Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1868-11-22

AePOEsou the TACT 10 me, ana was furnished
with copy of the Presidents opinion, a
given in the case of the report of the opera
tions of the Ku Klux bands before recited
for his instructions and guidance.
On the 18th of September, the Mayor o.
Nashville applied to the post commander
for military force to patrol the streets
and to be stationed at the voting places
during the election, to be held on the fol.
lowing day, as he feared there would be
riotous proceedings. The post command.
er forwarded the application, approving it,
but recommending that troops be stationed
at the Capitol, to be used only in case of a
riot and not as patrols, nor to be stationed
at the voting places. He was directed to
furnish the troops as recommended by him,
but not to interfere in any way with the
management of the election. Your atten-
ton Is respectfully called to the inclosed
copy of the report of Brevt Col. George
A. Woodward, 18th infantry, the post
commander, marked y aud copy of a
letter from the Superintendent of Metro
politan Police of Nashville marked q,
showing the operations on this occasion.
The troops in the department have rem
dered valuable assistance to the officers of
the United States Courts, and to the Unit
ed States revenue oficers-to the former
Ia protecting the Marshals or their depu-
ties IN making arrests, and to the latter 10
| protecting them in making arrests of vio-
lators of the revenue laws and 10 seizures
OF property. Detachments Of troops for
| these purposes were furnished on the AT
pIcatlon of the civil officers of the United
states, with instructions to protect the Off
GERS while in the performance Of their du-
ties and to guard such prisoners as they
might arrest until delivered at the Jail or
released on bail. But in no case should
they make arrests by military authority.
10 some instances the combinations of
lawless men engaged in illicit distilling
were sufficiently powerful to require a
strong force. In Knoxville district, East
Tennessee, in the month of March, the
resistance to the civil officers was com.
plete, and on their application, | was au-
thorized by the General-in Chief to send
a force of cavalry to their assistance, which
was done, and by their presence the laws
were strictly enforced. Another force of
cavalry was sent to Sequatchie Valley,
East Tennessee, for the same purpose, aad
with the same good effect. These
operations occupied all the avail
able cavalry force ia the department, and
when at the same time the Assessor Of the
fourth district of Kentucky applied for a
mounted force to protect his officers, / was
unable to furnish it, and applied to the
General-in-Chief for an additional cavalry
force to be sent to the department, or that
be authorized TO mount a portion of the
second infantry. This application was not
fayOrably considered, cavalry not being
available, and it was not deemed expedi-
eut to mount infantry. Very recently the
United States Marshal, for the District of
Kentucky, applied for mounted force to
protect his officers in this same district,
and declined to receive infantry which was
rendered him. Subsequently, after apply
ing directly to the War Department for a
mounted force, he accepted the services of
the infantry, and proceeded with one COM
pany of the second infantry as a guard, to
serve process upon parties In Nelson ard
Marion counties. The troops met with no
resistance, bat the Marshal, while absent
from the command at house near by, was
captured by 4 small band of armed men,
who, after threatening his life and using
violent language, permitted him to return
TO the command, which then returned to
its station, the Marshal reporting to the
commanding officer that he had no further
use for 1t. At the present time, indications
are that these difficulties are increasing in
| the State of Kentucky, and that the whole
force Of troops in that State will be neces-
sary to protect the United States civil Of
hceFs while in the performance of their
duty. For these duties, infantry has proved
to be comparatively inefficient, however
active they were. As soon IS a movement
was made, the criminals were informed of
it by mounted confederates before they
could be reached by the troops, and would
| escape in time, removing or destroying the
evidences of their guilt. In consequence
| of this, | have not been able to render as
much service to this department of the gov
| ernment az was needed, the two companies
of cavalry, formerly in this department,
| being wholly inadequate TO the amount of
work required, and the long marches per-
| formed By infantry were often without any
| good result. The recent transfer of the
cavalry from the department leaving me
| without any mounted force, l have been
authorized to replace them by mounted
infantry, which is being done with all pos
sible dispatch.
| A serious grievance 10 many citizens of
| the department, especially il Tennessee,
who have faithfully and houorably served
as officers of the army, has been their prose
cution before the courts, by disloyal per-
sous, for acts of trespass committed, Or
seizures of property made by them as
] United States officers during the war.
Suits were brought in helocal courts where
| Judge and jury sympathized with the prose.
| Cutors, and judgments were awarded &C
| cordingly; all testimony as to the official
/ character of the defendants and their acts
| at the time was useless, az 1t was not con-
sidered. Sufferers By these suits appealed
for protection to the military authorities,
under the provisions of War Department
| General Orders No. 8, series of 1866, which
directs the protection Of loyal persons
| against improper civil suits and penalties.
But as War Department General Orders
No. 81, series of 1866, publishing the
| Presidents proclamation that the rebellion
had ended, aud hat the civil law was in
| full force, forbid the further application Of
General Orders No. 3, the petitioner were
advised to transfer their cases to the UGited
States Courts, under the provisions Of the
act Of Cor gress, approved May II, 1866, as
| published in War Department General
| Orders No. 81, series of 1866. This was
done IN most cases, but some Of thesutereTs
| had not the means to meet the expenses
necessary for these proceedings, and were
| compelled to submit to being robbed OF
their property as punishment for having
faithfully served their country. On the
| other hand, | received through the War
| Department, one complaint from a citizen
of West Virginia, who had served 10 the
Rebel army, that be was being prosecuted
for damages for acts committed by him as
an officer, aud by order of the Confederate
military authorities. This application
was referred othe authorities of the S;ae
ofwhich he was a citizen, the military
having no jurisdiction in the matter. Nc
other complaint of this kind was received
| A question as to the obligation and bind
ing force of the paroles accepted by The
disirmed rebels, at the close of the war
has occurred in this department during tbs
year. A number of cases Of assault By re.
turned rebels, upon quiet citizens, wherein
the civil authorities failed to afford pro.
lection to the injured, or punish the often.
ders, were reported to me, and, believing
that the paroles bound these men to obey
the laws Of the community in which they
were living, and that they we're amenable
to trial by military commission, if they
failed to do 80, Iapplied to the General-in,
Chief for instructions in the matter, who
directed me arrest the offenders Accord
ingly, one w. A. Milliken, a paroled rebel,
residing in Lagrange, Thennessee, was ar
rested for violation of his parole in having
assaulted 4 Union citizen. Before trial
could be had, he was discharged from mill
| ifarv custody BIZ Jnhpa Trigg of the IIni.