State without the authority of the Government of the United States being first obtained. And this deponent further saith that he has important business which requires his attendance in the city of New York; and this deponent further saith that he has faithfully observed the conditions on which his release from Fort Lafayette was formerly granted, and that there is no truth in the allegations which he understands have been made against him. And further this deponent saith not.
And this deponent further saith that he has not received any communication from the South since his said release except a letter from Reuben Ragland, of Petersburg, Va., some time in the middle of December last, which letter as deponent was informed came by the way of Norfolk under a flag of truce and was examined, as its indorsement stated, by - Davis, provost-marshal, which letter is now in the possession of the U. S. authorities, the same having been taken from this deponent at the time of his arrest. And further saith not.
JNO G. GUTHREY.
Sworn before me this 13th day of January, 1862, at Fort Lafayette, I being a commissioned officer in the U. S. Army, and recourse cannot be had to any officer named in 925th article of the Army Regulations of 1857 and 1031 of regulations of 1861 prior to a commissined officer.
CHAS. O. WOOD,
First Lieutenant, Ninth Infantry, Commanding Post.
NEW YORK, February 11, 1862.
Honorable FREDERICK W. SEWARD, Assistant Secretary of State.
DEAR SIR: It is now some two weeks since I had an interview with you relative to the release of John G. Guthrey now in confinement at Fort Lafayette. If no report has yet been made to the Department in his case may I request that action may be had as soon as consistent with the public interest, as I am convinced that Mr. Guthrey is unjustly deprived of his liberty.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
NEW YORK, February 12, 1862.
F. W. SEWARD, Assistant Secretary of State.
SIR: In pursuance of your order I have re-examined the case of J. Garnett Guthrey and had an interview with him in Fort Lafayette. I am satisfied that he did not break or attempt to break his former parole. The evidence adduced against him on that point was from a tainted source and narrated an attempt by interested parties to induce him to commit himself, which attempt was unsuccessful. Mr. Guthrey is an honest man in everything except his political fidelity. On that head he is a Virginia abstractionist whose prayers are always against the Government. Until his funds that have been libeled are released or confiscated he can be trusted on parole. My belief is that he will keep the conditions faithfully and that he ought to be offered his release on the former conditions. He says to me that he would as soon remain in the fort but if offered the choice I think he will accept liberty.
I have been a little embarrassed in his case by the following circumstance, which has delayed my conclusion in his case, to wit: On Friday,