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 Benham 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, nd 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.

I trust to your sense of justice to insert this note. I will simply state that I have nothing further to add to my official report, except to say than I am prepared to make good, in an official way, my declaration that I can establish every word of my report by incontrovertible testimony.

I leave with my command and my associates my vindication from charges of misconduct on that battle-field, begging leave, however, to quote this paragraph from General Benham's official report, made to General Hunter on the day of the battle itself:

Throughout the whole of this affair I have great pleasure in reporting that the gallantry and good conduct of General Wright and Colonel Williams, directly under my eye, as also that of the several regiments engaged on the left wing, was most admirable, while the careful arrangement and skillful disposition of the forces of General Stevens, guided as they were by his own cool courage in action, supported as he was by some of the best troops in the service, have mainly contributed to the success of this reconnaissance, and the safe and orderly return of our forces.

Very respectfully, yours,

ISAAC I. STEVENS.

[Inclosure Numbers 5.]

THE BATTLE ON JAMES ISLAND.

To the EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

The reckless statements in the letter of General Stevens to General Hunter, dated July 8, in relation to the affair at James Island, seem to be explicit, and shall have an explicit reply from me, though I have carefully, up to this time, avoided any connection whatever with what has been published about the matter.

In the first place, I would state that I had the meeting of the officers referred to solely with reference to a concert of the action to be taken the next day, and not to discuss the propriety or necessity of the movement, of which I conceived there was no doubt, and so told them; that I considered it indispensable if we were not to be driven from the Stono; and I understood the movement to have been most fully sanctioned previously, at three different times, once in writing, even by General Hunter, before he left. And perfectly indifferent to what combination General Stevens may have attempted to bolster him up in his failure from his disobedience of my orders, for which but for my kindness I should have arrested him for trial, I aver most solemnly that through all our interviews not one word was said by either of the three officers that I could construe into an objection to the necessity, propriety, or probable success of his movement; and in this I am fully borne out by the letter of Commander Drayton, of the Navy, the only witness present who is not now made a party in the matter. This letter (asked

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

*Correctly printed on p. 49.

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