The judge-advocate in produced a deposition from General Lytle, which was read and received.*

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. General Buell had propounded three questions to General Lytle, but I find nothing in the affidavit that requires a cross-examination.

Commission adjourned to meet March 21, at 10 o'clock a. m.

CINCINNATI, March 21, 1863.

(IN CLOSED SESSION.)

Commission met pursuant to adjournment. Present, General Wallace, president; General Dana, General Tyler; also the judge-advocate.

General TYLER: I object to receiving the deposition of General Lytle, read yesterday, on the ground that it has no place on our record. I move that the questions and answers be struck from our record, and that General Buell be notified that this Commission will not inquire into any matter outside of the investigation ordered by the Secretary of War.

The PRESIDENT. The Commission has the right to strike out matters that it considers out of place on its record, everything that is irrelevant to the business for which this Commission was organized.

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. If when a deposition comes before the Commission I make an objection to any portion of it General Buell has a right to be heard. When a deposition is received by the Commission the court has the right to strike out any porion and retain just what it considers pertinent to the issue before the court. Nothing has been done with these questions that prevents that course being taken by the court.

General DANA. That testimony was received yesterday, and to strike it our now is not in the power of the court to do.

General Tyler's motion was submitted to vote and lost.

The judge-advocate then read the following communication form General Buell:

BURNET HOUSE, March 20, 1863.

To the Commission:

I did not have access to the Commission at its session to-day, but the judge-advocate informs me that it was determined not to call certain witnesses, because Brigadier-General Schoepf. to whole conduct they were expected to testify, had been relieved from the Commission, and that no testimony would be taken with reference to the conduct of that officer. In the communication which I submitted on the 10th instant I meant to explain the double bearing of such evidence; that is, it was to go first to the allegation of demoralization or dissatisfaction in my army, and second to the competency of Brigadier-General Schoepf to sit as an impartial judge of my acts. The removal of the latter question by relieving that officer from the Commission does not affect the former, which is one of the questions introduced by the judge-advocate.

I meant to be understood as not intending to notice the general statement of any witness that the army was dissatisfied with its commander, for that would virtually amount to putting the question to popular vote; I shall only answer specific statements of facts on that subject. To this end I propose to show that the demoralization was in the witnesses themselves who made the general assertion, and that it was in fact merely the dissatisfaction which results in every army from the exercise of command. Brigadier-General Schoepf was one of those who are shown how that irritation manifested itself and how it must have affected the discipline of the portion of the army to which this officer belonged, and form which the evidence on this

---------------

* Not found.

---------------