Viewing page 204 of 299
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
394 that he insisted on their removal, in other words, they hoped to make terms with him. In this answer to this letter, Mr. Taylor seems to have declined to pursue the natural and business like course suggested to him for his benefit by Capt. Austin, and replied, not by acting upon the freedman himself, but by notifying the officer, which was wholly unnecessary. As to the charge that Capt. Austin, on being asked - what assistance he would render Mr. Taylor, replied "none" - it is considered to be a serious error in statement as it was contrary to a specific order to Capt. Austin of which he had just before sent Mr. Taylor a copy, and contrary to the actions of that officer on many occasions - indeed his whole course, as far as known to these Head Quarters. To answer the charge of want of energy or honest intentions of the then Asst. Comr, to remove the freedmen from this farm, it is only necessary to refer to a communication from the Hd Qrs of the Bureau, dated Nov. 27th, 1866 addressed to Maj. Genl J. M. Schofield, Asst. Comr, in which allusion was made to complaints of unnecessary harshness, and the instructions therein given that "no harsh measures were authorized" - To this, the Asst. Comr replied by letter of explanation on Nov. 28th, and on the 30th Nov. the Maj Genl. Commissioner responded, stating that the action of the Asst. Comr was satisfactory. It may be confidently asserted, that all measures, save the employment of physical force, were resorted to patiently and persistently by the officers of the Bureau to remove the freedmen in question and even the threat of that force was made to exert whatever influence it might have. Its actual employment was prohibited by the Maj. Genl Comr, and it is a serious question whether it could have been used with propriety, as the views of His Excellency the President with regard to the subordination of the Military to the civil jurisdiction had been proclaimed, the Bureau Courts before existing in that locality had been abolished, the Courts of the County were open and fully available to Mr. Taylor, and to these the Asst. Comr repeatedly advised him to resort. 395 The action of the civil authorities in Mr. Taylor's favor, so far as to remove the freedmen, would have been cordially assisted by the officers of the Bureau in Virginia. [[left margin]] Copy in Vo ink [[/left margin]] Correspondence and calculations regarding rent omitted, as not called for in the present enquiry - Nearly all of the voluminous and conglomerate complaints of Mr. Taylor are fully disposed of by the final settlement to which he makes a slight and casual allusion. As the facts of this settlement are ignored by him, the records are now furnished as on file at these Head Quarters - and are as follows: Norfolk, Va. October 8th 1866. Oct. 11th 1866. Taylor, Tazewell Attorney Returns communication of Sept. 27th 1866, and regrets that the proposal of William E. Taylor, therein submitted, should have been overlooked, and renews the same. 1st That he shall be paid a reasonable rent for the occupation of the Farm and Fishery, from the 10th Sept. 1865, and damages for waste committed by occupants from that period, the amounts to be fixed by arbitrators indifferently chosen. 2nd. That the buildings erected by Government shall not be removed. Endorsements: Bureau R. F. and A. Lands, Office Supt. 1st Dist. Va., Norfolk, Va., Oct. 9th 1866. Respectfully forwarded to the Asst. Comr, Dept. of Potomac, whose attention is respectfully invited to the communication of Mr. Tazewell Taylor, Attorney, dated Oct. 8th 1866. (Sgd.) Wm F. Austin Capt. A.A.Q.M., and Supt. 1st Dist. Va., Bureau R.F. and A. Lands, Hd Qrs, Asst. Comr, Dept. Potc. Richmond, Va., Oct. 11th 1866.
