War of the Rebellion: Serial 125 Page 0115 UNION AUTHORITIES.

Search Civil War Official Records

basis for the assignment of quotas," but I assert, and no one can deny, that no just and equitable basis can be found for the assignment of quotas; and in this war our cause would be lost if all men stood exactly upon the order of their going, and it is injured by any effort or argument to induce them to do so. The Commission states that the inaccuracies of the enrollment were a necessary result under the circumstances, but it fails to show that inaccuracies to an equal or greater extent do not and would not prevail on any other basis. The Commission seems to have disregarded the fact that the sources of error were well known to the officers of this Bureau and that extraordinary pains were taken to remove them, and it condemns the enrollment after arriving at certain results by a comparison of the enrollment of 1863 with certain tables prepared by it from the census of 1860. It is not deemed necessary t discuss at length the results derived from such a comparison. The census of 1860 is no more likely to have been correct throughout the country at the time it was taken than the enrollment is now. In the city of New York it was less likely to have been correct, as especial care was taken there to perfect the enrollment. (See my report of August.) But if the census in 1`860 and the enrollment in 1863 were at those periods equally near correct, it is unreasonable, if not absurd, to suppose that the mutations of three years have not added so much to the inaccuracies of the census of 1860 as to render it at this time more unreliable and unjust as a basis for quotas than the enrol these tables exposes itself to other sources of error which it is not tain number of the males in the census tables between the ages of thirty-five and forty-five were married, and makes calculations upon this assumption to show what the number enrolled in 1863 ought to have been. The first entry in Table A, for example, shows, on the premises assumed as above, that in 1860 there might have been in Connecticut 62,727 men liable to be enrolled in the first class, and that in 1863 we actually enrolled in that class 38,456. I am unable to perceive the force of this mode of proving that the present enrollment in New York is excessive.

To the fifth: If correct, this conclusion of the Commission, in connection with what precedes it, would of course lead to an entire abandonment of the enrollment and all action dependent upon it. I think, however, it has already been shown-certainly the contrary has not been proven-that the enrollment, though imperfect, is as nearly correct as any other basis; and notwithstanding the inability of the Commission to devise any means by which the enrollment can be made "what it should be as a reliable basis," I think there is no doubt whatever about removing many of its material inaccuracies. The Commission is wrong in stating that "the same causes of error and imperfection still exist and are at work and would doubtless produce the same results." The inexperience of the officers and agents does not still exist. One cause of error was the magnitude of the work to be done; what has already been done removes to some extent this cause. A greater cause, which does not still exist, was the ignorance or misapprehension of the people as to the effect of an erroneous enrolment upon those actually and properly enrolled. They now see that justice in the assignment of quotas makes it to their interest to have the lists purged of all names erroneously entered, and fairness among those liable to draft makes it to their interest to have entered the names of all who are liable. It is not