and Alabama, no fear need be entertained that sick and wounded of the Army will suffer for the want of the essential articles of the supply table.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

S. P. MOORE,

Surgeon-General C. S. Army.

[FEBRUARY 9, 1865. -For Northrop to Breckinridge, in response to circular of February 7 (p. 1064), with accompanying documents relating to the Subsistence Department, see Series I, VOL. XLVI, Part II, pp. 1211-1226.]

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, EXECUTIVE OFFICE,

Raleigh, February 9, 1865.

Hon. S. R. MALLORY,

Secretary of the Navy:

SIR: Your communication of the 28th ultimo* has been received, in regard to what you are pleased to term "a question of fact" between yourself and men. I have not the slightest objection to your proposed adherence to the statements made in your former communication. I only desire to be admitted [permitted?] a similar privilege of adhering to my own allegations in regard to the loss of the Advance. Nor do I care to argue the "question of fact" so gravely made upon me, involving only a quibble as to whether coal in the possession of my agent was in my possession. The distinction between that kind of possession which is required to support in indictment for larceny and that required to sustain an action of trespass, vi et armis, might be learnedly descanted upon here, but as you very properly observe in reference to my allusion to the supposed coal on board the Advance, it would be "unnecessary to the determination of the single question of fact. " But though such is my susceptibility to reason, I may be induced to forego an argument on the question of the possession of my agent being my possession. I confess I am not quite ready to admit that the possession of A B, abstractly considered, is not the possession of A B, or that other remarkable proposition that the legal and undisputed possession of an article affords not "the slightest claim" of property. And yet such doctrine I understand you to advance when acknowledging that Power, Low & Co. were part owners of the steamer Advance, that your agents took 169 tons of coal from them, you yet assert "that not one particle of coal was taken from the steamer Advance," nor one pound impressed, to which the State or any of the joint owners of that steamer had the slightest claim. Now, in the name of Blackstone, Coke, and all the lawyers at once, from Moses to Captain Pinkney, who did have any claim to that coowner?

But really, my dear sir, I think this correspondence had better close, and leave the public and the proper committee in Congress to determine the question between us. If the taking from my agent of coals collected by him for the use of my vessel and his did not justify me in my statements to the Legislature, then I am content they should

---------------

*See VOL. XLVI, Part III, p. 1156.

---------------