could have been no legal alteration of the enrollment until this amendment of the law. This amendment authorized certain specified amendments to the enrollment already taken, to wit, the striking off the names of persons improperly enrolled, persons who had become forty-five since the enrollment, and persons in the service, and adding to the rolls persons omitted in the enrollment, and persons who had been discharged the service since the enrollment and who had served less than two years. I believe this is all the alterations authorized by the amendment. I think in your desire to meet the complaints of the different localities, as to the injustice of the original enrollment, you went further than the law contemplated. You allowed not only the additions and deductions provided, but you authorized the examination of and the striking from the rolls persons physically disqualified for service, when I think the law intended that such persons should be borne on the rolls, forming a basis for quotas, as I have before stated, adn should only be examined and excused after draft. I can see no authority in law for excusing them before draft. It cannot be under the clause to strike off those improperly enrolled, for, in my view of the law, they were properly enrolled. I think more injustice is done by this departure from the law than in adhering to it, as the districts most industrious or most conveniently situated for getting their exempts examined and stricken from the roll succeeded best in reducing their quotas. I know, however, this course was urged upon you, and yielded to, in hope to cure the complaint of imperfect enrollment. One great difficulty is, that as these alterations are constantly going on there is no stability in the quota. Two districts may have at one draft equal quotas assigned; one may fill its quota in full, and the other but half; at the next draft the district that filled its quota may find that it has a larger number assigned to it than the one that but half filled its quota on the former call. The district that was delinquent in getting recruits has been diligent in getting its disqualified inhabitants off of the rolls, and thus reducing its quota.

The amended act referred to, if I remember right, provided for crediting all prior enlistments in ch the naval recruits resided.

As all these recruits had gone to the principal ports to enlist, and in this STate to the city of New York, where, I believe, was the only recruiting station for the State, and as the enlistment papers would show the enlistments to have been made in the city, it claimed all the credits. Of course this claim was eminently unjust, but as there was nothing before you to show where these men did reside, and claim had not been presented for their credit from other districts, you were justified in so crediting them. But when the real residence of these recruits was made to appear and they were claimed by the districts where they had their residence, it would have been a disregard of law and justice for you not to have taken the credits from the city of New York and given them to the district where the recruits actually resided. After all the corrections of this kind are made that can be made, New York City will be still favored more than other localities by naval enlistments, by securing credit for all such as do not have their residence shown and all foreigners enlisting in the city. In filling the last call for troops the city of New York made the most of naval enlistments. Persons wanting to enlist in the Navy had to come to the city to enlist, and it is a fact known to me that supervisors