[CHAP. XXVIII.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. I would remark that so far as any historical fact is concerned we are entitled to use it as we would any other fact. The struggle between McClellan and the rebel army at Richmond last summer is history, and we may introduce it in illustration of any fact that may come before this court. I apprehend that General Buell will not persist in his objection when he comes to think of it; it certainly is not tenable. So far as the illustration goes it is entirely out of the line of argument.

General BUELL. The question would required a distinct answer, yes, or Numbers It did not require that the witness should travel out of the path to explain his opinion-if he had that opinion-that all the forces at the service of the rebel Government were required and actually were in front of Richmond to stop the advance of McClellan's army. I had no idea of suggesting anything to the mind of the witness, and I do not think I did suggest anything that he could have been expected to state in answer to the question.

(The recorder is in doubt, whether the foregoing remark of General Buell, marked in the margin, is fully reported.)

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. Before General Buell goes I would remark that where a fact is notoriously a fact you can draw your conclusions from it, and it is proper for a witness to do so. For example, recollecting the terrible struggle we were engaged in the front of Richmond, was it not reasonable to suppose and do you not believe that all the troops were drawn from the Southwest in order to support the rebel Government at Richmond?

General BUELL. For my own part I can answer that it is not a matter of notoriety that all the troops that could possibly be spared were sent to Richmond to support the rebel army. There was a sufficiency of rebel troops there to accomplish their object. Whether they had there all they could collect I do not know, or whether they could not have spared some of their troops for other purposes I do not know.

The court was cleared; when, after discussion, it was decided that the question should be put.

On the opening of the court General Crittenden replied as follows:

No, sir; I do not think it is well known.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. Do you understand that to be the fact?

I do not. I understand that a great struggle was going on there,, and that the Confederate Government were using every means possible to maintain themselves there. I also understand at the same time they were struggling with equal pertinacity and assiduity to maintain themselves every where else where they had armies.

Question. With the army numbering over 30,000 men at the time there were but 10,000 at Chattanooga you say a movement on that place was not practicable?

I have not made that statement. A movement on Chattanooga with our army, which numbered 30,000 men at the time that there were as I supposed not more than 10,000 men at Chattanooga, would not be practicable at all with ten day's rations. At that time our army was scattered over a considerable extend of country. Portions of it could not have reached Chattanooga in less than six or seven days, I should think. That is my understanding of the position of the army at that time. Had the army of 30,000 men been within 40 miles of Chattanooga while there were but 10,000 in Chattanooga I should think the enterprise could have been carried out, notwithstanding all the difficulties, and that Chattanooga could have been taken.

Question. Were there any other reasons than a lack of supplies which prevented the concentration of the army there in time to bring about that result?

I know of no reason which delayed the concentration of the army except the want