these support me in my position. Here again you are as incorrect as I have shown you to be in almost every important statement which has been made by you. There is nothing in the opinion of the judges of the supreme court of Massachusetts sustaining the Governor of that State which gives the slightest support to my position, or that has the least bearing upon the cen us. What were the points decided by that opinion of the court? They were substantially the following: First. That when the President made a requisition upon the Governor of a State for the militia to repel threatened invasion it was the right of the Governor to judge whether whether the emergency existed. He decided that it did not. Second. That when the militia were called out under a requisition from the President no Federal officer but the President in person had the right to command them. These were the positions of the Governor of Massachussets, and the opinion of the judges sustained him. Neither of these questions has arisen in this discusion. I have not denied the existence of the exigency, but foresaw it and had the reserve militia in the field in battle with the enemy months before the President seems to have seen it, at least months before he realized it to an extent to cause him to make the requisition. I have not raised the question as to the right of a Confederate officer, other than the President in person, to command this militia so called out by me while in service. On the contrary, I had placed them under the command of a Confederate general long before the requisition was made. With these facts before you, a little reflection cannot fail to show you how much mistaken you are when you make the assertion that the decision of the judges of the surpeme court of Massachusetts, or of the Legislature of those two States, sustain my course or any position I have taken. As there is neither analogy nor parallel between the case cited by you and my own case, no decision sustaining the Governors in those cases can either sustain or condemn my cours upon an entirely different of facts and circumstances. But you say the judical opinions of the supreme court of New York and of the Supreme Court of the United States, as rendered in the line of their duty, affords no such support. As you have not shown how the action of the Governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut, or the correctness of theld have come judicially before the supreme court of New York, or the Supreme Court of the United States, and as you have not been able to cite any case in which the question of the conduct of those Governors was ever before either of said courts, I am left to suppose that you are, as I have shown you to be in so many instances, again unfortunate in your statement of facts, and that, in attempting to sustain an erroneous statement in your other letter, you have added another to former mistakes.

As an excuse for dismissing the subject, without further attempt to sustain your position, you remark that Major-General Cobb informs the Department that has had made a satisfactory adjustment of this diffuculty. While there has been perfect harmony between General Cobb and myself in military matters from the commencement of Sherman's advance upon Atlanta to the present time, as there has been between Generals Johnston Hood, Beauregard, and myself, there has been no adjustment whatever between me and General Cobb of what you are pleased to term "this difficulty." I have neither by word nor act done anything to recognize the right of the President to make this requisition, or to admit the obligation of the Governor to fill it. I have stood, in reference to Genera Cobb, as I have toward you and the President, upon the reserved rights of the State, and have refused to relinquish