harness, saddles, valises, saddle-bags, horseshoes, clothing, blankets, &c.
These steps were taken of my own motion, and not by order of General Lovell,
though he knew I was engaged in the removal.
Commander WILLIAM C. WHITTLE, C. S. Navy, was next sworn and examined as a witness.
By the JUDGE-ADVOCATE:
Question. When and by whose order did you assume command of the naval station at New Orleans?
Answer. About March 28, by order of the Secretary of the Navy.
Question. Did you approve of the conduct of Commander Mitchell with reference to the disposition of the Louisiana during the fights at Forts Jackson and Saint Philip, in April, 1862?
Answer. I neither approved nor disapproved his conduct touching the management of the Louisiana at that time, not knowing the circumstances which surrounded his command.
Question. If you know, state whether the work upon the steamers Louisiana and Mississippi was pressed forward with energy and skill by the builders while you were in command of the naval station at New Orleans.
Answer. I cannot say that I had any personal knowledge as to the work upon those vessels, but from all I could learn from the builders and officers connected with the Mississippi the work must have progressed well. If I had not thought the work was getting on well I should have reported the fact to the Department, notwithstanding I had no authority over the builders of the Mississippi.
Question. If you had opportunities of observing, be pleased to state the demeanor of General Lovell during the evacuation of New Orleans.
Answer. We sat together at breakfast the morning after the enemy passed up. I saw nothing in his demeanor derogatory to him as an officer.
Cross-examination by Major General MANSFIELD LOVELL:
Question. Was there cordial co-operation between yourself and General Lovell as far as the circumstances of the respective arms of service would allow and always good felling between you?
Answer. There was. I believe the very best felling existed between us.
Question. Were the naval means at your disposal for co-operation in the defense of the Mississippi River at all adequate for that purpose.
Answer. They were not, in my judgment. I only had command of the station on land. Commander Mitchell was placed by me temporarily in command of such defenses as we could muster for the fight at the forts.
Question. What steps were taken by you to have Commodore Hollins assist in the defense of the lower river?
Answer. I telegraphed Commodore Hollins that his presence with his fleet might be important at New Orleans if he could be spared for a few from above. After Commodore Hollins had received a dispatch withdrawing him from the command afloat at New Orleans, General Lovell and myself had a conversation on the subject of his removal, and General Lovell was authorized by me to use my name in connection with his own in a communication to the Government requesting that Commodore Hollins might be permitted to remain there longer. There was time enough, in my opinion, for the fleet to have come down.
By the COURT:
Question. Did you make or cause to be made any inspection of the Louisiana? If so, when and what defects, if any, presented themselves? What steps were taken to remedy those defects? Was there sufficient time to remedy them before the vessel was destroyed?
Answer. I had daily reports of the condition of the Louisiana. She was deficient in motive power. All the workmen considered necessary and all requisites were placed