tant-general. You say that "the words 'Van Zandt County' were a clerical error occurring in the office. " The words in your letter addressed to "Commanding Officer Gano's brigade," from "headquarters District of Arkansas, near Fulton, January 8, 1865," are as follows:

The commanding general has directed me to say to you that the commanding general of the department has decided that the forage and other supplies in vicinity of Laynesport, Ark., is necessary for the support of this command and in consequence has ordered your brigade to move from Laynesport to Van Zandt County, on the Trinity.

The italics are mine. Of course, I could not have known that the words "Van Zandt County, on the Trinity" were by clerical error used for those contained in the letter of the department commander, of the 5th instant, to me (Numbers 5141), in which I was directed to order the brigade "to some point on or near Red River, above Clarksville, where supplies and forage can be obtained. " I had no means of knowing that you did not mean precisely what you said.

In your communication to which this is a reply you say:

When Colonel Gurley, commanding Gano's brigade, stationed in this district, after having been informed of General Smith's wishes as to the removal of that brigade, and in defiance of the Sixty-second Article of War, refuses to obey the orders of his superior officer, General Shelby, to afford protection to public property of the same description as that, which had been lost under similar circumstances in this district not long since, and gave as a reason that he had received your orders to obey no one except yourself (myself), General Smith, and the Secretary of War, the major-general commanding deems it his duty to take such steps as will vindicate military discipline and punish willful violation of law, if he has to appeal to the Chief Magistrate of the Government to sustain him in his efforts to uphold discipline and punish insubordination.

I do not know whether you design the above for Colonel Gurley or myself. It is due to Colonel Gurley to say that whilst he properly [holds] himself amenable to my orders as his immediate superior officer in his communication of 17th instant to General Shelby, whilst declining to recognize General Shelby's authority over him, his brigade, or the property in his charge, he held the following language:

I have no apprehension of any attempt to destroy public property. The present condition of this command as to subordination and discipline warrants me in assuring you that public property in our hands will be taken care of. Should it be necessary, however, for the protection of property, I would willingly yield you full control of this entire brigade for that purpose.

The correspondence between General Shelby and Colonel Gurley on the above subject discloses no sentiment on Colonel Gurley's part in conflict with the above. On the contrary, everything he has written that has come to my knowledge coincides therewith. I can only speak of the written correspondence, as I have not seen Colonel Gurley since the question was raised and have no reason to believe he has expressed a sentiment conflicting with the above. If the above is designated for me I have the honor to say that I have no wish to influence the action General Magruder may see fit to take. I discharge my duty conscientiously, in strict accordance with the laws and orders as I understand them, and hold myself amenable to my commanding officer for the manner in which I perform my duty, and I am at all times ready and willing to have the most rigid scrutiny and investigation of my official conduct on this or any other question. You further say:

The major-general commanding desires me to state further that General Smith having directed you (me) to co-operate with him, it is his duty, which he shall always perform with pleasure, whether appreciated by you (me) or not, to give you (me) such information as he may be able to obtain of the movements of the enemy.