mands supposed they were retreating, which always impairs the discipline of an army. In addition to that we were living on half rations very often. There was a great deal of ripe fruit in the country through which we marched and the men would break ranks. There was great difficulty in keeping the men in the ranks. I know of nothing else. I think the discipline of the army was very much restored again as soon as it concentrated and began to feel its strength and began to think they were to fight again and not to run.

Question. Is it or is it not your opinion that the tone of a considerable portion of the public press encouraged in the minds of the men the idea that they were more or less at liberty to make use of private property wherever they could find it, if they wished?

I think there was much in the tone of a portion of the press that encouraged that idea in the men. Undoubtedly, from some reason or other, many men seemed to have adopted that idea, and it was with great difficulty and after a considerable time that marauding could be stopped.

Question. Have you ever known any army or do you suppose it is possible to have an army in which there will not be more or less complaining and fault-finding and animosity toward the commander?

I have certainly never known such an army, and I do not believe there ever was such an army or ever will be, that is composed of men.

Question. Have you observed any instance of such animosity in the Army of the Ohio toward its late commander, myself, and have you in your own mind been able to explain it? Do you know of any marked instances of that kind that you can explain now?

I have known of some instances in which officers of the army complained of their late commander, and the explanation to my mind wa-and I am not sure whether I did those officers injustice or not, but my explanation was that they were dissatisfied with the general because of some orders that were personally disagreeable to them. I supposed the dissatisfaction was temporary, because it grew out of such a cause as that. By this I do not mean to say that I have not heard officers complain of the general commanding or that I have not complained myself of some things, but I mean to say that as far as I know his general course as a commander was satisfactory to the army.

Question. I wish to submit to the witness General Orders, Numbers 13a, issued by me at Nashville a year ago, and ask him whether he recognizes that order as embodying the policy which I meant to pursue and did pursue, as far as my presence enabled me to enforce, in the military operations of the army under my command.

I do not recognize the order, and I will state unhesitatingly that the whole time it was the commanding general's policy to carry out this order, and that he exerted himself, to my knowledge, to have it carried out when we were on the march, and that he exerted himself to have it carried out by frequent instructions and orders to his command.

Question. Do you see anything in that order or was it the practice under it to treat persons who were active in their opposition to the Government or violent and offensive in their language in the same manner as persons who were loyal to the Government?

There is nothing in the order requiring loyal and disloyal persons to be treated in the same way, nor was in the practice, to my knowledge, to treat disloyal and loyal persons in the same way.

Question. Do you consider that there was a time in Kentucky when the policy to be pursued by the army would have had a very material effect upon the sentiments of the people toward the Union?

I think so, undoubtedly.

Question. What, in your judgment, was the effect of the policy announced in that order; was it good or bad?

I think it was good.