Here nothing is stated to the effect that either General Wright or General Stevens favored the proposed attack; but that they did favor it might well be supposed when General Wright's letters of may 16 and 22 say, "Once on James Island and the gunboats in the Stono, and the thing is done to all intents and purposes. Taking possession of the Stono solves the question of the taking of Charleston. If is no longer anything but a question of time:" and General Sevens' letter, received June 7, suggests "an armed reconnaissance and a dash day after to-morrow (daylight), in order to seize James Island below James River and Newton Cut, with every man thrown in," which included the taking of this battery, the final failure to take which compelled the abandonment of the island.

[Extract from a card by General Stevens, published in the New York Times, July 22, 1863.

HEADQUARTERS FIRST DIVISION, BURNSIDE EXPEDITION, Newport News, Va., Sunday, July 20, 1862.

To the EDITOR OF NEW YORK TIMES:

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 Benham the this 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 .*

Very respectfully, yours,
ISAAC I. STEVENS.

The above refutes General Hunter's assumption of June 27.

That the subordinate generals did not remonstrate with General Benham is positively shown by the following letter from Captain Drayton, U. S. Navy, who was at the confederate, he being the commanding or senior naval officer:

UNITED STATES STEAMER PAWNEE, Stono, June 18, 1862.

Brigadier General H. W. BENHAM,

Commanding at the Stono:

SIR: In answer to your letter of the 17th, just received, I beg to state that, in the meeting referred to in it, I cannot recollect any opposition being offered to your proposed advance on Secessionville the following morning, except as regarded the time you had fixed on, Brigadier-General Stevens being in favor of deferring it until the series of questions which were put in General Wright, in regard to the effect produced, or likely to be produced, on the enemy's works by the battery of the latter (former), that he was not in favor of a forward movement at the present time.

I cannot call to mind any particular expressions of Colonel Williams which would enable me to form any opinion as to his views, but must confess that the impression was made on me by the general tone of the conversation that, while expressing every desire to further your views to the utmost of their power, the three officers above as this, and General Wright did observe that we would take the battery, he thought.

The only change made in your first plan of operations, so far as I could see, was to defer the movement a half hour later than first intended by you.

Yours, very truly,

P. DRAYTON.

These [expressions of Colonel Williams] were, "Has your battery had any effect yet?" "Do you expect it to have any?" to both questions General Stevens replied, "No," and, of course, giving more reason for an early attack.

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

*For the whole of this letter, see. p. 987.

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