Horace W. Bridges, examined by District Attorney Smith.
Q.You were mate of the Joseph when she was captured by the Savannah?
A.Yes.
Q.Do you know the names of the others of the crew beside yourself and the captain?
A.I do not know all of them.
Q.State those you know?
A.The cook's name is Nash, and there was another man named Harry Quincy; that is all I know.
Q.Were they citizens of the United States?
A.I think they were both.
Q.Are you a citizen of the United States?
A.Yes; I was born in the State of Maine.
Q.You have heard the statement of Captain Meyer as to the seizure of the vessel?
A.Yes.
Q.You were on board the Joseph after she parted company with the Savannah and sailed for South Carolina?
A.Yes, sir.
Q.Under whose direction did she sail?
A.By the direction of the prize-master.
Q.With a prize crew from the Savannah?
A.Yes.
Q.Do you recollect the name of the prize-master?
A.Evans.
Q.How many men did the crew consist of?
A.Six, with the prize-master.
Q.What did they do with the vessel?
A.Took her into Georgetown.
Q.What was done with you and the others of the crew?
A.We were taken to jail at Georgetown.
Q.What was done with the vessel?
A.I believe she was sold, from what I saw in the papers and what I was told.
Q.Where were you taken from Georgetown?
A.To Charleston.
Q.What was done with you there?
A.We were put in jail again.
Q.How long were you kept in jail in Georgetown?
A.About 2 months and 20 days.
Q.How long were you kept in jail in Charleston?
A.Three days.
Cross-examined by Mr. Larocque.
Q.You said that, while you were held as a prisoner at Georgetown, you saw something in reference to the sale of the Joseph in the papers?
A.Yes.
Q.What was the purport of it?
A.She was advertised for sale.
Q.Under legal process?
A.I do not know about that. I was also told of it by one of the prize crew that took us in.
Q.You saw in the newspapers an advertisement of the sale?
A.Yes.
Q.Was that of a sale by order of a Court?
A.It was a sale by order of the Sheriff or Marshal.
Q.As a prize?
Objected to by District Attorney Smith, for two reasons:
First—That it was a mere newspaper account; and,
Secondly—That the newspaper was not produced.
After argument, the Court decided that there was no foundation laid for this hearsay evidence.
Q.Did the advertisement state by whose authority the sale was to take place?
A.I do not recollect anything about that.
Q.Do you recollect the name of a judge as connected with it?
A.No, sir. There was no judge connected with the sale.
Q.Do you recollect the name of Judge Magrath in connection with it?
A.No, sir; I recollect his name in connection with some prize cases, but not in connection with the sale of the Joseph.
Q.Since your arrival at New York, you have been examined partially by the District Attorney, and have made a statement to him?
A.Yes.
Q.Did you not state on that examination that while you were in confinement the vessel was confiscated by Judge Magrath, and sold at Georgetown?
A.No, sir; I do not think I did.
Q.You were released at Charleston, after a confinement of three days?
A.Yes.
Q.How did you get out?
A.The Marshal let us out.
Q.While you were in confinement at Georgetown or Charleston was your examination taken in any proceeding against the bark Joseph, or in relation to her?
A.Yes, sir. In Georgetown.
Q.By whom was that examination taken?
Mr. Evartssuggested that there was a certain method of proving a judicial inquiry.
Judge Nelson: They may prove the fact of the examination.
Q.Before whom were you examined?
A.Before a man who came from Charleston.
Q.Did he take your examination in writing?
A.Yes, sir.
Q.Did you learn what his name was?
A.I think his name was Gilchrist.
Q.Were you sworn, as a witness?
A.Yes.
Q.What proceeding was that, as you were given to understand, and what was the object of the examination?
A.The object of it was to find out what vessel she was, what was her nationality, and who owned the cargo belonging to her.
Q.And you gave your testimony on these subjects.
A.Yes.
Q.Was it in written questions put to you?
A.I think so.
Q.And you signed your examination?
A.Yes.
Q.And what came of it afterwards?
A.I do not know.
Q.Was it taken away by Mr. Gilchrist?
A.I expect so.
Q.Was there any other of the crew besides yourself examined?A.Yes; all of them.
Q.On the same subject?
A.I expect so.
Q.Were you present during the examination of them all?
A.No; only at my own.
Q.What newspaper was it that you saw that advertisement in?
A.I think in the Charleston Courier.
Q.Do you recollect its date?
A.No, sir.
Q.What had become of the vessel when you went to Charleston?
A.She was lying in Georgetown.
Q.Do you know in whose possession, or under whose charge, she was?
A.I do not.
Q.Was she in Georgetown, in the hands of the Marshal, to your knowledge?
A.No, sir; not to my knowledge. I was in prison at the time.
Commodore Silas H. Stringham, examined by District Attorney Smith.
Q.You are in the United States Navy?
A.I am.
Q.The Minnesota was the flag ship of the Atlantic Blockading Squadron, off Charleston?
A.Yes, sir. I was the commanding officer.
Q.The Minnesota took the prisoners off the Perry?
A.Yes; on the 5th of June, in the afternoon.
Q.State precisely where the transfer from the Perry to the Minnesota was made?
A.I discovered, about mid-day, a vessel close in to Charleston. I stood off to make out what she was. A short time afterwards we discovered it was the Perry, and were surprised to find her there, as she had been ordered, some time previously, to Fernandina, Fla. She hailed us, and informed us she had captured a piratical vessel. The vessel was half a mile astern. Captain Parrott, of the Perry, came and made to me a report of what had taken place. I ordered him to send the prisoners on board, and sent a few men on board the Savannah to take charge of her during the night. The vessels were then anchored. The next morning I made arrangements to put a prize crew on board the Savannah, and send her to New York, and I directed the Captain of the Joseph to take passage in her. I took the prisoners from the Perry, and directed the Perry to proceed on her cruise, according to her previous orders. I then got the Minnesota under weigh, and took the privateer in tow, and brought her close in to Charleston harbor, within 3 miles, so as to let them see that their vessel was captured. Some slaves in a boat told me next day that they had seen and recognized the vessel.
Mr. Brady: The question you were called upon to answer is, as to the place where the prisoners were transferred from the Perry to the Minnesota.
A.The transfer was made about 10 miles from Charleston Harbor, out at sea. It was fully 10 miles off.
Q.State the design of transferring the prisoners to the Minnesota?
Objected to by Mr. Larocque.
ARGUMENT ON THE JURISDICTION.
The District Attorney, Mr. Smith, stated that he would prove that every thing done from that time onward was done in pursuance of a design then conceived of sending the prisoners, to the port of New York.
Mr. Larocquecontended that the naked question of jurisdiction, or want of jurisdiction, could not be affected by showing that the prisoners were taken on board a particular vessel, with or without a particular design. All that affected that question was, the place where the prisoners were first taken to after they were captured. The only question their honors could consider was, whether, after their apprehension, the prisoners were or were not brought within the District of Virginia, so as to give the Court of Virginia jurisdiction, before they were brought to New York. The fact that Commodore Stringham did, or did not, entertain in his own mind a design to bring the prisoners to New York, was of no relevancy whatever. Their objection was based on the broad ground, that the statute had fixed the only District that was to have jurisdiction of these criminals, namely, the District within which they are first brought. If they were first brought within the District of Virginia, the design which the Commodore might have entertained made no manner of difference, and the fact could not be got rid of by any evidence to show that the design was not to put themselves in that dilemma.
Mr. James T. Bradysubmitted an argument on the same side. He said that the true test of the correctness of the objection could be ascertained thus: If a man were arrested anywhere on the high seas, supposed to be amenable to the Act of 1790, and was brought into a port of the United States, within a Judicial District of the United States, could he not demand, under the Act of Congress, to be tried in that District? Could the commander of the vessel supersede that Act of Congress, and say he would take the prisoner into the port of New York, or any other port? What answer would that be to a writ ofhabeas corpussued out by either of these men confined on that ship, within that Judicial District? If any such rule as that could prevail, the Act of Congress would become perfectly nugatory and subservient to the will of the individual who apprehended prisoners on the high seas. If he had started on a cruise round the world, he could carry them with him, and, after returning to the United States, could take them into every District till he came to the one that suited him. Mr. Brady, therefore, claimed that it was wholly immaterial what might have been the design of Commodore Stringham; and that the question of jurisdiction was determined by the physical fact, as to what was the first Judicial District into which these men were brought after being apprehended on the high seas.
Mr. Evartsconsidered that this was a question rather of regularity of discussion, than a question to be now absolutely determined by the Court. He supposed that they were entitled to lay before the Court all the attendant facts governing the question of, whether the introduction of these criminals from the point of seizure on the high seas was, within the legal sense, made into the District of New York, or into that of Virginia—whether the physical introduction of prisoners, in the course of a voyage toward the port of New York, into the roads at Hampton, is, within the meaning of the law, a bringing them into the District of Virginia. If the substantial qualification of the course of the voyage from the point of seizure to the place of actual debarcation was to affect the act, this was the time for the prosecution to produce that piece of evidence; and he supposed that that important inquiry should be reserved till the termination of the case, when the proof would be all before the Court. He suggested that no large ship could enter the port of New York without physically passing through what might be called the District of New Jersey; and argued that, in no sense of the act, and in no just sense, should these prisoners be tried in New Jersey, because the ship carrying them had passed through her waters.
Mr. Larocque, for the defendants, contended that the arrest of the parties as criminals was at the moment when they were taken from on board the Savannah, placed on board the Perry, and put in irons. The learned gentleman (Mr. Evarts) had said that it would be impossible to bring them within the District of New York without first bringing them within the District of New Jersey; but that objection was met by the fact that, over the waters of the bay of New York, the States of New Jersey and New York exercised concurrent jurisdiction, and therefore they came within the District of New York, to all intents and purposes. He proposed to refer to the authorities on which the point rested.
In this case, the place where the arrest was made was the Perry, a United States cruiser, which, in one sense, was equivalent to a part of the national soil; and he held that the idea under this statute was, that their apprehension and confinement from the moment they were arrested as criminals was complete, without being required to be under legal process, it being sufficient that they were arrested by the constituted authorities of the United States. The moment they were brought within a Judicial District of the United States, that moment the jurisdiction attached; and no jurisdiction could attach anywhere else. This was an offence committed on the high seas. All the Districts of the country could not have concurrent jurisdiction over it; and this very case was an exemplification of the injustice that would result from permitting an officer, in times of high political excitement, to have the privilege, at his mere pleasure or caprice, of selecting the place of jurisdiction, and the place of trial. Suppose these prisoners, instead of being landed at the first place where the vessel touched, could have been taken up the Mississippi river in a boat, and up the Ohio river in another boat, and landed within the District of Ohio, for the purpose of being tried there,—would not their honors' sense of justice and propriety revolt at that? The same injustice would result in a different degree, and under different circumstances, if, after taking these prisoners to Virginia and ascertaining the difficulties in the way of their being tried there, the officer could change their course and bring them into the port of New York. The prisoners were entitled to the benefit of being tried in the District where they were first taken, in preference to any other District; and justice would be more surely done by holding a strict rule on that subject, by requiring that the facts should control, and that no mere intention on the part of the captors should be allowed to govern.
One of the cases on this subject which had produced a misapprehension of the question was that of the United Statesvs.Thompson, 1st Sumner's Reports, which was an indictment for endeavoring to create a revolt, under the Act of 1790. It was in the Massachusetts District. The facts in the case were these:—"The vessel arrived at Stonington, Connecticut, and from thence sailed to New Bedford, Massachusetts, where the defendant was arrested, and committed for trial. It did not appear that he had been in confinement before. Judge Story ruled on the question of jurisdiction. He said: 'The language of the Crimes Act of 1790 (Cap. 36, sec. 8) is, that the trial of crimes committed on the high seas, or in any place out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, shall be in the District in which the offender is apprehended, or into which he shall first be brought. The provision is in the alternative, and therefore the crime is cognizable in either District. And there is wisdom in the provision; for otherwise, if a ship should, by stress of weather, be driven to take shelter temporarily in any port of the Union, however distant from her home port, the master and all the crew, as well as the ship, might be detained, and the trial had far from the port to which she belonged, or to which she was destined. And if the offender should escape into another District, or voluntarily depart from that into which he was first brought, he would, upon an arrest, be necessarily required to be sent back for trial to the latter. And now there is no particular propriety, as to crimes committed on the high seas, in assigning one District rather than another for the place of trial, except what arises from general convenience; and the present alternative provision is well adapted to this purpose.'"
This was noticed, in the first place, in the case of the United Statesvs.Edward C. Townsend, of which he (Mr. Larocque) held in his hand a copy of the exemplication of the record. Townsend was charged, in the District Court of Massachusetts, with piracy, in having been engaged in the slave trade, in 1858. He was captured on board the brig Echo, by a United States cruiser. That vessel first made the port of Key West, putting in there for water; and thence proceeded to Massachusetts, where the prisoner was landed, taken into custody under a warrant of the Commissioner, and the matter brought before the Grand Jury, for the purpose of having an indictment found against him. In that case Judge Sprague charged the Grand Jury that, under the law, the prisoner could only be tried in Key West, because that was the first port which the vessel had made after he had been captured and confined as a prisoner. Under that instruction the Grand Jury refused to find a bill of indictment; and thereupon the District Attorney (Mr. Woodbury) applied to the court for a warrant of removal, to remove him to Key West, for trial; and also to have the witnesses recognized to appear at Key West, to testify on the trial. The counsel read a note from Mr. Woodbury on the subject, showing that Mr. Justice Clifford, of the Supreme Court of the United States, sat and concurred with Judge Sprague in granting the warrant of removal. He referred also to another case, decided by Judge Sprague—the United Statesvs.Bird—volume of Judge Sprague's Decisions, page 299: "This indictment alleged an offence to have been committed on the high seas, and that the prisoner was first brought into the District of Massachusetts. Questions of jurisdiction arose upon the evidence. The counsel for the prisoner contended that the offence, if any, was committed on the Mississippi river, and within the State of Louisiana; and, further, that if committed beyond the limits of that State, the prisoner was not first brought into this District. Sprague, J., said that, if an offence be committed within the United States, it must be tried in the State and District within which it was committed. Constitution Amendment 6, If the offence be committed without the limits of the United States, on the high seas, or in a foreign port, the trial must be had in the District 'where the offender is apprehended, or into which he may be first brought.'—Stat. 1790, cap. 9, sec. 8; Stat. 1825, cap. 65, sec. 14. By being brought within a District, is not meant merely being conveyed thither by the ship on which the offender may first arrive; but the statute contemplates two classes of cases: one, in which the offender shall have been apprehended without the limits of the United States, and brought in custody into some Judicial District; the other, in which he shall not have been so apprehended and brought, but shall have been first taken into legal custody, after his arrival within some District of the United States, and provides in what District each of these classes shall be tried. It does not contemplate that the Government shall have the election in which of two Districts to proceed to trial. It is true that, in United Statesvs.Thompson, 1 Sumner, 168, Judge Story seems to think that a prisoner might be tried either in the District where he is apprehended, or in the District into which he is first brought. But the objection in that case did not call for any careful consideration of the meaning of the word 'brought,' as used in the statute; nor does he discuss the question, whether the accused, having come in his own ship, satisfies that requisition. In that case the party had not been apprehended abroad; and the decision was clearly right, as the first arrest was in the District of Massachusetts. The statute of 1819, cap. 101, sec. 1 (3 U.S. Statutes at Large, 532), for the suppression of the slave trade, is an example of a case in which an offender may be apprehended without the limits of the United States, and sent to the United States for trial. Ex parte Bollmanvs.Swartwout, 4 Cranch, 136."
Their honors would observe that in both the cases cited, correcting the manifest misapprehension of Judge Story, the point was distinctly held that the question of jurisdiction was controlled exclusively by the fact as to what District the prisoner was first brought into after his arrest on the high seas, out of the United States, for a crime committed on the high seas.
Judge Nelson stated that, as it was now late (half-past 5 P. M.), the question might go over till morning.
The counsel on each side assenting, the Jury were allowed to separate, with a caution from the Court against conversing in respect to the case.
Adjourned to Thursday, at 11 A.M.
SECOND DAY.
Thursday, Oct. 24, 1861.
The Court met at 11 o'clock A.M.
Judge Nelson, in deciding the question raised yesterday, said:
So far as regards the question heretofore under consideration of Judge Sprague, we do not think that at present involved in the case. We will confine ourselves to the decision of the admissibility of the question as it was put by the District Attorney and objected to, as respects the purpose with which the Minnesota, with the prisoners, was sent to Hampton Roads. We think that the fact of their being sent by the commanding officer of that place, with the prisoners, to Hampton Roads, is material and necessary; and, in order to appreciate fully the fact itself, the purpose is a part of theres gestæthat characterizes the fact. What effect it may have upon the more general question, involving the jurisdiction of the Court, is not material or necessary now to consider. We think the question is proper.
Counsel for defendants took exception to the ruling of the Court.
Commodore Stringhamrecalled. Direct examination resumed by Mr. Smith.
Q.What was your object in transferring the prisoners from the Perry to the Minnesota?
A.Sending them to a Northern port. The port of New York was the port I had in my mind. To send them by the first ship from the station, as soon as possible, to a Northern port, for trial. I could not send them to a Southern port for trial. The only way I could do so would be by guns. I could get no landing in those places otherwise; and I could get no judge or jury to give them a trial.
Mr. Larocqueasked if, conceding the propriety of the inquiry, the statement of the witness was competent, viz.: that he had a port in his mind.
The Court: No; the question was not put in the shape I supposed. The question should have been—for what purpose or object did he send the prisoners in the Minnesota to Hampton Roads? That is the point in the case—the intent with which the vessel was sent to Hampton Roads?
A.I sent them there with the intention of sending them to a Northern port, for trial. The Harriet Lane being the first vessel that left, after my arrival there, they were sent in the Harriet Lane to the Northern port of New York.
Q.Why did you not take them in the Minnesota directly to New York, instead of taking them to Hampton Roads?
A.My station was at Hampton Roads, and I went there to arrange the squadron that might be there, and to get a supply of fuel for the ship. I do not think we had enough to go to New York, if we wished to go there. I had supplied vessels on the coast below, and had exhausted pretty nearly all the coal from the Minnesota when we arrived at Hampton Roads.
Q.What directions did you give to the officers of the Harriet Lane?
A.I gave no directions to the officers of the Harriet Lane. I gave directions to the commander of the Minnesota. I left on the day previous, I think, to their being transferred to the Harriet Lane,—giving directions that, as soon as she came down from Newport News, to send her to New York, with the prisoners. I had been called to Washington, by the Secretary of the Navy, the day before she sailed.
Q.Are you aware of any facts which rendered it impossible to land the prisoners in the Virginia District, or on the Virginia shore?
A.It was impossible to land without force of arms, and taking possession of any port. Wecouldland them there, but not for trial, certainly. The Harriet Lane had been fired into but a short time previous; and that was one cause of sending her to New York.
Q.Fired into from the Virginia shore?
A.Yes, sir; from Field Point; I should judge, about 8 miles from Norfolk port, on the southern shore, nearly opposite Newport News. I was not there, but it was reported to me. She was fired into, and she was ordered to New York to change her armament.
Q.Was that fort in the way, proceeding to Norfolk?
A.Not on the direct way to Hampton Roads, but a little point on the left.
Q.Would a vessel, going the usual way to Norfolk, be in range of the guns that were fired at the Harriet Lane?
A.Not of these; but she would be in the range of four or five forts that it would be necessary to pass in order to land the prisoners at Norfolk.
Q.What was the nearest port to where the Minnesota went with the prisoners?
A.The nearest port of entry was Norfolk. Hampton Roads was a little higher up. We were not anchored exactly at the Roads, but off Old Point, which is not considered Hampton Roads.
[Map produced.] I have marked the position of the Minnesota on this map, in blue ink. [Exhibits the position to the Court.]
Q.State the position of the Minnesota?
A.That is as near as I can put it—between the Rip Raps and Fortress Monroe—a little outside of the Rip Raps.
Q.In what jurisdiction is the Fort?
A.In the United States.
(Objected to, as matter of law.)
Q.At what distance were you from Fortress Monroe?
A.About three-quarters of a mile, and nearly the same from the Rip Raps.
Q.What distance from Norfolk?
A.I think 14 miles, as near as I can judge; 12 or 14.
Q.Had you any instructions from the Government, in respect to any prisoners that might be arrested on the high seas, as to the place they were to be taken to?
A.Not previous to my arriving at Hampton Roads. After that, I had. Those instructions were in writing.
Q.You had no particular or general instructions previous to that?
A.No, sir; it was discretionary with me, previous to that, where to send the prisoners I had.
Q.When vessels are sent from one place to another, state whether it is not frequently the case that they take shelter in roadsteads?
(Objected to. Excluded.)
Q.Where did your duties, as flag-officer of the squadron, require you to be with your ship, the Minnesota?
(Objected to. Excluded.)
Q.Where do Hampton Roads commence on this map, and where end?
A.In my experience, I have always considered it higher up than where we were anchored. This is anchoring off Fortress Monroe, when anchoring there. When they go a little higher up, they go to Hampton Roads; and, before the war, small vessels anchored up in Newport News, in a gale of wind.
Q.Where did the Minnesota anchor, in respect to Hampton Roads?
A.We anchored outside, sir. I can only say this from the pilot. When commanding the Ohio, he asked me whether I wished to anchor inside the Roads. Baltimore pilots have permission to go into Hampton Roads, and no farther. That is considered as neutral ground for all vessels.
By the Court:
Q.What is the width of the entrance to the Hampton Roads?
A.I should judge about 3-1/2 miles, or 3-1/4, from Old Point over to Sewall's Point. I have not measured it accurately. It is from 3 to 4 miles.
By Mr. Smith:
Q.Was the Minnesota brought inside or outside of a line drawn from Old Point to the Rip Raps?
A.A little outside of the line, sir.
By a Juror:
Q.Would a person be subject to any port-charges where the Minnesota lay?
A.No, sir.
Defendants' counsel objected to the question and answer.
The Court:
Q.What do you mean by port dues?
A.I mean they do not have to enter into the custom-house to pay port-charges. It is not a port of entry, that compels them to carry their papers. The only port-charges I know of are the pilot-charges, in and out.
(The Court ruled it out as immaterial.)
Cross-examined by Mr. Brady.
Q.I want, for the purpose of preventing any misapprehension, to ask if there is any line that you know of, which you could draw upon that map, distinguishing the place at which Hampton Roads begins?
A.Nothing only among sea-faring men;—just as the lower bay of New York, which is considered to be down below the Southwest Spit. When anchored between this and that, it is called off a particular place, as Coney Island, &c. So, there, after you pass up from Fortress Monroe, it is called Hampton Roads.
Q.Is there any specific point you can draw a line from on the map that distinctly indicates where Hampton Roads begin?A.I cannot, sir.
Q.Designate where the Harriet Lane was?
A.I cannot say, sir. She was at Newport News when I left, and came down the next day, I believe, and took the prisoners on board and proceeded to New York.
Q.The Minnesota was anchored?
A.Yes, sir, but not moored; with a single anchor.
Q.How much cable was out?
A.From 65 to 70 fathoms, I think. I generally order 65 fathoms; but the captain gave her 5 fathoms more.
Q.Would she swing far enough to affect the question whether she was in or outside of Hampton Roads, as you understood it?
A.No, sir.
Q.Had you often been there before?
A.I had, sir, often. I was there 51 years ago. I started there.
Q.Did you ever have occasion, for any practical purposes, to locate where Hampton Roads began?
A.Yes, sir; several times I have anchored there with ships under my command, and the pilots have said, "Will you go up into the Roads?" and I said, "Yes;" and we never anchored within two or three miles of where we lay with the Minnesota.
Q.But it was not your object to get at any particular line which separated Hampton Roads?
A.No; we considered it a better anchorage. The only importance was a better anchorage.
Q.You had no instructions of any kind in regard to the prisoners before you left for Washington?
A.I would say I had not, before I arrived at Hampton Roads, or at Old Point.
Q.Did you receive any between the time of your arrival and your departure for Washington?
A.I cannot say, but I think not.
Q.The only instructions you gave were that, when the Harriet Lane came up, the prisoners should be removed, and sent to New York?
A.I gave orders that they should be sent to New York and delivered to the Marshal.
Q.There would be no difficulty to transfer prisoners to Fortress Monroe?
A.No, sir, no difficulty.
Q.Could they not have been taken to Hampton?
A.I think not. Our troops had abandoned Hampton and moved in, I think. There was nothing there to land at Hampton. We may have had possession at that time.
Q.Do you know of any obstacle whatever to these men having been taken ashore at Old Point Comfort and carried to Hampton?
A.I went up twice to Washington, with Colonel Baker, when he abandoned Hampton; but I think at the time the prisoners were on board we had the occupation of Hampton by our troops. My impression is, we occupied it partly with our troops at that time. I went to Washington at another time, when the troops had abandoned Hampton, and Colonel Baker took his soldiers up in the same boat.
Q.A college has been described on shore, and the locality described. Was it not occupied as an hospital?
A.Yes, sir, at the time the Minnesota arrived. It is not in Hampton.
Q.When the Minnesota arrived with the prisoners was not that building in possession of our Government?
A.It was, sir, I believe. I was not in it.
By Mr. Evarts: Is not the hospital at Old Point?
A.Near Old Point.
By Mr. Brady: Designate on the chart where it is?
A.I have done so,—the square mark, on the shore, in the rear of the fort, on the Virginia shore.
By the Court: How much of a town is Hampton?
A.There is none of it left now. I suppose it was a town of 4,000 or 5,000 inhabitants.
Q.Was it not formerly a port of entry?
A.No, sir, I believe not; not that I know of. That was 4 or 5 miles off from the vessel.
By Mr. Brady: How far was Hampton from Fortress Monroe?
A.I should judge 3 miles.
Q.I ask again, before you left the Minnesota, after the arrival of the prisoners, had you any instructions from Washington in regard to these prisoners?
A.I cannot bring to my mind whether I had any or not. I had instructions, subsequent to my arrival, about all prisoners, and that was the reason why I came here. There was some question as to why I came with 700 prisoners; but I had instructions to bring all prisoners taken, and turn them over to Colonel Burke, of New York.
Q.After you arrived at Washington did you receive any instructions in regard to these prisoners?
A.I do not know that I did. I had some discussion in Washington.
Q.Did you communicate from Washington, in any way, to Fortress Monroe, or the Minnesota, in regard to the prisoners?A.No, sir.
Q.They went forward under the directions you gave before leaving to go to Washington?
A.They did, sir; I gave the instructions. I did not know whether the Harriet Lane would be ready. She was waiting until the vessel arrived to relieve her from the station.
Q.Was General Butler at Fortress Monroe at the time of the arrival of the prisoners?
A.He was, sir.
Q.Did you confer with him about it?
A.No, sir.
Q.Neither then nor at Washington?
A.No, sir.
Q.Was there any conversation between you and him in regard to that?
A.I do not think there was until after my return and the prisoners had gone to New York.
Re-direct.
Q.How large a space is occupied by the hospital to which you have referred?
A.I cannot give the number of feet, but I think about 150 feet square. I never was in it but once, when I passed in for a moment, and right out of the hall.
David C. Constablecalled by the prosecution and sworn.
Examined by Mr. Smith.
Q.You are a Lieutenant in the United States Navy?
A.Not now; I am First Lieutenant of theHarriet Lane. We were then serving under the Navy; I am now in a revenue cutter.
Q.Were you on board the Harriet Lane when she received the prisoners from the Minnesota?
A.I was, sir.
Q.Who did you receive your orders from on the subject?
A.Captain Van Brunt, of the Minnesota.
Q.Was that a verbal order?
A.No; a written one, sir.
Q.Was it an order to bring the prisoners to New York?
A.To proceed with the prisoners to New York, and deliver them to the civil authorities, I think.
Q.Where was the Harriet Lane, in respect to the Rip Raps and fort at Old Point Comfort, when the prisoners were taken on board from the Minnesota?
A.We were about half a mile, I should judge, from the Minnesota; a little nearer in shore.
Q.Where had the Harriet Lane come from?
A.From Newport News.
Q.Did she, or not, come from Newport News in pursuance of the object to go to New York?
A.Yes, sir; although at the time we had received no orders in regard to any prisoners. We were coming on for a change of armament and for repairs.
Q.The Harriet Lane had been fired into?
A.She had, sir.
Q.Where was she when fired into?
(Objected to. Offered to show the impossibility of landing. Ruled out as immaterial.)
Q.How was the transfer made from the Minnesota to the Harriet Lane?
A.By boats.
Q.Show on this map where the Harriet Lane was when the transfer was made of the prisoners from the Minnesota, and also where the Minnesota lay?
[Witness marked the place on map.]
Q.State the relative position of the vessels as you have marked it?
A.I should judge we were about a mile from Old Point, in about eleven fathoms of water, and probably about a mile from the Rip Raps. I do not remember exactly.
Q.The Harriet Lane was about half a mile further up?
A.Yes, a little west of the Minnesota, but farther in shore.
Q.What is your understanding in respect to where Hampton Roads commence, in reference to the position of these vessels?
A.I had always supposed it was inside of Old Point and the Rip Raps, after passing through them,—taking Old Point as the Northern extremity, and out to Sewall's Point.
Q.How in respect to where the Harriet Lane lay?
A.I consider she was off Old Point, and not, properly speaking, in Hampton Roads.
Q.The Minnesota was still further out?
A.Yes, sir, a very little.
Q.You brought the prisoners to New York in the Harriet Lane and delivered them to the United States Marshal at New York?
A.Yes, sir.
Q.You delivered them from your vessel to the United States Marshal?
A.Yes, sir; the United States Marshal came alongside our ship, while in the Navy Yard, in a tug, and they were delivered to him.
Q.Do you remember the day they arrived at New York?
A.On the 25th of June, in the afternoon.
Q.In what service was the Harriet Lane?
A.In the naval service of the United States.