Answer. There was no conversation that expressed an insufficiency of the safeguard. He stated that an officer who had been there with a small command, and to whom was presented the first safeguard that I left at his residence, doubted its validity when first whown to him, but afterward obeyed it. By validity I mean genuineness. I do not know who the officer was. I staid at the house of Colonel Hughes the night of the 10th and until after breakfast on the morning of the 11th; and when on my return to Sedalia in company with Colonel Hughes I learned that there was a body of soldiers at the house of the accused who had ordered breakfast and refused to recognize the safeguard, I immediately turned back for the purpose of ascertaining in relation to it; and when within about a mile of the accused's residence I met a man who I believe was a member of the family of the accused who told me that the officer and soldiers had left and had recognized the authority of the safeguard. I then turned back and pursued my journey.

Question. Did you not in your official capacity learn that the property of the accused was destroyed by the U. S. soldiers and his hogs slaughtered by them in spite of the safeguard?

Answer. I did not.

Question. In the last safeguard written by you you use the words in reference to the accused, "Ebenezer Magoffin, formerly a colonel in the Southern Confederacy. " What were the words in reference to the accused in the first?

Answer. I do not recollect.

Question. How long have you been stationed at or near Sedalia?

Answer. Since November 17, 1861.

Question. State to the court how long you have known the accused, what have been your means of knowing his character, and what that charackter is.

Answer. I met the accused once in August last, previous to December 10, 1861. I have known him by reputation particularly since the middle of July, 1861. I was in command of the U. S. troops at Jefferson City and on the line of the Pacific Railroad west. In July and August of that year heard very often of the accused as being an active enemy of the Government and general reputation of being a bad man. I had opportunities during that time and during the time I was stationed at Sedalia this winter of learning more of his character. I have never been able to learn of any act of a marauding character or that was different from that pursued by other enemies of the Government in that part of the country during the time. His reputation among Union men in Pettis County is that previous to the present war he was known as a high-toned, honorable gentleman.

Question. Are you able to state whether there did exist in the part of Missouri around Sedalia a bitter hostility against the accused?

Answer. There is-among the less intelligent of the loyal home guards.

Lieutenant-Colonel FISCHER, a member of the commission, made his appearance during the session, and as soon as possible after he was notified of the fact; but not having heard the earlier part of the witnesses' testimony and not being consequently qualified to vote or act in the present trial he was excused from being present.

The commission adjourned to meet to-morrow, Friday, February 7, 1862, at 10 a. m.

SAINT LOUIS, MO., February 7, 1862-10 a. m.

The commission met pursuant to adjournment.

Present: Brigadier General David S. Stanley, U. S. Army; Colonel R. D. Cutts, of the staff; Lieutenant Colonel John Scott, Third Iowa Volunteers; Captain Lewis Marshall, Tenth Infantry, U. S. Army.