Commission who have said that they believed the army had lost confidence in its commander. Any evidence brought to bear upon that fact would be in order, but the witness should not be allowed to travels outside of the time specified by the Government in the charge. I am prepared to admit that up to the time to which the question refers the army had entire confidence in General Buell, believed in him, and sustained him as their commander, and that no general ever stood higher in the estimation of his troops than did General Buell.

General BUELL. And I wish to show that that confidence continued, if it ever existed, and that it was the tone of the public press and the censure passed upon the commander of the army for the measures now under consideration which encouraged that spirit at any opportunity to express itself insubordinately with reference to its commander.

The court was cleared; when, after discussion, it was decided that the objection should not be sustained.

The WITNESS. Yes, sir; the dissatisfaction of the officers who were tried and their friends, as expressed both in the army and the criticisms of the public press, both upon General Buell and his court-martial, no doubt sowed the seeds of insubordination. I saw in some Northern papers, I think a Chicago paper --

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE. This is precisely the response that was ruled out here and I object to it now.

The PRESIDENT. If the witness states what any particular paper said it would bring his answer within the objection that was sustained to General Buell's former question.

General BUELL. I do not understand that the Commission meant to rule out anything I might introduce to establish the proposition I stated to you a few minutes ago.

The PRESIDENT. I would state, general, that the Commission had no objection to your showing any circumstances which were calculated to produce dissatisfaction and insubordination among your troops or alienate their confidence in yourself; but what this or that paper says the Commission would hardly think proper to admit as testimony. For instance, if the witness, in stating the circumstances that called forth the insubordination referred to in the question, should state that the tone and spirit of the public press commenting upon that affair were calculated to produce dissatisfaction and insubordination, such testimony would be perfectly proper.

General BUELL. I should think, sir, you were wrong in that. What would be objectionable in the evidence would be a general opinion. I should suppose it would be preferable that he should state the ground upon which he based his opinion, that the Commission might judge for itself whether the opinion was well founded or not.

The PRESIDENT. The decision of the Commission is as I have stated.

General BUELL. I wish, then, to put upon record that I desire not so much to call out the opinions of the witness as to establish the facts upon which those opinions might be based.

The PRESIDENT. The Commission has no objection to the witness proving facts; on the contrary, they expressly ruled that he should be allowed to state facts, and to show what those were on which he based his opinion. Among other facts may be enumerated the tone or spirit of the public press in its comments upon the affair you have alluded to.

General BUELL. I cannot understand, sir, the reason for the objection. The witness has given his opinion, and it seems to me to be very proper that he should give the reasons upon which he bases that opinion. So far from expecting that the Commission would stop him in his