EX-99

1



           Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


To the Shareholders and Board of Directors
of Dreyfus Stock Index Fund, Inc.

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of Dreyfus
Stock Index Fund, Inc. (the "Fund") for the year ended December 31, 2004, we
considered its internal control, including control activities for
safeguarding securities, in order to determine our auditing procedures for
the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and to
comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on
internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and maintaining
internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments
by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs
of controls.  Generally, controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to
the entity's objective of preparing financial statements for external
purposes that are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles.  Those controls include the safeguarding of assets
against unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or fraud may
occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any evaluation of internal
control to future periods is subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of
their design and operation may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily disclose all
matters in internal control that might be material weaknesses under standards
established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United
States).  A material weakness, for purposes of this report, is a condition in
which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control
components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that
misstatements caused by error or fraud in amounts that would be material in
relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be
detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of
performing their assigned functions.  However, we noted no matters involving
internal control and its operation, including controls for safeguarding
securities, that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined above as of
December 31, 2004.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of
Directors, management and the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not
intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified
parties.




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, New York
February 4, 2005

EX-99

                                                                      ITEM 77E

In early 2004,  two purported  class and  derivative  actions were filed against
Mellon  Financial  Corporation,  Mellon  Bank,  N.A.,  Dreyfus,  Founders  Asset
Management  LLC,  and certain  directors  of the  Dreyfus  Funds and the Dreyfus
Founders Funds (together,  the Funds).  In September 2004,  plaintiffs  served a
Consolidated  Amended Complaint (the Amended Complaint) on behalf of a purported
class of all persons who acquired  interests in any of the Funds between January
30, 1999 and November 17, 2003,  and  derivatively  on behalf of the Funds.  The
Amended  Complaint in the newly styled In re Dreyfus Mutual Funds Fee Litigation
also named Dreyfus Service Corporation,  Premier Mutual Fund Services,  Inc. and
two  additional  Fund  directors as  defendants  and alleges  violations  of the
Investment  Company  Act of 1940,  the  Investment  Advisers  Act of  1940,  the
Pennsylvania  Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer  Protection Law and common-law
claims.  Plaintiffs seek to recover allegedly  improper and excessive Rule 12b-1
and advisory fees allegedly  charged to the Funds for marketing and distribution
services.  More specifically,  plaintiffs claim, among other things,  that 12b-1
fees and directed brokerage were improperly used to pay brokers to recommend the
Funds over other funds,  and that such payments were not disclosed to investors.
In addition,  plaintiffs assert that economies of scale and soft-dollar benefits
were not passed on to the Funds.  Plaintiffs further allege that 12b-1 fees were
improperly  charged to certain of the Funds that were  closed to new  investors.
The Amended Complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, rescission of the
advisory  contracts,  and an accounting and restitution of any unlawful fees, as
well as an award of attorneys' fees and litigation  expenses.  As noted, some of
the claims in this  litigation are asserted  derivatively on behalf of the Funds
that have been  named as nominal  defendants.  With  respect to such  derivative
claims, no relief is sought against the Funds.  Dreyfus believes the allegations
to be  totally  without  merit and  intends  to defend  the  action  vigorously.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended  Complaint on November 12, 2004,
and those motions are pending.

Additional  lawsuits arising out of these  circumstances and presenting  similar
allegations  and requests for relief may be filed against the  defendants in the
future.  Neither  Dreyfus nor the Funds believe that any of the pending  actions
will have a material  adverse effect on the Funds or Dreyfus' ability to perform
its contract with the Funds.