, 1865-10-26


ous charges made against him by his brother
officers IN the army, and published In the
New York press He appears to think thst
II man has either stolen or nided others. In
stealing, The facts ought to be politely sup,
pressed from the people when he Is rltnnln.
for Office. The World, too, which lately
| branded offlcera in the army as lincoln sa.
trips, unfit even to vote, now labors unde,
the delusion that m army officer not only
ought to be permitted to plundcr from lie
Government while IN the army, but ought to
be rewarded By IN official opportunity to con-
tinue stealing after he has left 1t. Whatever
military services Gen. Slocum has rendered.
VIC arc proud Of and shall forever homo, him
for, but stealing cotton Is the same offence In
him II be has committed It rs in any other
man-
Gen. S1ocu,n has attempted to answer some
questions put BY the Albany Evening Journal,
IS follows:
+FTrst--Why did s}ocnrn Put on duty as Qunstcr-
master Lieutenant Of his o1sn etaF! &c.
"An4wer.-Aentcnant steiner We. never men,
years that he eerved with Slocnu he mas nlwnys on
duty in the QuarteEmasters Department. ue was
On f1ch duty nj tickebnrc when Sloeum was or
take the potuon4"
We know not what the omitted part Of the
question was, but II the answer covers the
question 1t does not cover the difficulty. Slo-
cum knew that Steiner was not under bonds,
and therefore not fitted to act Is Qnartermas-
ter. Yet when Gen. Robert Allen, Q. II. Gen.
era1 Of the West, sent qualified Quartcrmas
ter 10 Slocuua, to supersede Lieut.. Steiner,
n$nSn fof1 tra$
Aliens Quartcrmaster Was compelled to 20 10
Gen. Canby at New Orleans, to get IN order
compelling slocum to permit him 10 act in
Steiner's placc, which he Obtained, and on re-
turning he succeeded Steiner, bat in The inter-
ral the .No2dnd cotton steal toas committed. Slo-
csm Is unqucstionably responsible for retain
Ing Steiner, who had given no bonds, when ne
could have had a duly qualified officer.
sSAcoAd. Why did he refuse to allow the clat,u to
Nofaud, and Afterwards ALLOW II 10 Gxapt!
"A. NerctuEed1 to allow The claim to Soland tor
the tea9on stated TO him (SoandA End Tor the rca-
son which induced him 10 take II out OF the hands
o. o. sses IN H. opt sena r. w1.h al The pape.s ne5tsnns
just as be told No1aad he Ehoa1d do. ali Of which
sppeaTs II .he esidenec yoa haye published and in
Gen. Slocu1n here attempts to convey the
impression Tint Grant did not get the cotton
on his (slocum's) order, which impression is
untrue and despicable deception. Il Is
abundantly proven that Grant got the cotton
On Slocu1n's order. Slocum cannot deny II,
md Inns not done 50. If he sent the cotton,
with tho EupeTs," !" to the Treasury Agent nj
New Orleans, .sthcu among those papers was
his order delivering the cotton to Grant,
how snnll do epau1cttes appear when they
cover such prcvarications
sIhiTd: Why did he disregard the order Of Gen.
Sherman IN regard 10 captn1ed cotton!
II. The order Of <scn Sherman referred TO cotton
captured from Frhels within the lines Of the enemy
u appcaFt irom the statement OF Col Star1tg, who
3nvestfnted the matter, that this was cotton taken
taken for a SPECIFIC purpose. Gen. 6locup never
diso*yed gu order from Gen. Sherman Or the pub
nc roua probably have been informed OF The fact
TLis G0u balcs were captured from rebels
within Tic lines Of the enemy, apparently in
order to satisfy this very claim, rs only Gc0
bales were captured by m expedition up The
Iazoo only few days before the first Board
sat On Nolana's claim. Therefore, Gen. Shcr-
mans order, according to Slocum's own state
ment, referred to TIC 600 bales OF cotton.
Further, It docs not appear from Col. Star
rings statement that these 600 b1les were COT
ton taken from a loyal man, but only that a
loyal man Lad lost cotton chow much he docs
not say) which loss it was proposed to apply
his cotton to repay.
Furtler, It docs not appear from Starrine,s
statement that Soland was loyal man 'tllv-
Ing within our lines" as holland himself
Ewcars to the contrary. As Sherman ordered
that no cotton captured from rebels should
be returned, aud rs slocum did worse, re-
turned cotton 10 one from whom none had
been captured, 1t is ns plain after Us before his
denial that be did disoocy sherman's order:
A.Fot1tA-Why w7s confidential etaff officer hans-
tuc around New orlcansf ----.-..-.
"A. Probably {proyided any such Ytlleer was thert,1
because he had business there with hi. supesior
che clicf Of his depar:mcnt}, who was 'oc,'ed At
thai place"
The object of this question was to find out
why Gen. slocumrs staff officer went to New
Orleans to attend to Eoland's cotton. Be-
hind Slocum's pcrtncsa the public will easily
detect that he has lodged the question.
"EfM. Why xat slocm with Grant in h'a room
"A. During The a1st tuo days af1er S1ocun's ar
rtral At ticksburS, he boarded at the Washington
hntcl. AitG that he Deyer tpcnt an hour IN Grants
ffoom, o. any other room In any hotel In Vicks-
The question does not imply that the
night after night" In question was not the
1rst two nights Slocum spent in Vicksburg,
during which hc docs not deny TINT he was in
Grants room, por docs The question assert
that Grants room then or afterwards was In