The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1863-04-10
BY TELEGRAPH
ToTHE
Portland Daily Press.
Report Of the Committee on the Conduct
Of the War.
The Battles Of Bull Run and Balls BLU
Department of the West Under Gen. FIRE.
mont.

NEW 4oIth, April b.
Part second of the report of the Committee
on the Conduct of the War is issued. 1t en-
braces the battles of Bull Run and Balls
blun In relation to the former, the commit
tee state The great error of this campaign
was the failure to occupy Centreville and Ma
nassas when Alexandria was occupied in May.
Inc forces which opposed us were mostly col
lected and brought to Manassas in June and
July. The three months men could have
made Manassas easily deiensible against any
force the enemy could have brought against it,
and its not at all probable the rebel force would
have advanced beyond the line OF the RIPARIAN
mock had Manassas been occupied by our
troops. The next cause of the disaster was
the delay in proceeding against the enemy
until the time OF the three months men had
nearly expired, and when the. movement was
finally determined upon, much was needed to
render the troops efficient; little time had been
devoted to disciplining the troops even as reg
iments, hardly any instruction had been given
In reference to brigade movements, and none
at all as divisions. The principal cause of the
defeat was the failure of Gen. Patterson to
hold the forces of Johnston in the Shenandoah
Valley. -
In relation to the battle of Balls Bluff, the
committee, after giving an account of the en-
gagement, say that all the testimony goes to
prove that the means of transportation were
very inadequate. Gen. Stone, while inclined
to deem it sufficient, left much to the Judgment
OF others; and this much can be said for him,
that he received no intimation that a move
ment across the river would be expected from
him or would be justified until the day before
it was made
The committee add the reasons he has for
surprising other forces were within short
distance, as set forth in previous portions of
this report. This relates to the movement of
Mccall TO Drainsville, for the purpose Of re-
connoitering the country. In reference to
reinforcing Col. Baker the evidence is very
conflicting. Gen. Stone testiies that he re-
ceived no intimation from Col. Baker that he
needed reinforcements, that he received little
II any information from c. i. Baker in refer
ence TO affairs at Balls Bluff and even if
reiniorcen ents had been needed they could
not have been sent up on the Virginia side, In
consequence OF the enemys earthworks and
batteries between Edwards Ferry and Balls
Bluff. Some other witnesses testify TO the
same effect; others say there was no obstacle
TO our troops passing up on the Vir. mia side
The committee refrain from expressing pos
tive opinion on this point.
In reference to the arrest of Stone the COM
mittee say they informed Secretaries Cameron
and Stanton that some explanation by Stone
was required. He appeared before the com
mittee and made an explanation In general
terms concerning the testimony against him in
regard to undue inter course with the enemy
To the committee and Secretary of War the
testimony was conflicting, and without any
recommendation as to what should be done 1t
afterwards appeared from the Testimony of
Gen. Mcclellan that Gen. Stone was arrested
on the written order of the Secretary of War,
for the reason that he had been informed by
members OF the committee OH the Conduct of
the War, that they had taken testimony going
to show that he had been guilty of conduct not
consistent with loyalty. Gen. Stone since his
release, has been permitted to examine all the
testimony, AMI has demanded that he be fur
nlshed with copy of the charges against him.
why this request was not granted the commit
tee are uniformed.
Part third embraces the Department of the
West The committee say that they have been
unable to collect the necessary testimony In
this department. particularly while under the
command oil Gen. Fremont, on account OF the
great distances of witnesses. The committee
review the history Of the rebellion IN Missouri.
and compliment Gen. Lyon, Who by prompt
and fearless course, preserved ST. Louis, dis
persed the rebel State guards, and occupied
the arsenal when 1t was threatened by traitor
Governor.
In relation 10 the administration of General
Fremont, the committee say much should be
pardoned In one compelled To act so promptly
and with so little at his command. Some of
the arms engaged by Gen. Fremont for his de-
partinent were diverted to the army of the
Potomac by government, aud his department
had FELT the want OF au adequate supply
As TO the Notifications around ST. Louis.
Fremont but carried out what Lyon deemed
necessary. As to the manner in which il was
done, the committee forbear an expression of
opinion. In regard to reinforcing promptly
points threatened by the enemy, they believe
Fremont acted with energy. Troops were
collected by him as soon as it could be done,
and promptly sent. Where service demanded
aud diverted Tor other purposes when Gov
eminent called on him for troops, he sent
them last. At the time when he was most en-
gagged in procuring forces and assistance for
Mulligan, those that were left he sent prompt
ly, and only failed to render assistance needed
from causes over which Fremont had no con-
troll. The committee think Fremont's emanci-
patton proclamation at that early day as most
effective in crushing the rebellion, for proof OF
which, 1t is only necessary to state that his sue
cessor, when transferred to another depart
ment, issued proclamation embodyng the
same principles, and the President, as Com
Chief, has applied the same principle
TO rebellious States. On the whole, the adj
ministration of Fremont was emineutly char
acterized by earnestness, ability aud most un-
questionable loyalty.
DIX, Il - IN