Richmond, July 3, 1862.
Surg. T. H. WILLIAMS,
Medical Inspector, Danville, Va.:
SIR: You are instructed to inform the medical officers within your district who examine recruits that they should not be rejected for trivial defects, but all passed who are capable of bearing arms. A certificate of disability from any medical man is not a sufficient cause for the rejection of a recruit. It is requisite that such certificates should come from a medical officer designated or detailed for their examination.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
S. P. MOORE,
GENERAL ORDERS, WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJT. AND INSP. GENERAL'S OFFICE, No. 47.
Richmond, July 9, 1862.
I. The reception of unnaturalized foreigners as substitutes in the Army is hereby forbidden.
II. Commissioned officers of new companies, battalions, and regiments coming into service will take rank from the date of acceptance in the service of the Confederate States; which date of acceptance will not precede the complete organization of the company, battalion, or regiment, the proof of which will be considered in the act of muster, or of any exercise of authority by the Confederate States over the company, battalion, or regiment.
III. Where companies of the same battalion or regiment enter the service on the same day, the relative rank of the officers of the same grade therein will be determined by lot, except in the case of former commissions in the Confederate service, when the fifth paragraph of the General Regulations of the Army will govern.
IV. The relative rank of commissioned officers of companies, battalions, or regiments, who continue in service by re-election to the same grade in the same corps, will be fixed by the date of their original election or appointment; but those who change their grade or corps by re-election will take rank from the date of such re-election.
By command of the Secretary of War:
Adjutant and Inspector General.
RICHMOND, VA., July 10, 1862.
Governor JOSEPH E. BROWN,
DEAR SIR: I have received your letter of the 21st ultimo and would have contented myself with the simple acknowledgment of its receipt but for one or two matters contained in it which seem to require distinct reply. I deemed it my duty to state my views in relation to the constitutionality of the conscription law for the reasons mentioned in my letter to you, but it was no part of my intention to enter into a protracted discussion. It was convenient to send my views to others than yourself, and for this purpose I caused my letter, together