same time, should the state of affairs take place as contemplated by the question, that the rebel army should be driven out of the country, a conciliatory policy would be best to pursue to bring them back again into the pale of the Constitution and under the protection of the Government of the United States.

Question. Suppose the rebel power not to be crushed and its armies not to be driven out, which line of conduct will leave these people in the best disposition, in regard to the Union and the old Government, that policy which has respected personal rights or that which has violated them and treated the people with harshness and severity?

I should say that the mild policy, that which has treated them with the most consideration and in the mildest manner, would be the best calculated to attach them to the Government.

Question. Will you please state, judge, as far as you understand it, wherein my policy differed from that which General Mitchell entertained?

I do not know of any difference at all. Although I claimed to be very intimate with general Buell, perhaps I was not so conversant with his policy as I was with General Mitchell; but, as far as I am aware, I know of no difference at all. I received as many favors asked for persons from General Mitchell as at the hands of General Buell, as from General Mitchell. Indeed I think their policy was the same; the only difference I know, I never held consultations with General buell as to the policy that should be pursued, while I did with General Mitchell.

Question. If, then, general Mitchell's opinions and my own were not materially different upon the question of policy, was there any difference in our practice: if there was, please state what it was and what the effect of it was.

As far as I know there was no difference in their opinions as to the policy pursued. The only difference that now occurs to me was this: General Mitchell was a very impulsive man, and his practice did not in every instance conform to his opinions. For instance, some days, owing to circumstances, he would seem to act more harshly than at other times, while in the main he was kind and considerate. General Buell, on the contrary, seemed not tot be under the same amount of impulse as generally actuated General Mitchell, and his practice was more uniform. I will state one fact. The general's trains on the railroad were very frequently fired into by guerrillas and nothing seemed to aggravate him and put him in a worse humor than for his trains to be fired into, and it not infrequently happened when persons would come to me to ask favors or to have their wrongs redressed in some particular, knowing that his train had been fired into the previous day, I used to advise them to put off their application till I could find the general in a better humor,and i very rarely failed to obtain whatever I asked for the applicants. General Mitchell was also more communicative to me, while General Buell was disposed to be more reticent and to keep his own views to himself.

Question. Do I understand you to mean that this interference with his trains seemed to instigate General Mitchell to a harsher course of conduct toward the people?

By no means. It did not interfere with his practice, but with his professions. He would sometimes declare that he would do, and I would find him just as kind and as disposed to grant favors before.

Cross-examination by the JUDGE-ADVOCATE:

Question. With a portion of the people in arms against the Government, what do you consider the personal rights of those who side with the rebels, at least so far as giving aid and comfort goes?

General BUELL. I object to the question, Mr. President. I have not examined the judge with reference to what are the personal rights of persons engaged in this rebellion.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. The question is based upon the proposition made by General Buell as to which were the better policy with the inhabitants of a country where our armies were, that which respected the