Of course I have no objection to these documents. They are more complete than my own files. I should desire them myself if they were not to be introduced by the Government. I find some verbal inaccuracies, which can perhaps be corrected as we go along. Before any decision is given as to the full effect of the recent act of Congress with reference to the testimony of absent witnesses I should like to have an opportunity to submit my views on that question. I am not prepared to do so this moment with as much care as it requires. I will merely say now that if a literal interpretation is to be placed upon the wording of the law, it amounts to an abrogation of every principle of justice, as far as securing evidence is concerned. Justice could never be secured by any such practice as that. I do not suppose any intelligent man will pretend that law would permit such a thing as this; that this Commission, sitting here, could compel me to submit to the introduction of evidence by deposition when the witness, living on the other side of the river, could be brought here in half an hour. If that is the case, and accused person could be prevented from ever confronting his accusers. The evidence of witnesses on the other side of the river having been admitted by deposition, the court could be transferred to that side, and the same process executed with reference to witnesses on this. The case of Governor Johnson presents almost such an example, though I do not wish to assert that it was so designed. I think I may say that it was the intention of the judge-advocate to call Governor Johnson at first. He failed to do so when the Commission was sitting in the same city and in the same building with him, and now, having gone beyond the State or district in which he lives, his deposition is insisted upon.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. So far, Mr. President, as any discussion upon that law would go, of course General Buell has an entire right to call your attention to it; but so far as my conduct it concerned I must beg leave to differ as to his right. There has been nothing before this Commission, that I can perceive, that would authorize such remarks. I inquired of Governor Johnson what he knew, and came to the conclusion that the testimony was not important. Since then, since our arrival in Louisville, documents and facts have come to my knowledge which I think made his examination important, and I proposed to call him. There is no wish on my part to take his deposition; I should infinitely prefer to have him before the Commission; but I shall take his deposition, as it seems I cannot get him.

General BUELL. The questions presented to the Commission by the judge-advocate to be submitted to Governor Johnson do not refer to any documents. If Governor Johnson's evidence is required with reference to any documents, I shall insist that the judge-advocate produce the documents or make his explanation more complete, and then we can judge whether Governor Johnson's evidence is necessary.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. The Commission can judge of the importance of that evidence when they get it and not before. I have already stated upon what points I wish to examine Governor Johnson. I submitted these questions in writing and had the action of the Commission upon them. As to how he will respond to them, it is of course impossible for me to say, but the Commission can judge of his reply after they get it.

General BUELL. The Commission will remember that in my presence the judge-advocate was asked by the President as to whether he was ready to call Governor Johnson in Nashville and he answered that he was not prepared to call him at that time. I inferred from that he had given notice to the Commission that he intended to call him, and I have no doubt he did give that notice; and I shall be compelled to say