you Dr. William P. Rucker, who is now in custody of the State of Virginia for crimes committed before he had any connection with the Federal Army. If it does not mean that I will agree to it most cheerfully. If it does, I cannot.

your alternative proposition that "all shall be discharged, except one or more designated persons, for whom equivalents may be retained by the opposite party," is the old demand that we should consent to the retention of Doctor Green or some other surgeon in retaliation for Dr. William P. Rucker. To that I cannot agree. We are either right or wrong in the retention of Rucker. If right, you ought not to hold an equivalent. If wrong, Rucker should be delivered up. In no aspect of the case should Doctor Green or any other equivalent be retained.

In my communication to you of August 16 last I went fully into the case of Doctor Rucker. Can a single statement therein contained be successfully controverted? If not, upon what grounds can you deny our right to hold and try him? I will really be obliged to you if you will show wherein I am wrong in any of the positions assumed in my communication of the 30th of August.

When you deny our right to hold Doctor Rucker, or contend for your right to detain a hostage for him, am I to understand you as contending that no officer an either side is to be held on charges preferred against him?

If you have any surgeon in confinement under charges let him be retained and tried under them. I will not complain, especially if they are preferred by a grand jury, as is the case with Doctor Rucker. I, however, can never agree that any surgeon shall be held as an equivalent or hostage for Doctor Rucker. Some doubt has been expressed as to whether Rucker was ever a surgeon regularly in your service. How is it as to that?

Respectfully, your obedient servant,

RO. OULD,

Agent of Exchange.

RICHMOND, October 2, 1863.

Brigadier General S. A. MEREDITH, Agent of Exchange:

SIR: Ave the opportunity to explain to me at City Point how "the U. S. authorities had nothing to do with the treatment that General Morgan and his command received when imprisoned at Columbus," will you be so kind as to do it now? I thought Morgan and his command were prisoners of war, captured by he U. S. forces, and therefore in their custody. You and I have talked twice about General morgan, and no hint was thrown out that he was not a prisoner of the United States. So far from that, on the 30th of July last you informed me by letter that "General John H. Morgan and his officers will be placed in close confinement and held as hostages for the members of Colonel Streight's command. " Will you please explain to me what you meant by this notice of the 30th of July if the "U. S. authorities had nothing to do with the treatment that General Morgan and his command received. "

Nay, more, will you enlighten me as to the point why the U. S. authorities have allowed their prisoners and "hostages" to receive such "unauthorized treatment" for two months? I hope the reason is not of such a nature that it can only be communicated in a whisper. Let me have it on paper.

Respectfully, your obedient servant,

RO. OULD,

Agent of Exchange.