[CHAP. XXVIII.

Question. Besides the necessity which existed last summer for foraging on the country to some extent, do you think there was a prevalent tendency among the troops to plunder and maraud upon the community through which they passed?

Yes, sir; I do.

Question. Was that due to the neglect of the officers, do you think, general?

I cannot say that it was due to the neglect of the officers altogether; there might have been some instances, and no doubt there were, in which it was due to the neglect of officers; but there seemed to be, outside of the necessity of foraging and seizing food from the country, a disposition on the part of the men to pillage, arising, I think, out of the fact that they were not allowed to strike a blow at some point upon the enemy. I heard this among the men themselves, and used as much influence and power as I possessed to prevent these depredations from being committed.

Question. Would you believe in the honor and courage of a man who pretended that he pillaged his unarmed friend because he had not an opportunity to fight a manly and armed foe?

There are some instances in which I would have great confidence in men who would even be guilty of pilfering under such circumstances as those; but, generally speaking, men who are disposed to pilfer, and who pilfer under any and all circumstances, are not to be relied upon. Men, however, in an army act very differently from what they do under ordinary circumstances, when at home, under the influences of peace. I believe there is such a thing as making men who are generally considered honest and upright at home thieves in an army, and I think this can be done by inefficiency and neglect on the part of officers. I have twice in my life been connected with the Army of the United States, and I have found this rule to prevail in both instances.

Question. When did this disposition to pilfer first evince itself?

This general system of pilfering was more clearly evinced after we left Decherd to march to Pelham in the month of August.

Question. Do you not think that this disposition was in fact due to the encouragement which it had received from the popular sentiment through the country and the idea of carrying on a war of vengeance instead of one for the preservation of the Union?

I do not think it was, sir. That may have had something to do with it with some.

Question. You have stated in your direct testimony that Bragg was moving into Kentucky with the purpose of forming a junction with Kirby Smith at Harrodsburg. Was it probable that after forming that junction he would suddenly determine to abandon his purpose in Kentucky without a decisive battle?

My opinion is that Bragg and Smith had a double object in view in invading Kentucky. One was to provide their army with such provisions and clothing as they could take from the citizens there; another was, if it was in their power, to hold Kentucky by power of arms and make it part and parcel of the Southern Confederacy. They gathered together all the provisions and clothing they could find in that portion of the State through which they passed, but finding that they were unable to hold the State against the army that was pursuing them they determined to evacuate it.

Question. When do you think that determination was formed?

My opinion is it was formed after the battle of Perryville, if the statements of the people of Kentucky are to be relieved on at all.

Question. Was there anything at the time to indicate that the battle of Perryville had been of a decisive character or of such a character as to determine the result of an important campaign?

I think they became satisfied that if our whole force had moved upon them at Perryville they would have been very badly beaten and were afraid to venture another battle.