Question. Do you think that a temporary advance of our troops in East Tennessee would be wise or merciful to the people, as a general policy?

I think not, sir. I am perfectly satisfied in my own mind that if we are only to make a temporary advance upon them we had better stay away. Unless we go in and get possession of the country, leave it alone by all means. When we burned their bridges, a little over a year ago, they took our men and hung them in retaliation. I would deprecate our army going there, under the command of any one, only for a temporary hold of it. If it is not to be permanent I hope they will stay away. It would be better for the people to be left as they are.

Question. Have the Union people of East Tennessee generally remained loyal in spite of the cruel treatment they have received from the rebel authorities?

Yes, sir; I should say so. They have never shrunk from their devotion to the Government and to the Union.

Question. Suppose it had been evident that the Government which the rebels desired to establish would secure perfectly the equality and liberties of the people as well as under our Constitution, and that then the rebel authorities had pursued a mild course toward the people instead of a very severe one, would they be in a better or worse disposition toward the rebel Government and the rebel authorities than they are now?

If they had adopted a more kindly course of conduct toward the people, instead of exasperating them, they would have felt more kindly toward them; but I have no idea that they would have indorsed secession or the rebel Government; that is, the Union portion of them. We held two large conventions for East Tennessee in May and July; we had Nelson, Johnson, and others speaking, and they were ultra men, and we had some conciliatory men, Colonel Baxter and others, who proposed that we should ground our arms, but the crowd would not listen to such a proposition, and called out, "They are damned secessionists; let them go and join them." The masses of the people were ahead of what we call the leaders. I witnessed those demonstrations. They sent Colonel Buell up there to set us right because we had voted largely, but we drove him back indignantly to Middle Tennessee. The people refused to hear him speak at all.

Question. Have you seen anything of the effects of the presence of large armies in a country,and is it or is it not your observation that under a system which regiments that an army should like upon the country and its inhabitants, friends and foes suffer alike, as a general rule?

Yes, sir; the only fair view I have ever had of anything of that kind was in the vicinity of Murfreesborough, Nashville, and Gallatin, a country I was very familiar with. I have traveled over it in years gone by on horseback and by stage and rail, and I found, in returning from that country in the fall, in the winter, and again in the spring, all destroyed, and everybody's property suffered alike. There was a general using up of everything and everybody, a general deprecation of war, and a general wish with those I talked to that peace should be restored. All deprecate the war and devastation alike now, rebels and Unionists. This was the first manifestation of war I had ever witnessed. I have not been accustomed to war or to armies.

Question. Suppose our army should enter East Tennessee and should practice there a system which results in such universal devastation and ruin, do you think the affections of the people toward our cause would be strengthened by such a condition of things?

I think that in East Tennessee there would be a division. The Union party would submit to anything and indorse anything almost that the Federal Army did, and the other party would complain. I do not think the Federal Army could do anything there that would be offensive to the Unionists, provided they inflicted punishment upon the rebels in a spirit of retaliation.

Question. Suppose that in the execution of this system of retaliation the Union people should find that they suffered as much their traitorous