force-such as the provision for governing the force "according to the Regulations of the Army of the United States and subject to the Articles of War," and "they shall be considered as disbanded form the service of the United States whenever the President shall so direct." As to the first of these expressions, I have already remarked that the provision for the government of the force by regulations and articles of war was words without meaning if the proposal is regarded as an offer to raise a force for the U. S. service, because in such case the government would be by such regulations and articles as a matter of course.

But in a proposal from the Governor about State troops, it was proper that he should assume the obligation to govern them according to the same rule that applied to U. S. troops, particularly when that was the rule provided by the law of his own State. Thus the law for their government does not indicate that they were to be in the service of the United States.

The other phrase, "they shall be considered as a disbanded from the service of the United States whenever the President shall so direct," is only a mode provided for ending the obligation of the Government to bear the expense.

Observe, the language is "they shall be considered as disbanded," not that they shall be broken up and scattered, as they would be by actual disbanding, but that, so far as the agreement imposes duties upon the United States, they are to be considered as disbanded.

They are to be considered as disbanded from the service of the United States whenever the President shall direct. As a force sustained by the State, and which must look to the State for remuneration they continue their organization; but, retaining their organization, they are to be "considered" as disbanded so far as the United States are concerned. This, I think, is the whole force of the language here employed.

I have given you, general, at some length my interpretation of this agreement, and I think I cannot be mistaken in its meaning, as tanding of the parties at the time it was made.

The question submitted to you, whether the force is a State force or a U. S. force, never has yet been of any practical importance until you announced in your letter of the 3rd instant that my order discharging Colonel Jackson from the service of the United States was without authority of law.

If you will take the trouble to refer to the muster-rolls of Colonel Jackson's regiment and the rolls of the other regiments of the State militia, long ago filed in the Adjutant-General's Office in Washington, you will find that these troops were mustered into the service of the State, and not into the service of the United States; and you will find that this Colonel Jackson, himself acting as a mustering officer, actually mustered some of the companies of his regiment and mustered them into the service of the State of Missouri.

Not only then by the terms of the agreement, but by the muster made according to the general understanding of its meaning, this man, Colonel Jackson, was in the service of the State, and was properly dismissed by me upon the report of his incompetency by an examining board. The question of my power to remove officers and to accept resignations is one of practical importance.

I have removed once colonel because it was reported that he did not fight a band of rebels when he might have done so successfully. I