Question. Do you recognize any difference between the nature and objects of all military operations in this rebellion and the nature and objects of military operations against a foreign foe under ordinary circumstances?

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. I object to that question, Mr. President, on the same ground that I objected to the other. It is not based upon any new matter introduced by the Commission.

General BUELL. The new matter which this question has reference to is the plan put forward in a portion of the examination of yesterday of a temporary advance into East Tennessee for the purpose of destroying the railroads, which it was supposed might be accomplished in a short time and with the supplies the army had last summer.

The court was cleared, and after discussion it was decided that the objection should be sustained.

General BUELL. The only object I had in the re-examination of General Crittenden was to throw light upon certain theories for a campaign which were started in the examination of yesterday. The question which has just been objected to and the objection to which has been sustained has reference to one of these theories, so that I suppose the same action would be had upon any further questions I would ask of General Crittenden, at all events the more material of them, and therefore I have no more questions to put.

The PRESIDENT. I think, general, you misapprehended the effect of this vote. If you have any questions with reference to new theories which were certainly introduced there would be no objection. The question of yours, general, as it stands upon the record, does not seem to come within the rule.

General BUELL. This question had reference to such theories, one in particular. I would rather not commence the examination at all than be restricted to any specific form of questions. In fact, sir, I am not particularly anxious to examine the witness at all. I do not see anything in the examination of yesterday that I think very important, and therefore, and for the reason already stated, I forego the re-examination of the witness.

General DANA. I have quite a number of questions to ask.

The question being raised whether it would be in accordance with the rule established, the court was cleared; and, on the question being put whether the witness should be recalled for further examination by the Commission, it was decided in the negative.

General DANA. I wish to state that there were certain questions put to this witness----

General TYLER. I moved that the court be cleared.

General DANA. I object to it.

On the order of the president the court was cleared.

On the opening of the court, by permission of the Commission, General Crittenden made the following explanation:

It was, I think, in answer to a question of yours, general (president), as to whether if I had received an order at 4 o'clock, how long it would have taken me to march to the enemy, or where I expected to encounter the enemy, on the road to Harrodsburg. Upon reflection, sir, I think I answered too hastily. The distance being about 5 miles, I could not have issued orders to my command and have moved that distance in the time stated. I do not remember precisely how the question was put, but I supposed myself at the time to be in motion with my command at 4 o'clock, and that in an emergency I could have accomplished it in the time stated. But to have issued the order at 4 o'clock, with a line 2 miles long and either to have marched in line or to have thrown that line into column and marched that distance, would have required much more time. It would have taken from half to three-quarters of an hour to have started. That is the correction I wish to make to the court.