inforom myself as to the character of Mr. Cable, and will endeavor to give all the information to you about him that you desire. " July 11 General Winder, in answer to your letter of 6th of July, again informs you that the examination by staff officer had not been made.

"I presume the momentous events transpiring about Richmond have prevented it. I have taken some pains to inform myself about Mr. Cable and am satisfied that he would be a danrmit to go at large. I could not recommend that he be paroled. " July 23 General Winder informed you that Cable "died a few days ago. "

The above is, I believe, a sufficient statement of the facts. From them it appears that one of my "acts" from which you "judge" that I "preferred Lincoln to McClellan" was "my action" as above explained, in regard to a Yankee prisoner who died on the 16th of July, six weeks beforoe McClellan was nominated as a candidate, six weeks before the platform of the Chicagoo Convention was framed, six weeks before anybody knew what candidate it would select or what principles it would announce. I make no comment on this.

But I cannot leave this point without remarking on the extraordinary inferences you are pleased to draw from what I omitted to osay in my letter to you of the 19th of April, and the still more singular omission to draw the natural inference from what I did say. The "two things that struck you strange" were that I-

said not one word either approving or disapproving on the subject of the propriety of having the conference he (Cable) sought, or the nature or character of the assurance that should be given h im on his being permitted to visit me. Not a word was said on the policy indicated in my letter of our aiding and encouraging as far as possible in bringing into power at the North a party upon the principles stated in my letter. Your views upon this subject I had requested in view of the probable conference. The other thing in the letter that struck me as strange was that you should have thought that any staff officer was more suitable or competent to make an investigation into the truth of the prisoner's statements than the second officer in the Government.

To the first of the 'strange things" I will presently give answer. As to the second, it scarcely seems possible that you should take umbrage at my not assigning to you a duty which was the appropriate function of a subordinate officer of the inspection service. You wrote to me that "If Mr. Cable's statement be true (which might be easily ascertained), it would be proper to grant him a parole until he can be exchanged. " You further said, "If he shall be paroled, and it meets your approval, I will invite him to my house and confer with him," &c. It was plain that you did not know the man, and therefore suggested that the truth of his statements should be ascertained before he was paroled, and that he should visit you for conference after he was paroled. If you had intimated any willingness to go to the prison and ascertain the truth for yourself, you might have been assured by the readiness with which I accepted your proposal to visit Mr. Lincoln that I could have had no possible objection; nor can I suppose that you deem a permission from me necessary to authorize you to visit any Yankee prisoner at his prison. You certainly did not, from your letter, contemplate that I should do so imprudent a thing as to parole this man to go at largtion into ohis character was had, nor did youo ask to see him before his parole was granted. This 'strange thing" that you found in my letter of the 19th of April is as unintelligible to me now as it ever could have appeared strange to you.

What I did say was, "It so often has happened that prisoners make representations which do not accord with the facts, and it seemed too