matter of such re examination in chief. The court is of opinion that it is pertinent to the issue, under the 2d specification of the 3d charge, to show, if the fact be so, that the alleged libel, which is a privileged communication, was false in fact, and without probable cause; and that the proper mode of doing this, is by the testimony of witnesses who had opportunity of observing the deportment and conduct of the parties alleged to have been libelled, in relation to the matter of the alleged libel."

Question 4.-Will you state whether you observed in the conduct and deportment of Lieutenant J. F. Green and Lieutenant J. B. Marchand, or either of them, on or prior to the 25th day of October, 1848, anything indicating that they were "tainted with the gold mania," or "restless under moderate restrictions imperiously demanded by the exigencies of the times?" Specify any fact or circumstance in the conduct, language, or deportment of either of them which tended to subject them justly to such a charge; and state what opportunity you had of observing their conduct, language, and deportment?

Answer. I was very intimate with those officers, being messmates in the ward room of the Ohio, and observed nothing in them showing that they were tainted with the gold mania, or manifesting any restlessness under moderate restrictions of the ship

Question 5.-Was there, at or about the time of your being charged with the disbursement of the military contribution fund, any correspondence on that subject between you and the accused, or any instructions given by him to you? If yea, produce them.

Answer. There was. I have the correspondence. This is it: I read it as follows:

"LA PAZ, July 20, 1848.

"SIR: Before I make any disbursements out of the fund placed in my hands as special agent on account of military contributions, I beg leave to make the following statement:

"I consider that I was ordered to this ship to do the duty of purser only, and respectfully protest against being compelled to do any other duty which may involve my securities. All that I can do is, to place this, my opinion, on record, to show that the disbursement of this money has been imposed on me contrary to my own views and will, and that I assume it only in obedience to military authority.

"I am, very respectfully,

"To Commodore TH. AP C. JONES,

"SAM'L FORREST.

Commanding U. S. Naval Forces, Pacific Ocean."

"FLAG SHIP OHIO,

"La Paz, Lower California, July 20, 1848.

"SIR: Your letter of this date, expressing an unwillingness to make disbursements out of the funds placed in your hands as special agent on account of military contributions, has been received.

"You say, 'I consider that I was ordered to this ship to do the duty of a purser only, and respectfully protest,' &c., &c.

"As regards the duties of pursers, they, like all other officers of the navy, are bound to obey all lawful orders of their superior officers; and any order issued by the commander-in-chief of the fleet or squadron on foreign service, which does not conflict with some act of Congress, or with the written orders of the President or Secretary of the Navy, is of that lawful character which cannot be disregarded by any one under his command, without subjecting such person to the pains and penalties which the law provides in such cases. Before an inferior officer can be justified in disobeying the orders of his superior, he must be certain that the thing ordered is not only inconvenient and inexpedient in his judg ment, but that its execution is clearly, palpably, and beyond all question, contrary to, and in violation of, express law.

"As regards the disbursement of the military fund, placed in your hands under my orders of 16th of June, 1848, your doubts and misgiv ings will be entirely removed by reference to the printed instructions under which that fund was collected; several passages of which I have marked, and to which I call your especial attention.

"You cannot fail to perceive, in the first place, that the President bases his right to issue the order for collecting military contributions upon our belligerant rights as conquerors, and not upon any legislative act.

6

"The Secretary of the Treasury expressly says: These duties can only be collected as a military contribution, through the agency of our brave officers of the army and navy, who will no doubt cheerfully collect and keep these moneys, and account for them-not to the treasury, but to the Secretaries of War or of the Navy, respectively.'

"The Secretary of the Navy expresses the same sense, viz: that the power or orders to collect military contributions derive no authority from the Treasury Department;' and, in a subsequent paragraph, directs the officer commanding the United States naval forces to see that the moneys collected by officer under his command are accounted for, and paid over at short intervals, according to the regulations, for public use, to the pur sers, or disbursing officer of the army;' and that the receipts of the officers to whom such payments shall be made are promptly attested;" that 'weekly accounts, in detail, be returned, showing the receipts;' and that such accounts, after his approval, be transmitted to the depart ment,' &c., &c.

"Nothing could be more absurd than to suppose that the framers of the foregoing regulations intended that the funds so collected were to remain in the chest of the receiver, to be drawn out only by a warrant, or order, signed by the Secretary of War or the Secretary of the Navy, or that its specific appropriation or application required an act of Congress. Such a procedure would neither subserve the public interests, meet the exigencies of the public service, as they might arise, nor be consistent with the purposes for which military contributions are levied; and the regulations therefor, fully recognising the high trust, authority, and discretionary

power of a commander-in-chief on a foreign station in time of war, expressly declares that the money so collected and paid over will be subject. to disbursement on public account, for the army or navy, in the prosecution of the war, under the direction of the officer of the army or navy. under whose orders the disbursing officer may be acting.'

"A purser, appointed, under those regulations, the receiver and depositary of this special fund, or acting also as its disbursing agent, has no right to question its disposition or appropriation. If any portion of the fund shall have been improperly applied by the order of the commanding officer, that may be a matter, possibly, for him to settle with the President and Secretary, but not a matter to be settled between the disbursing agent and the Executive.

"Hence the order of such commanding officer to any such disbursing agent to pay out such funds, will be good and sufficient authority, and will be the only voucher the Secretary of the Navy can, or ever will, require of the purser acting as such disbursing agent.

"Respectfully, &c., &c.,

"THOS. AP C. JONES, "Commander in chief U. S. Naval Forces, Pacific Ocean. "SAMUEL FORREST, Esq.,

"Purser United States Navy."

[The enclosure, being a printed circular, is marked O P Q, and annexed to the record.]

Witness: The paper marked O P Q is the same which was enclosed in Commodore Jones's letter, which I have just read to the court.

The re-examination in chief being here closed, the accused tenders the following paper to the court, which is read, and ordered to be recorded:

The accused, still reserving, under protest, his objections to the ques. tion No. 4, put by the judge advocate to the witness, Mr. Forrest, on his last examination in chief, in like manner as to the former questions and answers specified in his protest, already entered, would put the following. questions:

Question 1.-Did you not hear the three lieutenants, Green, Mar. chand, and Craven, or either, and which of them, openly and publicly, in the presence and hearing of other officers or men of the Ohio, or other persons, denounce, or find fault with, the commodore's special order No. 2, restraining the watch officers from their usual liberty on shore? Did they, or some of them, and which, not complain of it as partial and unjust, and declare that the commodore should either rescind the order entirely, or extend it to all the officers of the ship, without exception?

Answer. I think I have heard them all three complain of the order as unjust. I do not recollect in what company it was. I know it was not in the presence of any of the men. I did not hear any such declaration as that Commodore Jones should rescind it, or extend it to all the officers. I heard them complain of it as partial and unjust I do not know that these words were used, but that was the substance of it. I am under an impression that, whenever I heard then speak of it, it was when we were alone. Some other officers may have been present, or joined us, when we were talking of it about the decks; but they seemed to manifest caution not to speak of it publicly, or in mixed company. I do not think it was ever spoken of at the mess-table. Lieutenant Craven was not