New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-10-20
THE sLoCUm.CoTTON BUSINESS.

After more than usual delay, gentleman
living in West Thirty.ninth-st., "having read
in recent number of THE NEwYoRK TRIBUNE
an attack on the private character OF Gen.
Sloeum," comes forward with statement IN
reference to the Slocum. Cotton business. 1t is
well for us to say now in the beginning that
this gentleman read no attack on Gen. Slocums
private character in THE TRIBUNE We COPIED
from cotemporary narrative OF facts. mat
statement seriously affected the character oil
Gen. Slocum, and we felt that it was due to his
fame as a soldier, as well as the great State
whose SURFACES he solicits, that he should see
I these charges and seriously consider them.
We should have shirked our duty as
journalists had we failed to do this.
The evidence on both sides has been made up.
We have that given before the Military Com
mission, with the reports Of the Commission on
he one hand and letter from Gen. siocum'
accompanied by letters from the gentleman IN
West Thirty ninth-st., Col. Starring and the
late Breyet. Brig. Gen. Rodgers on the other
II seems, in the first place, that Major-Gen. u
L.
lcommanding officer which he characterized as
"a wholesale steal ont of the Government
warehouse of COO bales OF cotton, worth, at the
time taken, 100000" This " wholesale steaP'
was, it is charged, accomplished by one W. y.
Grant cotton Spectator whom Gen. Gran,
had driven out Of the army, protected and per-
mitted by an order of Gen. Slocum. According
20 Gen. washburn, the transaction was
wholesale steal" According to all the evil
dence, that steal could never have been per-
formed but for Gen. Slocum.
We think we may safely assume these two
facts for our premises The question is, did
Gen. Slocum give his influence in favor OF thin
''wholesale steal" corruptly, or was IL the mis-
take of a conscientious man striving to do right
but prevented by the anomalies of his position
What evidence does Gen. Slocum present
/. The statement of Col. Starring is that he
was President of Board that examined into thC
cotton claim, and that the evidence submitted
left no doubt in the mind Of any member Of thu
Board as TO the loyalty of the claimant Of the
cotton. Col. Starring says further that ht
saw" Gen. MoPherson's approyal-but it doe
not appear on the record.
| H. Brevct. Brig. Gen Rogers-at that tint
Chief of staff of Gen. Slocum-places on Gen
Mcpherson (now dead) the burden OF having
approved the finding of the Board, directing
the surrender of the cotton TO the spoculator
He adds that tho General "never, III any IN
stance, surrendered property which had beer
seized by the Government except in obedienc'
to orders"
III. Gen. Slocum makes jaunty repl.
covering certain attempted relations on tn
part of Mr.. Weed in 1859, and quito humorou
lin reference to the Editor of TnB TRIBUNE
lie contends that holland was loyal man, an
his cotton should have been restored TO him
He did not, however, give II, but sent it dow
to New. Orleans to the Treasury agent.
Upon which affirmation and denial We max
the following conclusions;
|. 1t il evident, from the testimony oil on
witness, that the cotton belonging to holland,
citizen of Louisiana, in rebellion, was reaii
! burned. and that the claim Of holland was a
!. afterthought, prompted BY certain sp'cuiatin
yulture, who hung around the army.
H. The custom governing such cases Wa
|, laid down in al orloE of Coy Sncrmsna