HEADQUARTERS DISTRICT OF MISSOURI,
Saint Louis, June 17, 1862.

Colonel JOHN C. KELTON,

Assistant Adjutant-General, Department of the Mississippi.

COLONEL: I desire respectfully to ask the attention of the major-general commanding to what seems to me an abuse of the proper office of provost-marshal in this State and in Arkansas. I quote from a letter just received from Major-General Curtis to justify the application of my remark to his district as well as to my own. He says:

The creation of the so-called provost-marshal invented a spurious military officer which has embarrassed the service by including an extra wheel in a well-regulated machine. They have no right to do these things derived from me, but a usage seems to have obtained. Every body appoints provost-marshals and these officers seem to exercise plenary powers.

These remarks were in answer to a letter which I addressed to General Curtis calling his attention to the fact that many well-known rebels are returning to Missouri form Arkansas bearing certificates from unknown provost-marshals that they have taken the oath and claiming protection, while all experience shows that unless bound by something stronger that their oath their loyalty is apt to be of short duration.

The provost-marshal's department as it now exists is entirely independent of all commanders except the commander of the department, and hence of necessity pretty much independent of him. The local provost-marshals are appointed by the provost-marshal-general, or by any local commander and approved by the provost-marshal-general. They get all their instructions from him if they get any at all; make all their reports to him if they any at all, and are responsible only to him and the department commander for the manner in which their duty is discharged. The custody and control of all prisoners not disposed of by orders from department headquarters is given to the provost-marshal-general and through him to his subordinates. Their discretion is to decide all questions as to the release, parole or other disposition of all prisoners. The officer commanding a district who is responsible to general commanding the department for the condition of his district has nothing whatever to do with the disposition of prisoners captured by his troops, although at the present time in Missouri this is the most important question involving its future peace.

It appears to me that a district commander should have the power to appoint all the provost-marshals in his district; that they should act under his instructions and be responsible to him for the discharge of their duty; that he should also have if he deems it necessary a provost-marshal-general of his district acting under his orders and directly responsible to him, and that he should decide what prisoners taken in his district are to be released and on what terms; what are to be tried by military commission; what turned over to the civil authorities, and what turned over to the provost-marshal of the department to be held as prisoners of war or as convicts under sentence. With this authority a district commander will be able to carry out the general instructions of his commanding general and be properly responsible for those things that are left to his discretion. As it is now he can adopt no policy nor carry out that established by the department commander. He cannot even decide a particular case quite within the jurisdiction of a lieutenant of his command or even a civilian who happens to be styled provost-marshal.

I have expressed my views thus freely on this subject from the belief that the major-general commanding having much more weighty mat-