The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. I shall have to object to that question, Mr. President. I understand that the resolution passed last evening turned General Crittenden over to General Buell for examination simply upon such new matter as the Commission in its examination may have brought out. This certainly is not that new matter.

General DANA. It certainly is a great stretch of imagination on the part of the judge-advocate in supposing that any resolution was necessary to be introduced for the purpose of confining General Buell to an examination on the new matter introduced by the Commission. The resolution is to turn the witness over to General Buell in consideration of the witness having been put through such an extraordinary examination by the Commission.

General BUELL. I should like to know how the judge-advocate knows that the question I have asked has not reference to the matter introduced in the examination of yesterday. I do not know how he can be sure of it.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. I only judge, Mr. President, from the question itself. This matter of cutting the lines of communication had been gone into in the examination-in-chief, was cross-examined upon by myself and afterward by the Commission. It certainly forms no part of the new matter introduced by the Commission yesterday or the day before. If General Dana's explanation of the resolution is correct, then the witness has to be turned over to General Buell as if he had not been examined at all. The resolution itself does not express what was the intention.

The court was cleared; when, after the passage of a resolution introduced by the president, it was decided that the question should be put.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. I would ask General Buell to state to what matter this question has reference, because it evidently does not refer to the new matter introduced by the Commission.

General BUELL. The question refers to questions which were asked yesterday with reference to the force that was left in Kentucky to guard against inroads into the State and operations against communications of the Army in Tennessee. The object of the question is to explain that matter.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. I withdraw my objection.

The WITNESS. I cannot state precisely the date. I think the first formidable array of the enemy against our lines of communications in Kentucky was after we left Corinth and while we were on the Tennessee River, but I cannot remember the date. My impression is that it must have occurred in July. It might have been as early as the latter part of June.

By General BUELL:

Question. What force do you suppose would have been necessary in Kentucky to prevent such incursions?

I really would find great difficulty in stating what force would be necessary to prevent such incursions. I think it would have required a very large force. I would say that from 20,000 to 25,000 might possibly have guarded the State against such incursions.

Question. Would it have been possible, do you suppose, to spare a force for that purpose from the forces under my command and at the same time maintain the advanced positions which we occupied in Tennessee?

I think not, sir.