Viewing page 47 of 326

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

with the people until his pardon was received, which was after or about the time that the crop was harvested.

The "contract" referred to which "Mr. Fox" is said to have "declined to have executed" was never presented at this office, nor did Mr. Middleton complain to the Asst. Comr. or make mention of the many "efforts" of his "Agents", although he was then residing at Charleston and in easy communication with the Bureau. The "contract" said to have been "at last executed before Samuel Wilson" &c., was never executed by the freedmen or any one of them. It was an ex parte instrument which was no contract at all; and approved by the wrong officer, and not by an officer or agent of the Bureau, which had control of the land and was supporting the people. Notwithstanding all these circumstances, and the fact that the freedmen have made no agreement whatever with him, the petitioner asks that his "contract" said to have been made in October shall "take effect nunc pro tunc, as of the fifth day of July."

He now applies for the restoration of his plantation as he may rightfully do under Circular 15, having obtained his "pardon".

But the title to the land which he is only 

Transcription Notes:
Nunc pro tunc — a ruling nunc pro tunc applies retroactively to correct an earlier ruling.