The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1866-05-02

,
| Bravet Col G. ". Bsscom, U. S. Vols, G. G N
| r ,oms, Nashville, .enn.:
CoLoyEL-In reply TO your commuuica
tiou Of the 18th inst, ] have the honor L
! inform you that the same hes been submit
| ted 10 the Major General commanding, apS
| thst il is his opinion and decision that tn,
| points you raise are tenabls aud correct
and by virtue of par. TO- I'D clause,) pag,
! 10, and Of par. 9, page 10, IS amended B,
| par. u, page Sill, Revised Army Regula
| lions for 1863, you are senior 10 Col. W. K
| shafter, .. s. G. Infantry, as a member 0
| the General Court Martial.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant
lsigned,l W. L. PoRrER,
Brevet Major and A. A. G.
All Of the STAFF officers here took position,
before officers Of the same rank belong gin Z
TO negro regiments.
Col. Irwin recalled: After left the cour
room, yesterday, l examined my papers,
and ionnd that, on the 30th Of May, 1854,
hr. Henderson made the proposition to me
10 furnish 900 mules but this I rejected
because be required that be should have
the control Of the market. On June LIST, |
received another proposition from him in
the shape Of letter, relative to the lurn-
ishing Of mules. The letter was returned
10 Mr.. Henderson with an Endorsement.
Demand was here made for the letter by
the Judge Advocated
Col. Coyl replied that the letter was
merely for the purpose Of showing that the
mules were not intended for the rebels. He
says that the letter in question is not in his
possession, and therefore he cannot deliver
it.
Examination Continued I have a copy
Of the letter in my possession. (He then
handed the Judge Advocate the copy in his
pOssession.) The Judge Advocate then read
the letter, which proposed to furnish 900
serviceable mules, at least fourteen hands
high, to be serviceable, and to be delivered
within sixty days. The copy was sworn TO
by the Colonel.
The Endorsement on the back is an ac-
ceptance of the proposition.
Under this proposition be furnished J.
SIS mules in July, and number in June
how many l do not recollect.
Stock picked up by men was regarded as
50 much stock stampeded, and, OF course, so
much less lost. Stock was sometimes pick
ed up by citizens, and was accounted for on
the supp0sition that il had either stampeded
or been stolen from the cOrrals. When
stock was stolen from the corrals, the loss
was accounted for at the end of the month
by aflidavits made by my foreman, who was
cognizant of the fact. | cannot state how
many mules were taken up as estrays du-
ring 1864. During the months of June,
July and August, 1864, Mr., Bruner had
charge Of picking up these estrays.
Vendors of stock ually branded their
stock privately; but | could not state what
was the private brand of Mr.. Henderson,
though l believe he hal one.
Cross examination ! recollect that Mr..
Henderson had had some difficulty with
N Call hnA hot 1ot
written to me was the result of this dis
agreement. Mr.. Henderson continued pas
turing the mules some few days after the
acceptance of his proposition by me. The
agreement was closed as soon as he furnish
ed the required number of mules, though
kept no track of the agreement, at the
time, as l was then wanting some 30 900
mules for the army.
The receipt for mules, given in the speci.
fcatons, could not be secured in voucher,
as il did not set forth the height of the
mules in question, as the prices Of different
sized mules did not agree. The receipt set
forth becomes worthless on the face Of it,
or at least, it would have been referred
back TO Mr.. Bruner for explanation, before
vouchers could have been issued on it, The |
document, however, would have come into
the hands of the voucher clerk, to be passed
Pa. 1t would have been difficult for any
one to have passed a detective receipt aud |
obtained a voucher, for the clerk had to |
follow his instructions. lie might have |
referred il back to Mr.. Bruner for explana-
ion, or he might have referred it to me. / /
would only be authorized to issue a voucher |
IN a rece pit giving the size of the mules.
Without the details on the subject it would |
be worthless.
l never had any contract with Mr.. Hen |
derson except for feeding mules, and the |
one for furnishing 1000 mules. This con |
tract was fairly and honorably carried out, |
and had no knowledge Of any transaction |
not strictly in accordance with justice. No |
were entered regarding it, SO |
far as | find, he has always acted in an hon |
orable manner with me.
(The Judge Advocate objected 10 this, |
and the Court sustained the objections)
The vouchers were made out in the names |
Of parties who presented the receipts for |
mulee, etc. The vouche were often given |
TO parties who did not themselves put IN the |
mules, but TO those who had bought memo |
randum receipts from parties who had put |
them in, and this | consider perfectly right |
and proper. ! made the arrangement 10 |
break up a monopoly by large contractors, |
and the method Of giving these gave me |
ia the hands of contractors.
The books show that between the 18th of |
June and the Sd Of July, Mr. Henderson |
put in three more mules than proposed in |
his letter to me, and l considered his con- |
tract at an end.
There is no law prescribing the form by |
receipts, nor is there any for |
even making them. / merely prescribed |
.he form myself. When an informal receipt |
,ame TO the Office, either a new receipt |
would have been required or a full explana-
lion on the back of the old one.
l have no reeord of the names of parties /
obtaining vouchers, except the journals, /
which are in the possession of the Judge /
Advocate. l have a book (abstract d. /
which will show the names of any parties /
who bought up receipts and got psy, or
vouchers, for mules delivered by others.
After Mr.. Henderson had furnished the
number Of mules proposed in his letter, he
furnished others, which bought.
Wm. Mckay Hoge Sworn ] was en-
oloyed with Mr.. Bruner at the corrals, near
in July and August, 1854. My
iuiies were TO keep an account of articles
received and iasued st the corrals. l had
.harge of receiving mules from contractors,
md the giving of receipts for the same.
I know MT. IshRn Henderson, and have
,nown him about three years. I formed
is acquaintance in Nashville.
Here Col. C5yle moved his seat to q pos
ition near the witness, to which the Judge
.dvocate objected. The Court asked the
COLONEL why he seated himself there, aud
IL stated that il was because the witness
ad been threatened By the Judge Advo-
ate, and he desired to be near him. This
act he alleged he could prove; but tt
curt ordered him (Coyle) back TO his old
osition.)
Examination Continued I kept Mr.. Bru-
er's accounts in a small book, and made
eport every evening Of mules received
.om contractors, and it was sent to Col. r.
ms office. This report was used by Col.
-yiu TO compare it with the receipts Of con-
actors. Al receipts in Burners name
ere signed "H. Btuner-by Hoge."
An arrangement existed between myself
nd Isham Henderson to defraud the Gov
-nment; but the exact place and time I
lnnot exactly slate, though 1t was made in
ashVille.
Objections by Accused Col. Coyl, for Mr..
henderson, objected, unless the allegations
,rresponded with the specific allegations
the charges. Sustained by the Court.
To more specific question, the witness
id: ! agreed to make a false report as TO
he size OF the mules, making more Of
rye size than there really were, as the
rger the mule the higher the price psid
? the Government. The arrangement also
insisted in giving receipts for mules never
1t in. gave such false receipts to Mr..
ham Henderson, at different times-some :
fore went home, in July, 1864, and one
ter I returned.
I had some conversation with Mr.. Isham
anderson, regarding the matter, but / {
Co lect very little Of it. Mr.. Henderson
ways insisted on my giving receipts for