Lo BATROUT to and Commissary of Subsistence, April 16, 1864

Chesterville, S. C., April 16, 1864.

Maj. H. C. GUERIN, Commissary of Subsistence :

Masor: The package of papers referred to me from your office under date of March 20, 1863 [1864], has my attention. I will simply premise that the delay in answering the complaints urged against my agents and myself has been caused by pressing business and having no assistance in my office. I have taken the liberty of numbering the papers so as to answer more intelligibly.

In answer to paper No. 1, indorsed ‘Major Trout’s circular,” I simply inclose one of the printed forms used, together with an affidavit of Mr. J. H. Devereux in relation to the authorship of this notice, which authorship certainly led me more readily to use that form.*

By paper No. 2 it appears that Mr. Robertson (John E.) complains of my agent having impressed two of his cows with calf, he protest: ing.t He likewise forwards the impressment notice and advocates the cause of Mr. J. M. Rutland, executor of the estate of Peay, in Fairfield District. In answer I beg leave to submit the attested statement of Mr. Franklin Myers, my agent in Fairfield District; also his letter to me (a copy thereof) dated December 18, 1863. This letter will exhibit the fact that the amount impressed from Mr. Rutland, executor, was far below the proportion adopted by Mr. Myers; and I will here state that in adopting a rule of this kind several of my agents were guided by their own judgment, and did it simply with a view to equalize the burden to the people. In carrying out this rule some of the agents caused the cattle to be penned; then he selected one head, the next choice to be given to the Government being accorded to the owner of the cattle, and so on alternately until the one-tenth was exhausted. The parties were, however, notified that in case of further need another draft would be made upon them.

* For affidavit, see p. 412. +See p. 407.

In relation to Mr. Rutland’s case, I will state that in the entire Third Purchasing Division of South Carolina he is the only party who has forced me to issue impressment paper, and in this case I felt it my duty to proceed; otherwise the people of moderate means seeing a man of wealth allowed to retain his cattle, a disposition to do the same might become general and force me to a general impressment. The statement of John E. Robertson in regard to the impressment of his two cows with calf is rebutted by Mr. Myers’ sworn statement, and Mr. Myers informs me that he has never carried out the impressment in this case, nor had any cattle whatever from Mr. John E. Robertson.

Paper No. 3 is indorsed ” Copy of letter of Governor M. L. Bonham, Columbia, 8. C., March 2, 1864.”* In connection with this I will premise that while the Legislature was in session I was in Columbia and conversed with one of the members of that body, stating to him the mode of procedure adopted by me in procuring the provisions of the country. In answer to the letter of His Excellency Governor Bonham I will state that General Orders, No. 37, section 11, paragraph II, distinctly states that the notice which the officer is directed to serve upon the owner ”shall bind the said property until the completion of the negotiation for the sale or appropriation thereof, so that there can be no removal or transfer of the same;” and as regards the nature of the peril incurred, I have never regarded it as His Excellency terms it, ” personal peril,” but only that peril which every person incurs in resisting the carrying out of the laws by the properly authorized officers. Governor Bonham states that the effect of this notice has been to cause distress to the poor of the country, the people of the towns and cities, and refugees, &c. To this I answer that I received orders from the chief commissary of the State, Maj. H. C. Guerin, commissary of subsistence, not to interfere with provisions in transit to the markets, and I have given to all agents from the first moment of my taking charge of this division strict orders on this point, and I have frequently seen parcels of subsistence stores passing over the roads to Columbia and Charleston, and have often aided their transit. If the people of the towns and cities have suffered, it has most likely been from the speculators among themselves, to whom the farmers have been eager to sell the supplies which the Government needed for higher prices than the Department was authorized to pay, and who, swarming the country, have overbid each other and continued to accede to the increased demands of the farmers, and then in turn exacted from their customers prices and profits to suit their views.

As regards preventing the sale of a bushel of meal or flour to the needy at home, this may have happened, but I opine it was only in cases where the holders were only too glad to have a loop-hole to escape from that duty of benevolence; and I imagine that at the same time the opportunity was not lost to get good prices from speculators. It is true that supplies were interrupted, or rather that I vainly endeavored to interrupt them in transit out of the State. In this I acted under orders, but not being supported, and in danger of coming in conflict with the people, I abandoned the efforts, and thousands of bushels and pounds of subsistence stores have passed out, sold by the farmer to parties from neighboring States. This has been also another fruitful cause of the exorbitant demands of the farmers for provisions.

I note that Governor Bonham’s letter is dated on March 2, 1864; the action of the Legislature was in December, 1863. The difference in time has made a great change in circumstances. In December last the tenth only of wheat, peas, &c., was the only portion being taken up by the tax-in-kind department, from whom our department received the tenth. This forced us to purchase corn, and failing to obtain it by purchase, to give notice that we would impress; but little, however, was taken in that way in this division. No bacon was then coming in, and hogs we could not obtain; consequently beef-cattle were an absolute necessity. These were not included in the tenth, and I was directed to make strenuous efforts to obtain as many as possible.

Finally, I beg leave to submit that in none of the districts under my charge has there been any complaint, except where the agents, misunderstanding their instructions, have created some excitement; and in some instances I have met with approbation from those whose property has been drawn upon by my orders for the suavity I have exercised to them in pursuance of my duties. I beg leave to submit herewith papers numbered 4, 5, 6, and7; also to refer to a letter (a copy of which I have means of obtaining) written by William M. Shannon, esq., to General Beauregard, complaining of the foraging parties in Kershaw District from some command on the coast, in which he speaks of the action of Mr. J. H. Devereux, my agent in that district, as perfectly satisfactory. My only desire has been to perform my duty to the Government, and it was my openly declared intention in taking charge of this division not to come into conflict with the people, and I am satisfied that as a general thing I have been successful.

Iam, major, with respect,

your obedient servant,

Lo BATROUT,

Major and Commissary of Subsistence.

[Paper No. 4.]

CAMDEN, April 6, 1864.

I state with pleasure that I have never heard of any complaints

against the commissary agent at this point. We pretty generally

complied with his requisitions cheerfully, feeling that although it

was a sacrifice to give our stock, that our Army needed it, which was