you. The questions assumes that there was nothing for the force at Cumberland Gap to do but to move down to the railroad and destroy it. That depends upon the force that was opposed to it.

General DANA. I wish emphatically to deny the right of the court to introduce new matter (after the examination-in-chief). I wish to make the assertion that the court has no right to question on any new matter and at the same time to shut off the judge-advocate or the other part interested before the court from cross-questioning on such new matter.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. I would suggested to General Dana that the court cannot put itself in antagonism to the defense, and it is supposed that all the questions is asks is for the purpose of enlightening itself; that is all. The word "cross-examination" is a term that places it in the position of being a prosecutor and against the defense. It is not supposed that a question would be asked introducing entirely new matter without that question having been written out and handed to the prosecutor, so as to give the defense an opportunity to examine upon it. If the rule is strictly followed it is simply this: that the court or commission has a right at any stage of the proceedings to ask any question it may see fit for the purpose of enlightening itself, and that does not from the ground for cross-examination.

General BUELL. I should like to say, with reference to the remarks of the judge-advocate, Mr. President, that he is right in assuming that the position of any member of this Commission or any other court implies impartially; but the position does not screen a member of this Commission or any other court from the responsibility or fact of assuming the function of a prosector. If the pursues a course by his examination which is virtually a prosecution he is a prosector. The matter, whatever it may be, is something that the defendant has a right to defend himself against, whether it be introduced by the judge-advocate or any other accuser. The question which General Schoepf has put, as I have sated before, distinctly introduces new matter. The tendency of it is to throw blame on some person who had control of the forces at Cumberland Gap, and I am that person, for not doing a certain thing. That will involve the propriety and the right to explain why that certain thing was not done, and from that will flow the further investigation which I have intimated.

General SCHOEPF. We are not here to pronounce sentence upon General Buell. It is not a prosecution. It is for the purpose of investigating the facts connected with the Army of the Ohio in its Kentucky and Tennessee campaign, and all the facts we can educe we are bound to obtain in justice to General Buell as well as to the Commission. It is no prosecution.

The PRESIDENT. I understand the question is withdrawn.

General PRESIDENT. Do you (General Schoepf) withdraw your question?

General SCHOEPF. It is no use.

The PRESIDENT. I do not understand that under the rule adopted any member of this Commission by asking a question, whether based upon the examination-in-chief or upon the cross-examination, puts himself in the attitude of an accuser, and for the reason, as I understand, that we are not engaged in the investigation of any specific charges against any officer of the Army, but in the investigation of certain general operations of the army in the Kentucky and Tennessee campaign. That investigation is a duty imposed upon us by order of the President,and if the judge-advocate or General Buell should omit to ask a question in their examination proper or in the cross-examination