No one appreciates more than I do the propriety of making and even insisting upon having due credit allowed for the services already rendered and the sacrifices already endured, but in attempting his it will not do yield the great point of providing means of making a speedy termination of the war, and 1,000 men now may save the necessity of calling for 10,000 in future.

It is proper for me to inform you, also, that the Secretary of War has decided that the has no authority under the laws of volunteers which may have been furnished by towns from the quota now ordered by draft from those towns.

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

JAMES B. FRY,

Provost-Marshal-General.

The announcement of this result certainly operated as a surprise upon the Governor and the people of the State.

They very hereby informed that "the subject of giving credit to towns for men furnished in excess of their quotas upon previous calls has been most carefully considered." But had not the subject been "most carefully considered" prior to the date of Marshal Fry's letter of July 19? Numbers 12. Had not the Governor's communication and the resolutions of the Legislature been 'submitted to the Solicitor of the War Department and the Judge-Advocate-General" for mature consideration" prior to the date of Mr. Stanton's letter of July? (Numbers 10.) Was not the Governor informed by Mr. Fry's dispatch of the same date (Numbers 11.) that pending such consideration the draft in New Hampshire "must not proceed" till the answer of the Solitor was received? Was not the result of such consideration communicated on the 19th of July by General Fry's letter of that date? Was any intimation of any change of views or purposes given by the Department at Washington or by any power connected therewith from that date till the 5th of September? Was not the official document of July 19 clear and explicit in this terms, without qualification and without local limitation? Was it not intended to be so, and to be so considered? Had it ever been hinted that a similar proposition, contained in a letter to Governor a letter to Governor Andres, was made "to relieve a case of local hardship, and without any intention of making it general, or supposing that it would be so considered? Was it Mr. Fry's impression when he wrote to Governor Andrew that" the matter was one affecting only a limited section?" Had he not already made the application of the principle general to the "limited section" of the State of New Hampshire? Had not Mr. Fry, by his letter of July 19, given assurance, that "if it shall be made to appear to the Provost-Marshal-General by the Governor of any State that particular towns to which quotas have been assigned have heretofore actually furnished a surplus of men over their quotas," an order will be issued discharging a number of men equal to such surplus? Was Mr. Fry 'soon satisfied that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find any principle of adjustment which would apply to all or to a great number of cases? If so, did he communicate that impression to the Governor of New Hampshire acting as the people did, upon the faith of the contrary impression, which was made the basis of the "principle of adjustment" so clearly announced by the letter of July 19? Was not the " principle of adjustment" recognized as late as the 26th of August, the date of Mr. Fry's dispatch concerning nine-months" men (Numbers 18), after that subject had been referred by the Secretary of War to Mr. Fry, according to Mr. Stanton's dispatch of the same date?

(Numbers 17.)

Is it not a little singular that information is given for the first time, on the 5th of September (Numbers 23), that " the Secretary of War has decided that the has no authority under the laws of Congress to deduct