is admitted that it was not made, but was there any earnest or vigorous effort on the part of the accused to obey the order? Colonel Locke states that, soon after the receipt of the order from General Pope, he bore one from the accused to General Morell, directing him to engage the enemy, which, as appears from the statement of Colonel Marshall, was to be done with but four regiments; but General Morell testified that before there was time to carry his order into execution - say, within about half an hour after its receipt - it was countermanded by another, directing him to pass the night with his troops where he was. This was all the was done toward attacking the enemy, and yet General McDowell testified that an attack even at this late hour - indeed, at any hour before the battle closed, which was at dark - would have resulted in a victory for our arms.
There is one fact - probably the most remarkable one disclosed by the record - which must have impressed the court as going far to manifest the true spirit of the conduct of the accused on this occasion. The forces of General Morell were in the front, and those of General Sykes were immediately in their rear, and supporting them. In the progress of any determined movement against the enemy, therefore, the command of General Sykes would be necessarily involved, and the presence of that general would be required; yet General Sykes states that he was with General Porter when the order from General Pope was received and when that to General Morell was sent; that he remained with him all the evening and night; and that he never heard that an order to attack the enemy had been received from General Pope, or had been forwarded to General Morell.* What conclusion is necessarily drawn from this? If the accused had seriously determined that the order to General Morell should be executed, would he not have apprised General Sykes of its character, and directed him to proceed at once to his command? When we add to this the feebleness of the attack directed - being but with four regiments - and the further fact that the order was revoked before it was possible to make the movement, can we escape a painful impression that the order itself was issued without any expectation that it would, or any purpose that it should, be obeyed?
There is yet one other fact presented in connection with this order which deserves a passing notice. Captain Pope found the accused with his troops halted, and the arms of some of them stacked. After delivering the order, and during his stay of fifteen or twenty minutes, he did-
not observe any orders given, or any indication of preparation for a movement in the direction of the battle-field.
On his return, nearly on hour afterward, the same condition of things existed. The following extract from the testimony of Mr. Duffee, who accompanied Captain Pope, will yet further illustrate the absence of all anxiety, if onto of all interest on the part of the accused:
Question. Did you see the order delivered into the hands of General Porter?
Answer. Yes, sir; I saw him take the order from Captain Pope.
Question. Was he in his tent or out of doors?
Answer. He was lying down under a shade tree when he took the order.
*The troops of General Sykes extended along the road from those of General Morell toward, and, may be, to where General Porter was. It is not, therefore, intended to intimate that, in being with General Porter at the moment, he was out of place, but to say that had it been General Porter's purpose that his order to General Morell to engage the enemy should be vigorously carried out, he would, from General Sykes' necessary relation to the movement, have advised him of it, and have directed him to go forward and prepare for performing his part in its execution.