to add a new disturbing element by making a public vindication. But I would be unworthy of the cause in the defense of which I drew my sword were I to allow any personal consideration to prevent me from placing on the record a statement of facts as set forth in this paper.

Having waited in vain for a further reply from General Halleck, on the 18th of January, 1863 (Exhibit E), I wrote to you that I had "patiently remained under the public censure of General Halleck for the period of four months, believing that time and investigation were only necessary to secure the approval of my course," and I requested to be informed "whether my conduct in the evacuation of Cumberland Gap met with the approval or disapproval of the General-in-Chief." To that communication General Halleck has not found it convenient to reply; but in his letter of February 8, 1863 (Exhibit F), in response to General Wright's letter of February 4 (Exhibit G), General Halleck says, "The facts as now presented justified General Morgan's retreatJanuary

What facts? General Halleck possessed no facts on the 8th of February, 1863, which he did not know on the 2nd of December, 1862, when he published his report. In his letter of February 4, 1863, General Wright simply reaffirmed the facts and opinions already stated by him in his official report of the investigation made October 15, 1862. And in reply to General Wright's letter of February 4, 1863, General Halleck says in his letter of February 8:

In this letter [of February 4] and your former letter [Wright's report of October 15] you fully exonerated General Morgan from all blame in abandoning Cumberland Gap. No further investigation will therefore be made.

In substance General Wright's letter of February 4, 1863, and his report of October 15, 1862,are identical, as General Halleck admits. Upon what principe then did he censure me upon the one and justify me on the other?

He expresses "regret that General Wright did not make a full and formal investigation at the time it was ordered." And yet when General Halleck penned the expression of that regret he know that the investigation was as full and formal as it could have been made except by court of inquiry or court-martial. He says that such an investigation "was due to General Morgan as well as to General Wright and to the Government." If due to me, why did General Halleck refuse to grant me a court-martial or court of inquiry? If due to the Government,why did not General Halleck procure an order for a court of inquiry or himself order a court-martial? General Halleck ought to know that General Wright had not the power to order a court of inquiry. He (General Halleck) refused me a court and did not order one himself, but, on the contrary, he directed the investigation to be made by a single officer, selected that officer himself, and at this late day he grudgingly justifies my conduct on the report of that officer.

General Halleck further says:

General Morgan represented his force as able to hold Cumberland Gap against any number of troops which the enemy could bring against him. He was almost boastful in his confidence that he could do this. On these assurances the Government believed that the post would be held by us and serve as a serious obstacle to the retreat of General Bragg's army.

General Halleck strangely confounds "force" with "subsistence." I did hold my position against a force more than four times greater than my own; the enemy completely surrounded but dared not attack me; and had not General Halleck failed to open communication between Lexington and Cumberland Gap, as he promised to do (Exhibit H), that stronghold would be ours to-day.