only give a ready acquiescence to your action but emphatically and enthusiastically sustain it.

Hewitt, Norton & Co.; Brander, Chambliss & Co.; West & Villere; S. E. Belknap; Lewis & Oglesby; W. A. Johnson & Co.; Carroll, Hoy & Co.; Foley, Avery & Co.; Rosser, Prothro & Co.; Henderson, Terry & Co.; Bradley, Wilson & Co.; West, Renshaw & Cammack; John Williams & Co.; Tarleton, Whiting & Co.; Farley, Jurey & Co.; W. Cox & Co.; Jas. M. Putnam; A. Levi & Co.; Montgomery & Hal; Bellocq, Noblom & Co.; Abat & Cushman; Holloway & Lonsdale; J. W. Champlin & Co.; A. D. Henkel & Co.; R. Yeatman; Broadwell & Haynes; Moore & Browder; R. W. Estlin & Co.; Lane & Salter; S. O. Nelson & Co.; Campbell & Strong; Aby & Catching; Patton & Finney; Fellows & Co.; Payne, Huntington & Co.; T. H. and J. M. Allen & Co.; F. B. Ernest; Edwd. Pilsbury; Geo. S. Mandeville; Bell & Bouligny; Richd. Nugent & Co.; A. Milternberger & Co.; Bartley Johnson & Co.; Hayes, Garnvest & Co.; Frierson, Conway & Co.; Green & Crump; R. McIlhenny & Co.; Davis, Jenkins & Co.; KirkpatricWalter & Co.; John L. Lee; P. H. Skipwith; Knox & Higgins; J. J. Person & Co.; Battle, Noble & Co.; R. C. Cummings & Co.; Montgomery & White; Wright & Allen; Robert L. Adams & Co.; Horrell, Gayle & Co.; John Watt & Co.; Rotchford, Brown & Co.; M. D. Cooper & Co.; Smith & Johnson; James Bankhead; McLemore, Rayburn & Co.; Thos. Henderson & Peale; Wood & Son; Gallagher & Dyer; Geo. Connelly & Co.; J. & G. Cromwell; Moses Greenwood; A. H. May & Co.; Scruggs, Donegan & Co.; Hughes, Hyllested & Co.; W. & D. Urquhart; Phelps & Jones; John T. Hardie & Co.; Hawkins & Norwood; Walker & Snider; Gillis & Ferguson; Giffen, Smedes & Co.; Pritchard & Flower; Stuart & Seixas; J. W. Burbridge Co.; Friedlander & Gerson; Warren & Crawford; Perkins & Co.; Cutrer & Harrison; Nixon & Co.; Dumesnil, Martin & Co.

B.

(Extract from New Orleans Daily Delta, October 1, 1861.)

COTTON SHIPMENTS PROHIBITED BY THE GOVERNOR.

Governor Moore, after due deliberation on the subject of the recent shipments of cotton to the city in disregard of the plain policy and duty requiring it to kept at home while our coast is threatened with invasion, comes to the conclusion that the only effectual means of altogether stoppoing such shipments is to enforce a positive and universal prohibition upon the introduction of cotton into the city, either by steam-boat or railroad.

Alluding last week tot he increasing disposition to violate the rule recommended by the factors of the city and accepted by the planters, we remarked that if planters and factors engaged in this violation