General BUELL. A similar question was asked of a former witness by the judge-advocate himself. I do not know whether in putting that question the judge-advocate considered that it placed Governor Johnson on trial before this Commission. I do not think it did, nor do I think that this question places him on trial. I ask the question because it has been asked before by the judge-advocate in a somewhat different shape, because it is connected with the question of policy, and because I understand from the judge-advocate's question that Governor Johnson's opinion and practice may be supposed to have some importance in your deliberations on this question.

The PRESIDENT. When was the question asked, general?

General BUELL. It was asked of one of my witnesses.

The PRESIDENT. Was it asked in the examination-in-chief?

General BUELL. No, sir.

The court was cleared; when it was unanimously decided that the question should not be put.

By General TYLER:

Question. Was this devastation of which the people complained in the vicinity of Gallatin and other parts of Tennessee, that you speak of in your testimony, the result of regular foraging under the direction of proper officers of the army or was it occasional by the plundering of our troops?

I could not say, sir; it was just a general complaint in a spirit of grumbling, but I heard nothing said of its being done either in a regular or an irregular manner. It was looked upon as the effects and consequences of the war, and I would infer that the people there were all very sick of it.

Question. Supposing that the Federal army should go to East Tennessee, and should, through the regular departments of the army, strip the country of all that is necessary to support that army, paying those men who could prove their loyalty and refusing compensation to those who were disloyal, do you or do you not suppose that such a course of policy would strengthen the hands of the army in East Tennessee?

It would meet with the hearty approbation of the whole Union population and would be doing just what they would expect.

Question. From what you know and from what you hear of the campaign of 1862 in Kentucky and Tennessee was that the policy pursued by the Federal army?

I know nothing personally, but from what I have heard they complained that it was not. It was merely a matter of complaint and rumor of those I heard talking about it.

General BUELL. I object to the question and to the answer. It is on record that an order was issued requiring certificates to be given to persons from whom supplies were received. The condition of payment upon those certificates is that the claimant shall prove his loyalty; so that no mere matter of opinion or hearsay evidence can be of any value or validity upon that point. I am willing it shout pass.

By General DANA:

Question. Do you know whether, prior to the issue of an order by the Government making payment for produce or articles taken by the army for its use conditional on the loyalty or disloyalty of the parties from whom the articles were taken, there was any authority for any general commanding an army in the field to adopt that policy?

I am not able to answer the question satisfactorily.