It is relative to the effective strength of the army, which is made up from different reports, which I found to be more correct.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. That is what I objected to before. I want the reports from which these estimates of the witness are obtained, as being the better evidence.

Question. What, then, was the actual effective strength on the south side of the river?

As I gave it, 47,537. I deducted the regiments which were not south of the Cumberland, but which were so reported in this report of August 20.

Question. What other inaccuracies do you find in this report?

Those are the only ones I see and the one I referred to first in summing up the totals, which made a very material difference in the report.

Question. Do you mean to say that the information you derived from other reports gives a different strength from that which you have just stated?

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. I object to that question; and now for the third time I ask to have it disposed of. If there are other reports, giving different estimates from those before us, I want them produced; they are the better evidence and I have a right to them.

General BUELL. I do not see that the question calls for any specific information in regard to what is shown in any other reports. The witness has undertaken to make and explanation which I do not understand myself and which I knew nothing of. I have not called for him to state the strength of the Army of the Ohio from any other source than from the reports which are now before the Commission; but I wish him to explain what is the discrepancy which he says exists. If it is found important I shall insist upon calling for the reports myself. I am just as anxious to do so as the judge-advocate himself.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. Any information which the witness may have derived from other documents is available to this Commission and is objectionable, because we have a right to the documents themselves. These reports were furnished to the Commission and were received as reliable; now we are told that there are other reports which show a different estimate.

General DANA. I do not see that the witness is precluded from testimony to the strength of the army, which many other witnesses have done. Other witnesses, I suppose, have got their information, both with respect to our own and Bragg's army, from all kinds of sources, and (as far as our own army is concerned) from these reports; and I do not see that any witness should be precluded from giving his testimony as to the effective strength of the army from any reliable source whatever.

The court was cleared; when it was decided that the objection should be sustained.

The PRESIDENT. This ruling of the court, general, does not preclude you from introducing the other reports that have been referred to.

General BUELL. I do not think it is a matter of any consequence. I simply desired to understand what the matter was that the witness had to explain.

By General BUELL:

Question. In this statement of the force on the south side of the Cumberland River have you included what is entered under the head of unattached cavalry in this report?

All except the Ninth Regiment Pennsylvania Cavalry.

Question. In that statement of the force on the south side of the Cumberland