from a variety of sources, however, that there was much dissatisfaction among people in the Valley, and in the army also, at the management of General Early, I deemed it mu duty and in strict accordance with the principle you stated to apprise you of what I considered to be the general sentiment, and, to be more precise therein, gave you extracts from the letter of a highly intelligent gentleman and officer in reference to the state of public opinion in the army. About the time of writing you I had a conversation with one of the most intelligent citizens of the Valley, residing in the midst of General Early's operations, who gave me a sketch of the popular judgment as to his military conduct, and added that that judgment called for a change in the commander of the Valley army. A high official of the State government witnessed the fight at Winchester and expressed similar opinions, and spoke feelingly of the fact that the army in it retreat covered a space of five and twenty miles. It is well known and tacked about that the army threw away its guns and the Secretary of War, as I understood him, had to send arms to Staunton to replace them.

Now, general, after all this, after your concession that public sentiment should decide the question of the commander, I respectfully ask how you were to learn that sentiment? Certainly by communications from some quarter, and what quarter more entitled to respect and appreciation that the Governor of Virginia? Why, sir, since writing the above paragraph I met with a prominent citizens of Staunton, who, after stating that Early had disappointed expectations, asked my why I did not have him relived. I, of course, replied that that was not in my power. Evidences of this description could be multiplied indefinitely. But it seems that charges must be preferred against General Early, and that you must have the name of the accuser. I do not feel myself at liberty to give the names the names of the officers referred to. But what are the cargos-if they may be so termed-stated in the letter from which I quoted? First, that "the army left Waynesborough in the hardest, coldest, and bleakest storm of the season;" secondly, that an impression prevails that he has no feeling for his men, and that his presence awakens no enthusiasm; thirdly, that the army once believed he was a safe commander, but believe so no longer; fourthly, that he was surprised at Winchester and did not expect a general engagement; fitly, that General Early has fought his army on every occasion in detail; sixty, that he has lost twenty-five pieces of artillery in this campaign; seventy, that the good of the country requires a change in the command of that army. I believe that not one of these points or opinions, except that which alleges a surprise at Winchester, constitutes a proper subject for court-martial. I cannot see how the public service is to be promoted by such a court, and therefore shall certainly take no step to reach such result. But as you seem to think that General Early should be apprised of the accusations against him, you are perfectly at liberty, if you so regard my opinions of his military capacity, to furnish such extracts from my letter as embrace them.

In conclusion, I repeat, I am deeply impressed with the conviction that General Early is not competent to independent command; that the good of the service, by which I am governed, requires that he should be relieved, and that such is the general sentiment of the country through which he has been operating. I trust that results will prove that I have done General Early injustice, and that he will adorn his name with the glory of redeeming our great Valley from a vandal foe.

I am, general, with the highest respect, your obedient servant,

WM. SMITH.