the 29th and hour a half before. Will you look at this paper, marked "Accused, Exhibit 3," and say if that is the order referred to as having been previously sent?
The paper was read, as follows:
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF VIRGINIA,
Centreville, August 29, 1862.
Major General FITZ JOHN PORTER:
Push forward with your corps, and King's division, which you will take with you, upon Gainesville. I am following the enemy down the Warrenton turnpike. Be expeditious, or we will lose much.
Answer. That is the order.
Question. Was it your purpose in the last order of which you have spoken-the one referred to in the joint order sent forth in specification second of charge first-to supersede the prior order that you had given the accused?
Answer. It is hardly worth while for the accused, an officer of the army, to ask me whether a later order would supersede a previous one. most undoubtedly he should obey the last order he gets.
Question. Is this-"Accused, Exhibit 4"-the antecedent order which
which you intended to revoke?
The order was read, as follows:
HEADQUARTER ARMY OF VIRGINIA,
Near Bull Run, August 29, 1862-3 a. m.
GENERAL: McDowell has intercepted the retreat of Jackson; Sigel is immediately on the right of McDowell; Kearny and Hooker march to attack the enemy's rear at early dawn. Major-General Pope directs you to move upon Centreville, at the first dawn of day, with you whole command, leaving your trains to follow. It is very important that you should be here at a very early hour in the morning. A severe engagement is likely to take place, and your presence is necessary.
I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
GEO. G. RUGGLES,
Colonel and Chief of Staff.
Answer. That is the one.
Question. Did you know, when you issued the order of the 29th August, referred to in the order of the same date set our in Specification Numbers 2. of Charge 1, that the accused was then engaged in the execution of the order just shown you?
Answer. I did not know that he was; but the order was intended, even if he were in the execution of that order, to direct his movement in a different direction.
Question. Did you know, when you issued the order of the 29th August, set out in the specification referred to, that the accused was then executing the one which that states had been given him an hour and a half before?
Answer. I did not know it; as Dr. Abbott had come from General Porter, as I understood, to learn if I had any orders for him, I stated to Dr. Abbott that I had sent General Porter orders and hour and a half before, and I repeated that statement in the order which I sent to Generals Porter and McDowell, I think by Dr. Abbott himself.
Question. Did you receive from Dr. Abbott a note from the accused; and, if so, can you recollect what, in substance, were the contents of that note?
Answer. I have an indistinct remembrance of receiving a note, but I do not remember the contents at all; my impression is, that I got from Dr. Abbott himself the information upon which I sent back by him the order to General Porter.