halted without authority and against the orders of the division commander. To the neglect, then, of Colonel Krzyzanowski to obey the order of his commanding officer may be ascribed the delay in sending re-enforcements to General Geary. It was made to appear by the testimony that the troops of the Third Division could not have marched from their camp to the position of General Geary so as to arrive there before the firing ceased and the enemy withdrew or were repulsed. In the judgment of the Court it would require two hours to make the march in the then state of the roads, and in the night, and the weight of the testimony is that the firing at General Geary's did not continue more than one hour after the column started.

By the order by which this Court was assembled and organized the Court is called upon to give an opinion as to whether the strictures set forth in the order taken from General Hooker's official report of the night action of Wauhatchie were deserved by the conduct of General Schurz, Colonel Hecker, or any part of this command. From the evidence which has been adduced in this inquiry and investigation, the Court is of the opinion that General Hooker is justified in the censures and strictures contained in his official report. The attack on General Geary was a night attack, sudden and unexpected. The command of General Geary was comparatively small, and it was fair to presume that he was assaulted by a superior force. This command might well be said to be "imperiled." There was a necessity for prompt action and getting re-enforcements to him with all possible dispatch. To this end, General Hooker issued his orders and directed his attention. He supposed his orders would be obeyed and his plans carried into effect, and when, at the end of two hours, he learned that General Geary had not been re-enforced, it is not surprising that, in the language of one of the witnesses, he was very angry, and it was right and proper that he should give expression to his righteous indignation in his official report.

So far as the conduct of Colonel Hecker is concerned, it is not deserving of censure. It is apparent that the strictures contained in General Hooker's official report were not intended to apply to him or his command. In the opinion of the Court, these strictures were not deserved by the conduct of Colonel Hecker, or any part of his command.

Are the strictures contained in the report deserved by General Schurz? It is a well-settled principle of military law, that a subordinate commander is responsible for the execution and enforcement of all orders issued to him by his superior commander. General Hooker in this case had issued an order which was not obeyed. He had the right, and it was proper for him to hold responsible for the non-execution of the order the officer to whom he issued it. Hence, he says, as the ground-work of his censure:

The brigade dispatched to the relief of General Geary, by orders delivered in person to its division commander, never reached him until, &c.

It was in accordance with well-established military usage for General Hooker, in the first instance, to hold the division commander responsible for this apparent neglect. This calls upon General Schurz to show why he did not meet the exigencies of the order and fulfill the command. Has he done so? As soon as the orders were delivered by General Hooker to General Schurz, the latter promptly set about carrying them into execution. The troops were quickly

under arms. They turned out splendidly. The necessary orders, "answering the object and fitting the circumstances," were given. The column was put in motion, and General Schurz took his proper place at its head. He had reason to assume and act upon the assumption that his entire command was following him; if any of his brigades failed to do so they acted in disregard of orders, or were stopped by orders which were regarded as superior to those of General Schurz.

When General Schurz found that his command had not followed him, as he directed, it was undoubtedly his duty to ascertain the cause of the delay, and proceed at once to rectify the omission, unless, indeed, he had received information, on which he would be authorized to rely, that a portion of his command had been halted, or its destination changed by orders superior to his. In this case it appears, as heretofore stated, that when the Third Brigade had arrived about 150 yards from the cross-roads, Major Howard informed Colonel Hecker that he was authorized to halt at the cross-roads; or, in the more emphatic language of Colonel Hecker and his staff officers, who testified in this case, Major Howard ordered him to halt at the crossroads. Colonel Hecker properly acted in accordance with this order. Major Howard accompanied Colonel Hecker to the cross-roads, saw him and General Hooker together, then immediately rode forward to General Schurz, and reported to him that Colonel Hecker's brigade had been halted at the cross-roads, and was under instructions from General Hooker. Soon after this, a staff officer from Colonel Krzyzanowski's brigade, rode up to General Schurz and reported to him that the Second Brigade had been ordered to Chattanooga, by General Hooker, and had gone. It is no fault of General Schurz that Major Howard was mistaken, both in the order he communicated to Colonel Hecker and in the statement he made to General Schurz, or that Colonel Krzyzanowski failed to advise him that the order to march to Chattanooga was countermanded immediately after it was given, and long before the staff officer sent to him could return to the brigade.

General Schurz had official information upon which, in the opinion of the Court, he was authorized to rely and act, that the Second and Third Brigades of his division had been detached from his command, and were acting under orders direct from General Hooker, which orders were in conflict with the orders issued by him. It is not denied that he was ordered to occupy the Tyndale Hill with Tyndale's brigade. If he did this, he had no troops with which to re-enforce General Geary. His orders were imperative. He occupied the hill and did not, for the reason stated, march to the relief of General Geary. This was what called forth the reprimand of General Hooker in the field, and gave rise to the reflections and strictures contained in his report.

In the opinion of the Court, General Schurz has fully explained his delay in going to the relief of Geary, and his apparent disobedience of orders in this regard, and fully justified his conduct in the premises, and consequently it follows that he has exonerated himself from the strictures contained in General Hooker's official report.

A. BUSCHBECK,

Colonel Twenty-seventh Pa. Vols., Comdg. Second Div.,
Eleventh Army Corps, Prest. of the Court.
WILLIAM H. LAMBERT,

Captain Thirty-third N. J. Vols., Recorder of the Court.

ADDENDA.

HEADQUARTERS THIRD DIVISION, ELEVENTH CORPS,
January 14, 1864.

Brig. Gen. WILLIAM D. WHIPPLE,

A. A. G., and Chief of Staff, Army of the Cumberland: GENERAL: In the official report of Major-General Hooker on the engagement of Wauhatchie, the following statements are made :

I regret that my duty constrains me to except any portion of my command in my commendation of their courage and valor. The brigade dispatched to the relief of Geary, by orders delivered in person to its division commander, never reached him until long after the fight had ended. It is alleged that it lost its way, when it had a terrific infantry fire to guide it all the way; and, also, that it became involved in a swamp, where there was no swamp or other obstacle between it and Geary which should have delayed it a moment in marching to the relief of its imperiled companions.

In a letter signed by Major-General Hooker, and addressed to you, an official copy of which was communicated to me by order of MajorGeneral Hooker, the following passage occurs:

It is not known for what reason Colonel Hecker makes this application, or why he should connect his brigade with it. The order I gave the division commander, was for him to double-quick his division to the relief of Geary. And afterward one brigade of it was ordered to assault the hill on the left. The latter was duly executed. The first order was not. Whether or not Major-General Schurz communicated this order to his brigade commanders, I am not advised. Probably a court of inquiry would be able to determine. It rests between the division commander and the commanders of the Second and Third Brigades, and in no way can other parties be concerned in the issue, unless it be supposed that the troops disobeyed orders, which I have not alleged and do not believe.

This evidently throws the responsibility for the alleged non-execution of an order upon me. And I would respectfully pray that a court of inquiry be granted me, by Major-General Thomas, commanding Army of the Cumberland, for the purpose of investigating all the circumstances connected with the case, so as to determine whether the above strictures in General Hooker's report and letter were deserved by the conduct of myself and my command on that occasion.

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
C. SCHURZ,

Major-General, Comdg. Third Division, Eleventh Corps.

HEADQUARTERS THIRD DIVISION,

Lieutenant-Colonel MEYSENBURG,

Assistant Adjutant-General:

January 14, 1864.

COLONEL : Have the kindness to send my letter accompanying Colonel Hecker's, for exonoration or a court of inquiry, along with that document to General Hooker.

HEADQUARTERS ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH CORPS,
Lookout Valley, Tenn., January 15, 1864.

Respectfully forwarded, approved.

JOSEPH HOOKER, Major-General, Commanding.

HEADQUARTERS ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH CORPS,

Brig. Gen. WILLIAM D. WHIPPLE,

January 29, 1864.

A. A. G., and Chief of Staff, Dept. of the Cumberland : GENERAL: I have the honor herewith to transmit the original of the remonstrance shown you last evening, having in my possession an authenticated copy. I also send original copy, Paragraph XI, Special Field Orders, No. 23, current series.

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM H. LAMBERT,

Captain Thirty-third New Jersey, Recorder.

[Inclosure.]

C SCHURZ'S REMONSTRANCE TO CERTAIN INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO COURT OF INQUIRY.

HEADQUARTERS ELEVENTH CORPS,

January 28, 1864.

The undersigned begs leave to enter a respectful remonstrance against the instructions to the Court, contained in Special Field Orders, No. 23, Department of the Cumberland.

I would respectfully call the attention of the Court to the Ninetysecond Article of War, the spirit of which undoubtedly is, that as no court of inquiry can be ordered by any commander, except the President of the United States, unless demanded by the accused, so it can be ordered by a military commander upon such demand for no other purpose or for the investigation of no other matter than that specified by the accused in his application. The Ninety-second Article of War can be understood in no other way.

From my application, a copy of which is hereto annexed, it appears that I asked for a court of inquiry, "for the purpose of investigating the circumstances connected with the case (as specified in my application), so as to determine whether the above strictures in General Hooker's report and letter were deserved by the conduct of myself and my command on that occasion."

In Special Field Orders, No. 23, the object of the Court of Inquiry is defined as follows:

To investigate the circumstances attending all movements of troops ordered to the support of Brig. Gen. John W. Geary, commanding Second Division, Twelfth Corps, during the night action of Wauhatchie between the 28th and 29th of October, 1863, and give an opinion as to whether blame should attach to Major-General Schurz or Colonel Hecker.

It will be observed that there is a discrepancy between the object specified in my application and the object specified in Special Field Orders, No. 23. While I applied for an investigation of the circum