This warning is spoken of alone in the letter of General Stevens to Major-General Hunter, on the 8th July, and is thus referred to:

General Wright, moreover, warned General Benham that his orders were, in fact, orders to fight a battle. In this General Williams and myself, in express terms, concurred.

It will be observed that there is nothing said in this warning as to any violation of orders. General Hunter has blended in his statement his own conviction with the language of General Wright as quoted. He doubtless intended to say that General Benham was warned that his orders to his own generals were, in fact, orders to fight a battle, which he (General Hunter) averred was a violation of his orders to him. His language, however, bears readily the interpretation that the generals named have warned General Benham that he himself was about to violate the orders given him by General Hunter, an interpretation which would be a total departure from the fact, as we clearly ascertain be recurring to the words of General Stevens. Upon this emphatic declaration of General Hunter, without, probably, examining the letter of General Stevens to see how far it was justified, General Benham's appointment was, no doubt, revoked.

Stage to say, this paragraph in the letter of General Stevens was printed in the New York Times in precisely the sense in which General Hunter had cited it, though in different language. It reads, as published in that journal, thus:

General Wright, moreover, warned General Benham that his orders were, in fact, orders not to fight a battle. In this General Williams and myself, in express terms, concurred.

It will be sent that by the in obduction of the "not" the meaning of the sentence was totally changed and reversed. This publication having met the eye of General Stevens, he, on the 20th of July, addressed a note to the editor of the New York Times, the original of which is now before me, in which he says:

I desire to correct an error, either of the printer or copyist, in my official report to General Hunter. In the copy as printed in your issue of the 16th instant it is stated, "General Wright warned General Benham that his orders were, in fact, orders not to fight a battle." It should read, "General Wright warned General Benahm that his orders were, in fact, orders to fight a battle," meaning, thereby, General Benham's own orders to his subordinates in relation to the operations of the morrow, and that a battle must inevitably result from them, and not General Hunter's orders to General Benham, which were not a matter brought before the conference.

It thus appears that the principal ground on which General Benham was dismissed from the volunteer service was a total misapprehension, and has been completely swept away by the frank and empathic testimony of General Stevens. The question still remains to be determined whether the attack on the earthwork was, in fact, a violation of General Hunter's order to General Benham. This order, the only one issued on the subject, bears date "on board United States transport Delaware, Stono River, South Carolina, June 10, 1862," and is in these words:

In leaving the Stono River to return to Hilton Head, I desire, in my arrangements that you may make for the disposition of your forces now in this vicinity, you will make no attempt to advance on Charleston or attack Fort Johnson until largely re-enforced, or until you receive specific instructions from these headquarters to that effect. You will, however, provide for a secure entrenched encampment, where your front can be covered by the fire of your gunboats from the Stono on the left and the creek from Folly River on the right.

A glance at the map which accompanies the papers makes it perfectly clear, in my opinion, that the attempt made to capture the earth-