livered in person to its division commander." Here is the censure, and here is the question to be decided. Why did not the other brigade push on, and why did it arrive long after the fight had ended?

It is proved that my Second and Third Brigades followed the First in the direction of Wauhatchie according to my orders.

It is proved that after having marched a certain distance the Second Brigade was suddenly stopped on the road, and that the Third marched by the Second in the direction of Wauhatchie, according to my orders.

It is proved that immediately afterward the Third Brigade was halted also, and received special instructions from General Hooker himself.

It is proved that General Hooker's attention was directed to the Second Brigade, and that it was pointed out to him, and that he remained with it a considerable time.

It is proved that both brigades remained under General Hooker's eyes and under his immediate control.

It is proved that I was officially notified of this by staff officers.

It is proved that General Hooker, while with my brigades, did not order them to march to Geary.

It is proved that when I came back from Tyndale's Hill, the commander of my Second Brigade was found in General Hooker's immediate presence.

It is proved that as soon as the control of my two brigades was restored to me, Geary was re-enforced with all possible speed.

It is proved that when my First Brigade arrived near Tyndale's Hill, the firing at Wauhatchie had already ceased, so that Tyndale's Hill, the firing at Wauhatchie had already ceased, so that it would have been impossible even for that column, in spite of all double-quick movements, to arrive there before the end of the fight.

It is proved that when Hecker was ordered forward from the cross-roads, the fight at Wauhatchie had long been over; it would have been absurd, therefore, to expect him to arrive there before it was over.

And now I ask you with all candor, what is there in all this that I am, or that my troops are, to blame for? Where is the non-compliance with orders, and where is the lack of courage and valor? No doubt mistakes were committed, but the question is whether they were my mistakes. It may have been a mistake to take the Tyndale Hill. But, if so, it was General Hooker's mistake, for the acknowledges to have given the order.

It may have been a mistake that General Hooker was not immediately advised of the impossibility to re-enforce Geary while this order was executed. But most certainly it was not my mistake, for I informed General Hooker's aide explicitly of all the circumstances which produced that impossibility. What more had I to do? If that aide, when he reported the facts to General Hooker, did not report the facts fully, as his duty required, am I responsible for General Hooker's aides?

It may have been a mistake that the troops were stopped at the cross-roads. But it was certainly not my mistake, for nobody, I suppose, thinks that I ordered them to stop. The case of the Third Brigade is clearly enough established, and as for the Second, how was it possible, if such an order had come from me, that one of the brigade staff officers should report to me its detention by orders coming from General Hooker?

If the stopping of the troops was a mere mistake, it is to be re-