d'armee under his control. I will further, and state that I was upon terms of the utmost intimacy with General Mitchell, and so far from having any disposition to do injustice to his memory I would say that I have known few men for whom I have had a higher regard. On one occasion after there had been a very flagrant violation committed by the army, I accompanied General Mitchell from Huntsville to Athens, the adjoining town. The general had the different regiments assembled, and he made a speech to them, in which he deprecated very severely the course of conduct they had pursued, saying that he should certainly hold both officers and men to strict accountability for their conduct. As a matter of course those depredations that were charged to have committed id produce some bad effect against the Federal army. I could go on further, and say that perhaps on the second day after General Mitchell arrived in Huntsville I sent for him, and we had a confidential interview, in which he asked my advice as a citizen as to what would be the proper policy to pursue there, and I have vanity enough to believe that the advice I gave him influenced his course of action. I could explain to the court what predicated the advice that was given. North Alabama had always been a Union State; the elections had taken place on the north side of the river, in which there had been an overwhelming demonstration, perhaps five Union votes to one secession, and I gave it to General Mitchell as my opinion that there was a Union sentiment, and that that sentiment should be fostered by a conciliatory course of conduct, and General Mitchell set out with the determination to pursue that policy. But I must say that my experience there convinced me that I was perhaps mistaken. No good came from the conciliatory policy; no good has since resulted from it, and I have seen fit to change my views on that subject.

The PRESIDENT. No good?

No good, sir. I take more blame upon myself, for I advised General Mitchell to pursue this course: that there should be no discrimination made; that it should not be known who were and who were not secessionists; that contributions should be levied on all alike; but I think now that if the Union men knew that they were to be protected, while burdens should fall alone upon the secessionists, it would have made the Union men more decided. Sharing the burdens with the secessionists I think had an unfavorable effect.

By General BUELL:

Question. Do I understand you to say that the depredations that were committed at Athens and other places ought to have been approved by General Mitchell; that the effect of such approval or the encouragement of such depredations would have strengthened the cause of the Union among the people?

By no means. I did not so intend to be understood; on the contrary, I intended it to be understood that these depredations did excite and inflame the people against the Federal cause . I intended to say that the conciliatory policy pursued by General Mitchell, being extended alike to secessionists and Union men, did not produce the good effect upon the Union men that I had hoped.

Question. Was it a matter of notoriety that depredations similar to those committed at Athens were committed at various other points in North Alabama, and perhaps also in Tennessee on the borders of North Alabama?

It was notorious that there had been depredations committed at various places, but none of so flagrant a character as those committed at Athens.

Question. By a conciliatory policy I understand you to mean a policy which discriminates in a marked manner between those persons who are loyal to the Government and those who are disloyal?

General SCHOEPF. I object to that question; that is more politics than a subject for a military investigation. The President of the United States will decide which policy to adopt; it is not for us to decide here.

General BUELL. My policy in the exercise of my command has been made the subject of investigation; them testimony goes to particularize that policy and to the wisdom or error of it. It was therefore pediment.

The WITNESS. The question shows that I am not perfectly understood as to the