strong hopes Kentucky will remain in the Union, and the most favorable feature of the whole matter is that the Union men are now ready to abandon the position of armed neutrality, and enter heart and soul into the contest on our side." Buckner had not yet joined the Confederacy, but meanwhile held close relations with Governor Magoffin, whose military representative and adviser he was throughout this trying summer. In fact, as I have said, Buckner was the chief figure, and was very busy in those days with his coadjutors in maintaining | the efficacious neutrality arrangement,worth more than an army of Kentuckians to the Confederacy,-and perhaps fomenting opposition to the government. In furtherance of his purposes, whatever they were, he sought an interview with McClellan through Samuel Gill, a brother West Point graduate. As there could be no reasonable objection to the proposal, McClellan received Buckner and his friend. In an official letter to the War Department, dated June 11, he states that the meeting took place at his house in Cincinnati, on June 8, and this is what he says of it: "We sat up all night, talking about matters of common interest. Buckner gave me his word that should any Tennessee troops cross the frontier of Kentucky he would use all the force at his disposal to drive them out, and failing in that, would call on me for assistance. He went to Tennessee after leaving here to present that view to Governor Harris." It is to be noted that in this letter McClellan makes no allusion to any pledges to Buckner in return for this assurance. Only a few days after this meeting, however, McClellan had news that at least two Tennessee regiments had orders, or were already moving, to occupy Island No. 1, just below Cairo, and on June 11, the same day he informed the Department of the meeting at Cincinnati, he wrote promptly to both Magoffin and Buckner to notify them of this breach of "our understanding that you would not permit Tennessee troops to cross your frontier." Did "our understanding," then, simply mean Buckner's voluntary promise? Either the rumor of the Confederate advance was a false one, or McClel lan's protest had the desired effect, for no invasion then occurred. Buckner's answer, if one was made, is not found among the official archives. Subsequent events attached to this Cincinnati meeting of Buckner and McClellan an unexpected interest and importance. It is evident that the Kentuckian was acting in good faith in the belief that he had a solemn agreement with the Union general that the State's neutrality was to be respected. At a later meeting of the two at Cairo, Illinois, he gave McClellan the substance of an interview he had at Memphis, with Pillow, regarding the subject of neutrality. It is certain that he visited Pillow, and it was generally understood that through Buckner's representations an immediate advance by the Southern forces into Kentucky was prevented. It would seem to be improbable on the face of it that Buckner volunteered his word of honor, as the representative of Magoffin and the rampant secessionists of Kentucky, to keep out Pillow's Tennesseeans without receiving from the Union commander some pledge in return to carry back to them some corresponding concession. That McClellan fully understood Buckner to be clothed with the necessary power or influence to prevent Pillow's advance is admitted in his protest of June 11, which in some sort also confirms the probability of a mutual agreement wherein it alludes to "our understanding," although, of course, there may have been a jug-handle arrangement in which Buckner promised everything and McClellan nothing, Buckner being confident meanwhile that under existing conditions the Federals would commit no overt act, anyhow. But, inasmuch as there was then and for long afterwards no advance of the Union troops, McClellan's quick and curt protest at a threatened infringement of "our understanding" by the other side certainly warrants the belief, aside from Buckner's statement, that some comforting assurances were given him. Buckner, it is clear, could have no object in deluding his party. What gave the Cincinnati interview peculiar significance was the appearance in the public press a few weeks later of a letter from Buckner to Magoffin, stating | that he had entered into a specific agreement with McClellan at the Cincinnati conference that Kentucky's neutrality was to be maintained by both sides. Hence, that Buckner, who McClellan himself states was the soul of honor, believed there was such an understanding is beyond the shadow of doubt. That there was a very general understanding that such stipulations existed is also certain. There is, in fact, no dispute that there was on the part of the Federal authorities, or its Western commanders, at least a tacit recognition of Kentucky's neutrality, lasting through several months. However its expediency may have been viewed in the beginning, it soon became palpable that the continuance of Kentucky's attitude of neutrality would estop if not prove entirely fatal to Union designs for the suppression of the Rebellion. This neutral zone, if maintained inviolable, raised an impassable barrier between the North and the most vulnerable points of the new Confederacy absolutely closed up the most available routes of invasion. It was a most absurd arrangement, if carried beyond a mere makeshift to soothe the people of Kentucky. All the advantages of such an arrangement accrued to the South, which merely asked to be let alone; the Confederates had no purpose to invade the North. Buckner's penetrating mind divined this, and no doubt that is why he entered the field of diplomacy and sought the conference with McClellan. If he really made a deal with the Union general, he clearly had the best of the bargain. McClellan positively denied the existence of any pledge on his part to respect the neutrality of Kentucky. The publication of Buckner's letter to Magoffin threw him into a great heat, and his utterances display anxiety, because it was clear that he had taken a false step, which must be condemned by the Northern public. In his personal memoirs, issued in 1887, he takes pains to explain in detail his version of the Buckner interview. He says, "The object of the interview was simply that we, as old friends, should compare views and see if we could do any good; thus I understood it. Buckner's main purpose seemed to be to ascertain what I should do in the event that Kentucky should be invaded by the secession forces, then collecting under General Pillow. Buckner was very anxious that the Federal forces should respect the neutrality of Kentucky, and stated that he would do his best to preserve it, and drive Pillow out should he cross the boundary line. I could assent to this only to the extent that I should be satisfied if the Kentuckians would immediately drive out any rebel force that might invade Kentucky, and continued, almost in these very words: 'You had better be very quick about it, Simon, for if I learn that the rebels are in Kentucky, I will, with or without orders, drive them out without delay.' I expressly told Buckner that I had no power to guarantee the neutrality of Kentucky, and that, although my command did not extend over it, I would not tolerate the presence of rebel troops in that State. Not many days afterwards I met Buckner again at Cairo, and had a conversation with him in presence of John M. Douglass, of Chicago. Buckner had just then returned from a visit to Pillow, and he clearly showed by his conversation that he understood my determination at the first interview, just as I have related it above. . . . Buckner's letter to Governor Magoffin, subsequently published, stating that in our first interview I had agreed to respect the neutrality of Kentucky, gave an incorrect account of the case, which was as I have stated it." This is certainly explicit and clear enough, and undoubtedly recites the facts as McClellan remembered them, but as it was written twenty-six years after the event, it is possible he may have forgotten some of the details of his conversation with Buckner. McClellan's correspondence at this period makes it probable that he was called to book by General Scott or President Lincoln about this matter, though no letter or telegram on the subject from the Washington end of the line is found. But on June 26, after he had entered upon his brilliant West Virginia campaign, McClellan sent a long telegram to Scott from Grafton, in which he shows great anxiety to explain satisfactorily to his superior his relations with Buckner. "This transaction," said McClellan, "has surprised me beyond expression. My chief fear has been that you, whom I regard as my strongest friend in Washington, might have supposed me to be guilty of the extreme of folly." This telegram was supplemented by a letter on the same day, which is introduced in full, embodying, as it does, the substance of both, and covering the whole case: "GRAFTON, VIRGINIA, June 26, 1861. "LIEUTENANT-GENERAL WINFIELD SCOTT, commanding U. S. Army, Washington, D. C.: - "GENERAL, I have telegraphed you rather at length in relation to General Buckner's letter referring to our interview at Cincinnati on the 8th of June. In justice to myself I deem it necessary to explain the matter to you more fully. General Buckner several times wrote and telegraphed to me as an old friend, requesting an interview, which I avoided until I received a telegram from Gill, a true Union man, strongly urging an interview. Hoping that my influence over Buckner might possibly reclaim him, I reluctantly granted the request, and informed him that I would be at my house in Cincinnati on the evening of the 8th inst. Buckner and Gill came there at about ten P.M., and I remained in conversation with them until five o'clock the next morning. "From the beginning I regarded the interview as altogether a personal one, having no official bearing or significance. We discussed the state of affairs freely, and I expressed my views plainly and emphatically, telling him frankly the policy I had pursued and intended to pursue, but stating at the same time that I had no orders in the case, and that I might at any moment either receive orders from Washington or that circumstances might render it incumbent upon me, in the absence of orders, to change my policy. We differed entirely as to the position Kentucky should assume in the present controversy. He regarded the State as the most loyal one in the Union. I considered his view of the status of Kentucky as inconsistent with true loyalty. "In the course of the conversation Buckner voluntarily proffered me his word of honor that he would use all his influence to have Kentucky troops drive out any Confederate forces that might invade the State, and that if he did not possess the necessary power he would take steps to have me called on for assistance. To this I replied that the State authorities must be prompt in their call else they would find me there before it, as I would not stand on ceremony in such a case. "This, general, is substantially the gist of the interview. I made no stipulations with Buckner, neither did I directly or by implication recognize the neutrality of Kentucky. I expressed frankly my views, and enunciated the policy which would probably govern me in my action, but from all that transpired there was nothing that could justify him in writing such a letter as has appeared in the public press. Recognizing as I do his character for veracity, I am constrained to think that the letter was written for him by some unscrupulous secession Confederate, and that he did not understand the true im port and design of the letter. "I am, general, with great respect, "Your obedient servant, "GEORGE B. MCCLELLAN, "Major-General, commanding De partment." This contemporaneous letter is entitled to great consideration in summing up the misunderstanding of these two old friends, both truthful men, concerning "our understanding" at Cincinnati. One thing is made clear by it,-McClellan's "policy" at the time Buckner visited him was, and had been, a policy of strict neutrality towards Kentucky. It is not unlikely that, during a long night's conversation, without entering into any specific agreement, McClellan gave Buckner the impression that that policy of neutrality should continue if the status quo was maintained, and he received no orders to the contrary from Washington. All the circumstances lend probability to this view. LESLIE J. PERRY. ANNUAL REPORT 7,652,022 VIALS SOLD PROF. J. M. MUNYON, Founder of the new school of Homœopathy. IN THE UNITED STATES 468,317 Patients Treated in his 20 Medical Institutions. 41,623 Treated by Mail. 762,119 Vials Distributed Free. 267,911 Persons Voluntarily Testify to Having Been Cured. 110,419 Vials Shipped to Foreign Countries. 36,522 Druggists Sell These Remedies. 96,474 Families Purchased his Medicine Chests and Became Their Own Doctors. 12,176 Patients Treated on the Static Machines for Paralysis and Nervous Troubles. 9,932 Treated in the Life Chambers for Catarrh, Throat and Lung Troubles. This is without doubt the most phenomenal success in the sale of medicines and curing of diseases ever known. Physicians of all schools and in all sections of the country are now prescribing Munyon's Improved Homœopathic Remedies. Thousands of mothers throughout the United States and Canada are using these Remedies, and have thus been enabled to become the family doctor. These Remedies are absolutely harmless, so labeled there can be no mistake, and relieve almost immediately. Munyon has medical institutions in all the principal cities of the country, where eminent doctors are ready to serve you absolutely free of charge. The doors of his institutions are open to the public. Make use of them whenever you have an ache or a pain. ALL ARE WELCOME A Separate Cure for Each Disease. At all Druggists. 25 Cents a Vial. TREATMENT BY MAIL.-If unable to call at one of our offices, write Prof. Munyon for advice which is absolutely free. The most obstinate cases successfully treated through correspondence. All communications answered in strictest confidence. Send for Guide to Health free. FREE TRIAL TREATMENT AT ANY OF OUR OFFICES. MUNYON'S HOMOEOPATHIC HOME REMEDY CO. From this building The Prudential makes payment every working day of about 150 claims, aggregating $14,000, or between $4,000,000 and $5,000,000 per annum. The Prudential has paid, up to date, over $23,000,000, distributed to about 250,000 families, and thereby benefiting more than 1,250,000 people. The Prudential offers, through Assets of $15,780,000,Surplus of $3,300,000, and Annual Income of $12,500,000, ample security for fulfilment of contracts, good from start to finish. Life Insurance for Children, Women and Men. Ages, 1 to 70. Amounts, $15 to $50,000. The Prudential Insurance John F. Dryden, President Home Office: Newark, N. J. THE HOME OFFICE OF The Prudential Largest Office Building in the State of New Jersey From it are directed the operations of the thousands of agents who, in twenty states and the district of Columbia, collect the weekly premiums on 2,400,000 policies in force in the Industrial and Ordinary Branches. It houses a clerical force of nearly 600 persons engaged in keeping record of The Prudential's business, which comprises over $300,000,000 of Life Insurance |