armed-at all three posts, and General Fremont has directed me to send not less than two companies to Fort Holt.
Please inform me if you have receive information from up the Ohio. The information I get here has rather indicated that the rebels have withdrawn their forces from towards Paducah, and are organizing at Columbus, Ky., where they now have not less than sixteen regiments of infantry, thirteen siege guns, four batteries of field artillery, and two battalions, of eight companies each of cavalry. In addition to this, they have a column of 2,000 to 3,000 on the Missouri side opposite. I get my information from an official of Major-General Polk, brigading this command.
On the return of the steamer Graham I will send her to Saint Louis, and put some other boat in her place.
U. S. GRANT,
HEADQUARTERS KANSAS BRIGADE,
Fort Lane, Barnesville, September 10, 1861.
Captain W. E. PRINCE, Commanding Fort Leavenworth:
SIR: I am thus ar on my march eastward. I propose to march east as far as Papinsville, if possible, clearing out the valley of the Osage. I will from there turn north, clearing out the valley of the Marais-des-Cygnes, Butler, Harrisonville, Osceola, and Clinton, and proceed in that direction until I hear from the column under Peabody. If attacked by on overwhelming superior force, I will, of cause, fall back on Kansas.
I am moving with a column of about 1,200 infantry, 800 cavalry, and two pieces of artillery. I will leave at Fort Scott about 200 cavalry, at Fort Lincoln about 300 infantry and cavalry, and at Barnesville, Fort Lane, about 200 infantry and cavalry, which I think sufficient to protect these points.
I will camp in the neighborhood of Ball's Mill to-night, and in the neighborhood of Papinsville to-morrow.
J. H. LANE,
Commanding Kansas Brigade.
WASHINGTON, September 11, 1861.
Major General JOHN C. FREMONT:
SIR: Your of the 8th, in answer to mine of the 2nd instant, is just received. Assuming that you, upon the ground, could better judge of the necessities of your position than I could at this distance, on seeing your proclamation of August 30 I perceived no general objection to it. The particular clause, however, in relation to the confiscation of property and the liberation of slaves appeared to me to be objectionable in its non-conformity to the act of Congress passed the 6th of last August upon the same subjects; and hence I wrote you, expressing my wish that that clause should be modified accordingly. Your answer, just received, expresses the preference on your part that I should make an open order for the modification, which I very cheerfully do. It is therefore ordered that the said clause of said proclamation be so modified, held, and construed as to conform to and not to transcend the provisions on the same subject contained in the act of Congress entitled "An act to con-