General SCHOEPF. I object to that amendment, because Colonel Turchin was tried by court-martial and has since been promoted.

The court was cleared; and, after discussion, it was decided that the proposed amendment to the question should not be put.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. The witness is to speak here as he would in any other court-from his personal knowledge, from what he knows.

General BUELL. I request that no greater restriction be placed upon this witness than has been practiced heretofore. I know no reason for a distinction at this particular time. I do not think the object of the investigation is to determine whether any particular person is to be hung for the crime of murder or whether he shall be adjudged to pay a certain forfeit. The object of the investigation is to get the best information we can in regard to the operations of the army and the exercise of my command. That has been the rule heretofore. The investigation has been pursued in a very general way, and I know no reason why it should be restricted now by a nice scrutiny.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. It certainly was not my intention, and if my memory serves me aright the rules governing the introduction of testimony have in no instance been departed from on the part of the Government, but I have permitted it on the part of the defense; but the departure from the established rules must not be carried too far.

General BUELL. I wish to say that I do not admit that any particular favors have been extended to the defense at all in this investigation or that any advantage has accrued from extraordinary liberality on the part of the prosecution. I do not admit that any greater liberties have been allowed to the defense in the introduction of evidence than can be found to have been used in the prosecution.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. The record will speak for itself.

General BUELL. That might have been a sufficient reason why the declaration of extraordinary liberality was unnecessary.

General SCHOEPF. The division referred to as having committed these depredations was subsequently under the command of General Rousseau, who testified that they were as good as any soldiers he wished to have. It is casting a reflection on the dead and can do no good at all.

General BUELL. That would have been a very good reason for approving of the proposed amendment. I do not wish to cast any reflection upon the troops all. Many of the best officers in that command were outraged at these depredations, and, as I was told, threatened to resign their commission if these things were tolerated. I know that General Mitchell himself disapproved of them, except that he perhaps failed to enforce discipline which he would have himself approved. These violations were confined for the most part to a particular brigade. The question was put in the first place not very cautiously. It was for that reason I desired to amend it, so that it should apply to the troops to which the odium conduct properly belongs.

The court was cleared; when it was decided by the Commission that the witness may state any well-authenticated rumors or general information of depredations or misconduct, without involving any particular corps or regiment.

The WITNESS. I have a knowledge that there were general rumors that there had been various depredations committed; I might say that I got that information from General Mitchell and from various officers belonging to the different corps