representatives, Lincoln County; Nathl. McDonald, Saint Louis County; C. B. Walker, McDonald County; Enos Clarke, representative Saint Louis County; T. W. McMillen, Livingston County; James C. McGinnis, sergeant-at-arms; C. A. Newcomb, Jefferson County; Daniel Proctor, Caldwell County; D. M. King, Mercer County; Jeremiah White, Texas County; John Corby, Buchanan County; S. E. Hoge, clerk of circuit court of Moniteau County, Mo. ; A. Masters, probable judge Morgan County; George Preston, member house of representatives, Saint Clair County; Prouds G. Roberts, sheriff Saint Clair County; D. P. Shield, county attorney, Saint Clair County; Geo. U. Short, Saint Clair County; Jonathan Hill, Carroll County; Samuel Turner, Carroll County.

HEADQUARTERS DISTRICT OF CENTRAL MISSOURI,
Warrensburg, Mo., January 17, 1865.

Messrs. JACOB LENDER, JOHN O. BUCHANAN,

A. L. BEATTY, and others:

GENTLEMEN: I have the honor at acknowledge receipt of your communication, in from of a memorial, of date 10th instant, and in reply beg to assure you that I am gratified at the spirit of this move, and that you desire and effort for the rebuilding and tranquilizing of your desolate and disturbed county have my sympathy. This matter head already engaged my attention, and I am free to confess that it is full of embarrassment and difficulty. Two things are essential to your prosperity and happiness. One is, you must have population to revive agriculture, commerce, and trade; the other is, you must have repose and security to procure [pursue] these vocations and enjoy their fruits. To secure the former it is proposed to invite back to their abandoned farms, workshops, and country homes the refugees from your county. This would be magnanimous and feasible, but is it prudent and expedient? So far as the loyal class of these fugitives is concerned there can be no question but that they should be induced to return, and to us there is regularly as little doubt that class of rabid secessionists, sneaking sympathizers, families of bushwhackers, their aiders and informers, should not be allowed to return. The third class, those who at an early period sympathized openly with the rebellion, but who soon reserved their allegiance to the government, and have remained passive or active in its support, demeaning themselves as good citizens, obedient to the governmental authority, these people have claims to our consideration, and, in my judgment, you are right in proposing to admit them. One difficulty in this privilege would be its abuse by mean men and disguised traitors, slipping in under the order and hatching out in your midst a nest of vipers. And I am not unmindful, either, of how easy it would be for some snarling, censorious spirit to attribute to the district commander improper motives in adopting a policy so liable to misuse. But these personalities have never influenced my actions in any relation of life. The question is, is it right? It is a bad philosophy to exclude 100 good men from your county for fear one mean one may creep in. Another objection to extending an invitation to these men to return home is that they may vote and act with political parties