E 509 .U5 Copy 1 ^ST Congress, I SENATE. J Document 1 1st Session. \ { No. 142. y <; h " DRAFTS IX KENTUCKY DURING CIVIL WAR. LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF WAR, TRANSMITTING, IN RESPONSE TO SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 63, BY MR. BRADLEY, OF JULY 2, 1909, A LETTER FROM THE ADJUTANT-GENERAL OF THE ARMY SETTING FORTH SUCH INFORMATION AS IT IS POS- SIBLE TO FURNISH CONCERNING THE DRAFTS IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY DURING THE CIVIL WAR. July 26, 1909. — Referred to the Committee on .Military Aftair.^^ and ordered to be printed . War Department, Wasliington, July 23, 1909. Sir. Referring to Senate resolution dated July 2 instant, directing the Secretary of War — to report to the Senate a full history of the drafts in the State of Kentucky during the civil war, with a statement of facts and orders relating thereto, and showing the number of men actually credited to the State and to each county of the State at the time of the drafts, and the number of men with which each county should have been credited if a proper distribution of credits had been made before the drafts were ordered or put into execution; and the number of men drafted who furnished sub- stitutes or paid commutation money from each t-ounty of the State, and such other information concerning quotas and credits as to clearly show the number of citizens of Kentucky drafted in 1864 who would not have been drafted had the redistribution of credits as ordered in April, 1864, been made prior to said drafts — I have the honor to transmit herewith a letter from The Adjutant- General of the Army, dated July 21 instant, submitting a tabulated statement setting forth such information as it is possible to furnish from the official records in the War De])artment concerning — (1) ''The number of men actually credited to the State and to each county of the State" in the six districts in which drafts were held in Kentucky in 1864 under the call of March 14; (2) The number of men with which each count}- in which there was a draft under the first call "should have been credited if a proper t:\ m II. DRAFTS IN KENTUCKY DURING CIVIL WAR. 3 number of men to be raised from each district. This designation or apportionment was always made, as far as possible, according to population, and to facilitate the apportionment each district was divided into subdistricts, which, in sparsely settled communities, were sometimes composed of a number of counties. In designating the num.ber of men to be raised in any particular district or subdistrict, credit was always given to such district and subdistrict for men furnished under prior calls. In making these apportionments the numbers of voluntary enlistments and reenlistments, as well as the number of drafted men held to service, were always taken into considera- tion with a view to equalize the number of men thereafter to be furnished. Credit was given to districts and subdistricts for men furnished by them, and the numbers of men so furnished were familiarly known as "credits." On March 1, 18()4, the adjutant-general of the State. of Kentucky suggested a redis- tribution of the credits of that State on the ground that due credit for men previously raised had not been properly given to the various communities of the State. The military authorities of the United States, who had oversight of the matter and who always kept a careful account of men raised in various districts and subdistricts, in^•estigated the matter of credits allowed in the State of Kentucky, and, as a result of the investigation, ordered April 12, 1864, that a readjustment be made of the credits of the various subdistricts of the State in order that each locality might have proper credit for men previously furnished. The redistribution of credits did not affect in any way the total number of men to the credit of the State as a whole, or to the credit of any district in the State, and at no time did the State or any district thereof have any excess of credits. The redistribution did, however, make a change in credits in the subdistricts, including nearly every county in the State. Some counties were found tti have furnished more than their legal quota of men, while other counties were shown to have been deficient in this respect. For instance, the credits of Pendleton County were increased under this redistribution from 550 to 948. So that if the county had furnished all the men that it had been called upon to furnish (which was called its quota) previously to the redistribution it would have furnished 398 men more than what was considered on April 12, 1864, as its just share. As stated abo.ve, the redis- tribution was ordered on April 12, 1864, but it does not appear that it was actually made until (m or about July 21, IS64, on which date it was ascertained that Pendleton County had previously furnished a surplus of 354 men. On March 14, 1864, the call of the President for 200,000 men for the military service was issued and in order to furnish its jjroportionate number of men it was necessary, as the quotas and credits were then recorded, to resort to draft in Pendleton and other counties of the State of Kentucky, the number of men drafted from each c-ounty being determined by the assignment under such call, taking into consideration the credits to which the various counties were entitled for men previously furnished. The draft under this call was made in the \arious districts of the State from May 10 to July 27, 1864, and as the redistribution ordered by the military authorities April 12, 1864, was not actually made until on or about July 21, 1864, credit was given to the various counties of the State for men furnished as shown by the record of credits prior to the redistribution of credits. It thus resulted that in Pendleton County, for instance, some 219 men were drafted prior to July 21, 1864, under the call of March 14, 1864, who would not have been drafted had the redistribution ordered April 12, 1864, been carried into effect prior to the draft; and similar conditions existed in some other counties of the State. On the other hand, had the redistribution of credits been made prior to the draft it would have been necessary in many of the counties of Kentucky to have drafted a much larger number of men than was actually drafted under the call in question. There were two drafts in Kentucky in 1864, one under the call of March 14, 1864, and the other under the call of July 18, 1864. There has never been any question whatever as to the legality of the draft in any part of Kentucky under the second call, which was held subsequently to September 5, 1864, but numerous claims were made to this department under the provisions of the acts of Congress approved February 28, 1867 (14 Stat. L., 417), and March 1, 1869 (15 Stat. L., 282), by persons drafted in Ken- tucky under the call of March 14, 1864, for reimbursement of moneys paid by them for substitutes or as commutation money to secure discharge from obligation to render personal service. The basis of the claims is the contention that at the dates when they were drafted under the call of March 14, 1864, the quota of the county from which they were drafted was full and complete and that they were not, therefore, legally subject to draft. Or, in other words, it was contended that all men drafted in Ken- tucky under the call of March 14, 1864, in counties to which the credits they were found to be entitled to under the redistribution mentioned above had not been given were illegally drafted, because had such credits been given prior t , the draft there would have been no draft at nil in mauv of the counties of the State. 4 DRAFTS IX KENTUCKY DURING CIVIL WAR. In crediting troops, the ^^'ar Department stood prepared to credit States with any deficiency chiimed, upon the ])roduclion of satisfactory evidence that the numbers credited failed to do justice. In case of the allowance of any deficiency found, cr<'dit was duly given, but such credit was never applied to relieve men furnished prior to the date of the allowances, but did relieve the locality concerned on future calls. Moreover, credits were never viewed as passed and finally allowed until they had been actually distributed and assigned by the proper district officers. A different arrange- ment would have allowed a drafted man to claim discharge at any lime after entry into servi<'e, on the ground that subsequently to his draft it had been ascertained that at the date thereof his locality was exempt by virtue of its quota being full. Claims for reimbursement of the character mentioned were invariably rejected by the department on the ground that the redistribution of credits was not retroactive in its effect and in no way changed the status of men who had been ]ireviousIy drafted, such credits serving merely to relieve the county or district under future calls. It seems to be clear fi'om the foregoing that the only men drafted in Kentucky in 1864 who have any equitable claim for relief whatever are those men who were drafted under the first call in counties in which there was an excess of credits over quotas as a result of the readjustment of credits ordered April 12, 1864. Such conditions existed in the following-named comities only: (Jrittenden, Ohio, Grayson, Butler, Green, Adair, Taylor, Case^^ Jefferson, Pendleton, Grant, Mercer, and Lincoln. None of the men drafted in any of those counties between May 10 and July 27, 1864, would have been drafted had the redistribution of credits ordered April 12, 1864, been promptly made; but such redistribution did not affect in any way the draft of men in other counties of the State between those dates or the draft of men in any of the counties under the second call, which was held after Se]jtember 5, 1864. John H. Marshall, referred to in the petition herewith, was drafted in Pendleton County, Ky., June 6, 1864, and consequently would not have been drafted had the readjustment of credits been made before the draft; but John Clements, on the other hand, was drafted under the call of July 18, 1864, aftei- the I'eadjustment of credits was made, and in Owen County, wdiich was largely deficient in credits both before and after the readjustment. And it has been observed that many other calls for information in Kentucky drafted cases pertain to men who were drafted in counties in which the status of men drafted was not affected in any way by the redistribution of credits and that many other calls for information in cases of this character pertain to men who were drafted under the second call, after the redistribution of credits was actually made. As pointed out above, however, there appears to be no basis what- ever for such claims, and if this view of the case is correct it would seem that there is no necessity for furnishing any information from the records of this department pertaining to the draft or release of men who allege draft in comities of the State other than those 13 counties specifically set forth above, or relating to men who are known to have been drafted after September 5. 1^64. This department desu'es to receive an expression of your views with respect to this phase of the matter in order that there may be a mutual understanding concerning the furnishing of information from the records of the department in this class of cases. Very respectfully, F. C. AiNSWORTH, TJk' Adjutant-Gencml. Hon. J. A. Van Orsuel. Assistant Attorney-Gmcral, Departinrnt of Jnstkc. As set fortli in the letter above quoted, there were two (h-afts hehl in the State of Kentucky in tlie year 1864 — one under tlu^ call of March 14, 1864, and the other under the call of Jtily 18, 1864 — and in some localities it was necessary to resort to supplemental drafts in order to raise the number of men re{}uired. There was no (h"aft under the call of ^tlarch 14, 1864, in any county of the third, eio:Jith, or ninth districts of Kentucky. There is inclosed lierewitli a tabulated state- ment (Xo. 1 ) which sets forth such information as it is possible to furt;ish from the official records in the War Department concerning (1) "the number of men actually credited to the State and to each county of the State" in the six (listricts in which drafts were held in Kentucky ii.' 1864 under the call of March 14, 1864; (2) the number of men with \ liich each ccumty in which there was a draft luuler the first call "should have been credited if a proj)er distribution of credits DRAFTS IX KENTUCKY DURINC4 CIVII, WAR. 5 had been made" before the draft under the call of March 14. 1864, was ordered or put into execution; and (3) information concerning- quotas and credits showing "the number of citizens of Kentuckv drafted in 1864 who would not have been drafted had the redistribu- tion of credits, as ordered in April, 1864, been made prior to said drafts." Owing to the method employeil in keeping records of quotas, credits, and drafts pertaining to the State of Kentucky in 1864, and to the incompleteness of these records, it is impossible to furnish reliable data concerning quotas and credits of Kentucky at the time of the draft held in that State under the call of July 18, 1864, which occurred in different counties after September 19, i864, but a tabu- lated statement (No. 2) showing Kentucky quotas and credits on August 31, 1864, which is the nearest date preceding the commence- ment of the draft untler the call of July 18, 1864, concerning which pertinent infornuition can be given, is also inclosed herewith. It is also impossible, because of the incompleteness of the records and of the method employed in keeping them, to furnish a statement showing "the number of men drafted who furnished substitutes or paid commutation money from each county of the State," but it is shown by the records that in the State, as a whole, 9,186 men were drafted under the call of March 14, 1864; that of this number, in order to fill the quota of the State, 421 were held to personal service, 531 furnished substitutes, and 3,241 paid comuuitation money; that 16,805 men were drafted in the State under the call of July 18, 1864, ami that of this number, in order to fill the state quota, 1 ,439 were held to personal service, 1,981 furnished substitutes, and 24 paid comnuita- tion money. These numbers are taken from the final report of tlie Provost-Marshal-General, but the draft registers show a different total of men drafted under the call of March 14, 1864, as indicated by Table No. 1, herewith. The facts set forth in the letter of August 1, 1907, quoted herein- before, were furnished the Department of Justice, not upon the call of that department nor upon the request of the Court of Claims, but in order that the conditions which existed at the time with regard to the drafts in question miglit be thoroughly understood by that clejiartment and that court and by all persons in interest and in order that this presentation of facts might serve as an aid in pass- ing upon the large number of individual claims that had been pre- sented to that court. The Vfar Department has always promptly furnished to the Department of Justice and to the Court of Claims, upon request therefor, all the pertinent information afforded by the official records concerning the drafts in question, and has always promptly responded to any such request for infoimation of that cliar- acter. No complaint or even intimation has ever reached the War De- partment from the De])artment of Justice or the Court of Claims to the effect that either is dissatisfied with reports rendered in these cases, or that either desires any of the data called for in the accom- panying Senate resolution, or that either desires more infoimation, obtainable from the War Department records, than the department has already furnished or is ready and willing to furni^^i upon call therefor. In this connection attention is invited to tht following copy of a lettei' that was addressed to the War Dej)artment on < I 6 DRAFTS IN KENTUCKY DURING CIVIL WAR. August 7, 19G7, by Hon. J. A. Van Orsdel, then Assistant Attorney- General, in response to the ck:)sing paragrapli of the letter addressed to him by the department on August 1, 1907: Department ok Justice, Washington, August 7, 1907. Siii: III reply to a report from The Adjutant-General, dated August 1, 1907, in the case of J. W. Clements v. U. S., No. 11917 — Sub. 11, and a report from The Adjutanr General, dated August 6, 1907, in the cases of Sophia Birdsoiig, a widow of William Birdsong, deceased. Congressional No. 11907 — Sub A, and A. J. Musselman, Congres- sional No. 11,908 — Sub. C, relating to the status of Kentucky drafted men under the calls of March 14, 1864, and July 18. 1864, and to the status of the claimants in par- ticular, I would say that motions to dismiss have l^een made in the above-entitled cases, upon the ground that the quota of the counties in Kentticky from which the claimants were drafted were not full at the time the drafts were made, and that the whole matter of the liability of the United States for drafts made tinder the calls of March 14 and July 18, 1864, will be brotight to the attention of the court. In the meantime, it would appear useless for your department to furnish reports in cases where the claimants were drafted under the call of March 14, 1864, in any of the counties other than the thirteen specified in the report first referred to. or in any of the cases where the claimants were drafted under the call of July 18, 1907 (should be 1864). Very respectfully, J. A. Van Orsuel, Assistant A Itorney-Gencral . The Secretary of ^VAK. It will thus })e seen that the De])artment of Justice is in entire accord with the course of the War Department in furnishing informa- tion from the official records for use in the Court of Claims in connec- tion with suits brought therein for refundment of money paid for substitutes or as commutation by Kentucky drafted men. It is not at all unlikely, however, that various claim agents have been and are now dissatisfied because they have been unable to obtain informa- tion from the official records in the War Department for use in working up, to their own profit, individual claims in this class of cases. As set forth in the letter of August 1 , 1907, (|Uoted above, there was an excess of credits over quotas, as a result of the readjustment of credits ordered on April 12, 1864, in but thirteen counties of the State of Kentucky, viz, Crittenden, Ohio, Grayson, Butler, Green, Adair, Taylor, Casey, Jefferson, Pendleton, Grant, Mercer, and Lincoln, as will fully appear upon a comparison of the numbers pei-taining to drafts in those counties set forth in Table No. 1, herewith. Inasmuch, therefore, as the credits of those counties, as readjusted, exceeded the ([uotas thereof, no draft wotild liave been held in any of those thirteen counties under the call of March 14, 1804, had the readjustment of credits been made promptly. But no such excess of credits over c{uotas, by reason of the adjustment ordered in April, 1864, existed in any other county of the State. Prior to the redistribution of credits ordered April 12, 1864, and during the progress of such redistribution it was found necessary in many of the counties of the State to resort to supplemental drafts in order to raise the number of men required to meet deficiencies in earlier drafts held imder the call of March 14, 1864, arising from rejec- tions of some of the men so drafted, failures of some others to report, and for other reasons. In this connection it is deemed proper to state that the numbers of men actually drafted, as shown by Table No. 1, represent tlie numbers drafted under the original as well as the supplemental drafts held under the call of March 14, 1864. ^ / DRAFTS IN KENTUCKY DUEING CIVIL WAK. 7 Had the redistribution of credits ordered on April 12, 1864, been made promptly, it probabh' would have been necessary, in those coun- ties in which the readjustment resulted in a loss of credits, to draft a much larger number of men than was actually drafted under the con- ditions before readjustment. Even in the counties in which there was a gain in credits by the readjustment it is not at all certain that any fewer men woidd have been drafted had the readjustment been made promptly than were actually drafted before that readjustment. This is so because in making the original draft in Kentucky under the call of March 14, 1864, only the actual number of men represented by the numerical deficiencies existing between quotas and credits were drafted. Many of the men so drafted, the percentage varyino- in different localities, were rejected for one cause or another or failed to report when notified to do so. In this way the number of drafted men who were finally accepted always fell far below the number of men who were actually drafted, and consequently the original drafts held in Kentucky under the ccA] cf March 14, 1864, were entirely inade(|uate to produce the number of men required, and supplemental drafts were resorted to in order to supply deficiencies. In these sup- plemental drafts 50 per cent, and in some localities 100 per cent, more men were drafted than the number represented by the numerical deficiencies existing at the time of the supplemental drafts. Thus the fact that in some counties the readjustment resulted in a gain of credits and that the number of men actually drafted was in excess of the numerical deficiencies that existed after the credits were read- justed is bv no means evidence that the draft \\'as excessive or tliat there were any men drafted in those counties who would not have been drafted had the readjustment, ordered in April, 1864, been promptly made. For instance, in Lyon County, which was in the first district, there was a gain of 55 credits resulting from the readjustment, leav- ing a deficiency of 61 credits still existing after the readjustment of credits in that county. A total number of 116 men was drafted in that county under the call of March 14, 1864. Thus, apparently, 55 men were drafted wdio should not have been drafted in that county had the readjustment been made promptly. The records show, however, that the 116 men so draftetl not only failed to produce the 116 men that were deficient before readjustment, but failed to pro- duce even the 61 men required to meet the deficiency in the county which existed after the readjustment of credits was made. There- fore, instead of there being 55 men drafted in that county who should not have been drafted had the readjustment been made promptly, there still remained a deficiency after the readjustment of credits. In other words, more than 116 men should have been drafted in order to raise the 61 men required by the readjustment. Furthermore, the official records indicate that in every county of the State of Kentucky save one (Bracken County), in which supple- mental drafts were held, but concerning which it is impossible to fur- nish definite numbers, additional to those set forth in the accom- panying tables, the readjustment of credits ordered on April 12, 1864, was either actually made before the final supplemental drafts held in the various counties were completed or the supplemental drafts so held in those counties failed to produce the number of men re- fi 8 DRAFTS IN KENTUCKY DURING CIVIL WAR. quired to meet the deficiencies between quotas and credits that existed after the credits of those counties were finally adjusted. It will be seen, therefore, that in those counties in which supple- mental drafts were held, with the possible exception of Bracken County, which was in the sixth district, any question as to the validity of the drafts so held in those counties under the call of March 14, 1864, is eliminated entirely, because the final supplemental drafts held in the counties in question did not produce more men than w'ere required either before or after readjustment. vVhile the excess of credits over quotas which resulted from the readjustment of credits ordered in April, 1864, would have rendered no draft necessary in any of the 13 counties particularl}^ mentioned above, and while no such condition existed with respect to any county of the State of Kentucky other than in those 1.3 counties, yet upon a recent examination of the official records concerning the matter it seems probable that, by reason of the large gain in credits in Bracken County, resulting from the readjustment, a fewer number of men would have been drafted in that county had the readjustment been made promptly than were actually drafted in that c Hancock Breckenridge Grayson 33 50 35 33 Butler 50 Edmonson , Total 6,795 6,465 1,091 1,091 6,465 435 115 FOURTH DISTRICT, Shelby 527 390 470 777 585 247 409 524 502 387 384 462 292 345 489 383 436 726 530 226 380 580 547 365 .381 424 265 313 24 94 203 318 253 119 161 465 289 233 408 277 107 219 872 879 362 514 644 358 418 54 60 87 102 24 50 Bullitt Meade Hardin . Nelson Spencer Anderson 292' 332 Washington Marion. 3' Lame 22 "3 75 40 72 Green 133 220 93 105 :? Adair Taylor . . 7.5 40 Ca^ey 72 Total 6,301 6,045 1,175 1,175 6,045 596 190 DKAFTS IN KENTUCKY DURING CIVIL WAR, 11 i\i). 1. — Tabulated statement setting forth such information as it is possible to furnish from the official records in the War Department concerning the respective drafts in the State of Kentucky, ete.^Con tinned. FIFTH DISTRICT. Gain of Loss of Number of men with which each county should have been Number drafted who would not have been drafted had the redistribu- tion of credits as ordered in April, 1864, been made credits by credits by credited if \ Credits readjust- readjust- a proper i Number rountv. Quota. at time. ment ment distribution actually of draft. ordered ordered of credits i drafted". Apr. 12, Apr. 12, had been 1864. 18(i4. made be- fore the draft was ordered or put into execution. drafts. Jeflerson 6.240 .321 591 818 6,047 279 518 753 826 6,873 208 349 167 299 51 108 108 299 Oldham 71 169 586 Henry Owen Total 7,970 7,597 826 826 7,597 566 299 SIXTH DISTRICT. 1,849 1,484 653 686 594 652 508 271 .348 262 1,080 837 398 .530 428 467 365 168 199 142 268 35 207 812 802 191 667 826 508 556 172 62 18 1,595 1.348 337 208 219 185 202 103 180 162 Campbell 137 398 41 191 4 Boone Bracken (o) Pendleton 219 Harrison Grant ■ ■" 202 Gallatin i37" 124 Carroll Trimble Total .. 7,. 307 4,614 771 771 4,614 4,539 (?) SEVENTH DISTRICT. Nicholas 523 466 431 823 499 359 475 408 505 326 339 412 .3.53 . 52 112 105 78 255 79 464 241 215 607 123 207 586 270 677 289 .540 141 .... 126 .... 138 .... 170 .... 159 .... 89 .... 65 Bourbon Clarke 320 Fayette 12 48 Barren 328 •'38 Cn.nherland 215 Clinton 328 Total 7,581 7,171 1,581 1 171 FOURTH DISTRICT. Shelljv \ 919 581 774 1.210 1.045 407 687 544 543 527 474 484 343 345 652 393 497 797 j 692 ! 256 1 425 907 . 951 . 395 .584 . 731 1. 450 1. 456 1. 267 188 277 413 353 211 262 Bullitt Meade Hardin Nelson Spencer Anderson Washington 363 Marion "'i32' 408 Larue Oreene . . 110 247 Tavlor 107 Casey 111 Total 8,943 8,186 2, 103 1.346 FIFTH DISTRICT. Jefferson 8,046 526 i 958 1 1,571 7,201 335 599 853 845 191 .3.59 718 Oldham Henry Total 11,101 8,988 2,113 ' SIXTH DISTRICT. Kenton 2,271 1 1. 772 1 1,157 864 1 637 1,077 680 418 599 .500 1.962 1,538 699 764 958 . 822 649 ■ 286 .359 264 1 309 234 458 100 '255' 31 132 240 236 Boone. . . ..*... Pendleton 321 Harrison (irant . . (iallatin Carroll Trimble Total 9,975 8,301 1 1,996 321 ; 14 DRAFTS IN KENTUCKY DURING CIVIL WAR. No. 2. — Tabulated statement showing credits and quotas on August 31, 1864, which is tiic nearest date preceding the commencement of the second draft concerning ivhich pertinent information can be given — Continued. SEVENTH DISTRICT. EIGHTH DISTRICT. Carrard i 532 Madison 1, 117 Estill 398 Owslev i 215 Wolf . ; ,. I 282 Breathitt 427 Perrv 233 Letcher 279 Harlan .551 Clay • 417 Laurel I 395 Jackson i 237 Rockcastle 315 Pulaski 813 Wavne .' 572 Whitley 607 Knox . . - : 522 Tolul 7,912 NINTH DISTRICT. Lewis 48S Oreeinip 668 Hoyd 479 Carlpr M'3 Rowan 178 Mason 1, 157 Fleming 859 Montgomery 551 Bath ." 563 Powell 169 .\Iagomn 267 Johnston 345 Lawrence 373 Floyd 403 Pike 343 Morgan 639 Total 7, 985 706 918 629 498 172 229 216 1.58 352 557 418 269 665 677 391 716 152 1, 192 771 350 674 128 185 369 562 295 512 372 County. Total quotas. Total credits. Defieien- cies. Surplus 697 804 782 1,249 998 661 613 683 510 393 375 5.56 602 .516 1,222 601 506 726 469 916 592 702 141 202 266 27 397 155 Clarke Scotl Franklin 113 214 406 Boyle 199 327 Total 7, 765 7,408 1,402 1 , 045 199 110 198 17 121 199 108 267' 231 283 140 23 32 474 1..362 1.59 549 500 72 527 514 80 ... 8 ... 8.499 1,004 1,.591 9 21.3 35 24 189 S,0U 901 169 927 RECAPITULATION, BY DISTRICTS. o First 9,716 9,633 7, 581 8,943 11,101 9,975 7, 765 7,912 7,985 7,342 8,193 7,171 8,186 8,988 8, 301 7,408 8,499 8,011 2,104 1,581 2,103 2,113 1,995 1,402 1,004 901 664 Third 1,171 Fourth . . 1,346 Fifth Sixth 321 Seventh . 1,045 Eighth 1,591 Ninth 927 Total for State... so, 611 72,099 13.203 7.065 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS illli i III! 013 750 144 8