eral Hunter's letters of June 27 and July 10, and General Stevens' letter of June 22, indorsed by General Wright.

P. S.-A close examination of letters of Generals Hunter and Stevens, just obtained, reveals important facts. General Stevens; letter of June 22 relating to mine of June 20, and indorsed by General Wright, is, perhaps, literally true, but an artful suggestio falsi throughout. This letter assumes that I had said they forced the attack on the 16th. I never said so, only that they did not oppose it as contrary to orders, and Captain Drayton's letter confirms me. General Stevens also states that he was utterly opposed to the attack "on the morning of the 16th." So he was for the morning, but he proposed it for the afternoon. As Captain Drayton states, he only objected to the time of day, nd that only I "overruled." General Stevens "understood" that General Wright was opposed to the attack. He does not say, nor does General Wright himself say, that he so expressed himself, and Captain Drayton says explicitly he did not; "none of them said as much as this." But, more than this, neither in General Hunter's two letters of June 27 and July 10 nor at any time that I can learn since my first explanation to him before my arrest has been accused me of disobeying his orders. He assumes in this letter of June 27 that these officers warned me that I "was about to fight a battle in violation of orders." A close examination of their letters will show they make no such statement; and by a letter of General Stevens of July 20, published in the New York Times of the 22d, that he explicitly denies the assumption of General Hunter, saying that "General Hunter's orders to General Benham were not a matter before the conference," as by the copy inclosed. It will, therefore, be seen that I have been condemned unheard, on the superficial examination of these letters, and on the false assumptions, not contained in them, that I was distinctly opposed in the "council" as to that attack, and that I disobeyed (and was so notified) the orders of General Hunter, which assumption was utterly unsure. In fact, neither these letters nor General Hunter's letters or orders leave anything against me whatever.

I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

H. W. BENHAM.

[Inclosure Numbers 8.]

WASHINGTON, August 16, 1862.

I find now, on having access to the papers before the Judge-Advocate-[General], the allegations against me appear to be: First, that General Hunter, in his letter of June 27, assumes that my subordinate generals "warned" me that I "was about to fight a battle in violation of orders." An examination of the letters of these officers shows that they make no such statement, and in a letter of General Stevens of July 20, published in the New York Times of July 22, he expressly denies this allegation of General Hunter's, and states that "General Hunter's orders to General Benham were not a matter before the conference;" and in no paper that I can find before the Department does General Huter himself accuse me of disobeying his orders, and in my report of the attack I remind him of his approval of the movement, which he does not deny. Second, is the allegation that General Stevens makes, that himself and the other officers expressly remonstrated with me against eh attack. I ave that the did not make any remonstrance, except as to the time of day, and that the others did not remonstrate at all against it; and the letter of Captain Drayton, senior naval officer, fully confirms this, and

63 R R-VOL XIV.