McMinnville in such hot weather and then back again for the purpose of going to Altamont produce dissatisfaction among them?

Nothing of a permanent nature. They became very much fatigued, and were, as soldiers are apt to be, quite impatient, but after a night's rest there was nothing further heard of it. Twice afterward during the same month they went through fatiguing marches with their usual cheerfulness.

Question. Did they or did they not look upon it as evidence of confusion of plans?

They did, sir.

Question. Are you able to say how far they ascribed this apparent indecision and confusion to the commander of the army?

I cannot say in that instance. My opinion is that they generally charge it upon the highest officer in the army. It is the usual custom of the soldier, and I am, not aware that it was generally known that the movement was the result of two orders.

By General SCHOEPF:

Question. You stated, colonel, that the troops were disheartened by the marching and counter-marching from McMinnville to Altamont. What was the feeling of the troops after their march to Kentucky and back again without any result?

I did not use so strong a term as disheartened. I stated that they were temporarily discouraged. So far as the Kentucky expedition is concerned, they looked upon it as barren of result in the way of destroying the enemy, and, of course, regretted the necessity of returning to Tennessee.

By General BUELL:

Question. Can you point to any instance in this war or to any instances in any war within the recollection of your reading where a large army in an open field has been destroyed by another?

General SCHOEPF. I object to that question, Mr. President, as it is to be supposed that every general is sufficiently conversant with military history to know all about it. This investigation is for our information in regard to the operations of the army in the Kentucky and Tennessee campaign, and the question has no bearing upon the investigation before the Commission.

The court was cleared, when, after discussion, it was decided that the question should be put.

The WITNESS. None in this war; very few in modern history. I believe the Romans claimed almost universally to have destroyed their enemy's armies, and in turn had armies destroyed at Cannae by Hannibal; but within reliable history the instances are few, as far as I have read.

Question. Have you any doubt that the rebel army invaded Kentucky for the purpose of controlling it and bringing it to the support of the rebellion or for the purpose of defeating the armies of the Government that might be found in Kentucky?

I have not; although I am not yet satisfied that they attempted to carry out their plans as first intended.

Question. The question of one of the members of the Commission assumes that the march from Tennessee to Kentucky by the Army of the Ohio was barren of results; in view of the fact that the rebel army was foiled in the purpose which you have stated in your last answer are you prepared to say that the campaign was barren of results?

I am not, and did not so mean to be understood when I stated that the troops looked upon the expedition as barren of results in the way of destroying the enemy's army and regretted the necessity of their return to tennessee. I look upon the campaign as successful, saving our army and defeating the enemy's plans upon Kentucky.