New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1862-07-30

pressing every desire further your views to tho utmost Of
their power the three officers above named scarcely Ia
favor Of the Of nem h0Derer sad s~A
as ga, and Gen Wright e'd oJsse hdt could take aS
The only change made in your first plan o. operations -
lar as :oad see was 70 defer hs movement hanour later
P. DRAYTON Senior Naval Officer
This letter OF the only witness who Is not now .
party 10 the transaction makes it evident that there
YVES no decided or positive objection. Whatever
dubious " lnterrogatories' of Gen. Wright there
may have been, and whatever specific objections of
Cen Stevens to the time Of the assault there were
10 unmistakabie" objections to the proposed attack
itself. None such heard by Capt. Dsayton,
and it may well be that none were heard by Gen.
Ben cam.
Gen. Stevens next attempts to show that he was
not tardy in coming the attack and declares that
the evidence IS ample that the severe loss of his
Brigade occurred between a. and ) o clock. On the
other hand, Gems. Benham and Wright, with the
secoBd column, DID actually wait " more tosn an
hour for the guns which were to summon them to
advance. Frequent surprise was expressed by them
Of the delay OF Gen. Steyens's COLUMN. nave my
self conveIsed with a wounded soldier OF WnShts
Brigade, who confirms the statement, and declares
that they waited an hodr in the woods. but the
most curious thing is that Gen. Stevens himself ad:
ms that<nat in uis original report he acknowIedged
the very delay which he now denies. lin my
official report" he says, have stated that the
sharp conflict was from 5 TO 81 O'Clock. an per.
icI"iy ruslrHt2 tlLis ~ CCCuIIcu DetWCcu 49,
o'clock"
Nothing can be palmer than that this present st-
tempt OF Gen. Stevens to abtedate the hour OF has
attack is mere aiterh0lght. The testimony OF
Generals Benbam and Wright, who, with their
dIyieion, waited an hour more for bis advance,
agrees exactly with biz own original statement Of
the fact Ii ia only since his discovery of his
responsibility for the fatal results Of ,he delay, that
he now comes forward to contradict the other wit
nesses and bic own fret account. That account was
od. vpnila pfrfectly ffpzh
in biz knowledge; it concurs with the account OF
the other generals of the wounded men, and Of the
Retels-and if reliance canoot be placed upon such
concurrent accounts, no confidence can DO reposedm
testimony.
But, again Gen. Stevens maintains that his re9.
meDts were kept well together, and repels every
allegation 70 the contrary. He says: IL has Deen
stated tina. my regiments were not within supporting
distance of each other. This is great mistake.
| They followed each otter closely lnere was not
pause in the movement"
| Now in answer to this assertion, might refer to
the conspicuous facts that the 9Th hchl gan, which
was the leading regiment Of the first brigade OF
Gen. Stevens, was first under fre, and reached me
fort; and that the which came up was the 79th
New-Yerk the leading regiment OF the second
brigade-the intervening two regiments coming up
only later and IN part. Bot WITHOUT reasoning
upon facts which might be questioned, decisive
appeal may sgaln be made 70 the onientI Ies,er OF
Gen. Stevens himself, 10 show that bis advance
party was not supported properly by his remaining
force While on the battlefield, after the repulse,
ard amid the very facts which are now In eontro-
versy Gen. Stevens wrote TO Gen. Benham the
following brief note:
GEN. STEVENS TO GES. BESHAM
GIN BESRAx: My troops withdrawn under cover Of
hedge and Ia toerabe order nSs nunoso
The company mounted the papet but the rapport
I'D A'' ''A'" ISAAC / STEVENS Bris.dierGsnsral
"The supports did not follow closely enough
that was the reason then assigned by Gen. stevens
tor his failure. Ye, now, he turns round and pro-
nounces il "A mistake 10 cav that his regiments We're
not within supporting distance OF each other.
Either Gen. Stevens, when be wrote that dispate9
on the field, knew, personally, its truth, or he had
information Of it from others; and II the atter--if
he relied on others to tell him how his regiments
came TO the attack-the conclusion is obvious tnat
he was not tchere he ought 10 hare teen. He was
not himself under fire, not leading nor directing
BIZ. troops wi hin any such distance as made him
witness Of their order OF advance Had he been
leading bis men, as he ought; bad be himself
brought regiment after regiment TO the assauit ne
would have known, then aud there how they came
up TO the work, aud not have been Obliged 70 rely
upon this Subsequent denial OF his own oinciai ana
written words.
These three are the main allegations of Gen. Ste.
letter. IL Is uot TOO much TO say t6at the letter
Of Commander Drayton di.proyes the frst, and that
the most authentic documents which Gen. Stevens
himself could furnish, utterly disproye the two last
of them. The fact remains that Gen. Benhams Or
der TO "pass the open space IN iEont, and De upon
the fort before good aiming light" was mob obeyed;
and TO that dsobedence due the slaughter OF the
brave men whom Gen. Stevens led or perhaps dd
not rad into battle His own official report con-
vcts him OF being ate his dispatch shows that bis ad.
vance was not supported, and his recent letter proves
that he did not personally know in what condition
HE troops came into the fatal fire which smots them
Under these circumstances, all the contradictions ne
can offer OF bis Official words must fail 10 snIeo
him from responsibility Tor the deporable results. N.
Ne,e- York July le, 1852.