Question. Do you think you have that note with you in Washington; and, if so, will you produce it to-morrow?
Answer. I certainly will produce it if it can possibly be found; I do not know whether I have it or now; I have a great number of papers.
Question. Try to recollect if that note gave you information of the position of Ricketts' and King's commands, and that Sigel and Reynolds would retire, and that the accused got that information from McDowell; and, as he had received only a verbal order to move on Gainesville, requested that you would send him a written order; and, if so, did you send by Dr. Abbott, or any one else, a written order?
Answer. Since the fact of asking for a written order is mentioned, I think General Porter did send to request me to send him a written order, which I subsequently sent by Dr. Abbott; having previously, however, an hour and a half before, sent him a written order substantially to the same effect.
Question. Is the order to which ye last refereed in your answer the order mentioned in the joint order of the 29th August, and sent forth in specification 2 to charge 1?
Answer. Yes, sire; that is the order.
Question. Will you now state whether the joint order of the 29th August, set forth in the specification refereed to, was not sent the accused in consequence of the request of his note?
Answer. I received a note from General McDowell about the time, I think, that Dr. Abbott came to me from General Porter, in which General McDowell referred to the order which I had sent to General Porter, to which reference is made in the joint order to Generals Porter and McDowell, and asked that King's division may be returned to him ad not assigned to the command of General Porter. It was in consideration of General McDowell's request-and perhaps somewhat due to the request for a written order that I had received from General Porter, though I did not remember it at the time I answered-that this joint order was written, which relieved King's division from service with Porter's corps.
Question. We not the purpose of the joint order of the 29th August to place the entire commands mentioned in that order under the command of Major-General McDowell?
Answer. It was not.
Question. Was not General McDowell the prior, in point of rank, to General Porter?
Answer. He was the senior.
Question. Will you state now, as a military man, whether, that being the fact, the effect of the joint order of the 29th August was not to place the forces mentioned in that order under the command of General McDowell?
Answer. General McDowell had the authority, as the senior officer, to command the two corps while acting together, and not under the immediate orders of the general commanding the army. I did not, however, intend at the time that he should do so, but that the two corps should act separately, though, when they were joined, of course, if General McDowell chose to assume the command, he had the right, for the time, to do so.
Question. Did you communicate to the accused, in writing or by message, that the joint order of the 29th August was not to have the effect which, in point of law, it was entitled to by its terms?
Answer. No, sir; I made no communication to him on the subject beyond the joint order contained in the specification.
Question. Will you state on what road you intended General Porter