confirmation of which it is cited," and he adds that the author, in using the language cited, "is not speaking of the report of this Bureau that the author was alluding to the protection of the flag specifically, but only that he was describing the situation of an enemy commorant in our country during a general truce; and it was intended to argue that this situation was analogous to that of one coming to us from the enemy by taking advantage of the temporary truce occasioned by the flag. This argument, however, would appear to have been quite misunderstood by the charged d'affaires in his criticism thereon.

The note contains a further observation which is met with not without considerable surprise. The writer claims that the papers of Hardcastle were exhibited by him at the time of his admission within our lines, "under promise of safe conduct," adding,

"for it is admitted that this expression was used, an it is vainly attempted to explain it away. " From this it would be understood by the reader that an actual, specific promise of a safe passage within our territory had been made to Hardcastle personally upon his arrival, and that the making of this promise had been admitted in the reports of this Bureau, or otherwise, by this Government. it is the fact, however, that no such promise was made and that it has never before been claimed or pretence that such was made. The allusion can be interpreted only as follows: In the report of this Bureau of October 22, 1863, the flag of truce in this case was spoken of as having procured Hardcastle 'safe conduct beyond the rebel lines," the words 'safe conduct" being used in the popular sense merely. But in his communication of June 13 last, addressed by the British minister to the Secretary of State, this expression is seized upon as conveying a admission on the part of this Government that Hardcastle had been guaranteed a sage passage within our lines; and in the report of this Bureau explained in passing that the term was used in the sense in which it is employed in common parlance, the safe conduct alluded to being limited to the protection afforded by the flag between the two hostile armies. Again, however, and with a remarkable persistence, has the use of this term been dwelt upon as irretrievably committing this Government to an admission which, if really made, would indicate a singular disingenuousness in the attitude which has been assumed in this correspondence.

These comments upon the unusual line of argument or criticism which has been pursued in the note in question have probably been unnecessarily extended; and in view of the detailed and, as it is believed, faithful presentation of the whole case which has previously been made by this Bureau, it becomes unnecessary to further consider the minor points to which it has been thought worth while thus briefly to allude.

In conclusion, this Bureau can perceive no good grounds for a modification of its opinion heretofore fully expressed in regard to the case of Hardcastle, which it deems to be wholly devoid of merit. Originally detained, and justly, as an avowed enemy to the country which had long afforded him protection, and as a person whose hostility and treachery had caused him to forfeit all claim to the privileges of neutrality, as the subject of a foreign power, he manifests in the course of his confinement a gross disregard of the salutary regulations of his prison, which finally leads to his death. Himself the sole cause of this casualty, any application which may be presented to this Government on behalf of his relatives for compensation on account of his loss should, it is believed, be treated as entitled to no favorable consideration. Indeed, the allowance of such a claim would seem to be forbidden alike by sound morals