as in the judgement of the Commission shall be beneficial to the service." It appears to me now that under this last and general specification the investigation should be with reference to the propriety or impropriety of some of my official acts. If anything is presented as evidence which shows upon its face something that requires explanation or investigation, that may be sufficient with reference to that; but with reference to evidence, documentary or otherwise, which may set forth official acts that may be proper or improper according to the interpretation that is put upon them, the judge-advocate should be required to state what bearing he understands this evidence to have upon some particular question as to the propriety or impropriety of my official acts. For example, if the propriety or expediency of some arrangement of troops for some particular object should be in question, the judge-advocate would properly introduce as evidence anything bearing upon that general arrangement. But if he should introduce a document that merely sets forth that I ordered a division or brigade or a regiment to a particular place, without having set froth the general purpose of his investigation, I hold that he should state distinctly the object he has in view in introducing that particular document. I hold that it is proper he should explain what he means to show by this particular document that is introduced, and whether he claims that there was any fault in the official act which it sets forth or not; and, if so, what that fault is.

The court was cleared for deliberation, when, after discussion, the following was resolved upon as the opinion of the court:

"That the document is to go on record as it stands, without explanation from the judge-advocate, and it is for General Buell to treat and explain it in his defense as he may think properJanuary

General BUELL. Is this a general rule or a rule having reference to this particular document? The first question I submitted to the Commission is not answered in that resolution; that is, as to whether the statements there as to the strength of the rebel force is to be considered as evidence of that strength or whether it only stands there as one of the various reports or rumors current in regard to that subject. I believe that question is before you, sir.

The PRESIDENT. I think, general, the resolution covers that point.

General BUELL. I think not, sir.

The PRESIDENT. I will with your permission, general, take the sense of the Commission upon it.

The court was cleared, when after discussion, it was resolved -

"That the above rule should be considered as applicable to all documentary evidence introducedJanuary

General BUELL. That the army be no misunderstanding in reference to this, I wish it understood that if I make any exception to a document it is not that I object to the document as it actually is. It will require the authentication of my staff officers to secure my final assent to it as evidence before the Commission. I make this explanation because it is very possible there may be verbal errors, that can be corrected by referring to the original papers, and I wish it therefore understood that my assenting to a document that is read there does not imply that I assent to it as it is read, but to the document as it ought to be.

General SCHOEPF. I move that all the documentary evidence that is to be introduced be read by General Buell before it is read to the Commission and that he then certify to its correctness.

General BUELL. That is what I propose to do with reference to the