Viewing page 200 of 241

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

be stopped "to pay their traveling expenses" from New York.

He wrote the letter on headed paper and placed his official title under his name, but still asserts that the communication was a personal one, and intended in no wise to be official.  This may have been so.  There is no proof (only ex-parte testimony forwarded by Mr. B.) that it was not so.  There is no dispute as to the wording of the letter, but a sweeping denial of its statements and an expression of entire dissatisfaction with Lieut. Chase (on the part of the white people, who write the letters enclosed by Mr. Bradford.)

Lieut. C. was injudicious, but it does not appear that his motives were incorrect, or that what he did is of sufficient importance to warrant his removal.  Gen'l. Brown's opinion coincides substantially with this view of the case.  If the general complaints made by Mr. B. against this officer, were reduced by him to specific charges and presented to the Asst. Com'r., no doubt the matter would be thoroughly investigated and justly decided.  One cannot fail to observe in the papers produced here, a

Transcription Notes:
---------- Reopened for Editing 2023-09-24 00:30:46