and Alfred Swim, Company G, Fifty-fourth Illinois Infantry; Private William G. Hart, Sixty-second Illinois Infantry; John Jenkins, citizen (loyal); Nelson Wells, citizen (sheriff's party); John Cooper, citizen (sheriff's party).
Wounded: Colonel G. M. Mitchell, Fifty-fourth Illinois; Privates William H. Decker, Company G, Landford Noyes, Company I, and George Ross, Company C, Fifty-fourth Illinois; Citizens Thomas Jeffers, William Giolman, Young E. Winkler, Robert Winkler, John W. Herndon, George J. Collins, and
Summary.-Killed: Officers, 1; soldiers, 5; citizens, 3. Wounded: Officers, 1; soldiers, 4; citizens, 7.
List of prisoners taken in Coles County by Colonel G. M. Mitchell, and forwarded to Mattoon, Ill., from April 1 to April 8, 1864: Jacob L. Reardon, Benjamin F. Reardon, David Rardon, John P. Keller, Nelson O'Hair, Michael Murphy, Miles Murphy, J. W. Murphy, James S. Hardwicke, William P. Hardwicke, S. G. Hanks, H. P. Tichnor, James O'Hair, jr., Blueford E. Brooks, Miner Shelborne, William C. Batty, James [Jordan?] E. Hardwicke, John Reynolds, John T. Taylor, John F. Redmon, John W. Herndon, John Galbreath, Henry Stevens, George Jeff Collins, James M. Houck, Aaron Bryant, Young E. Winkler.
G. M. MITCHELL,
Colonel Fifty-fourth Ill. Vet. Vol. Infty.
Numbers 4. Report of Major Adison A. Hosmer, Acting Judge-Advocate-General, U. S. Army.
WAR DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF MILITARY JUSTICE,
Washington, D. C., July 26, 1864.
In the case of Coles County prisoners, in custody at Fort Delaware, and charged with a murderous assault upon Union soldiers at Charleston, Ill., in March last, I have the honor to submit the following report and summary of evidence:
The facts in regard to this striking episode of the rebellion are as follows: For about a year before the occurrence in question there had been formed in Coles and Edgar Counties, Ill., an organization which comprised a considerable number of farmers and other citizens, all strongly in sympathy with the rebels. It would seem that a portion, at least, of them were associated as "Knights of the Golden Circle," but that which rendred their organization formidable was its military character. They appear to have formed an irregular regiment of companies, which met for frequent drill, which was under military discipline, and the members of which were tolerably well armed. Between this body and the loyal citizens there was of course a decided opposition, but it was against the Union soldiers that their hostility was principally expressed. Whenever they came in contact with the latter much taunting and threatening language was interchanged, and now and then personal collision took place as in the cases of Dukes and Toland, leaders of the "Butternuts" (as these men were sometimes called), who are said to have been severely handled on the part of the soldiers. Besides, however,