[Indorsement.]

JUDGE-ADVOCATE-GENERAL'S OFFICE,

May 23, 1863.

Respectfully referred to the Secretary of War by the request of Lieutenant-Colonel Piatt.

J. HOLT,

Judge-Advocate-General.

[Inclosure Numbers 4.]

BALTIMORE, MD., April 11, 1864.

General LORENZO THOMAS,

Adjutant-General U. S. Army:

SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy of the communication which I addressed to the Commission which investigated my military operations in Kentucky and Tennessee. As I received no information in regard to the action taken on the original, or the disposition made of it, I request that this copy may be filed with the record.

i inclose also a printed copy of the statement in review of the evidence which I prepared to submit to the Commission. I request that it also may be filed with the record.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

D. C. BUELL,

Major-General.

[Sub-inclosure Numbers 1.]

BURNET HOUSE, Cincinnati, May 2, 1863.

THE COMMISSION:

On examination I have found the rocord of the Commission to be deficient and inaccurate in several particulars of greater less importance.

It will be remembered that at an early stage of the proceedings I proposed an examination of the record for the purpose of correcting such errors, but the Commission deemed it best to defer the examination until the investigation should be closed. I desire now to call attention to the most important of them.

While the first witness, Colonel Lytle, I think, was giving his evidence the Commission was cleared, at the motion of one of the members, for some purpose not stated at the time. After the Commission had been in secret session some time I was invited in, and the president directed or intimated to the judge-advocate to swear me to secrecy in regard to the proceedings of the Commission. I declined to be sworn, and the Commission was again cleared. The judge-advocate subsequently came out and informed me that it had been determined that the investigation should be continued without my presence. I objected to this decision, and the judge-advocate returned to the Commission, and I presume stated my objection. He subsequently returned to me again, and informed me that it had been concluded to admit me to the sessions of the Commission, but that it had been decided that I should not crossexamine witnesses, though I could introduce witnesses in the defense. I objected to this also. I returned to the Commission and stated in person my objections to its decisions. I was asked by the president whether I based my claim to be present and cross-examine witnesses on the privileges belonging to a party accused. I answered that undoubtedly the