War of the Rebellion: Serial 124 Page 0246 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.

Search Civil War Official Records

WAR DEPARTMENT,

Washington City, D. C., June 2, 1863

J. B. STONEHOUSE,

Actg. Assistant Adjutant-General, Albany, N. Y.:

The Department will accept the batteries mentioned in your telegram just received. The enlistments to be for three years or during the war.

EDWIN M. STANTON,

Secretary of War.

PROVOST-MARSHAL-GENERAL'S OFFICE,

Washington, D. C., June 2, 1863.

Major A. S. DIVEN,

Actg. Asst. Pro. March General, Western New York, Elmira, N. Y.:

SIR: I am directed by the Provost-Marshal-General to say, in reply to your communication of the 22nd ultimo, that he has read your letter giving him the account of your interview with His Excellency Governor Seymour, and that a camp will probably be established at Elmira.

It is, however, the intention to send drafted men forwarded as rapidly as possible. You will see from the circulares and regulations issued from this office the scope of your duties.

The importance of completing the enrollment is fully appreciated,

and the Provost-Marshal-General looks to you to have it completed with all possible dispatch in the districts under your control. The necessary blanks are sent direct to district provost-marshals.

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

HENRY STONE,

Assistant Adjutant-General.

OFFICE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF UNITED STATES

FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK,

New York, June 2, 1863.

Honorable WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State:

SIR: In reply to the inquiries put to me in my interview with you to-day I have the pleasure to state that the report made by the provost-marshal to the Honorable Secretary of War in relation to the attitude of my office toward the enrolling act is founded upon an entire misapprehension. The records of my office and those of the U. S. commissioner already attest the spirit with which cases of violating this just and necessary law are attended to by me.

It is true that on Saturday last, being interrogated by one of the provost-marshals without reference to any particular case, I gave an abstract and individual opinion that section 25 of the act (being strictly construed under the rule applying to criminal laws) would not reach a mere case of refusing a name, without any misrepresentation and unaccompanied by any word or act. I was not asked and I said nothing as to the consequences of giving false names or other affirmative act. I still think that such a naked refusal would not enable me to obtain a conviction before the courts and juries of New York. As cases are arising where something more can be