The court was cleared; when it was decided by the Commission that when a witness is under examination the person having the right of questioning the witness shall not be interfered with except by objection made in the usual form.

The WITNESS. We have a clause in the Constitution of the United States which says that private or individual property shall not be appropriated without making fair and just compensation; but here comes up the question as to the law of military necessity, and without being a military man I do not know ho how far the-military necessity or how far a commander-in-chief would have the right to claim individual and personal property; but I would suppose, and this would be my answer, that he would have the right to levy contributions a upon the enemy to the amount of what was necessary for his present and pressing necessities.

Question. Abstaining, then, from levying contributions upon a country in a state of insurrection and granting safeguards and other protection to rebel property are to be regarded as favors and not as a recognition of rights?

Yes, sir; I so consider them.

Question. Has not the rebel Government been in the habit of prosecuting those they supposed to be the loyal men of the South to the furthest extent of their power?

Of that fact I have no personal Knowledge, but from reliable information I believe they have.

Question. If we abstain from exercising our rights as a Government by levying contributions, &c., does it not in fact make it safer at the South to be a rebel than a loyal citizen?

Yes, sir; I should say that it did. But let me explain. The disloyal citizen would have two chances: he is protected by the Government of the United States, and let the rebels triumph he would be protected by the rebel Government, while the loyal citizen would only have one chance of protection.

Question. In a disputed territory where the two armies were contending, as in Tennessee or North Alabama has not this conciliatory policy been taken on the part of the inhabitants as an evidence of weakness on our part and thereby worked our injury?

I should say not as an evidence of weakness, but as an extreme disposition to conciliate.

The Commission adjourned to meet February 24.

CINCINNATI, February 24, 1863.

Commission met pursuant to adjournment. All the members present; also the judge-advocate and General Buell.

Judge LANE'S cross-examination continued.

By the JUDGE-ADVOCATE:

Question. Do you recollect, judge, how many counties you described in your evidence in chief lying along the line of the railway?

Yes, sir; I recollect there were only three. There are only four counties on the north side of the river-Limestone, Madison, Jackson, Lauderdale. The railroad passes through but three of them-Limestone, Madison, and Jackson.

Question. I refer to those counties of which you gave us a detailed description of their products.

There are five-De Kalb, Marshall, Morgan, Lawrence, and Franklin-on the south side.

Question. What is the population of those, if you can recollect?

I commence with Jackson Country, the extreme eastern county, on the north side