Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward
Washington,
March 18, 1865.
Sir: With reference to my note of the 6th
ultimo, and to your reply of the 17th ultimo, on the subject of Captain
Scanlan’s cotton, I would beg to trouble you with a copy of a letter of
the 28th ultimo, which I have received from him, and extract of an
anterior statement, which I would wish to be considered in connexion
with his case.
[Page 101]
I have no doubt thai the Treasury Department will do all that is right
and just in the matter, and see that Captain Scanlan is fairly and
honorably dealt by.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most
obedient, humble servant,
Hon. William H. Seward,
&c., &c., &c.
Mr. Scanlan to Mr. Burnley
Memphis, Tennessee,
February 23, 1865.
Sir: I have seen a letter from the
Secretary of State of the United States to the Secretary of the
Treasury, calling his early attention to your official communication
in my case, and the instructions of the letter to the general
supervising agent here, authorizing him to act on the matter.
I understand he has referred the case back again to the Secretary of
the Treasury for final action, with the suggestion that all others
in the same district were equally entitled to the privilege I asked.
These people, with very few exceptions, are now petitioners for
pardon for past treasonable acts towards their government. Moreover,
they cannot exhibit any written contracts with the agents of the
government.
I am inside the lines of the federal navy, and recognized as such by
the military authorities, who are presumed to be the proper
judges.
The supervising agent here gave a neighbor of mine, a Mr. Dunlop,
living eight miles from the river, a permit to ship his cotton to
New York; also a Mrs. Dale. The former could not be considered as
inside the lines of the federal navy, and neither had a contract
with the authorized agent of the government. I could mention several
cases of the kind. Nay, even certain speculators have the right to
buy and ship my cotton without giving it over to the purchasing
agent of the government. If I am obliged to deliver over my cotton
now in this city, it will realize less than if I sold it to the
speculators referred to on my plantation. Cotton placed in the hands
of the purchasing agent may net thirty-five cents per pound, while
the speculator, having the right to buy and ship without this
restraint, would give fifty cents per pound for it on my plantation.
Captain Watson, commanding the gunboat Hastings, can testify that he
shelled guerillas who were taking by force some of my cotton. What
they had taken they sold to a speculator belonging to the firm of
Parkman, Apperson &Co. This firm, because
this cotton went through the singular process of being unjustly
seized by guerillas, were permitted to ship said cotton, while that
right is denied by Mr. Orme.
If I be forced to give my cotton into the hands of the purchasing
agent here, it will be as flagrant a breach of faith and as base an
injustice as was ever perpetrated on any subject of any friendly
neutral power. I have been always friendly to the United States,
have been well treated by her military officers, and trust that no
adverse decision will be come to affecting very materially my
pecuniary interests.
I have, &C.,
J. H. Burnley, Esq., &c., &c., &c.
Mr. Scanlan to Mr. Burnley
Willards’
Hotel,
February 6, 1865.
Sir: There was passed in the United States
Congress last July an act to purchase at certain points products of
insurrectionary States. In the one article of cotton alone, after
deducting the tax, which is 6d. per pound,
and the expense of transportation to New York, which would be 12d. per pound, the purchasing agent at Memphis
takes for the government one-quarter of the whole. This act of July
excepted from this sale to the government all products raised by
freedmen’s labor.
Before the passage of this act, nay, even prior to the emancipation
proclamation, I released from bondage the former slaves of my wife,
and afterwards hired, from the United States superintendent of
freedmen at Memphis, hands, with whose labor I raised the crop
referred to. This was a solemn contract under their auspices, and as
such ought to relieve me from the embarrassments to which those were
subjected that favored slavery, and were intended to be reached by
the act of July, 1864. This act was retrospective, the crop being
grown ere it passed, and it excluded all persons from the necessity
of turning their products over to the government who raised them
with the labor of freedmen. The advancing the purposes of the
emancipation proclamation renders one so obnoxious to the
confederates that their personal effects are a prey to their
incursions, which, together with the difficulties experienced
[Page 102]
in obtaining permits for
supplies, and the high prices at Memphis, nearly absorb the value of
the products raised. The supervising agent at Memphis demands of me
the same surrender of the products of my plantation as those who
have hired no freedmen, and have been guilty of acts of hostility to
the United States government.
To many of this class, who have not even hired their labor from the
government, said agent has given permits to transport their cotton
to New York without turning it over to the government. Moreover, he
has given private speculators permits to ship cotton purchased from
the confederate tax collector at one point on the river; to ship the
cotton so purchased on their own account to New York. Among the
cotton thus purchased and shipped was cotton pressed from me by this
collector of customs or tenths of the confederates.
If these speculators should ship without hindrance cotton unjustly
pressed from me by the confederates, ought not I to be permitted to
ship mine, who raised it under contract with the acting officer of
the government, and in furtherance of the proclamation of the
President? It may be objected, first, that my plantation is not
inside the federal lines; second, that my land should be leased from
the government. The answer to my first would be that my plantation
is on the banks of the Mississippi river, under cover of the
gunboats of the federal navy, and embraced in the order of Major
General Canby, commanding the whole department. Moreover, were it
not considered inside their lines they would not hire to me freedmen
to work on my plantation. With regard to the second objection, that
the lands should be leased from the government, I beg to say that no
mention is made in the act of July. This act merely excepts products
raised by freedmen’s labor, and defines that such products should be
permitted to be forwarded to market on the applicant making
affidavit that it was raised by the labor of freedmen, and that he
is a loyal United States citizen. When I was offered a permit on
signing that affidavit, I refused, and now, when this clause in the
affidavit has been dispensed with, Mr. Orme inconsistently denies me
the permit he first offered. If it should be set forth that copies
of contracts with freedmen should be filed with Mr. Miller, I should
say that this rule has been enunciated neither by proclamation nor
by act of Congress.
James H. Burnley, Esq., &c., &c.,
&c.
