refers to documentary evidence, and that evidence, I understand, has been furnished from Washington, and is to be presented this morning. So that of the two questions one is improper and the other is superfluous.

General DANA. It appears to me that we are now running against difficulties which I have seen all along we should encounter; and it appears to me that it is the most serious difficulty that can arise in our proceedings. I have remarked before this that there are no witnesses that have been introduced before the court whose testimony the court has a right to suppose will be more important than the testimony of Major-General Halleck and Colonel Fry. I do not believe there will be a dissenting opinion in the court as to the propriety of examining those two witnesses, but as to examining them by deposition I do not believe that any member of the court can consider that method will be satisfactory to either side in this case. I certainly would prefer not to have General Halleck examined at all than in the way proposed by those two questions, which do not reach the two important points that we have a right to investigate. Now, we all know that General Halleck cannot be brought here nor can Colonel Fry. The exigencies of the service will not permit it, and we find ourselves situated just as I feared we should be. I think, then, that in this case we ought to make such a representation to the Department of the actual necessity of having those two gentleman before this Commission as has not heretofore been made to them. There has been no full representation made to the Department at Washington of the reasons which compel the Commission to feel the necessity of the presence of those two witnesses, and I think before we give up the expectation of having those witnesses present before the court that it is our duty to make a full representation of the necessity to the Government, and let them take the responsibility, where it properly belongs, of saying whether this Commission shall or shall not have this evidence that they consider so very important. Now I am unwilling to close this case without having the full evidence of these two witnesses. What their evidence will be I do not know, but I cannot believe that there is any evidence before the Commission that will be more important in this investigation that of the general-in-chief, and who then commanded in front of Corinth, and who gave the orders to the Army of the Ohio which started it on its mission, and the testimony of the chief of staff of that army. As to the testimony of Governor Johnson, I have no very definite opinion about that, but if he is going to remain in Washington long enough for this Commission to get there I think his case may also be embraced in the representation that ought to be made of the absolute necessity that exists why this court should adjourn to where they can get the testimony of these witnesses; and if it cannot be obtained in that way I do not think it ought to be obtained at all.

The PRESIDENT. It is a matter of the most ordinary justice that, if these questions which have been read by the judge-advocate be submitted to General Halleck, General Buell should have the right to cross-examine. I am decidedly in favor of insisting that he should have that privilege; it is but a matter of justice to him, and if this evidence is taken by deposition he cannot have that permission.

General DANA. I imagine it would not be necessary to bring General Halleck into court. If the judge-advocate and General Buell were at Washington they could obtain his evidence from him at his own office. I think General Halleck's examination would be a very long one before the court.