for its object to prepare a petition for the removal of General Buell from the command of the Army of the Ohio?

I believe I have said on that subject all that is proper to say.

The court was here cleared.

I cannot say who first moved in it. I gave yesterday the names of some of the principal parties concerned, and that is as far as I know.

Question. Was the object of that meetinng made the subject of discussion by officers within your knowledge?

I have heard the matter discussed by those whom I have mentioned and others.

Question. Were these discussions attended by a knowledge of the facts which affect the question and had these discussions for their object to arrive at a correct understanding of it, or did they merely consist in expressions of dissatisfaction?

I do not know what knowledge they had of the facts affecting the question. There were expressions of dissatisfaction, based on the idea that the Army of the Ohio was not properly managed.

Question. Were these discussions in public or in private?

In one sense they might be called public and in another sense private.

Question. Were they in the presence and hearing of subordinate officers and soldiers?

I have in some instances heard expressions of dissatisfaction in the presence of subordinate officers and soldiers, and I have heard expressions of dissatisfaction among the soldiers, without having any reference to anything said by officers.

Question. Were these murmuring concurred in or discountenanced by officers senior to those who signed the petition?

I think that they were generally discountenanced.

Question. I put a question to you yesterday in regard to the causes of the demoralization of the troops in a form which did not express my meaning nor the idea which I wish to present to you. I now ask whether the disposition to plunder and pillage on the part of the troops was not encouraged by the popular idea, which at that time was heralded through the country, of living upon the enemy, as it is called, and regarding that as constituting a vigorous prosecution of the war?

I cannot say that I have heard that officers endeavored to advance the idea that it was proper on the part of a soldier to plunder and pillage; on the contrary, nearly all with whom I had anything to do seemed to discountenance it.

Redirect examination by the JUDGE-ADVOCATE:

Question. You have said in response to questions asked by the Commission that a general commanding is answerable to his subordinates as he is to the people. Am I to understand from this that he is to be controlled or directed by his subordinates or that by consulting them he can in any case escape the responsibility imposed upon him by his position?

Not at all.

Question. Do you know whether these propositions to remove officers by subordinates have been common in our army or not?

I understand it has, sir. I know of only one instance personally; that was in the case of T. W. Sherman, when he commanded the First Division. A large number of officers waited upon General Buell and requested him in person to have us transferred to his army and to aid us in getting General Sherman removed from the command of the division, and my impression now is that General Buell told us the proper way to come at the matter was by a written petition in respectful terms. We afterward, on the same day, waited upon General Halleck, and he gave us clearly to un-