impossible to furnish the equivalent named will you accept for him one Henry Voegler, now held at Baltimore? If so please notify me through Captain Mulford.

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

WM. H. LUDLOW,

Lieutenant-Colonel and Agent for Exchange of Prisoners.

MADISON, WIS., January 19, 1863.

Honorable EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War:

I think the record in the habeas corpus cases will answer. We have agreed to argue the motion for writ for error on Friday, the 30th, provided you will authorize General Elliott to parole the prisoners. I recommend you to do so. Please answer at once.

T. O. HOWE.

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, January 19, 1863.

Honorable T. O. HOWE, Madison, Wis.:

General Elliott is authorized to parole the prisoners if you so advise, and to do whatsoever you as counsel of the United States may deem proper to be done upon the subject. Please show him this telegram.

EDWIN M. STANTON,

Secretary of War.

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, January 19, 1863.

Brigadier-General ELLIOTT, Madison, Wis.:

You will please follow the instructions of the Honorable T. O. Howe, special counsel of the United States, in respect to the prisoners in your custody.

EDWIN M. STANTON,

Secretary of War.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S OFFICE, January 19, 1863.

R. J. LACKEY, Esq.,

U. S. Attorney, Western District of Missouri.

SIR: In answer to your letter of the 9th I have no directions to give as to the propriety of prosecuting indictments pending in your court. The Government here have not any settled purposes on the matter of prosecution so as to interfere with my views of prudence and policy in the matter of prosecutions. And I, trusting to the good judgment of the district attorneys, am willing to leave the mater very much to their discretion. They know (what I cannot know) the tone of feeling in their localities, the character and amount of testimony, the sort of juries likely to be had and the likelihood of fair trial and conviction. Still I wish to make to you a few suggestions which perhaps may aid to conclusions of your own judgment. It is not desirable to try many cases of treason. It is a crime hard to prove, being guarded by a variety of legal technic. And even conviction makes the convict all the more a martyr in the eyes of his partisans. In a clear case against a person of eminence, of notoriety, I would be glad to see a conviction for the public effect rather than the punishment of the individual. But it would be unfortunate to be defeated in many such cases. It is far better policy I think when you have the option to prosecute offenders for vulgar felonious and misdemeanors than for romantic and genteel