Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1865-02-07
the steps taken by the various powers for
the recognition of Maximillian.

CORRESPONDENCE.
A correspondent, relative to iron-elsds
built at Laird shipyard, has given letter
concerning the affair at chesapeake. he
then gives the business of blockade run
ming, as touched upon by Mr.. Seward.
His objections in reference to the appeal
and dismissal in the case of Alexandria
are then given.
And following them is further cores
pondence on Mexican affairs.
In pursuance to troubles between Spain
aud Peru, Mr.. Seward requests Mr.. Adams
to urge upon Her Msjesty's Government
the necessity of influencing the two couu.
tries on terms of conciliatory policy, and
of justice and honor.
COMMITTEE ON THE CONDUCT OF TIE WAR
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6.
The Committee on the condnct Ct the
War made report to-day relative to the
failure of sn stack on the enemy's lines
before Petersburg.
1t appears that the explosion of the
mine under the enemys BATTERIES was the
ausgOstion- Of Lieutenant 0vfonef Pleasant,
ofthe 4sth Pennsylvania, and the mining
was mainly the work of his regiment.
The plan of attack was submitted to Cen
eral Meade by General Burnside, who pro
posed to place two brigades of colorsd
troops, who had been drilling with refer
ence to the attack, nine weeks, in advance
of the attacking column. General Meade
objected because they had not been under
fire.
The matter was referred to Grant, who
decided that white troops should lead the
assault He said in evidence that Burn
side wanted to put his eolored division in
front, and he believed if it had been done
it would have been success. Still he
agreed with General Meade in his obiee-
tion to the plan, because if they failed it
would be said that colored troops were put
there to be killed. The order for spring.
ing the mine was given by General Meade
General Burnside had psrsmptory orders
at 9:l5 A. M. to withdraw. Burnside Ia
bored to induce Meade to rescind the Or
der, believing success would crown sue
cess. This is the difference between the
testimony of two Generals, Meade testify
ing that Burnside was authorized to exer-
else judgment in the withdrawal. Colonel
Pleasant testiies that General Meade and
and Chief Engineer had no faith in the
mine.
Some are Ofthe opinion that the cause Of
the disaster was the change of Burnside's
plan-to put colored troops in advance;
and the conduct of the colored troops when
they were put into action weuld seem to
fully justify the confidence General Burn
side reposed in them.
General Grant attributes the disastrous
result partly to the troops being unaccOm-
panied by any of the division commanders.
In conclusion, the Committee report that,
in their opinion, the cause of the disaster
is mainly attributable to the fact that the
plans and suggestions of the General who
had devoted his attention so long to the
subject, and drilled his troops for the pur-
pose, should have been entirely dis
regarded by General who had evineed
no faith in the successful prosecution
of that work, and had assumed the entire
direction and control only when it wal
completed, and the time had arrived fol
reaping any of the advantages that may
be derived from it.