1. The superior size and speed of the Kearsarge. 2. The superiority of her armament. 3. The chain-plating at her sides. 4. The greater number of her crew. 5. The unpreparedness of the Alabama. 6. The assumed necessity of Captain Semmes' accepting the challenge sent him (as represented) by the commander of the Kearsarge. Besides these misstatements there have been others put forth, either in ignorance of the real facts of the case, or with a purposed intention of diminishing the merit of the victory by casting odium upon the Federals on the score of inhumanity. In the former category must be placed the remarks of the _Times_ (June 21st); but it is just to state that the observations in question were made on receipt of the first news, and from information furnished probably by parties unconnected with the paper, and desirous of palliating the Alabama's defeat by any means in their power. We are informed in the article above referred to that the guns of the latter vessel "had been pointed for 2,000 yards, and the second shot went right through the Kearsarge," whereas no shot whatever went through as stated. Again, "the Kearsarge fired about 100 (shot) chiefly 11-in. shell," the fact being that not one-third of her projectiles were of that calibre. Further on we find--"The men (of the Alabama) were all true to the last; they only ceased firing when the water came to the muzzles of their guns." Such a declaration as this is laughable in the extreme; the Alabama's guns were all on the spar-deck, like those of the Kearsarge; and, to achieve what the _Times_ represents, her men must have fought on until the hull of their vessel was two feet under water. The truth is--if the evidence of the prisoners saved by the Kearsarge may be taken--Captain Semmes hauled down his flag immediately after being informed by his chief engineer that the water was putting out the fires; and, within a few minutes, the water gained so rapidly on the vessel that her bow rose slowly in the air, and half her guns obtained a greater elevation than they had ever known previously. It is unfortunate to find such cheap-novel style of writing in a paper which at some future period may be referred to as an authoritative chronicler of events now transpiring. It would be too long a task to notice all the numerous misstatements of private individuals, and of the English and French press in reference to this action: the best mode is to give the facts as they occurred, leaving the public to judge by internal evidence on which side the truth exists.