Question. Please confine yourself to the question.

That is answering it fully. My view of it is that I do not think it authorized me to plunder anybody.

Question. What do you understand, then, to be the difference between what is known as a "conciliatory policy" and a "vigorous was policy"?

In answering that I must give the opinion of others.

Question. I ask you for your own, colonel.

In order fully to explain my construction of the two policies, a vigorous was policy, as generally understood in the army to which I have been attached, means the adoption of all means and measures not only to crush out the rebellion but to punish indiscriminately all persons who live in a rebellious territory. A conciliatory policy, as I understand it, means a vigorous persecution of the was against the rebels in arms, an entire respect for the civil rights of those not in arms, and protection to the loyal and innocent.

Question. Is not that difference simply this: that in what is called a vigorous war policy the man in arms, or sympathizing or giving aid and comfort in any way to the rebellion organized against his Government, is considered to have no rights that that Government is bound to respect; while a conciliatory policy recognizes the civil rights of people who openly sympathize and give aid and comfort to the enemy but are not in arms?

No, sir; as I understand it a vigorous was policy not only wars upon those in arms and who sympathize and who give aid and comfort to the enemy, but would practice devastation and would destroy the very germ of rebellion. The conciliatory policy does not excuse those who openly sympathizer or punishes him. Those who give aid and comfort they regard as rebels and treat them accordingly, but it defers to the law to punish by its established rules those who sympathize and who give aid and comfort to the enemy rather than resort to the strong arm of military authority. That is the difference, I understand, between them.

Question. Was or was not the Army of the Ohio demoralized?

Until the Army of the Ohio reached Louisville I should say that it was not demoralized; it certainly was inoculated with some demoralizing tendencies which I tried to explain in my direct examination, but having been detached from that army at Louisville I cannot speak of its subsequent character.

Question. Then the punishment of certain officers for plundering and the publication of certain newspaper articles had no effect upon the army until it reached Louisville?

It had not the effect of destroying the authority of the commander of the army, though that it had some effect there is no question, and that is what I mean by demoralizing tendencies.

Question. I understand you to say that they had an evil tendency, but not far enough to make the officers discontented or to demoralize the men?

I think until we reached Louisville the discontent was confined in a great measure to the officers; the discontent, however, of the officers did not reach to the point of insubordination, but expended itself in grumbling against the commanding general, and which in my opinion operated badly upon the men.

Question. Did you ever read an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer reflecting severely upon General Buell?

General Tyler having objected to the question it was withdrawn.

The witness was then dismissed.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. I would suggest that it is now a proper time for the introduction of such documentary evidence as General Buell wishes to bring before the Commission on the part of the defense. I