judge-advocate's purpose to shape it a little differently and obviate the objection.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. I see no objection to the question as it stands. I do not propose to argue it.

General SCHOEPF. The witness stated that the people were very different until July last year, 1862, and that they have changed since them. There is a difference in the time and policy of the whole affair.

The court is cleared, and after discussion it is decided that the question should be put.

The WITNESS. I have spoken of a conciliatory policy toward peaceable and quiet citizens who remained at home. I do not myself regard that course as an evidence of weakness, nor have I any knowledge or information that the rebels so regard it. My information, though somewhat limited, is that they are delighted to hear of instances of hardship from people at home, because, as I suppose, they look upon it as a means of exasperating the public opinion of the country. From what I see and hear they are glad to be able to cite these things as a verification of what they pretended to predict at the onset of this contest.

Question. Did not the rebel States put forth their entire strength; and have they, in fact, needed any such incentive as that to embitter their feelings?

I think they needed that element of strength to some extent, for the reason that there were a good many people of Union feelings and a good number indifferent-at all events having a latent feeling for the Government of the United States; and I think they saw if they forced them into the army they would not make as good soldiers as if they were first exasperated and then induced to volunteer or come in by the conscription laws. I do not think a conscripted soldier makes as good a soldier as one who goes in willingly. I may be mistaken in that, but I do not think I am.

Question. As the conciliatory policy you speak of that was inaugurated by the commander of the Army of the Ohio depends upon the application of the order referred to, please tell us from your experience who were designated as peaceable citizens, who were to be protected not to be molested, in their persons and property.

I do not know of any specific designation outside of this order and others that I may have seen. I put a construction on it myself, and supposed it meant persons who staid at home and attended to their business and did or said nothing against the Government in any shape or form.

Question. I ask you from your experience, and not from your construction of that order, whether citizens openly avowing disunion sentiments, having sons in the rebel army and having until our army arrived there, furnished those sons with subsistence, and willingly supported the rebel in their persons and property?

I have no particular experience as to that matter; I remember no particular case now. But I would regard a man talking secession openly as not a peaceable citizen; and I do not include such when I speak of a conciliatory policy.

Question. If your recollection furnishes no instance in illustration of this sentence in the order, who were considered peaceable citizens and who were not, your observation has been somewhat limited, has it not?

I have been in Nashville most of the time since the Federal army arrived there. I do not know of any arrests under this order. I do not know whether there was anything to be observed or not; at all events I observed but little.

Question. Are you acquainted with or do you know of Judge G. W. Lane? If so, what weight would his opinion have as to the proper policy to be pursued in North Alabama?

I am acquainted with him, sir. He is a man of good sense, and I presume has an acquaintance with the people of North Alabama. I would rely upon his judgment about as I would upon any one man's. I should not regard it as unerring.