claiming to be the First was assigned to some lower number, but refused to accept it, and perhaps petitioned for the privilege of being called by the number of its militia organization in the State. In that way a regiment appears upon all the records as One hundred and fifty-fourth, and, for a reason I can scarcely [understand] myself, a number of prisoners have asserted that there were two, and some three, of those regiments known as One hundred and fifty-fourth; a number giving on the rolls One hundred and fifty-fourth Senior and One hundred and fifty-fourth Junior; but they stated that the regiments did not run from one up to that number.

By General DANA:

Question. Are we to understand that One hundred and fifty-four, wherever it occurs upon your roll, is not necessarily the same regiment after all, but may, on the contrary, represent two or three regiments?

It is indicated upon the report two regiments; indicated by the number, one junior and one senior, as given me by the prisoners.

By the JUDGE-ADVOCATE:

Question. Did you not learn from the same source, captain, that the militia regiments of Tennessee and Kentucky after being consolidated by General Bragg or Kirby Smith would retain their original militia numbers?

My impression is that this was an exceptional case.

Question. Do you claim that there is nothing in this report that would indicate the force under Bragg and Kirby Smith?

No, sir; I do not claim that it contains any further information than that which it bears upon the face of it; that is, the different regiments, &c., from which one or more numbers have been in the military prison here in the city.

Redirect examination by General BUELL:

Question. Have you any reason to doubt, captain, that the regiments represented on that report actually formed part of the rebel force that was in Kentucky in the months of September and October last?

I have not. I have supposed from their appearing in the military prison and from conversations among the prisoners at different times when I have been among them that they were all from regiments that were actually represented in the State.

Question. Is it not quite possible, if not probable, that there may have been regiments in that force not represented in that report?

I would suppose, from the fact that there was but a single engagement in the State in which, as I understood from various sources, both from reports on the other side as well as our own, the entire force of the Confederates was not represented in that action, it would be likely that there would be regiments from whom no prisoners came into our possession. Of that, of course, I know nothing; it is mere supposition.

Question. Are any of the peculiarities of the information embraced in the rolls which you have presented to the Commission-its completeness or incompleteness-due to the forms which have been furnished for your special observance in furnishing this information?

The variety is largely owing to the forms of the rolls, somewhat to the fact that no idea was ever entertained of the rolls being called for or required for any purpose but identifying any party that was once paroled taking up arms without having been duly discharged.

Question. I speak of the form of the information generally, such as the company and regiment of the prisoner and the time and place where he was captured. I do not refer to exceptional cases where even this information is not given.

If I understand General Buell's question aright, that is, why the information is not more complete, why it does not embrace the brigade, division, and corps of the prisoner, then it is entirely owing to the fact that this was never embraced in any form for making out descriptive rolls of prisoners.