weight of testimony of the principal officers was that the rebel army was estimated at from 35,000 to 40,000. But this is simply a matter of fact within the province of the Commission. It was only in reference to the conduct of General Buell that I made the remarks that I did.

General BUELL. The judge-advocate still persists in the contradiction, notwithstanding I have stated to you that the evidence is so and so. It is a meter very easy for you to determine. I simply inform you that I obtain these facts from the record. It is not a matter of opinion and not a debatable point.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. I thought it was improper and think so still, and shall continue to do so, to tell a witness what has been sworn to previously.

General BUELL. The judge-advocate committed that error himself when he virtually stated that the principal officers of the Army of the Ohio had testified so and so. I shall not interfere with the performance of the duty of the judge-advocate when he performs it legitimately and properly. He is represented as denying my statement, and it is to that point that I now address my remarks. It is not with reference to the strength of the rebel army, but merely to call attention to the contradiction made to my statement at the time, and for which, if my statement on record is correct, there was no sort of justification or excuse.

The PRESIDENT. I must, be allowed to say that in my opinion it is a point that will have to be settled by the Commission from the testimony. There is considerable contradiction on the part of witnesses, and whenever there may be contradiction on the part of witnesses as to the strength of the rebel army the question must remain to be settled, and it is to that extent debatable.

General TYLER. I understood that the judge-advocate put a certain question, "Supposing so and so to be the case, would you put your opinions against the other officers whose means of obtaining information were as good as your?" and the judge-advocate says, "My question is lost by General Buell saving there had been no such testimony before the Commission." The proper course would have been for General Buell to have objected to the question, and then had the court cleared to decide whether the question should be put or not.

General BUELL. It is very possible that I might, in my want of practical experience in proceeding of this kind, have overstepped the strict rules of such investigation; but that is not the question, nor is it the question as to what was actually the strength of Bragg's army at that particular time. The points is this: I stated that the principal officers of the Army of the Ohio had not testified that the strength of Bragg's army was from 35,000 to 40,000; it is the judge-advocate's flat contradiction of that statement that I object to, and that is the point I make now; and in answer to his contradiction I simply state to you what the record shows. I do not pretend to sun up and strike the balance between the evidence of the principal and subordinate officers of the army for your guidance. I simply show the evidence that substantiates the statement, which statement the judge-advocate contradicted. I am not considering the strength of the rebel army as you may decide. So far from understanding the judge-advocate to have contradicted my statement. I understood him to have admitted it; otherwise I should not have allowed those remarks to pass without calling your attention to them, because I am not in the habit of making statements that can be contradicted truthfully; I may do so accidentally.