their efforts and be encouraged in well-doing, while those that have made no effort should be made to do their duty."
I have carefully read your letter to Governor Miller, of Minnesota (to which you refer me); also your letter of the 24th ultimo to Colonel Lovell, acting assistant provost-marshal- general, advising him of the quotas of the several districts of this State and instructing him how to proceed in assigning the quotas of sub-districts, with formula therefor, and must confess that I do not see how such an assignment can be just and equal, or how it can possibly accomplish the result which you so confidently assure me is to be accomplished thereby. I understand from said letters that you propose to equalize the credits due to districts by "considering the number of men heretofore furnished and the periods of service," which of course is a correct and straight-forward proposition to which no one can object, but as I understand the "formula" prescribed for assigning quotas to sub- districts (and at it is generally understood), this most desirable result will not be accomplished. I have nothing to say in regard to the "apparent inequality in quotas" produced by a reduction of credits to years of service of which you speak, but I would respectfully call your attention to the apparent fact that by your formula excesses of credits under former calls, although deducted from the "number of years of service required from sub-districts," are to be counterbalanced by adding such excesses to the absolute quotas under the call for 300,000 men. In short, the State must not only furnish its share of 300,000 men and make up all deficiencies under former calls, but must also furnish a number of years of service in addition thereto equal to the sum total of excesses. I cannot but think that this rule will work great injustice if put in operation, for these districts which have excesses will then be called upon to raise more men than they would if they had no excesses at all or were deficient. I would state further that I have found it very difficult to explain the "apparent inequality in quotas," assigned to the several districts, except upon the theory that sufficient time has not been allowed for the purpose of "thoroughly correcting and revising the enrollment lists." This is especially true of the Sixth District, as is set forth in the accompanying memorial. It is also the case in other districts to a less extent. Another theory is that the names of drafted men who have failed to report have been stricken from the enrollment lists in some districts to a greater extent than in others. It is asserted by many that in this respect the First and Fourth Districts have largely the advantage of other districts. After looking the whole ground over and making all reasonable allowances, I am clearly of opinion that the present assignment of quotas to Wisconsin is unjust and oppressive, and such I feel compelled to say is the deliberate judgment of the people of this State. I therefore respectfully recommend:
First. That the time within which to make corrections of the enrollment be extended to the 15th instant.
Second. That the quota of this State be reassigned upon the basis of such corrected enrollment.
Third. That each district and sub-district be required to make good all deficiencies (if any) under former calls, and be credited with all excesses (if any). In the event that you cannot comply with the above recommendations, I deem it no more than our due that you should give some further explanation of the manner in which our quota has been assigned, and this explanation should be full and