the enemy. So determined was the President to accomplish both these objects that he did not pretend to conceal his purpose, but incorporated it into the requisition itself.

Past experience has also shown that the President will surmount all obstacles to secure to himself the appointment of the officers who are to command troops under his control. Soon after the commencement of the war, Georgia tendered to him an excellent brigade of her most gallant sons, fully armed, accountered, and equipped, with two months' training in camp of instruction. He refused to accept it as it was, but disbanded it, and, refusing to recognize the commanding general (though every officer, I believe, in the brigade, from the highest to the lowest, petitioned to have him retained), scattered the regiments into other brigades. The twelve-months' men entered the service with officers elected by them, and he accepted them with their officers. The Constitition of the Confederate States, as I have heretofore most conclusively shown, and as the Legislature of the State has resolved, as well as the laws of the State, authorize them to elect officers to fill all vacancies that occur. The President has disregarded this right, and claims and exercises the right to appoint all such officers for them. His past course, as well as the plain language of the requisition, shows that you misrepresent the President when you deny that it was his purpose in making the requisition to disband the militia, and I am satisfied that I do him no injustive in supposing that it was his intention, after they were disbanded, to appoint his own partisans and favorites to command them. Reference is made in your letter to the act of Congress to show that the President could only hold the militia six months under a call upon the Governor for their services. Yous eem to forget that many of those them in service for whom he called had already served nearly four months. And you seem to suppose that I will be unmindful how easy it would be at the end of six months for the President simply to renew the call for another six months and continue this to the end of the war, and in this way keep the old men and boys of Georgia constantly in service, to the destruction of all her agricultural and other material interests, while no such requirement is made of any other State. But if this were not possibleby these repeated calls, what guaranty have they under the act of Congress and the promise of the President that they would be disabanded at the end of six months? The original twelve-months' men entered the service under the like protection, as they supposed, of an act be discharged at the end of their time. But before the time expired the President procured another act of Congress which changed the law on that subject, and he then refused to be bound by his contract, and those of them who survive are yet in service, near the end of the fourth year. Even the furloughs promised them were not allowed. And ministers of religion who made a contract with the Government to serve for one year, and others who agreed to serve three years in the ranks, are held after the expiration of their time, when they would be embraced in the exemption act, which protects those at home, if the Government had kept its faith and discharged them according to the contract.

In this connection I must also notive your remarks in reference to the six-months' men of last fall in this State. And as every material statement you now make upon that subject is contradicted by the records of your Department - made up over your own signature - the task is an unpleasant one. You say "It had been designed to raise troops for special