I finally state that I believe General Morgan had every wish, inclination, and power to operate offensively in Eastern Tennessee, but prevented by general instructions or orders, always premising, however, that this officer would not have undertaken any successful operations after the 15th of July.

Question. What was the force under General Bragg after the junction of all the rebel forces in Kentucky?

I can only answer this question on the basis of the opinions of others. I have now been two months in Kentucky, and from what I can gather of well-informed persons who saw a great deal of Kirby Smith's, Bragg's, and Stevenson's forces, and from what I can remember while we were at the Gap after the 6th of August and the information we gathered during our retreat toward the Ohio River, my opinion is that Bragg never could have concentrated at any one time a larger force than 60,000 men, and this is including the recruits he picked up in Kentucky during the rebel said. I am more inclined to believe that Bragg had a force inferior to that number by several thousand, because I am of opinion that Stevenson never formed a complete junction with him, that officer being afraid to uncover the road to Cumberland Gap, and must therefore have kept a large fraction of his forces in that position in order to maintain it, to keep open their lines of retreat.

Question. Do you believe that Knoxville could have been taken by our forces after we had possession of Cumberland Gap?

I do. I believe, further, with most compete success could General Morgan have operated toward that town in co-operation with a real advance toward the east by the forces under Major-General Buell. For several weeks after our occupation of the Gap we received constant information that the enemy had never more than 6,000 or 7,000 men in and around Knoxville.

General BUELL. I must, Mr. President, object to this deposition. I could properly object to this testimony in any form. This officer, it appears, has the command of a brigade at Vicksburg, but at the time he gave this deposition he was at Lexington, I suppose on leave of absence. I understand moreover that he has been before the Commission.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. The deposition was taken in this room.

General BUELL. Then with what propriety is his deposition taken? Moreover the evidence is made up of opinion merely, without giving in any respect the ground upon which the opinion is based. Besides, it is not the best evidence upon some points it bears upon. He asserts that General Morgan received certain instructions. General Morgan's evidence is the best upon that point; at least better than Colonel De Courcy's. The statements, too, are untrue, many of them, and can be proved to be so. The documentary evidence shows that General Morgan had no such instructions upon that point; and there is a good deal of evidence before the Commission as to the movements of Stevenson's force which shows that this testimony is untrue, so that the whole matter is improper as evidence. But this cannot be fully shown without a close examination in court or the introduction of other evidence. It would afford an admirable text for a newspaper article, and that is the substance of its value. I could object to it also on the ground that whereas it is introduced as rebutting evidence it is not so at all in some essential particulars, but is purely original matter. That is particularly the case with refence to the possible movements of General Morgan's force from Cumberland Gap. If the deposition is admitted as evidence I shall desire the evidence of General Morgan upon points to which it relates, particularly as to the instructions he received. Whatever instructions he had were written and can be easily produced. They are in fact on your files, though there is perhaps nothing to show that they are all there. Upon that point General Morgan is the best witness. I do not suppose such testimony as this deposition contains would be received as evidence by any competent court.