DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, November 25, 1861.
GEORGE BULL, Esq., U. S. Commissioner, Detroit, Mich.
SIR: It is stated that an examination was had before you of one A. Da Costa, now confined at Fort Warren. Will you please send at your earliest convenience to Seth C. Hawley, esq., New York, a copy of all the testimony taken in the case referred to with such other information as you may have relative to Da Costa.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
F. W. SEWARD,
413 BROOME STREET, November 25, 1861.
F. W. SEWARD, Assistant Secretary of State.
SIR: J. K. Millner,* A. E. Smith,* of Virginia, and Charles Kopperl,* of Mississippi, are clients of Honorable William H. Ludlow who has pressed me diligently to report in their cases. But for this I could properly pass them as I shall all of the prisoners deemed to be disloyal now unless there is something special in their cases.
The fourth client of Mr. Ludlow is Mr. William E. Kearney, of Clark County, Ky. He is thirty-eight years old; has a wife and seven children; a farmer and trader; has property. He claims to have voted with the Union party. I should say that this man might with safety be set at liberty but for the fact that he is complicated with some pecuniary conditions cointingent upon his release. This seems to be the fact; and is so there is danger of evil report to arise from it.
I am, very respectfully, yours,
S. C. HAWLY.
HEADQUARTERS, Baltimore, Md., November 25, 1861.
GENERAL: I have received your three dispatches of the 22nd instant, dated at Drummondtown, and am much gratified with the judicious and efficient manner in which you are carrying out my instructions and with the readiness with which the people of Accomac are disposed to accedeto the friendly overtures made to them in my proclamation. All that has been promised should be fully executed, and the most liberal interpretation should be given to its declarations. * * *
There are two or three matters on which you ask my directions:
First. As to the officers of the volunteer force who have been arrested. They were not found in arms as I understand. In that case I think they mayt justly claim the immunities pedged by my proclamation, but in order to become entitled to them they must recognize the authority of the United States. This test we have a right to prescribe, and I know no other than the oath of allegiance required by section 1 of the act of Congress of August 6, 1861, chapter 64, of the first session of the Thirty-seventh Congress. * * * Should they decline to take this oath they cannot be considered as belonging to the classes of persons to whom the benefits of the proclamation are promised. In that cae you will if they were not found in arms release them on their parole of honor to abstain from allacts of hostility to the United
* For these cases see post.