connected with his personal matters and his animosities than with the public service. The cry of traitor, rebel, or secessionist had become so common as to attract but little attention. When a man had anything anybody else wanted he was denounced as a traitor. General King states (proceedings of December 17) concerning Little:

I recollect a man whom I supposed then, and still suppose, to be a private citizen of Fredericksburg. He was frequently at my headquarters, and I understood either from him or some friend of his that he had been in the militia of Virginia some months previous, but was not so any longer. I think he told me so himself.

The whole matter made but little impression on my mind at the time. In the way it was presented, as far as I can recollect it, it seemed to me to interest Mr. Clarke far more than it concerned the public service.

GENERAL SIGEL.

I come now to the subject of General Sigel's strictures, &c.

It may be remembered how much was said last August and September of General Sigel's having shot me on the field of battle for being a traitor; how the whole country was filled with the most extraordinary accounts of my treason and his patriotism.

Immediately after the campaign denunciations of me were to be heard, I was told, in every hotel and in every street. The public seemed to have received the impression that though the report that he had killed me was an error, yet that we had had some violent altercations and quarrels, if not actual personal conflicts, on the field itself. I had heard of some of these stories before we left Fairfax Court-House-that of his having shot me on the streets of Warrenton-and it was on this account I sought to speak to him, and that he declined, as he states (December 20), "to hold any private conversation with me." His so declining was the first knowledge or intimation I had of his having any unkind feeling toward me, and up to the time of this investigation I have remained in ignorance of the cause of offense he conceived I gave him. He has now disclosed it. It is inconceivable how such a cause could produce such results. Two staff officers reported to him some expressions of mine they (the staff officers) thought improper. The principal cause of offense, he says (proceedings of December 20), was the remark that I made to his aide-de-camp, Captain Dahlgren, "that General Sigel shall fight his own corps." Captain Dahlgren states (December 30) that this remark was made in answer to a question asked by him for his own information. It was neither a message to General Sigel nor an answer to me from him. Captain Haven (proceedings of January 8) states "the remark was made in a manner indicative of surprise at the question" asked by Captain Dahlgren, which was concerning some minute details.

I have referred thus to the principal cause to avoid speaking of the minor ones.

General Sigel, on being interrogated, stated the following as causes of bias in his mind against General McDowell:

1st. When I was at Winchester and General Fremont at Mount Jackson and Port Republic I could not perceive why the corps of General McDowell did not assist better the troops under General Fremont, and that Jackson was allowed to overcome General Shields and to go to Richmond to fight against General McClellan.

2nd. When our troops had arrived at Culpeper on the day of the battle of Cedar Mountain after a march of one day and one night, and were unable to march 7 miles farther to assist General Banks, I was of the