California? It permeates society here among both the high and the low. Our local State, county, and city officers, with very few exceptions, are avowed sympathizers with it. It is popular here, and theUnion cause is very generally despised. Ought not the army to do all in its power to reverse this state of things? Ought not the officers here to use all their influence to accomplish this - to make the cause of treason disreputable bu abstaining from associating with all those who, whatever their social respectability, are known to sympathize with it? Whatever people's sympathies with the South may be, ought not all expression of sympathy with the rebelion, with secession, to be absolutely and entirely suppressed? Else the task of crushing it out on American soil is going to be Herculean. Union men feel that they cannot live here of something is not done to atack and destroy secessionism here, which is strong, insidious, and specious, and far too crafty for the policy that would do nothing against it umless it be a clear case of some overt act. That policy is utterly inadequate. Secessionism will always thrive here so long as it is followed. It is as much as a Union man's life is worth to unflinchingly expose secession doings here. Society will be against him; the civil Federal authority is powerless. He hardly knows where to look for countenance. Must this always be so? Is Southern California a part of th rebel Confederacy that loyalty to the Union is neither respectable nor safe? May we not ask that the commander of this department be instructed to attack secessionism in any phase whatsoever that in may present itself? I assure you, General Wright, that there is a very general dissatifaction amongst the Union soldiers and Union citizens that this is not done. A great variety of information has come to my knowledge bearing on this subject that I have felt it my duty to present both to you and to the Attorny - General at Washington, but I refrain from including it here. I shrink from making issue with the commander of this department, whom I respect notwithstanding his policy is not aggresive enough, or with the secessionists, whom I despise, unless forced to do so. I will mention only two instances. A. J. King, under sheriff of this county, who has been a bitter secessionist, who said to me that he owed no allegiance to the United States Government; that Jeff. Davis' was the only consitutional government was has, and that he remained here because he could do more harm to the enemies of the Government by staying here than going there; brought down on the Senator Tuesday last a large lithograph giltframed portrait of Beauregfard, the rebel general, which he flaunted before a large crowd at the hotel when he arrived. I included Colonel Carleton to have him arrested as one of the many dangerous secessionists living in our midst, and today he was taken to Camp Drum. He was accompanied by General Volney E. Howard as counsel, and I have but little hope that he will be retained in custody. Yet in what country would the display of portraits of generals of the enemy in war be tolerated - especially in a disaffected community as this is? He might about as well have display a rebel falg. Would fine portraits of General McClellan or President Lincoln be tolerated in the rebel States?

Very likely you may learn what disposition shall have been made of him by the steamer which leaves tomorrow. Lieutenant Buffum was in town Monday. While here, one Powell [captain of a company fitting out for the Colorado mines, or, as some of its members intimated, for Dixie] was standing near him, who said, " There is one of those - uniforms; I make it my business to kill just such as them. " Lieutenant B. could do nothing, and he had so little confidence that any notice would be taken of the insult that he declined to report it. I beseech