FORTRESS MONROE, October 29, 1862.

Honorable EDWIN M. STANTON.

Secretary of War:

I will be in Washington by 8 or 9 to-morrow morning. Will you please advise the President and Secretary of State?

JOHN A. DIX,

Major-General.

WAR DEPARTMENT,

Washington City, October 30, 1862.

Honorable E. M. STANTON,

Secretary of War:

SIR: In obedience to your order of 28th instant I proceeded to Harrisburg to confer with His Excellency the Governor of Pennsylvania on the subject of his letter o October 25.*

I accordingly met him yesterday, together with the attorney- general of Pennsylvania, and laid before them the object of my mission. The important point considered was the following paragraph of His Excellency's letter:

By the act of 29th of June, 1861, penalties are provided for drafted men who shall not obey the orders of the President, but there is no act authorizing to be forcibly impressed.

The attorney-general (Mr. Meredith) cited the cases of Houston v. Moore and Martin v. Mott to who that the courts held that it was not the intention of Congress to compel drafted militia to serve, but that for refusing to obey the President's order they were subject to fine, and in default of payment to imprisonment, and that this punishment must be inflicted by sentence of a court- martial. The decisions in these cases, he seemed to think, established the doctrine contained in them. I suggested that this fine, being for disobedience of orders and not for neglect of duty in refusing to serve, the order might be repeated and a new fine thus incurred. The reply was that this point had not been considered.

The decision of the court having been made under the act of 1795, I then called the attention of the attorney-general to the provisions of that of July 17, 1862, suggesting that the power given by that act to the President to make all necessary rules and regulations for putting it into execution (the act itself providing that the militia so called shall be mustered in and continue to serve) would warrant the establishment of regulations to impress the drafted men into the service. After some consideration he replied that he did not perceive that that act enlarged the power of the President over individuals drafted, but gave him certain powers over the militia as a body, and therefore did not touch the point in question. On a closer examination of the acts of 1795 and 1861 I find a difference of expression that appears not to have been unintentional. The act of 1795 provides "that the militia employed in the service of the United States shall be subject to the same Rules and Articles of War as the troops of the United States," and under that clause it was decided that those who disobey the call are not liable to the Rules and Articles of War because not employed in the service.

The act of 1861 provides "that the militia so called into the service of the United States shall be subject to the same Rules and Articles of War," &c.

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

*See Series I, Vol. XIX, Part II, p. 489.

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