I shall show that in connection with these hostile manifestations this officer complained or asserted that I had not given him the command to which his rank entitled him, and had besides treated him with indignity; that while under my command he more than once avowed himself my enemy; that he more than once declared that I was a traitor, and expressed his determination to exert himself to effect my removal from the command of the army. I shall show that this inimical feeling evinced itself to a greater or less extent as early as a year ago this last winter, when he was in the habit of speaking disrespectfully of me in the presence of his subordinate officers and perhaps of soldiers.

The evidence in this light bears directly and materially on the question introduced by the judge-advocate as to the dissatisfaction and demoralization in my army; but it also has another bearing on which I should claim its admission, and that is as to the competency of this officer to sit in judgment on my official acts. In this connection I shall show also that his acquaintances have spoken to him on this point, and that he had excused himself by saying in effect that he had expressed his unwillingness to serve on the Commission, but could not avoid it. This is a fact which I deem it due to the War Department that it should be advised of.

It has already been claimed by the judge-advocate that the objection on account of prejudice should have been made before the Commission commenced its business. Undoubtedly that is true if I had known the prejudice to exist, but I hold the objection to be valid and admissible at any time when the fact becomes evident that the judgment of a member is so warped by prejudice that justice is not to be expected. That I think has been apparent in this case.

The facts with reference to Brigadier-General Schoepf are new to me. Had I been aware of them while in command I think I should have known what course my duty required me to pursue with reference to them. I do not propose, however, to insist that this officer shall vacate his seat or that the proceedings of the Commission shall be staid. I content myself with laying the facts before the Government.

The question as to the demoralization of my army is in my opinion an important one, and the investigation of it may be of the highest importance to the public good in explaining the influences which tend constantly to such a result in our armies.

D. C. BUELL,

Major-General.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. There is, I understand to be, a law authorizing courts-martial, military commissions, and bodies of this character to take the depositions of witnesses instead of calling them into the presence of the court, for the purpose of facilitating business, and not taking them away from the army, as has been done. I have not seen that law, but I gather from what Judge Holt told me in Washington that he has it in his power to order the deposition of a witness to be taken instead of forcing him to appear in court or before a commission.

All the testimony in the shape of rebutting evidence that I have to take I propose to take in that way, and I gather from what Judge Holt told me that the Commission, if it see fit, can call upon General Buell to do the same thing with his. The Commission will see the advantage arising from the adoption of such a course. By taking depositions or affidavits we can take the testimony of twenty or thirty witnesses while we would be examining perhaps one before the Commission, and instead of lengthening out this investigation we have it in our power to abbreviate our labors very much as far as time is concerned.

The PRESIDENT. I am not willing to act upon a law which I have not seen, although I am satisfied that so just a man as Judge Holt would never draught a law which proposed to do a willful and deliberate injury to a party accused by authorizing the taking of the deposition of a witness for rebutting purposes. Suppose the witness is in Kentucky or Nashville, how can General Buell go down there to examine a witness?

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. Have the interrogatories sent to him.

The PRESIDENT. The deposition would of course have to be taken by some person legally authorized to take it; for instance, a judge-advocate there or some one appointed for that purpose.

The following communications from General Buell were read: