and especially in reference to its morale and self-respect. I flt and still feel that it was my duty to write frankly to Lieutenant-Colonel Palfrey who had recommended the appointment by promotion; and moreover in order that I might not be supposed by the subject of such promotion to have approved his conduct and intended to reward him for doing wrong I thought it my duty to request Lieutenant-Colonel Palfrey to communicate to him the state of my mind in that behalf. And it was Lieutenant-Colonel Palfrey's duty to know whether his subordinate had in the conduct complained of acted under orders to which his position required obedience or whether as I infer is the case it was simply needless and superserviceable. I carefully avoid using his name since it is foreign to my method to inure persons by indirection; while it was in precise accordance with it to make immediate and direct complaint of wrong when most good and the least hearm can follow. And in this correspondence with you, general, I carefully avoid alluding to t he fact complained of because the matter is one which should I discuss with any officer of the Army-even the general-in-chief-in its relations to military duty I should justly incur the rebuke of the President and of your as well as my own sense of duty.

Permit me, general, most respectfully to add that I trust the opinion expressed in your letter that the volunteer regiments "are as entirely removed from the authority of the governors of the States as are the regular regiments" will be so far modified as to recognize the existence of the powers carefully conferred on the governos by act of Congress.

Heartily uniting with yourself in the most eanrest desire for the efficiency, good discipline and honor of the military service, I have the honor to be, with high respect,

Your faithful servant,

JOHN A. ANDREW.

General MCCLELLAN.

GENERAL: Williams handed me the inclosed. * He left out your letter to Andrew; therefore I don't know the exact ground you took nor whether you argued it or merely stated it. As he comes back with an argument I thought the true doctrine should be not argued but so stated as to suggest the rigth argument. He attempts too fine a point when he deduces his right to revile captains and instruct colonels from the power to appoint; it is a simple absurdity which may be not unpleasantly pointed out to him. His doctrine is worse than a Trojan horse to any walled town, camp, army o other military society. The Boston Courier, an able paper, attacked him and justified Stone out and out. I intended to send it to you but forgot it. There is danger in that abolition element unless a little energy check it at the start. I have put Gualt's review in fewer words, except the lecture to t he court, which I thought more severe than our usage approves. It is sufficient I think to point out their error. He prefers a ore detailed and exact statement than is required in orders.

Glad to hear you are well again.

Very truly,

J. F. LEE,

[Judge-Advocate.]

---------------

*Inclosure not found; it obviously related to the discussion with Governor Andrew.

---------------