Viewing page 215 of 312
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
398 Norfolk Va Sept 19 - 1865 Respectfully referred to Col Orlando Brown Asst Comr of Va. The papers referred to in my first endorsement as contain in certain assertions was a statement of Miss Marcia Cotton concerning the quality and quantity of rations issued to people in "Rope Walk" Your attention is respectfully invited to endorsement of Capt Thomson A.S. who is the officer issuing to destitutes (Sgd) A. S. Flagg Capt & A.Q.M &c [[left margin]] Marcia Cotton Norfolk Va Aug 23d 1865 Refer 2.B.278. [[left margin]] Returned Endorsed Respectfully returned to Mr Johnston Asst Supt. for substantiation of the assertions made in his endorsement. This paper will be returned to the earliest possible moment. (Sgd) A. S. Flagg Capt & A QM. &c Norfolk Va Sept 16" 1865 Respectfully forwarded and attention invited to enclosed statements which can be turned into affidavits if the Bureau will authorize my paying a Notary Public fifty cents each for administering to these people the oath. I based my former endorsements on these statements and on the complaint of other col'd Destitite persons. If necessary these statements can be multiplied to any extent. In that endorsement I stated that the facts seemed to be true, and not that they were true or in other words that the evidence adduced would authorize my statement. I still think so, and certainly the papers enclosed will go far to substantiate all the statements in Miss Cotton's letter. As I was not in Norfolk when the ration was issued for August I can only state what has been offered in evidence by other parties. I cannot tell by whose order the ration has been cut down, ut the fact I know and it can be substantiated by every person to whom a destitute ration has been issued as I understand it, the ration is that established by circular order No. 8, issued by Genl Howard. If I am correct then cer 399 tainly the ration has been cut down, and so cut down that the original ration is nearly abolished and its place supplied by another very different. To prove this I have only to refer to endorsement of Capt Thompson. During the month of August the "old people had pork but once. while the rest of the time they had little more than "hard Tack" and Salt Beef, both unfit for humane food. No meal was issued to them. [[illegible]] Meal from the leading article in the ration in order No. 8. - Salt Beef is not mentioned in the order. Yet Salt Beef is the only meat given them. No Fresh Beef, flour, or soft Bread was issued. Yet all these articles are allowed hem in order No. 8. No one who will investigate the matter can for a moment doubt but that the ration has been cut down. and though Capt Thompson states that full, not half rations, were issued. I think the fact in the case will authorize my statement that in reality but little more than half rations were issued to the destitute colored people. I made the statement after mature investigation, and really thought that the ration issued was but half the ration allowed, judging from the quantity received by the old people. If after this evidence the Adj't Gen'l thinks my former statements were incorrect, I cannot help it, but I am fully convinced of its correctness and can establish men before any court of Justice by evidence that would be deemed sufficient. These facts are not alone confined to the old people as will be seen from statements of Mr Jackson. (Sgd) Charles E Johnston Asst Supt With six enclosures Norfolk Sept 19th 1865 Respectfully returned to Col. O. Brown Asst Com'r of Va. and attention invited to enclosed papers - The testimony of Capt Thompson seemed to conflict with that of persons making statements of quality o rations, in my opinion however the
