The threatened riots and the incipient movements to again prevent the draft were easily averted, as it was evident that no unlawful assemblage of persons would be tolerated by the authorities when backed by veteran soldiers. This service proved to be a great picnic for the men. Officers and soldiers were received warmly everywhere in the cities, and socially feasted and flattered. It was evident, however, that the good people had not yet recovered from the terrors of the recent riots, and they manifested a painful apprehension that a recurrence of these would take place. The draft, however, went on peacefully, and when all danger seemed past the troops were ordered to return to their proper corps in the Army of the Potomac. At a public breakfast given to the soldiers of the 110th Ohio in Carroll Park, Brooklyn, a very aged man appeared with a morning paper, and asked and was granted permission to read President Lincoln's memorable and characteristic letter of August 26, 1863, addressed to Hon. James C. Conkling, of Illinois, in response to an invitation to attend a mass-meeting at Springfield, "of unconditional Union men." The letter answered many objections urged against the President on account of the conduct of the war, his Emancipation Proclamation, and his purpose to enlist colored men as soldiers. For perspicuity, terseness, plainness, and conclusiveness of argument this letter stands among the best of all President Lincoln's writings. It came at an opportune time, and it did much to silence the caviler, to satisfy the doubter, and to reconcile honest people who sincerely desired the complete restoration of the Union. Its effect was especially salutary and satisfying to the soldiers in the field, who, somehow, felt that the burden of maintaining the Union rested unequally upon them. Addressing those who were dissatisfied with him, and desired _peace_, he said: "You desire peace, and you blame me that we do not have it. But how can we attain it? There are but three conceivable ways. First, to suppress the rebellion by force of arms. This I am trying to do. Are you for it? If you are, so far we are agreed. If you are not for it, a second way is to give up the Union. I am against this, Are you for it? If you are, you should say so plainly. If you are not for force, nor yet for _dissolution_, there only remains some imaginable _compromise_. I do not believe that any compromise embracing a maintenance of the Union is now possible." To those who opposed the Emancipation Proclamation, and desired its revocation, he said: "You say it is unconstitutional. I think differently. I think the Constitution invests its Commander-in-Chief with the law of war in the time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there, has there ever been, any question that by the laws of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed?" And further: