as had been removed from the battle-field or place of capture and reduced into actual possession. It left the force and effect of military paroles and the respect which should be paid to them to be determined by the usages of civilized nations of modern times. It certainly did not purpose to prevent a wounded officer or man from entering into a stipulation not to take up arms until exchange has the condition of his release when his life would be at the serious risk of forfeit if he did not make the contract. Nor does it anywhere deny the right of any soldier, wounded or not, to bind his Government by his military obligation when he is in the hands of the enemy. The latter part of article 7 does not really controvert this view. That clause intended to give "the commanders of two opposing armies" he power of declaring an exchange of prisoners, with the further right of paroling whatever surplus there might be after the exchange was arranged. Without such clause the two commanders would have no right to declare an exchange. It was therefore inserted. Until recently nobody ever pretended that the cartel forbid the giving and receiving of ordinary military paroles. The uniform practice under the cartel for nearly a year sanctioned them. Whatever, however, may be the determination as to this matter, it is entirely clear that at the time the Gettysburg paroles were given your own military law required that if the parole was not approved the party should return to our lines. Many of the paroles indicate on their face that the persons giving them were aware of that fact. I have therefore demanded that if you reject these paroles the parties who gave them should be returned to us. The question between us is not so much whether you will regard these paroles as valid, as whether you will comply with a rule of your own making, and which was advertised to us as being the controlling law of the case.

I know not what you mean by your reference on your third page to article 4 of the cartel. All the officers and men whom I declared exchanged were 'a to our lines. " All of the officers and men whom I requested you to select as equivalents for them in the exchange "had been restored to your lines. " The parties whom I have declared exchanged have not been "returned to their paroles as requested by Lieutenant-Colonel Ludlow. " The parties whom I have declared exchanged have not been 'returned to their paroles as requested by Lieutenant-Colonel Ludlow. " I do not understand by what sort of reading of the exchange notice of the 12th of September you make out that only "two officers (Generals Stevenson and Brown)" were exchanged. My letters of July 13, September 11, and September 26 will inform you of all the Vicksburg prisoners, officers and men, whom I have declared exchanged.

Your objection to the declaration of the exchange of the general officers paroled at Vicksburg, because there were no equivalents of the same grade, is exploded by the provision of the cartel which declares "that men and officers of lower grades may be exchanged for officers of a higher grade. "

I have thus answered al the items of your letter of the 24th of September. I regret the extreme length of the reply. I have, however, confined myself to the matter of that letter and to such subjects as were directly connected with its contents. In a future communication I will call to your attention the instances of the violation of the cartel by the federal authorities. Notwithstanding the expression of their sudden regard for that instrument, I will show they have continued those violations from its date to the present moment. I now inform you, in view of the recent declaration of exchange made by you, coupled with your failure either to agree to or decline the proposition made to