York as a Republican politician. There was a large number of troops stationed in the town, and from there the armies on the Mississippi, in Missouri, and Kentucky got all their supplies and munitions of war. The quartermaster's department there had been organized hastily, and the demands upon it had increased rapidly. Much of the business had been done by green volunteer officers who did not understand the technical duties of making out military requisitions and returns; the result was that the accounts were in great confusion, and hysterical newspapers were charging the department with fraud and corruption. The matter could not be settled by any ordinary means, and the commission went there as a kind of supreme authority, accepting or rejecting claims, and paying them as we thought fit, after examining the evidence.
Sixteen hundred and ninety-six claims, amounting to $599,219.36, were examined by us. Of those approved and certified for payment the amount was $451,105.80.
Of the claims rejected a considerable portion were for losses suffered in the active operations of the army, either through departure from discipline on the part of soldiers, or from requisitions made by officers who failed to give receipts and certificates to the parties, who were thus unable to support their claims by sufficient evidence. Many claims of this description were also presented by persons whose loyalty to the government was impeached by credible witnesses. In rejecting these the commission set forth the disloyalty of the claimants, in the certificates written on the face of their accounts. Other accounts, whose rightfulness was established, were rejected on proof of disloyalty. The commission regarded complicity in the rebellion as barring all claims against the United States.
A very small percentage of the claims were rejected because of fraud. In almost every case it was possible to suppose that the apparent fraud was accident. My observation throughout the war was the same. I do not believe that so much business could be transacted with a closer adherence to the line of honesty. That there were frauds is a matter of course, because men, and even some women, are wicked, but they were the exception.
FIRST MEETING WITH GRANT.
All the leisure that I had at Cairo I spent in horseback riding up and down the river banks and in visiting the adjacent military posts. My longest and most interesting trip was on the Fourth of July, when I went down the Mississippi to attend a big celebration at Memphis. I remember it particularly because it was there that I first met General Grant. The officers stationed in the city gave a dinner that day to which I was invited. At the table I was seated between Grant and Major John A. Rawlins of his staff. I remember distinctly the pleasant impression Grant made—that of a man of simple manners, straightforward, cordial, and unpretending. He had already fought the successful battles of Fort Donelson and Shiloh, and when I met him, was a major-general in command of the district of West Tennessee, Department of the Missouri, under Halleck, with headquarters at Memphis. Although one would not have suspected it from his manners, he was really under a cloud at the time because of the operations at Shiloh. Those who did not like him had accused him of having been taken by surprise there, and had declared that he would have been beaten if Buell had not come up. I often talked later with Grant's staff officers about Shiloh, and they always affirmed that he would have been successful if Bueil had not come to his relief. I believe Grant himself thought so, although he never, in any one of the many talks I afterwards had with him about the battle, said so directly.
RETURN TO WASHINGTON.
We finished our labors at Cairo on the 31st of July, 1862, and I went at once to Washington with the report, placing it in the hands of Mr. Stanton on August 5th. It was never printed, and the manuscript is still in the files of the War Department.
There was a great deal of curiosity among officers in Washington about the result of our investigation, and all the time that I was in the city I was questioned on the subject. It was natural enough that they should have been interested in our report. The charges of fraud and corruption against officers and contractors had become so reckless and general that the mere sight of a man in conference with a high official led to the suspicion and often the charge that he was conspiring to rob the government. That in this case, where the charges seemed so well based, so small a percentage of corruption had been proved was a source of solid
