One of the signal is now present, and in order to satisfy that member as far as possible I propose to examine him for further evidence on this point.

General TYLER. I have no particular desire for further evidence on this point. If the judge-advocate or General Buell so desire it may ge obtained by deposition; that is, as to whether any messages were sent by the signal corps on that day.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. After examining that matter very carefully I satisfied myself that no message had been sent to General Buell by the signal corps on the day of the Perryville fight. General Buell has called witnesses since to that effect, and I will further state that no such message reached him, and upon that assurance being conveyed to General Tyler I understood him to say that he desired no further evidence upon that matter.

General TYLER. I yield my doubt on this point that no message was received by General Buell on the day of the battle of Perryville.

The attendance of Lieutenant Sheridan was not required, because it was acceded by the Commission that no such message was received by General Buell on the day of the battle of Perryville.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. Although there are yet Major-General Wright and Colonel Fry whom it is proposed to examine for the defense, I propose to examine, through question reduced to writing, a certain number of witnesses as rebutting evidence. In accordance with the rule established I propose, although General Buell is not through, to state what witnesses I shall call and the points on which I wish to examine them and what I expect to prove by them. I propose to call Colonel De Courcy, to show that the testimony offered through Major-General Granger that East Tennessee could not be invaded successfully from Central Kentucky is erroneous.

General BUELL. Does the judge-advocate propose to examine that witness by deposition?

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. Yes, sir; that is, by questions and cross-interrogatories by yourself at the same time.

General BUELL. I shall object to the introduction of testimony upon that question, upon the ground that it is not necessary and does not go to rebut anything that has been introduced in the defense. If it is claimed that my instructions restricted General Morgan form invading Eastern Tennessee farther than he did, those instructions will appear in the documentary evidence. The question of the invasion or the farther advance of General Morgan into Eastern Tennessee was introduced by the judge-advocate himself or by a member of the Commission, and I notified the Commission at the time of the wide field that was opened by this question. It is not possible that it could be fully explained by the testimony of one witness in the manner proposed. I shall object to the introduction of this witness upon the broad ground that his testimony is not necessary to rebut any new matter that has been introduced in the defense. It was undoubtedly one of the subjects open to the investigation of the Commission at the beginning, and if it was to be introduced at all it should have been introduced in the inquiry on the part of the Government before the judge-advocate had ceased.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. General Buell hardly states the proposition that gives me the right to examine witnesses in rebutting evidence. I am not confined to new matter, as is well established in law governing rebutting evidence, but it is incumbent upon me to say that it has been introduced by General Buell in his defense; for I claim that in asking