halted without authority and against the orders of the division commander. To the neglect, then, of Colonel Krzyzanowski to obey the order of his commanding officer may be ascribed the delay in sending re-enforcements to General Geary. It was made to appear by the testimony that the troops of the Third Division could not have marched from their camp to the position of General Geary so as to arrive there before the firing ceased and the enemy withdrew or were repulsed. In the judgment of the Court it would require two hours to make the march in the then state of the roads, and in the night, and the weight of the testimony is that the firing at General Geary's did not continue more than one hour after the column started.

By the order by which this Court was assembled and organized the Court is called upon to give an opinion as to whether the strictures set forth in the order taken from General Hooker's official report of the night action of Wauhatchie were deserved by the conduct of General Schurz, Colonel Hecker, or any part of this command. From the evidence which has been adduced in this inquiry and investigation, the Court is of the opinion that General Hooker is justified in the censures and strictures contained in his official report. The attack on General Geary was a night attack, sudden and unexpected. The command of General Geary was comparatively small, and it was fair to presume that he was assaulted by a superior force. This command might well be said to be "imperiled." There was a necessity for prompt action and getting re-enforcements to him with all possible dispatch. To this end, General Hooker issued his orders and directed his attention. He supposed his orders would be obeyed and his plans carried into effect, and when, at the end of two hours, he learned that General Geary had not been re-enforced, it is not surprising that, in the language of one of the witnesses, he was very angry, and it was right and proper that he should give expression to his righteous indignation in his official report.

So far as the conduct of Colonel Hecker is concerned, it is not deserving of censure. It is apparent that the strictures contained in General Hooker's official report were not intended to apply to him or his command. In the opinion of the Court, these strictures were not deserved by the conduct of Colonel Hecker, or any part of his command.

Are the strictures contained in the report deserved by General Schurz? It is a well-settled principle of military law, that a subordinate commander is responsible for the execution and enforcement of all orders issued to him by his superior commander. General Hooker in this case had issued an order which was not obeyed. He had the right, and it was proper for him to hold responsible for the non-execution of the order the officer to whom he issued it. Hence, he says, as the ground-work of his censure:

The brigade dispatched to the relief of General Geary, by orders delivered in person to its division commander, never reached him until, &c.

It was in accordance with well-established military usage for General Hooker, in the first instance, to hold the division commander responsible for this apparent neglect. This calls upon General Schurz to show why he did not meet the exigencies of the order and fulfill the command. Has he done so? As soon as the orders were delivered by General Hooker to General Schurz, the latter promptly set about carrying them into execution. The troops were quickly