_A._ To Hampton Roads. _Q._ Were all the persons you have identified here on board the Minnesota? _A._ Yes, sir. _Q._ State the facts as to transfer from ship to ship? _A._ We were transferred from the Savannah to the Perry; from the Perry to the Minnesota; from the Minnesota to the Harriet Lane. _Q._ All of you? _A._ Yes, sir; all. _Q._ State, as near as you can, where, at Hampton Roads, the Minnesota came? _A._ She came a little to the westward of the Rip Raps; I suppose Sewall's Point was bearing a little to the west of us, 3/4 or 1/2 a mile to the west of us; I should judge west by south. I am well acquainted there. We call it 24 miles from Old Point Comfort. _Q._ What was the nearest port of entry to where you were anchored? _A._ Norfolk, Va. _Q._ How far from Fortress Monroe? _A._ A mile, or 1-1/8 or 1-1/4--not a great distance. _Q._ How long did you lie there before you were transferred to the Harriet Lane? _A._ Several days. I did not keep any account. Some two or three days. _Q._ And you were brought to this port in the Harriet Lane? _A._ Yes, sir. _Q._ And all the prisoners you identified to-day were brought here? _A._ Yes, sir, to the Navy Yard, Brooklyn; there transferred to a ferry-boat and brought to the Marshal's office here. _Mr. Evarts_: If the Court please, we deem it a regular and necessary part of our proof to show the manner of the seizure of this vessel by the U.S. ship Perry; to show that it was a forcible seizure, by main force, and against armed forcible resistance of this vessel. Besides being almost a necessary part of the circumstances of the seizure, it is material as characterizing the purpose of this cruise, and the depth and force of the sentiment which led to it, and the concurrence and cohesion of the whole ship's crew in it. _The Court_: What necessity for that after what has been conceded on the other side? _Mr. Evarts_: They concede that she was seized; but do they concede that, as against all those accused, the crime of piracy is proved--the concurrence of the whole--and that the only question is, whether the protection claimed from what is called the privateering character of the vessel shields them? _The Court_: I understand the admission to be broad. _Mr. Evarts_: If as broad as that, that there is no distinction taken between the concurrence of these men, it is sufficient. _Mr. Brady_: We have said nothing about that? _The Court_: So far as the capture is concerned, that does not enter into any part of the crime, and has no materiality to the elements of this case at all. The force that may enter into the crime is in the capture by the privateer of the Joseph. I do not want to confound this case by getting off on collateral issues; and so far as concerns the animus, or intent, I understand it to be admitted.