were borne upon the consolidated lists sent to the Provost- Marshal-General, viz, of the first class, 30,844, and of the second class, 11,148, a total of 41,992, with this exception, that those who were not known to live in any other district by their own refusal to give their residence, doing business in this, were presumed to live in this, and were put on the consolidated lists accordingly. These names were in the proportion of perhaps one to fifty, so that perhaps 800 may be on the consolidated lists as subject to draft here who may show, in case of their being drafted, that they reside in another district and are not liable. This list, with the deduction of those who reside here, would leave 35,785 enrolled here not borne upon the consolidated lists of this district.

The enrollment of the district was made by an enrolling officer for each election district, who reported at the headquarters of the district each day with the filled sheets, which were then given in and an account kept of the amount of sheets (filled) each enrolling officer brought in.

The enrollment was completed on the 29th day of June, and the number of names returned to this office amounted to 54,372 of class 1, and 23,405 of class 2; total number, 77,777.

The consolidation was made by first making an alphabetical list of each ward; the names were carefully revised and the residence of every person within the ages named in the act residing in this district marked for the ward of the district in which he resided; they were then transferred to another copy, care being taken to gather all who resided in the ward, copying from other wards. On the completion of that copy the lists were again revised for the purpose of ascertaining duplicates, in this manner, by taking the first name of each letter and going through all the rest of the letter to ascertain that that name was down but once, then taking the second name and again going through those remaining until the whole had undergone a careful and actual scrutiny; and in the same manner with class 2. This was the work of many days and nights, t. When a doubt arose as the whether the party under search was a duplicate, and enrolling officer was sent to the residence of such party to ascertain whether such name was a duplicate or not.

Upon the completion of that copy another copy was made and all errors stricken from and transfers made, should any be found in it. After a careful revision of that copy the final copy was made for the Department, and from that the cards prepared for the draft and carefully compared with the list and verified by actual count.

The foregoing shows the efforts made to secure a complete and fair enrollment. In these efforts and in the performance of all their duties I claim for Captain Erhardt and the Board over which he presides honesty, efficiency, and industry.

This district is taken as a sample because it is the one the enrollment of which has been most objected to.

The adjutant-general of New York, in his report for 1862, states that the enrollment by the State (General Anthon's) in New York and Kings Counties was eminently successful, and he considers the number returned substantially correct. Taking the Fourth District, we find the State enrollment gave a total of 38,324. The present enrollment gives a total of 41,625, an excess of 3,301 on the State enrollment; not a great difference. The following facts connected with the two enrollments should be noted, viz: The State enrollment did not include clergymen, colored men, and others included in the U. S. enrollment, but it did include persons between eighteen and twenty.

The U. S. enrollment does not take persons between eighteen and twenty but includes colored men, and to prevent delay on the part of the enrolling officers and to avoid intrusting to them the decision of important questions of exemption, they were not permitted to decide questions of physical disability, &c., and hence they entered many who were omitted on the State lists. The two enrollments in the disputed Fourth District may therefore be said essentially to agree.

The enrollment is a question of fact, and there is no pertinency in reasoning that it is incorrect because it differs from the census of 1860,