property. As I suppose the time has now arrived when the policy of the Government in reference to the fortifications of this city should be settled, I take advantage of the occasion of this acknowledgment to ask for more detailed instructions than are contained in the general circular of the Department. I have always supposesd that it will be the policy of the Government, even after the termination of the rebellion, to maintain the more important works of defense around this city. It seems to me after our experience during this rebellion that a wise foresight will not permit us to allow the seat of government to become again entirely defenseless. Besides this there will probably be a considerable body of troops hereafter stationed in or around this city, at least for some years to come, and, if so, the present forts will be the best place at which to post them. At present we have seventy-four inclosed forts and armed batteries around this city, each of which requires a garrison or at least a guard to protect it. This is a war establishment, entirely too large and expensive to be maintained in time of peace. Many of these forts and batteries must be abandoned, and if it be decided to maintain some of them the question arises how many and which forts shall be so maintained?

In order to a proper understanding of the subject, I will state that before the receipt of the circular of the Department, I had anticipated, to some extent at least, the orders of the Secretary of War and the instructions of the Department by suspending operations on all new works, and as far as practicable on all the old works of secondary importance, and since that time have confined operations to the more important forts standing on prominent points and commanding the approaches to the city.

To be specific, so that there may be no misunderstanding, I will add that my instructions contemplated the keeping up of twenty forts, ten on each side of the river, viz: North of the Potomac, Fort Carroll, Fort Stanton, Fort Baker, Fort Mahan, Fort Lincoln, Fort Totten, Fort Slocum, Fort Stevens, Fort Reno, and Fort Sumner. South of the Potomac, Fort Lyon, Fort Ellsworth, Fort Worth, Fort Ward, Fort Richardson, Fort McPherson, Fort Whipple, Fort Morton, Fort C. F. Smith, and Fort Ethan Allen. This list, as will be seen, does not include either Fort Foote or Battery Rodgers, the two water batteries for the defense of the river approach to the city, which I took for granted would be maintained. Such was my idea of what ought to be done before I received the circular of the Department, and such is still my opinion. Congress having made "specific appropriations for completing and rendering more permanent the defenses of Washington," it appears to me that, as it is not desirable to keep up all the works, we will be carrying out the intention of Congress in the best possible manner by "completing and rendering more permanent" the works which I have named.

In issuing the orders to which I have alluded I supposed that I had reduced the number of works to a minumum. Though there are twenty forts it may be said that there are only thirteen positions to be held by them, two of which, embracing Forts Lyon and Ellsworth, Worth, and Ward, cover Alexandria, and one, embracing Fort Allen, covers the Chain Bridge.

The question presented for consideration is one of policy. Does the Government wish any of the works now constituting the defenses of Washington to be maintained? If so, is it desirable that the number of these works should be reduced to a minimum? If these questions are answered in the affirmative then all necessary orders have already