but who are not found in arms; the opposite policy to which is that a people freely sympathizing with the enemy and giving aid and comfort to the rebels have no rights which the Government is bound to respect; but it does not follow that in pursuing either policy officers and soldiers guilty of such offenses as murder, rape, arson, and plunder may not be punished or can be said to have departed from either policy, and in giving instances of such offenses the witness is wide of the question asked him by General Buell.

General BUELL. In questioning this witness I have not spoken of a conciliatory or of a harsh policy. I have simply put before the witness an order which announced to my troops the rule of action by which they were to be governed. There are in fact two policies which may be pursued. One is that of justice and a reasonable respect for the rights of the people in whose country we are operating as far as is consistent with the success and efficiency of our military operations, and the other is one of plunder and pillage. If a country is laid under discretional and unrestricted contributions by authority, it will be plundered by individuals without authority. The testimony of the witness as to what was the result with respect to the condition of things at Pulaski is an exemplication of the policy I attempted to pursue and did enforce as far as I could. The proceedings of our troops at Athens were exactly the result of the other policy of no rights to the people of the States in rebellion, "or living upon the enemy" as it is called, has been tolerated. I wish to exemplify the difference,and I request that the witness may be permitted to continue his evidence.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. If the witness is brought here to show the effect of unauthorized plunder and pillage on the part of the troops I answer that it is unnecessary, as the Government is prepared to admit it. I do not find in any orders issued from Washington permission to plunder, but it has been announced from headquarters at Washington that where a man is found in arms against the Government and giving aid and comfort to the enemy he has no rights which the Government is bound to respect, and his property may be taken, but in a legal and proper method, not by plunder and pillage. there are two courses which may be pursued, on only of which is authorized by the Government. Now of this witness merely shows that plundering, &c., is a bad policy, his testimony is unnecessary, for no one doubts it.

General BUELL. If it is necessary to show the propriety of the testimony which the witness is giving I think it would not be a difficult matter to establish before this Commission that the case which the witness has described is precisely the result of the reserve of that policy which I have infested upon wherever I have commanded. It is undoubtedly true that the Government does not sanction such proceedings, and it must be assumed that they are the very reverse of what the Government desires to enforce, and that the men who have favored the free use of rebel property for public purposes would be as much outraged at the conduct which results from that course as anybody is; nevertheless that is the result, and it is a result which not only outrages humanity but trammels and impairs the efficiency of our armies.

The PRESIDENT. Is the point that you raise, colonel, whether the witness should be allowed to proceed further with this line of testimony?

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. Yes, sir; I object to it for the reasons I have stated.

The court was cleared; when, after discussion, it was decided that the witness should be allowed to proceed with his testimony.