REPLY 
T O 
THE REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE 
OF THE SENATE 
0 N 
Iransjir la fat- the Wa* IJcjiavtmcnt. 
B / 
JOHN TUCKER, 
(LATE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF WAR.) 
February 27, 1863. 
PHILADELPHIA : 
MOSS & CO. 
1863. Philadelphia, February 27, 1863. 
IIon. E. M. STANTON, 
Secretary of War. 
Sir : 
I have only to-day succeeded in procuring a copy 
of the testimony taken by the Select Committee of the 
Senate on Transport Vessels for the War Department, 
on which their statements and conclusions are based. 
I preferred delay in answering the Report, that I 
might discover whether such gross perversion of the 
facts was due to the committee or the witnesses. In 
this answer I shall have occasion to quote largely from 
both the Report and the testimony. I believe the 
testimony of all the witnesses examined is a better 
vindication of myself than anything which can be 
written. I therefore invite the closest scrutiny and 
criticism of the evidence. 
The serious facts, so far as I am concerned, pre- 
sented by this Report, although not conveyed in the 
form of a direct allegation, are, that I have been guilty 
of a wasteful and reckless expenditure of the public 
money, and am a participant in the charters of trans- 
ports during the period I was Transportation Agent 
and Assistant Secretary of War. I feel that it is due 
to the people of the United States, to you and myself, 
to answer these charges with the gravity becoming 
the character of the issues involved. 
I shall comment on the various allusions made to myself in the order in which they are introduced by 
the committee. 
The first mention of my name is under the heading, 
“ Charles Coblens and John F. Pickrill of Baltimore.” 
Among the list of offences of the former, he is charged 
with being “ a Prussian by birth, and an Israelite by 
descent, a peddler and a horse jockey by profession.” 
Neither of these witnesses were interrogated with re- 
ference to any transactions with myself, except the 
general question put to all the witnesses, to which I 
shall directly refer. Yet in this connection my name 
is introduced with reference to the barge “Delaware,” 
chartered for the McClellan Expedition at $70 per day. 
The Report states that these gentlemen subsequently 
became the owners of the vessel, which was entirely 
unknown to me till I saw their Report. 
The committee, after exhibiting their estimate of 
the profits for three hundred and sixty-five days, the 
barge having been chartered for only thirty days, it 
being at the option of the Department to retain her 
longer in the service, observe: “ That this chapter of 
fraud may want no odious and shameless features, Mr. 
Hall affirms, Capt. Hodges and Mr. Tucker thought 
she was the cheapest thing they chartered.” 
I may be permitted to express surprise that the 
Senate committee should quote and use the evidence 
of a witness they immediately proceed to charge with 
perjury. But I will apply the facts to the case. I 
will here remark, the intrinsic or permanent value of 
a transport did not control or even influence the price 
paid. This was governed by the efficiency or capacity 
of the vessel for the exceedingly temporary service then 
required, viz: Transportation from Perryville and 
Annapolis to Urbana, near the mouth of the Rappa- hannock river, a distance of about one hundred miles. 
By reference to the original record, I find the barge 
Delaware was chartered with a steam tug at $115 per 
day. The rated or estimated capacity of the service 
of the two was 1000 men, or 125 horses and 300 men. 
The Delaware was a very large, capacious barge, with 
three decks; she had been fitted, furnished and used 
for large excursion parties. It has never been reported 
she was inadequate to the estimated service. If per- 
formed, which I have no reason to doubt, I now assert 
that, for the particular service required, these were the 
cheapest transports chartered, although I do not re- 
member ever before to have so stated. 
The original record also shows, that the charter 
money first united in one contract wras subsequently 
divided, and $70 allowed for the barge and $45 for the 
tug. I cannot remember that this was an act of mine, 
but as the services of the two might not be constantly 
required together, the separation was manifestly pro- 
per, and I will assume any responsibility connected 
with it. 
2d. The next allusion to me is under the same head- 
ing. The committee, after characterizing the alliance 
between Coblens and Pickrill as “ nefarious,” remark : 
“ The only person connected with the government, 
who enjoyed the acquaintance of Mr. Pickrill before 
the breaking out of the rebellion, was John Tucker, 
late Assistant Secretary of War, w7ho testifies that he 
has known Pickrill eight or nine years, and that he 
has had business transactions with him.” 
The question put by the committee to me was, 
“ Have you ever had transactions with him in years 
gone by?” The answer was, “ Yes, sir.” 
This business acquaintance, made eight or nine years ago, I did not hesitate to admit to the commit- 
tee, or now to readily own to the world. I could not, 
when before the committee, and cannot now, see the 
connection between that transaction and Mr. Pickrill’s 
recent contracts with the government. The business 
with Mr. Pickrill, eight or nine years ago, led to much 
of my professional intercourse with you; hence no 
one is a better judge than yourself whether there was 
anything in it which was “ nefarious,” immoral or 
improper. We both know there was not. 
The Supreme Court of the United States has just 
adjudicated the question, and decided it to have been 
at least legal. 
3d. The next connection in which my name is 
used, is with reference to the charters with Mr. A. C. 
Hall, of .Baltimore. The committee state : 
MR. AMASA C. HALL, OF BALTIMORE. 
Mr. Amasa C. Hall, of "Baltimore, lias played a very conspicuous 
part in connection with the chartering of transport vessels at that 
port. Hardly any vessel has been chartered there during the past 
eighteen months, that has not been secured through his agency, and 
of these earnings, from five to twelve per cent, has found its way to 
his pocket. During that time it has been understood among ship- 
owners, agents and brokers, that no vessel could secure a charter of 
the Quartermaster at Baltimore, unless she was offered by Mr. 
Hall; and several of them testify that, knowing this, they were 
compelled, much against their will, to resort to him to do their 
business. 
So singularly exclusive was the monopoly of this business enjoyed 
by Hall, that it at length attracted the attention of the Quarter- 
master-General, who called Col. Belger’s attention to it by two 
letters, printed in connection with his testimony. Assistant Secre- 
tory Tucker’s attention was also called to it more than once by Gen. 
Meigs (see Gen. Meigs’s testimony,) but, neither of those officers 
seemed to have made special effort to correct the abuse. The 
evidence furnished by Hall himself in his letter to Col. Belger, 
throws much light on the otherwise intricate question of his mono- 
poly. He says, “ The Hon. John Tucker, Assistant Secretary of 
War, is aware of, and fully understands the nature of my business 
transactions with the Government as an agent for the owners and 
masters of vessels, and I would respectfully refer to him for any information that Gen. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, may require.” 
This intimation seems to have put a stop to further grumbling, and 
Mr. Hall went on as prosperously as before. 
After commenting on the large commissions earned 
by Mr. Hall, the committee remark : 
It is no apology for cither Mr. Tucker or Col. Bclger for them to 
say that they did not know, until a recent period, that such commis- 
sions were charged. It was their duty to exercise at least ordinary 
care, attention, and diligence. They should have known, what seems 
to have been well known by every man connected with the transport 
business in Baltimore. They were bound to know the character and 
the conduct of the man they intrusted with public business of such 
magnitude. 
Again: 
The committee have endeavored to discover the motives which led 
to the employment of Hall. He says himself that some one recom- 
mended him to Col. Belger as a suitable person to charter vessels; 
but he is profoundly ignorant of the name of the person who thus 
recommended him. The inference fairly deducible from the first fif- 
teen pages of the testimony of Col. Belger would be, that this valu- 
able friend of Mr. Hall was the late Assistant Secretary of War, Mr. 
John Tucker; for Belger testifies that when he went to Baltimore, 
he “went there a stranger, and Tucker expressed such confidence in 
him (Hall), giving him those charters to make up, and he having 
acted for Capt,. Hodges in New York, I thought he was the very 
man for me to employ. Capt. Hodges was the Quartermaster at 
New York for that duty.” It should be borne in mind, however, 
that Col. Belger was totally mistaken as to the capacity in which 
Capt. Hodges acted in chartering vessels at New York. He was en- 
tirely subordinate to Mr. Tucker, and only placed his signature to 
charters already effected by the Assistant Secretary, for the purpose 
of giving them an official sanction. He had no power to select, in- 
spect or charter, save as personally directed by Mr. Tucker, and 
acted in all cases precisely as Belger said he did in nineteen out of 
twenty of the charters he effected, viz : as the mere clerical agent of 
Tucker. Belger says that nineteen-twentieths of the charters he 
signed were made “by Hall, by the direction of Mr. Tucker.” When 
it is remembered that, according to Belger’s report, appended to his 
testimony, the number of charters effected by him was 384, and that 
nineteen-twentieths of these, according to his statement, were really 
effected by Hall, at the instance of Tucker, though signed by Bel- 
ger, an estimate may be formed of the magnitude and value of Hall’s 
business. If Belger’s statement be true, not less than 360 of these 
vessels were thus chartered by him, under direction of Tucker, upon 
all of which Hall has received, is receiving, or is to receive, a com- 
mission of not less than five per cent, of their gross earnings. Here is a labored effort to connect me with the 
daily current business of the Quartermaster’s Depart- 
ment in Baltimore, and especially of that with Mr. 
Hall. 
It is true, the Quartermaster General inquired of me 
why it was that Mr. Hall chartered so large a propor- 
tion of the transports in Baltimore. I replied to the 
effect I was not aware of it, and knew of no reason why 
it should be so. In the midst of numerous avocations 
and cares, the inquiry made no impression on my mind, 
as I did not then, and do not now suppose that the 
Quartermaster General regarded me as having any- 
thing more to do with the current business of his De- 
partment in Baltimore than in Portland or San Fran- 
cisco. I know you did not, and I did not assume it, as 
will appear by reference to the testimony of Colonel 
Belger, Quartermaster at Baltimore. His evidence is 
this: 
Question to Col. Belger by the committee. Then your charters, 
which were made independent of Mr. Tucker, were also made through 
Mr. Hall, as well as those made under the direction of Mr. Tucker'? 
Answer. Yes, sir. I don’t know anything about Mr. Tucker ; 
hut whenever I wanted a vessel of Mr. Hall, I would say to him, I 
want a vessel, and I don’t want to go into the market for it; you go 
and pick me out such a vessel, and charter it at the lowest rate.* 
The following simple narrative of my transactions 
with Mr. Hall, will therefore not surprise you, al- 
though were it not for my testimony and other evi- 
dence before the committee, I should suppose it would 
astound them. 
The committee state: “ Hardly any vessel had 
been chartered there (Baltimore) during the last 
* The name of Mr. Hall does not appear in Col. Belger’s Report as char- 
tering vessels after the second letter of the Quartermaster General, who 
understood that the employment of Mr. Hall was arrested by his letters. eighteen months that lias not been secured during his 
(Hall’s) agency.” They then allude to the exclusive- 
ness of the monopoly, after which they remark : “ The 
inference fairly deducible from the first fifteen pages 
of the testimony of Col. Belger, would be that this 
valuable friend of Mr. Hall was the late Assistant Se- 
cretary of War, John Tucker.” 
The report is without date. It appeared in the New 
York Tribune on the 10th instant. I learn it was sub- 
mitted to the Senate on the 8th, although a part of 
the evidence was procured February 9th. Therefore, 
according to the inferences of the committee, I must 
have introduced Mr. Hall to this valuable monopoly 
about the 8th or 10th of August, 1861. 
The testimony reported by them proved this utterly 
impossible. 
The committee examine Mr. Hall as follows: 
P. 102. Question. When did you begin to have any connection 
with furnishing transportation for the United States army ? 
Answer. I think it was in August, 1861. 
Question. What was the first vessel you furnished % 
Answer. I cannot now state the first vessel; my impression is, it 
was either the steamer Pocahontas or the Georgia. 
P. 104. Question. When did you begin to act for the Govern- 
ment ? 
Answer. In August, 1861,1 think. 
Question. How came you to be employed for this purpose ? 
Answer. I have been in the steamboat and commission business 
for the last thirteen years. I was agent for a line of steamers in 
New York six years before going to Baltimore. Then I came on 
and took charge of the line of steamers from Charleston to Balti- 
more, and from Baltimore to New York; that was changed to the 
Cromwell’s line of steamers. I was agent for them when they were 
first established, until the Government took the vessels, a short time 
previous to the time I have mentioned. Some one recommended me 
to Colonel Belger as being a suitable person. 
Question. Who was that person who recommended you? 
Answer. I do not know. Colonel Belger sent for me to come to 
the office, and said I had been recommended to him. Page 107. Referring to Mr. Hall’s first interview 
with me, the committee ask him— 
Question. How did it happen that you went to meet him in Phila- 
delphia, or that you met him at Philadelphia? 
Answer. Some time in the month of February, 1862; the first of 
February, I think, the Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton, advertised 
for proposals for vessels of different classes—different grades— 
steamers, tug-boats, and sailing vessels. I saw the advertisement, 
and I answered the advertisement, stating that I could furnish so 
many steamers, so many tug-boats, and so many vessels. Then I 
went to Washington, and there I met Mr. Tucker at Willard’s 
Hotel. He was then, I believe, Assistant Secretary of War. I 
showed him the schedule I had. That was on Friday night. He 
remarked to me then that Captain Hodges and himself had been ap- 
pointed a committee, or agents, to get up an expedition, and they 
wanted such and such vessels of such and such dimensions, decks, 
and capacities for carrying mules and horses, and steamboats for 
carrying troops. He wanted to know how many I could furnish, 
and I told him 1 could not tell exactly, but in a day or so I could 
give all the names of the different vessels. He asked me if I could 
get the information and have it so he could get it in Philadelphia on 
Monday ; for me to meet him at his office. I told him I thought I 
could. I went home on the six o’clock train on Saturday morning, 
and went to work ; got the names of the vessels; saw the owners 
and parties, and got the dimensions; and Sunday night I went to 
Philadelphia and saw Captain Hodges and Mr. Tucker. Captain 
Loper wTas there at the time. I had the names and dimensions of 
the vessels. 
P. 100. Question. Do you know if any arrangement or under- 
standing, tacit or implied, written or oral, by wTliieh you should be 
employed in preference to any one else. 
Answer. No, sir. I do not think there wras ever in the world any 
understanding of that kind. 
The point which I wish to establish is, that neither 
Col. Belger nor Mr. Hall had any transactions with 
me prior to the McClellan Expedition, which was 
ordered by the President January 20th, 1862. 
P. 117. Question. Did you charter vessels for them (Kelsey and 
Grey), for the McClellan Expedition ? 
Answer. I took vessels they had to come to them. 
Question. Any for the Burnside expedition ? 
P. 113 and 114. Answer. No, sir. The Burnside Expedition 
I had nothing to do with. 
(The Burnside Expedition sailed January 20, 1862.) 
P. 130. Question. How came Mr. Tucker to employ you? 
Answer. It was through this advertisement of Mr. Stanton’s. Question. How do you know it was through that ? 
Answer. I think it was through that, because I never saw Mr. 
Tucker in my life until I sent this letter in answer to that adver- 
tisement of Mr. Stanton. 
Question. Was not that advertisement answered by ojther mer- 
chants, shippers, &c., in Baltimore 1 
Answer. I cannot say whether anybody answered it except my- 
self, or not. I saw the advertisement, and took a great deal of 
pains to get the information, and reported to him. That was the 
only thing I know of that brought me in contact with Mr. Tucker 
and the War Department. It was my answer to that advertisement. 
P. 164. Question. Did you charter any vessel for the Burnside 
Expedition'? 
Answer. Not any ; only my two tugs. 
(These two tugs were chartered by General Burnside at Annapolis.) 
IN MY OWN EXAMINATION. 
P. 342. Question. How many vessels have you chartered through 
A. C. Hall, of Baltimore ? 
Answer. I could not answer that without referring to that list; 
I am very confident that the first time I ever saw Mr. Hall was in 
Philadelphia. When I began to charter vessels for the McClellan Ex- 
pedition he came to me and offered me a number of steamers : that 
was in February, 1862. 
Question. Where 1 
Answer. In Philadelphia, at my office ; it was the first time I ever 
met him, to the best of my recollection. 
Question. Who introduced him to you ? 
Answer. I could not tell you now, sir ; I do not remember. 
Question. Did he bring any letter to you? 
Answer. No, sir. 
Question. Did you know nothing of him before ? 
Answer. No, sir; he had brought a description of a large num- 
ber of canal boats—Schuylkill canal boats—and offered them to me 
at a price Avliich we did not agree about. I had a fixed price for all 
I chartered—ten dollars a day. He demanded twelve ; I told him 
I could not change the price. He went back to Baltimore, and, by 
return of mail, informed me that I could have them at ten dollars a 
day; I answered that at that price I would take all that he could 
get- 
Question. Did you see him at the War Department before you 
saw him at Philadelphia at that time ?- 
Answer. I think not; I have no recollection of ever seeing him 
until that occasion. 
Question. You are confident that you did not advise him to go on 
and meet you at Philadelphia at that time ? 
Answer. Oh, yes, sir. 
Question. Did you ever see him at Annapolis ? 
Answer. No, sir. Question. Was he introduced to you by Captain Loper ? 
Answer. He might have been, but I don’t remember it. 
From Mr. Hall’s testimony it would appear that 
my first interview with him was on the evening I left 
Washington, February 21, 1862, to charter the 
Transports for the McClellan Expedition, instead of 
the Monday following, February 24, 1862. When 
before the committee, I did not recollect that inter- 
view, and do not now. It was not such a one as 
would impress it on my memory. 
(Page 346.) Question (To Mr. Tucker.) Your business at 
Baltimore was mostly done through Mr. Hall ? 
Answer. He came to me at Philadelphia with a list of steamers at 
a time when I wanted everything that I could get that was suitable. 
Question. From that time on he has been in the habit of furnish- 
ing the government vessels ? 
Answer. Very few to me, sir, or through me. 
Question. But to the government 1 
Answer. I do not know what he has done through the quarter- 
masters. 
Question. Hid you give Major Belger any orders to charter from 
Hall ? 
Answer. I may have given some few orders to Major Belger. 
Question. Ho you remember the time when you gave Major 
Belger orders to charter vessels of Mr. Hall 1 
Answer. No, sir ; I don’t recollect having given such orders; 
although, if Mr. Hall had come to me and offered a transport wdiich 
the government was in want of, and I knew it was a proper one and 
at a fair price, I may have directed Major Belger to execute the 
charter parties. 
Question. Hid you ever give Major Belger a general direction to 
charter through Mr. Ilall ? 
Answer. Oh no, sir ? 
Question. Hid you ever intimate to him that you would prefer 
that he should charter through Hall ? 
Answer. Most decidedly not, sir. 
Question. Was the fact of the chartering of these vessels through 
Hall ever brought to your attention ? 
Answer. The quartermaster general has' spoken to me of that 
fact; he did not understand why so many vessels were so chartered. 
Question. When did the quartermaster general first speak to you 
upon this subject ? 
Answer. I think it was five or six months ago, in a casual 
conversation. Question. How do you account for the fact that all the vessels 
were chartered through Mr. Hall at Baltimore 1 
Answer. I was not and am not now aware that that is the fact. 
Question. I think it is pretty much the fact. 
Answer. I had no idea of it, sir. 
Question. I understand you to say that you never gave any order 
to Colonel Belger, or intimated any desire to him, that he should 
charter vessels through Mr. Hall. 
Answer. I may have given him orders to charter a particular ves- 
sel ; but I never expressed any desire that Mr. Hall should have 
any preference over anybody. That I am positive about. 
Question. When the quartermaster general brought the fact to- 
your attention that there were complaints about Hall having the 
chartering of vessels in Baltimore, did you take any steps to prevent 
it? 
Answer. No sir; I did not consider it my duty. 
Question. Had you not the subject of transports under your 
charge ? 
Answer. Not generally, sir. 
Question. What was your specific duty in the War Department, 
or was it general ? 
Answer. It was general; but I was sent off in these emer- 
gencies. 
Question. Would you as readily have chartered vessels of the 
owners as of A. C. Hall, of Baltimore ? 
Answer. Certainly. If you will refer to my report, you will see 
that the government advertised its wants, and directed them to 
apply, and preferred dealing with the owners. 
Question. You know of nothing that Mr. Hall has done to entitle 
him to a brokerage from individuals ? 
Answer. I do not, farther than the owners seem to have em- 
ployed him. 
Question. Did you know that the owners had employed him ? 
Answer. I know in regard to these canal boats. I supposed that 
in regard to these canal boats that the captains employed him to 
represent them. 
Question. If you knew that, why did you not charter them 
directly from the captains ? 
Answer. I would have been very glad to have done that, but 
they were in Baltimore, I was in Philadelphia, and the time was a 
most important element. 
Question. How soon did you want them after they were char- 
tered ? 
Answer. Instanter. 
Question. Do you remember the day on which they were char- 
tered ? 
Answer. No, sir. 
Question. Do you remember how soon they were used after they 
were chartered ? Answer. I do not; I only knew I was extremely anxious to get 
them into service. 
Question. How soon after they were chartered were they 
used 1 
Answer. I should think within four days a portion of those barges 
were on their way from Baltimore to Perryville. 
(Page 351.) Question. I think you testified that you never gave 
any direction to Colonel Belger to charter of Mr. Hall 1 
Answer. As I said before, I may have done so in some particular 
case. 
Question. You gave no such general direction ? 
Answer. I have no recollection of it. I am very sure I did not. 
Question. When it was brought to your attention that he was 
chartering vessels, and that nobody else in Baltimore was, you did 
not believe that you had authority to change it ? 
Answer. That was never brought to my attention—that he was 
chartering all the vessels. I never was aware of that. My recollec- 
tion is, that in a casual conversation with General Meigs, he spoke 
of Mr. Hall’s appearing to be doing a very large business in 
Baltimore. 
The Committee having referred to the testimony 
of the Quartermaster General with reference to the 
monopoly of the business in Baltimore, and my 
knowledge of it, I will give General Meigs’s evidence 
on this subject in full. 
(Page 294) Washington, Friday, January 30, 1863. 
Brigadier General Montgomery C. Meigs recalled, testified 
further as follows :— 
Examined by the Chairman. 
Question. Did you have any interview with Mr. Tucker or Mr. 
Hall in regard to the method of chartering vessels at Baltimore, or 
the persons with whom charters were effected ? 
Answer. I have spoken with Mr. Tucker in regard to Mr. Hall 
being so much employed, or so many vessels being chartered through 
Mr. Hall, more than once. I do not remember any particular inter- 
view on this'subject. I have told him that I had written to Colonel 
Belger upon the subject. Mr. Hall I do not remember ever to have 
seen, until 1 saw him one day in this committee room, lately, and 
was told, after he had left the room, that that was Mr. Hall. If I 
had such an interview it left no impression upon me as to its being 
of importance. 
Question. Did Mr. Tucker, under the authority of the Secretary 
of War, have the general subject of the employment of transports 
under his charge during the year ending January 1, 1863? 
Answer. I think that, during Mr. Cameron’s administration as Secretary of War, he held a position as superintendent of transpor- 
tation ; but I have not seen his commission, and do not know 
precisely what his powers were. I think he acted under the 
instructions of the Secretary of War. When Mr. Stanton took 
charge of the War Department Mr. Tucker was made Assistant 
Secretary of War, and acted in connection with transportation from 
time to time, under instructions from the Secretary of War himself; 
what his precise duties and powers were, I am not informed. 
M. C. MEIGS, 
Quartermaster General. 
As the committee identify the testimony and trans- 
actions of Col. James Belger with Mr. Hall, I must 
also do so. Col. Belger, by the record of the com- 
mittee, was the first witness examined. 
The 2nd Question propounded to him was—How long have you 
been stationed at Baltimore ? 
Answer—I was sent there on the 20th, May, 1861. 
Question—Did you charter any vessels for Burnside’s Expedition % 
Answer—No, sir; I do not remember that I did. If I did, it was 
by order of Mr. Tucker, the Assistant Secretary of War. I do not 
recollect now that I did, sir. I may have taken up vessels and 
chartered them by his direction when it was so stated in the order. 
Question—Did you charter any vessels for the Port Boyal or 
Dupont Expedition ? 
Answer—No, sir. I do not remember that I did, now. 
Now, sir, I submit this evidence conclusively proves 
and establishes the fact that I neither knew, nor had 
a transaction with Col. Belger or Mr. Hall, until the 
latter called on me in response to your advertise- 
ment of 14th of February 1862, when I should have 
been derelict, if not criminal, in the performance of 
my duty, at a time when every suitable transport 
was required, if I had not seen Mr. Hall, with other 
similar bidders and competitors, especially as these 
transports were required in the immediate vicinity of 
Baltimore; and the Government could have well af- 
forded to have paid even a higher price for them in Bal- 
timore in preference to the delay and expense in pro- 
curing transports at distant places. If, then, I had neither seen nor known nor had a transaction with 
these two gentlemen until the last of February, 1862, 
which their testimony establishes, and which I 
solemnly affirm, I will leave it to you and the public 
to judge of the motive, the fairness and the truthful- 
ness of the insinuation of the committee, that “ the 
valuable friend of Mr. A. C. Hall, was the late As- 
sistant Secretary of War, Mr. John Tucker,” who 
secured to him this monopoly “ so singularly exclu- 
sive,” seven months before either of them was ac- 
quainted with me personally, or communicated with 
me orally, or in writing. I also aver, to the best of 
my knowledge, that from the time I parted with Mr. 
Hall in my office in Philadelphia, I never saw him, 
except in connection with the transports required for 
some rail road materials and machinery to be shipped 
from Baltimore for the McClellan Expedition, till the 
27th of June last, and again once at the Department, 
and on neither of these two occasions was any busi- 
ness transacted, proposed, or even referred to. I met 
Col. Belger for the first time the same day in June, at 
his office. The next day he accompanied Gen Wool 
from Baltimore to Washington, and I went in the 
same car. On my return from Fort Monroe in Sep- 
tember, on my way to Philadelphia, I called at his 
office for a few minutes (not exceeding ten). The 
next time I recollect to have met him was in the 
room of the Select Committee, to which interview I 
shall presently refer. I have not seen him since. 
Thus, to the best of my recollection, I have seen Mr. 
Hall but four times, and Colonel Belger but three. I 
concur with the committee that under any ordinary 
circumstances, “ practically it is of no consequence 
whether Hall and Belger were brought together by Tucker or not.” But when the committee connect 
and identify the transactions as they do with “ gigantic 
and shameless frauds,” I submit, it is of “ conse- 
quence,” or at least it is so to me. It is further of 
great consequence as demonstrating the loo£e way 
in which the committee draw their deductions from 
testimony before them, and the reckless manner in 
which they make insinuations. 
To recur again to the testimony of Col. Belger, 
and to my last interview with him. I called, as be- 
fore stated, at the room of the committee on Saturday, 
January 31, 1863, by appointment, to read and sign 
my testimony. I found Col. Belger in conversation 
with the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Grimes. 
Col. Belger advanced and met me with much frank- 
ness. I had not seen him for months, and was not 
aware that he had been before the committee. He 
at once said substantially this: “ Mr. Tucker, I have 
been with this committee before, and on my return 
to Baltimore it occurred to me that I had uninten- 
tionally, of course, left an erroneous impression on the 
minds of the committee relative to our transactions, 
and I came from Baltimore expressly to correct it.” 
I then, not having the most remote impression that 
any attack was to be made on me, carelessly replied, 
“ Col. Belger, you must make it right; we want the 
exact facts. That is all.” To which he replied, “ I 
will have it all right.” I was then requested by Mr. 
Grimes to retire until his interview with Col. Belger 
closed. On referring to his testimony on that particu- 
lar day, I find these words: “I desire to append the 
“ following documents to my testimony. They relate 
“ to, and explain my previous testimony in regard to 
“ the charge made against me of employing seces- “ sionists, including a letter from General Dix, ex- 
“ pressing his opinion; also in regard to the subject 
“ concerning which you have inquired, of Mr. John 
“ Tucker’s directions as to the chartering of vessels 
“ from Mr. Hall, preceded by an explanatory note jrom 
“ myself to the chairman of the committee in which I cor- 
“ red any misapprehension that may arise from my pre- 
“ vious testimony as to Mr. Tucker’s directions to me.” 
The sentence just quoted (italicized by myself) closes 
Col. Belger’s testimony. The “documents” referred 
to immediately follow, but the explanatory note from 
Col. Belger to the Chairman of the Committee, in 
which he corrects any misapprehension that may arise 
from his previous testimony as to my directions to 
him, is entirely omitted. 
I leave it to you to imagine the reason for suppress- 
ing this explanatory note. I refrain from comment- 
ing on it. 
This “explanatory note” may have explained that 
which is otherwise, to me, inexplicable. Col. Belger 
and Mr. Hall have both testified they had nothing to 
do with procuring transports for the Burnside Expe- 
dition (which sailed January 20, 1862), or for any one 
previous, (except on one occasion when Col. Belger 
assumes the transports for the rail road machinery 
were for General Burnside, which was an error.) 
For such transports as I engaged for the Burnside Ex- 
pedition, and also such as he subsequently chartered 
at Annapolis, I signed the charter parties as General 
Transportation Agent. For those secured to move 
Gen. Mc.Clellan’s army, Capt. Hodges, Assistant Quar- 
termaster, signed the charter parties, with the exception 
of those required to remove the rail road machinery, 
&c., to which reference has previously been made. The reason for this exception was this. You well 
know that on the 10th of April, 1862, I was most 
unexpectedly called on by you to take important des- 
patches from the President and yourself to the Head 
Quarters of General McClellan, near Yorktown. On 
reaching the steamboat in Baltimore, I remembered 
to have received that morning from Mr. Hall a note 
to the effect that the captains of the schooners and 
barges laden with the rail road machinery, &c., re- 
fused to leave until their charter parties were signed. 
Impressed with the importance that General McClel- 
lan’s forward movements, (the necessity of which was 
so strongly urged in the despatches of which I was 
the bearer,) should not be retarded by any neglect of 
minor details too often overlooked, I, on board the 
steamboat (using, as it appears, the headed note paper 
of the Company) addressed to Col. (then Major) Bel- 
ger, a stranger personally and officially, the following 
note, for a copy of which I am indebted to the com- 
mittee. 
Baltimore Steam Packet Company, 
Union Dock, foot of Concord street. 
Baltimore, April 10, 1862. 
Dear Sir : I was suddenly called to leave Washington to go to 
Fort Monroe. I learn that the vessels loaded with engines and cars 
are ready to move, but the captains require that the charter parties 
should be first signed. Will you oblige me by doing the needful, 
as it is very important they should be ready to go on a moment’s 
notice. 
Yours, very respectfully, 
JOHN TUCKER, 
Assistant Secretary of War. 
Major J. Berger, 
Assistant Quartermaster, Baltimore. 
The committee endeavor to involve this hurriedly 
written note, or the words, “do the needful,” in some 
mystery. I do not discover anything in either be- yond the efficient discharge of my duty, and I know 
nothing more was intended. 
The charters for these transports I did intend Col. 
Belger to sign. I presumed it was immaterial which 
Quartermaster signed them. The number engaged 
for this service the committee state was seventy-two. 
T may have requested Col. Belger at different times 
to have executed some dozen other charter parties for 
special purposes, although I cannot remember that 
number, and not one of them was taken through Mr, 
Hall. With the forty-five schooners, thirty barges, 
and sixteen steamers, the charters of which were 
signed by Capt. Hodges, and the seventy two charters 
of schooners and barges signed by Col. Belger, all 
chartered for the McClellan Expedition, in February 
and March, 1862, and confined to those two months 
all my transactions with Mr. Hall were included and 
terminated, and all were the result of your advertisement 
for transports. 
So, also, with Col. Belger; with the charters of 
the seventy-two barges and schooners engaged for the 
transportation of the rail road machinery, &c., char- 
tered in March, 1862, which charter parties I re- 
quested him to sign, and the possible dozen other 
exceptional cases during the year, his duties and acts 
were separate and distinct from mine. Any discrep- 
ancy between this statement and that contained in 
the Report of the committee, I must assume to have 
been explained in Col. Belger’s “ explanatory note’" 
to the chairman of the committee, with a copy of 
which neither the public, the Senate, nor myself have 
been favored. 
4th. I am next introduced in connection with 
Capt. R. F. Loper of Philadelphia. I do not propose to make any lengthy review of the comments of the 
committee with reference to this gentleman, except 
so far as they attempt to identify his acts with my 
own. 
The committee state, page 17 : 
The heavier operations of Captain Loper began with the appoint- 
ment of Mr. Tucker as United States Transport Agent,” and they 
have continued, without intermission, during the whole of Mr. 
Tucker’s two terms of office, first as agent, and subsequently as 
Assistant Secretary of War. Mr. Tucker employed Captain Loper 
to “ inspect and recommend” all kinds of vessels at Philadelphia, 
New York, and Annapolis, for various services and expeditions, and 
Captain Loper proceeded to charge from five to ten per cent, com- 
missions on the gross earnings of vessels recommended to Mr. Tucker 
for charter. In some cases it was denominated a. brokerage com- 
mission, in others a commission for collecting, and in others still he 
received five per cent, for brokerage, and five per cent, additional 
for collecting the sums due to the owners. 
I do not hesitate to assert these remarks are as en- 
tirely inconsistent with a truthful statement of the 
facts, as in the case of Mr. Hall. 
Immediately after my appointment in Washington, 
in April, 1861, I returned to Philadelphia, and at 
once discharged such transports as were no longer 
wanted. Such as were best adapted and required for 
maintaining the line between Perryville and Annapo- 
lis, formed by J. Edgar Thompson, Esq., President of 
the Pennsylvania Rail Road Company, S. M. Felton, 
Esq., President of the Philadelphia, Wilmington and 
Baltimore Rail Road Company, and Captain R. F. 
Loper, acting as their assistant, were retained. 
Of these there were a number belonging to trans- 
portation companies in which Captain Loper was inter- 
ested. In every case the rate of pay was reduced. 
Many of these steamers were retained in service by 
different Quartermasters after the direct communication 
with Washington by rail road was opened, as they were peculiarly well adapted to the transportation of 
stores and munitions of war from New York and 
Philadelphia to Baltimore and Washington. They 
were expressly built for these routes. I regret that I 
have not statements before me which would show the 
exact relative price paid for these steamers, and any 
and all other charters made by any other officers of 
the Government. The Quartermaster General, in 
giving his instructions to Captain Hodges in reference 
to the McClellan Expedition, states :— 
“ For propellers and light draught steamers it is 
not possible to fix a rate. The offers received under 
the advertisement of the War Department, vary from 
fifty cents to one dollar per ton per day.” Those of 
Captain Loper’s, to which reference is here made, are at 
41\ cents per ton per day. In addition to being 
so peculiarly suitable for the purpose, I believe them 
to be the cheapest steam transports known to the 
Department. 
The committee state, “ ‘ the heavier operations’ of 
“ Capt. Loperbegan with the appointment of Mr. Tucker 
“ as United States Transportation Agent, and they 
“have continued without intermission during the whole 
“of Mr. Tucker’s two terms of office, first as Agent, 
“ and subsequently as Assistant Secretary of War.” I 
will again test this statement by the facts never before 
so useful to me as now, in answering this report. By 
reference to “ Senate Executive Document No. 37— 
37th Congress, 2d Session,” which was before the 
Committee, as they quote it, it appears that with the 
exception of renewing at reduced prices the charters 
of the propellers before referred to, I chartered from 
the time of my appointment as Transportation Agent, 
on the 28th April, 1862, to October 1st, 1862, but one bark (to take ice to Fort Pickens, an unusual service) 
and eleven propellers. These were all on special 
requisitions. The “ heavier operations” began with 
General Burnside’s Expedition. He commenced pre- 
paring for this movement about the 1st of October, 
1861. After he had been engaged about two months 
in procuring transports, I was directed to assist him 
in obtaining any he might still require, and to expe- 
dite his departure as much as possible. 
This duty required the purchase of a few steam- 
ers, as well as the charter of others, and also sailing 
vessels. At my first interview with General Burn- 
side he informed me he had negotiations for the 
purchase of a steamer and a bark, which he wished to 
buy. He named the prices demanded, and the rates 
at which he supposed they could be purchased. He 
introduced me to the parties who offered them for sale. 
I replied I would have them properly inspected and 
would then again see the sellers. Before this in- 
spection was perfected I happened to meet Captain 
Loper, who has built more steamers than any other 
man in this country. I inquired if he knew the steamer. 
He replied he built her and knew all about her. I then 
took Captain Loper to General Burnside to furnish the 
exact description, draft of water, &c., &c. 
Captain Loper’s valuation of the steamer was 
$12,500 less than the lowest price that had been 
named. He remarked he knew the owners perfectly 
well, and if it was desired, he was confident he could 
purchase the steamer at the price he had stated. 
With General Burnside’s approval the purchase was 
thus made. This introduction to General Burnside, 
and this result, naturally inspired confidence in Capt. 
Loper. General Burnside’s requisitions were peculiar and 
intricate. He required sea-going steamers, wliile he, 
of necessity, limited the draft of water to 82 feet. He 
also desired steamboats to accompany his expedition, 
to navigate the bays and streams emptying into Hat- 
teras Inlet, drawing less than two feet of water. It 
was difficult to meet these requisitions. I may prop- 
erly inquire if such were met in other cases ? They 
were in the case under consideration, and I sug- 
gest that much of General Burnside’s success in North 
Carolina may be attributed to this efficiency in what 
may be regarded as minor details never to be neg- 
lected by a practical man in any capacity. 
To successfully meet these demands, I availed my- 
self of the great practical knowledge and experience 
of Captain Loper, who, from personal observation as 
a mariner, was perfectly familiar with every inlet on 
the coast, and practically experienced with every de- 
scription of water transports from his early youth. 
How the duties were performed will be best stated 
in the following correspondence. General Burnside 
left New York in December with the transports he 
then deemed requisite. On his arrival at Annapolis, 
the place of rendezvous, he called on me for more. 
He also requested me to send Captain Loper to An- 
napolis to aid him. 
The Committee again furnish me with this docu- 
mentary evidence. 
COPY. 
Philadelphia, December 26, 1861. 
Dear Sir :—I am requested by General A. E. Burnside (by tele- 
graph,) to ask you to go at once to Annapolis. You will oblige me 
by doing so and by aiding him in any way he may desire. 
Yours, very respectfully, 
John Tucker. 
To Capt. R. F. Loper. Success is the standard by which the world judges. 
In this instance, it appears in the following commu- 
nication : 
Annapolis, January 7, 1862. 
Dear Sir : I beg leave to express to you my hearty appreciation 
of the services rendered me in the fitting out of the expedition under 
my command by Captain It. F. Loper. The interest and zeal mani- 
fested by this gentleman in this work has been constant and un- 
tiring, and he has in every instance fully answered every demand 
made upon his skill and his patience. I most cheerfully acknow- 
ledge my obligations to him, and take great pleasure in recommend- 
ing him as a competent and efficient man, whose efficiency and mature 
judgment cannot fail to be of great service in any case of emergency. 
Yours, very truly, 
A. E. Burnside, Brigadier General. 
Hon. Simon Cameron, 
Secretary of War, Washington. 
The committee next remark: “ Mr. Tucker em- 
“ ployed Captain Loper to ‘ inspect and recommend’ 
“ all kinds of vessels at Philadelphia, New York and 
“ Annapolis, for various services and expeditions, and 
“ Captain Loper proceeded to charge from five to ten 
“ per cent, commissions on the gross earnings of ves- 
“ sels recommended to Mr. Tucker for charter.” 
This refers to the transports for the McClellan 
Expedition. After my experience of Captain Lo- 
per’s practical knowledge in the Burnside move- 
ment, and General Burnside’s voluntary expression of 
opinion to the Secretary of War, “ recommending 
him as a competent and efficient man, whose efficiency 
and mature judgment cannot fail to be of great service 
in any case of emergency,” I did not hesitate to avail 
of such qualifications, when emphatically, time was 
money. I conferred with Captain Hodges, then sent 
for Captain Loper and informed him of our desire to 
avail of his services as an expert to inspect transports, 
that the Government would not and I wished first to have it clearly and distinctly understood that 
he should not receive anything in any form or man- 
ner from the owners or their agents. In short, there 
should be one exclusive and controlling motive, and 
that, the interest of the Government. 
To this he readily assented. I then believed and 
now believe he was governed solely by this principle 
while he thus acted. I will again apply to the testi- 
mony to substantiate this statement. The first is from 
my evidence before the committee. 
Question. Captain Loper was not receiving any compensation from 
the Government ? 
Answer. No, sir. 
Question. Did you know the amount he charged the owners of 
these vessels ? 
Answer. lie told me at the time that he should not charge them 
a cent, and has told me so over and over again since. In regard to 
that McClellan Expedition, he has never received a cent, directly or 
indirectly, from the owners; that was a condition that I made. 
Question. Have you chartered any vessels through him since ? 
Answer. I have chartered vessels of him. 
Question. Any through him, upon his recommendation ? 
Answer. I may, upon his recommendation.’* 
Question. Did you know what per cent, he charged for recom- 
mending them to you ? 
Answer. I did not. 
The next is from that of Captain Hodges : 
(P. 224.)—Question. Do you know of Captain Loper’s receiving 
a commission from Thomas Clyde. 
Answer. No, sir. I do not know of Captain Loper receiving a 
commission from anybody in the world. 
(P. 230.)—Question. Do you know what consideration Captain 
Loper received ? 
Answer. I do not. I did not know that he received any at all. 
Question. What did he represent in regard to his services'? 
Answer. As far as he was connected with us—Mr. Tucker and 
myself—he said he got nothing for it; that he was willing to give his 
* It is here proper to state that after mature reflection, and an examina- 
tion of the tables furnished by the committee, I do not remember to have 
chartered any vessel from Captain Loper, or on his recommendation after 
the sailing of the McClellan Expedition, for which fleet only four steamers 
at an average of less than $125 per day were taken of him. services. If he coiild be of any use to the government, ho was will- 
ing to do so. Mr. Tucker told him he was to get no pay; but 
wanted his services. Captain Loper willingly agreed to this. 
Here follows Captain Loper’s statement on this 
point: 
Question. Mr. Tucker came on io where ? 
Answer. To Philadelphia. He told me that he and Mr. Hodges 
were appointed by the Secretary of War to get up the vessels for 
this expedition; but he told me that he was not authorized to pay 
me anything for my services, and I must charge no commission nor 
anything else for my services: I then told him that I would volun- 
teer my services, and that I would charge the government nothing 
for my time. I examined all the vessels which I could find in New 
York and all we could get in Philadelphia; every steamboat that 
was fit, that could be taken, was taken. Mr. Flanagan, Mr. Groves 
of the Ericsson line, Captain Whilldin, and Mr. Clyde of the Ex- 
press line, 'whom I had been doing business for, I told them each, 
and every one of them, that I could not take a commission in any 
form or manner, nor I never did take one penny for all the vessels 
examined for the expedition. We got all that we could get in New 
York. Since this war begun, I have been offered by almost all the 
ship-brokers in New York to divide the commission with me on ves- 
sels, which offer I never have accepted; not one dollar, either di- 
rectly or indirectly. 
(P. 267.)—Question. What proportion do you suppose your per- 
centage as brokerage would bear to the aggregate amount that you 
have received for advancing and collecting money ? 
Answer. I never received anything in any other way than for ad- 
vancing and collecting—not a dollar; I never have charged any- 
thing for interest in any case except that of Captain Whilldin. 
Question. You have charged for advancing and collecting? 
Answer. I have charged for advancing and collecting five per 
cent—only five per cent. 
Question. In some instances have you not charged more ? 
Answer. No, sir; not one, with the exception of Captain Whill- 
din ; I did not charge that; he gave it to me ; that arrangement with 
Captain Whilldin was two or three months after the vessels were 
chartered. 
Question. In no other instance than Captain Whilldin’s ? 
Answer. Not that I remember of. 
Question. If you had done it, would you have remembered it? 
Answer. I think I should, sir. 
Question. In addition to the commission, do you not get about five 
per cent, for advancing and collecting? 
Answer. No, sir; the five per cent, includes everything, except 
in the case of Captain Whilldin: I did not charge one cent for ad- 
vancing or interest. For Mr. Williams, of the steamer Patapsco, I 
advanced $75,000 for three months. Question. You have received five per cent, from Mr. Reybold ? 
Answer. Yes, sir. 
Question. And Captain Whilldin 1 
Answer. Yes, sir. 
Question. And Mr. Groves 1 
Answer. [ have received five per cent from Mr. Whilldin, Mr. 
Flanagan, Mr. Iteybold, Mr. Groves, and from Mr. Clyde, for part 
of his vessels. I gave up his charters last July. 
The transports here referred to were not for the 
McClellan Expedition. 
I respectfully submit that this evidence establishes 
the fact that on the transports I requested Capt. Loper 
to “ inspect and recommend,” he did not proceed to 
charge five and ten per cent, commissions, or any 
commissions whatever. 
It is proper to state, that none of the vessels in- 
spected or recommended by Captain Loper, or any 
others chartered by me, met with any accident while 
in the service for which they were chartered. I did 
not procure, or charter, or have anything to do with 
engaging any of the transports for the Banks’ Expe- 
dition. 
The next point to which allusion is made by the 
committee is the charter of the steamers Champion 
and Louisiana. I do not remember about the former. 
She was not chartered by me. With reference to the 
latter, “ the committee regret that their time has not 
permitted an investigation into the facts connected with 
the charter of the Louisiana, which was taken into the 
Government service on the 8th January, 1862, at the 
enormous rate of $800 per day, and is still in the ser- 
vice. Col. Belger testifies that she was chartered by 
Tucker, and that he, Belger, has paid by order of the 
Quartermaster General, at different times $200,410.23 
for her services for 251 days. But she has been in the 
service over a year, and there must be still a sum due her greater than her entire value.” I was not ques- 
tioned by the committee with reference to this char- 
ter, but will now give the facts connected with it. The 
committee state Captain Loper has sworn “ she was 
chartered by Mr. Brandt directly to Gen’l Burnside 
without being examined by himself.” The commit- 
tee have before stated she was chartered on the 8th 
of January, 1862 This was the exact time when 
General Burnside was chartering vessels at Annapolis. 
He was in an emergency for transports. The Gov- 
ernment were impatient at the delay in the sailing of 
his expedition. The daily expense by the detention 
was enormous. 
General Burnside was most anxious to get away. 
He had found the transports, which he supposed suffi- 
cient when he left New York, inadequate on his ar- 
rival at Annapolis. He required more. The “Lou- 
isiana” was a most capacious and costly steam trans- 
port. He wanted her for a short time only. He 
could not tell the owners the voyage required to be 
performed, as his destination was a secret. Hence in- 
surance was not to be obtained. The owners knew 
their steamer was not adapted to a long sea voyage, 
or very rough weather. Therefore the high price ac- 
ceded to by General Burnside, and reluctantly accepted 
(as I am informed) by the owners. I knew nothing 
of the transaction at the time, but at the request of 
General Burnside signed the charter parties, as I did 
all the others he made at Annapolis. I learned the 
facts, however, a short time afterwards, when the 
owners informed me their fine steamer had been se- 
riously damaged by being ashore in Hatteras Inlet, 
and they supposed they had an equitable claim for the 
damages. These were not allowed. The committee err in stating the “ Louisiana has been over a year 
and is still in the service, and there must still be a sum 
due her greater than her entire value.” 
Colonel Belger states in his testimony, the “ Louis- 
iana” was discharged on the 15th of September, 1862, 
and paid in full. He adds he employed her four days 
from 4th of December, 1862, to 8th December, 1862, 
at $600 per day.* 
The next reference to myself is in connection with 
Mr. James B. Danforth, of New York, and the steamer 
“Metamora.” I have known Mr. Danforth for many 
years. Before I reached the city of New York, the 
telegraph had communicated to the country the demand 
of the Government for transports. Mr. Danforth, 
shortly after my arrival, introduced different persons 
(strangers to me) who made offers of transports, which 
after examination and negotiation, and a . reduction of 
price in most cases, were accepted. These transports 
were among the very best that were procured, and 
fully performed all that was represented of them. I 
perfected these charters in every instance with the 
owners, not knowing or having the most remote idea 
that Mr. Danforth had an interest of any description 
in them. The first intimation reached me in the 
month of August following, when I was informed of 
it by one of the owners. I had no manner of interest, 
direct or indirect, in these steamers or charters, or in 
any interest Mr. Danforth may have had in them. I 
much regret Mr Danforth was not examined by the 
Oommittee.f 
* The “Louisiana” was discharged from the department of Gen. Burn- 
side in March, 1862. 
f I learn that he waited on them at their hotel, in New York, and inti- 
mated his readiness to be examined. With reference to the steamer Metamora, the Com- 
mittee state : 
Another extraordinary condition of facts is developed in connec- 
tion with this steamer. She was an old vessel, and cost her owners 
$25,000. She was chartered by Assistant Secretary of War, John 
Tucker, though the latter gentleman has failed, for some unexplained 
reason, to include her name in the list he furnished to the committee, 
of vessels chartered by him or under his direction. The price paid for 
her hy the government, was $450 per day. According to the testimony 
of Mr. Lewis Baker, one of her owners, “ she was chartered to be deliv- 
ered at Annapolis on the 6th of March, 1862. I state from memory. 
A telegram came on here from one of the owners in New York to de- 
liver her there on the 6th of March, with 4,000 gallons of water on 
board. We got ready to run the blockade, and were stopped here on 
the night of the 4th by the Quartermaster’s Department at 4 or 5 
o’clock in the afternoon. That is the time she was chartered.” * * 
Question. When did your pay for the Metamora actually com- 
mence ? 
Answer. We got paid from the first of the month. 
Question. Why were you paid for that six days priori 
Answer. That is more than I can state ; we were paid for her. * * 
Question. Do you know of her having made a pleasure Excur- 
sion 1 
Answer. Yes, sir ; we made an excursion on the 1st or the 2d 
of March down to a Rebel battery opposite Mattawoman Creek, called 
Cockpit-Point Battery. 
Question. Was that on private account 1 
Answer. Yes, sir ; it was our own boat;. we knew nothing about 
Government then ; that was on the 1st and 2d of March. * * 
Question. Those were two of the days for which you were paid 
by the Government 1 
Answer. Yes, sir ; we were paid from the first of the month. 
The evidence shows that the Metamora was not only paid for at 
least four days’ services that she did not render, amounting to $1800, 
but she was repaired at the expense of the Government to the amount 
of $4447.02, and that during the time she was undergoing repairs, said 
by Baker to be fourteen days, she received her charter party pay $451 
per day. A part of these repairs consisted of bunkers in which the 
private trading stores of some of her owners, who were army sutlers, 
W'ere carried; for it is shown that this vessel was used for private 
purposes, and that some of the owners realized upon one trip of the 
vessel to Harrison’s Landing the handsome profit of $3,100. It is 
stated by one of the owners, Mr. John Packer, and also by Mr. John 
Tucker, who directed this large amount of repairs to be done to 
the Metamora (see his letter to Col. Belger,) that they were paid by 
the. Government in consequence of damage done to her by the per- 
formance of extra-hazardous work in the early part of May, 1862, 
when she was required to cross in boisterous weather from Fortress Monroe to Cherrystone Inlet. By reference to Major Belger’s ac- 
count of repairs done to her, it will be observed that the items are: 
May 29. Bepairing Awnings, &c. - $32 35 
May 30. Joiners’ work, &c., and materials. - - 861 10 
May 31. Painting, &c., and materials. - - - 281 82 
May 81. Pattern Makers’ work, &c. - 1,148 04 
Aug 27. Carpenters’ work, &c. - 2,623 41 
It would be curious to know how the straining of this steamer 
in heavy weather rendered necessary the application of $281 82 of 
paint, or $1,148 04 of pattern-makers’ work; nor is it easy to un- 
derstand the connection between the strain to which she was exposed 
in May and the $2,623 41 of carpenters’ work expended upon her 
in August. 
The above extract is the statement which originally 
appeared in the New York Tribune. The following 
is taken from the official report: 
It would be curious to know bow the straining of this steamer in 
heavy weather rendered necessary the application of $281 82 of 
paint, or $1,148 04 of pattern-makers’ work. By reference to Col. 
Belger’s report of vessels repaired at Baltimore under his direction, 
(p. 804,) it may be fairly inferred that the dates were intended to 
designate the times when the repairs were actually made, and not to 
the times when the money was paid for them, because there are many 
entries of repairs marked “ not paidand these, like the others, 
are all provided with dates. The committee, curious to learn what 
connection existed between the strain recoived by the Metamora in 
May and the $2,628 41 of carpenters’ work put upon her in August, 
addressed a letter to the Assistant Secretary of War, of which the 
following is a copy : 
Select Committee Boom, United States Senate, 
Washington, February G, 1863. 
Dear Sir : It appears from the list of vessels repaired at Balti- 
more, Maryland, under the direction of Colonel James Belger, quar- 
termaster, which list was transmitted to me, for the use of the select 
committee of the Senate on the chartering of transports for the 
Banks expedition, &c., by the honorable Secretary of War, that the 
steamer Metamora received the following repairs : 
1862, May 29. Bepairing awnings, &c. - $32 35 
1862, May 30. Joiners’ work, &c. - 361 90 
1862, May 31. Painting, &c. - - - 281 82 
1862, May 31. Pattern-makers’work, &c. - 1,148 04 
1862, Aug. 27. Carpenters’ work, &c. - 2,623 41 
*14,447 52 The committee desire to ascertain whether the last-mentioned sum 
of $2,623.41 was paid for work done on or about the 27th of 
August, or for work done on or about May 30, when the previous 
repairs were made on said steamer, there being nothing in Colonel 
Belger’s report to show, with certainty, whether the dates refer to 
the time when the repairs were done and completed, or to the time 
when the money was paid for the same. Will you please inform the 
committee whether there is any record in the War Department to 
elucidate this point 1 
Very repectfully, your obedient servant, 
‘ JAMES W. GRIMES, Chairman, Me- 
llon. P. H. Watson, Assistant Secretary of War. 
On the 9th inst. the Assistant Secretary of War, by direction of 
the Secretary, transmitted to the Committee the following letter from 
Col. Belger :— 
Quartermaster’s Office, 
Baltimore, February 7, 1863.. 
Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter 
dated February 6, 1863, enclosing a copy of a portion of a letter 
from Senator Grimes, relative to the repairs made upon the steamer 
“ Metamora,” and, in reply, to state that the date, August 27, 
1862, which was placed opposite the amount for carpenters’ work, 
&c., $2,623.41, on this steamer, was the date of the payment of the 
account. The proper date should be May 31, 1862. 
Enclosed I hand you the order for the repairs of said steamer, 
received from the Hon. John Tucker, then Assistant Secretary of 
War. Mery respectfully, your obedient servant, 
JAS. BELGER, 
Colonel and Quartermaster. 
Hon. E. M. Stanton, 
Secretary of War, Washington, D. C. 
[Enclosure.] 
Assistant Quartermaster’s Office, 
Department of Virginia, Fort Monroe, May 16, 1862. 
Dear Sir : The steamer “ Metamora” was called upon to perform 
some extra hazardous service, in doing winch she sprung her guards 
and otherwise strained herself. She will be sent to Baltimore in 
a day or two, for some repairs of her hull, rendered necessary by 
this service. It is the opinion of all the officers here who know the 
circumstances (in which I concur) that the cost of these repairs 
should be borne by the government. 
You will please have her repaired as soon as possible, and returned 
here, as she is most useful. 
Yours respectfully, JOHN TUCKER, 
Assistant Secretary of War. 
Major J. Belger, 
Assistant Quartermaster, Baltimore. “ It thus appears, that the August expenditure of $2,623.41 was 
“ really a part of the repairs of May 29, 30 and 31, when, as Mr. 
“ Tucker alleges, she ‘ sprung her guards and otherwise strained her- 
“ self.’ The committee leave to Col. Belger the task of explaining 
“ the discrepancy between his two reports.” 
A portion of that which the committee did not un- 
derstand, (the carpenters’ work done in May, but not 
paid till August) as explained by Col. Belger, does not 
seem to be entirely satisfactory to the committee. I 
will endeavor to make my explanations more so, al- 
though I had supposed my own testimony on this sub- 
ject, which will be found in their report, pages 343 
to 345, was sufficiently full and explicit, and to which 
I ask reference. 
The exact facts with reference to the “ Metamora” 
are these : The owners called at Capt. Hodges’ office 
soon after our arrival in New York, and offered to 
charter this steamer. They stated she had just run 
the blockade of the Potomac, and was then in Wash- 
ington, where she had thus been sent to find employ- 
ment. The steamer was well known. She was 
chartered with others of the same owners, pro- 
vided she was at Annapolis on the 6th of March, 
1862, the time when the others, after being coaled, 
obtaining supplies of water for the troops, &c., &c., 
were expected to reach that place. There was mani- 
fest propriety in making that condition, as she might 
not again be so successful in running the blockade. 
Of course she was then regularly entered on Captain 
Hodges’ list. The proper order was given by the 
owners. The Quartermaster in Washington would 
not permit her to leave. (See the evidence). The 
owners promptly advised this result. Capt. Hodges 
then erased the Metamora from his list of charters. 
A few days afterwards Capt. Hodges sent me a state- ment of the transports secured. Of course the Meta- 
mora was not on it. A‘copy of this list, prepared by 
Capt, Hodges, (see my testimony) was handed to the 
committee. It did not, of course, include the Meta- 
inora. You will remember that about the time Com- 
modore Vanderbilt was presenting to the Government 
his steamship Vanderbilt to destroy the “ Merrimac” 
(may I here say, resulting from my suggestions to 
yon) I was called on by you for the fastest steamer 
at command, to send Mr. Vanderbilt to Fort Monroe. 
In his presence I named the Metamora, then in the 
service of the Quartermaster’s Department. His com- 
ments about her speed and other good qualities caused 
you to order that when she had performed the duty 
then required she should be put on the Telegraph line 
between Fort Monroe and the wires at Cherrystone. 
On her being thus employed, and on application of 
the owners, I soon after requested Capt. Hodges to 
execute a charter party at the price originally agreed 
upon. This is a fuller answer, made on reflection and 
investigation, than that made during my examination 
to the question put by the Chairman of the Commit- 
tee, which I think could have been more appropriately 
addressed to Capt. Hodges, who had charge of the re- 
cords, minute details, and payments. 
At this point, I beg to put the words of the report 
on this subject by the side of my answer. The 
Committee observe :— “ She was chartered by As- 
sistant Secretary of War John 
Tucker, although this gentleman 
has failed, for some unexplained 
reason, to include her name in 
the list he furnished to the 
committee of vessels chartered by 
him or under his direction 
Question. If chartered 
the Metamora, how happens it 
that she is not entered on your 
list that you have furnished to 
the committee'? 
Answer. I think you will find 
on Captain Hodges’s original 
papers, chartering vessels, that 
the Metamora was chartered and 
entered regularly on his list, and _ 
that a day or two afterwards the 
owner came to me and said that 
Major Van Vliet, or the quarter- 
master here, (Washington) could 
not release her, and that her 
name was, therefore, struck off 
our list; and subsequently Com- 
modore Vanderbilt came here, 
just at the time he was giving 
the steamer Vanderbilt to the 
government, and some fast steam- 
er was wanted to take him down 
to Fort Monroe, and the Meta- 
mora was assigned to that duty. 
It is possible that that was the 
first time I had anything to do 
with her, and that might have 
been the cause of the delay in 
signing the charter. 
The Chairman of the Committee frequently inter- 
rupts a witness, puts his questions rapidly, expects 
immediate answers, is impatient at delay, and averse 
to explanations. 
I supposed, however, the answer on this point was 
sufficiently satisfactory, as he immediately changed 
the subject (his practice) by putting the following 
Question. Do you know anything about the steamer 
Highland Light ? 
If the explanation in my testimony why the Meta- 
mora was not on the list sent to me by Capt. Hodges, 
and the copy furnished to the committee led the lat- 
ter to use the words that it was “ for some unex- 
plained reason,” the foregoing additional statements will satisfy you there was no mysterious or designed 
object in it. Equally clear will appear the further re- 
ferences and explanations of the repairs, &c., to this 
steamer by the following statement: 
While the Metamora was employed in the telegraph 
line, and at the time Norfolk was captured, the Presi- 
dent, the Secretary of the Treasury, and yourself were 
at Fort Monroe. On the morning the Merrimac was 
destroyed you went to Norfolk, intending to go from 
thence direct to Washington. On your return you 
stopped opposite the Fort. I boarded your steamer, 
and was told you had sent an important despatch to 
the telegraph office, to go to Cherrystone. I remained 
till your messenger returned with the answer that it 
was blowing so hard, and was so rough outside, no 
steamer drawing four and a half feet water (the limit 
at Cherrystone) could live in the sea then running. 
You said the message was of great importance, and 
must go. I went immediately to the captain of the 
Metamora, and asked him to take it. He stated 
his fears that no steamer with the limited draught of 
water could live in the sea then running outside. I 
replied, the emergency was great, and if he could not 
go, I must find one that would. He answered there 
was no steamer better adapted for the service than the 
Metamora. He conferred with some of the officers of 
the boat, and then informed me that he and the crew 
would readily incur any risk, but he did not think the 
owners of the steamer would justify him in assuming 
such an extra hazardous risk ; but if the Government 
would pay any damage the vessel sustained he would 
go. To this I agreed. The message was duly de- 
livered. When the gale abated the Metamora re- 
turned with her guards badly sprung, and some other damage had been sustained. The steamer was ex- 
amined. I then, in pursuance of my agreement, wrote 
the letter (copy already furnished) relative to the re- 
pairs “ of her hull,” and added, “It is the opinion of all 
the officers here who know the circumstances (in which 
I concur) that the cost of these repairs should be 
borne by the Government.” If any unnecessary ex- 
pense was incurred for “painting,” “pattern makers’ 
work,” &c., it was not by my orders, and I am not 
responsible. Afterwards application was made for 
pay during the time the steamer was undergoing 
these repairs. I conferred with the Quartermaster 
General on the subject. That gentlemen agreed with 
me that it would have been manifestly unjust to sub- 
ject the owners to a loss occasioned by an extra hazar- 
dous risk, assumed expressly at the urgent request of 
the officers of the Government, and under a promise 
of indemnification. It was paid. 
Here is Capt. Hodges’ testimony on the subject: 
Washington, Friday, January 30, 1863. 
Captain Henry C. Hodges recalled, testified further, as follows: 
You asked me, when I was before this committee, in reference to 
the steamer Metamora being repaired at Baltimore. Capt. Acker 
presented me a certificate from Captain Tallmadge, Assistant Quar- 
termaster of the army at Fort Monroe, of services by this boat. In 
this certificate Captain Tallmadge recommended that certain days, 
during which the boat had been undergoing repairs, should not be 
deducted from the pay of the boat, on account of service she had 
performed—extra service. I told Captain Acker it would be im- 
possible for me to do so ; I had no authority for so doing. He then 
requested me to write to the Assistant Secretary of War, Mr. 
Tucker. I did so. I think I wrote two letters in reference to it. 
At last I got a reply from the Assistant Secretary of War, who said 
that he had consulted with the Quartermaster General and presented 
the facts to him, and that the Quartermaster General concurred with 
him (the Assistant Secretary of War) as to the propriety of paying 
for this boat, and directed me to pay for the time during which she 
underwent repairs, which I did. Henry C. Hodges, 
Lieutenant Colonel and Quartermaster, United States Army. Thus I have explained why the charter was dated 
April 20, instead of March 1, 1862 ; the occasion 
which rendered repairs necessary, and that before or- 
dering them to be made, I conferred with all the offi- 
cers of the Government who knew the circumstances, 
and had their approval, and also with the Quartermas- 
ter General, before directing the owners to be paid 
while the repairs were being made. 
But one thing remains to be explained, and that the 
allusion to the occasional use of the steamer by suttlers. 
I can only remark, if the committee supposed it was 
my duty to look to this, they mistook my duties. 
If with this truthful statement, which is substan- 
tially in the evidence, any “ extraordinary condition 
of facts” is developed in connection with this steamer, 
so far as I am concerned, I am not aware of it.* 
I will not close this review of the Report of the Com- 
mittee, and such of the testimony to which they refer, 
without alluding to some of the evidence before them, 
which they do not notice, but which I regard quite as 
important as much of that on which they so much en- 
large, for forming a correct judgment or “conclusion” 
as to the motives, integrity and efficiencj' of an officer 
of the Government. 
The committee do not refer to the evidence of 
Mr. S. S. Bishop, one of the gentlemen who was 
brought as prominently before them by my answer 
to their first interrogatory as was Captain Loper. 
Mr. Bishop testified as follows :— 
Question. How many vessels have you chartered to the govern- 
ment ? 
Answer. I could not answer that question now. 
* The Committee state, “that the Metamora was not only paid for at 
least four days’ service she did not render, amounting to $1800,” &c. T am 
informed by the captain that this is totally incorrect. Question. To whom did you charter them? 
Answer. I chartered to Mr. Tucker, when he was transpor- 
tation agent, and to Captain Hodges, the quartermaster. 
Question. Where was Captain Hodges quartermaster? 
Answer. He was located at that time at New York, but was 
taking up vessels for the McClellan Expedition at this place. 
Question. Who is Captain Hodges ? 
Answer. I understand him to be assistant quartermaster of the 
United States army. 
Question. To whom else did you charter ? 
Answer. To Captain Boyd, assistant quartermaster of the United 
States army located here (Philadelphia). 
Question. When did you make your last charters ? 
Answer. The last charter was made for a special purpose, 
yesterday. 
Question. For what purpose ? 
Answer. For the transportation of coal from here to Washington 
and Alexandria. 
Question. Who authorized you to make that ? 
Answer. Captain A. Boyd. 
Question. State, if you please, the names of some of the vessels 
you have thus chartered. 
Witness. Recently ? 
The Chairman. At any time—steamers and sailing vessels. 
Answer. The steamer Beverly, a propeller ; the steamer New 
York: the steamer Ironsides; the steamer Vim: the steamer 
Bristol; the steamer Anna Liza: the steamer Concord ; the steamer 
Black Diamond. 
Question. Are those all the steamers that you have chartered up 
to this time? 
Answer. That embraces about all up to this time. 
Question. Since the war began ? 
Answer. No, sir, recently; those are merely chartered for 
carrying coal and towing barges to Alexandria and Washington, 
under a ten days’ charter. 
Question. Have you chartered any sailing vessels recently ? 
Answer. None recently, sir. 
Question. What steamers have you chartered previous to those 
you have just named ? 
Answer. I could not give you that information unless you would 
allow me time to answer it from my office. 
Question. Is Captain Boyd stationed here now? 
Answer. Yes, sir. 
Question. Where you have chartered a vessel by the ton per 
month, what was the price ? 
Answer. The last was four dollars per registered ton per 
month. 
Question. When was that charter made ! 
Answer. The charters made under Captain Hodges, or through 
him, were three dollars and a quarter per month. Question. These vessels you have chartered, I understand belong 
to other persons. 
Answer. Yes, sir. 
Question. What was the rate of percentage you charged for 
securing the charter ? 
Answer. The great bulk of these sailing vessels are owned in 
New Jersey. They are built there in shares of one-sixth, one- 
eighth, &c., and I charge five per cent, for securing the charter or 
freight, and for collecting it. 
Question. How much did you charge on the steamers ? 
Answer. The same rates for the sailing vessels and steamers. 
Question. Have you had any difficulty in securing the payment of 
your charter parties 1 
Answer. Only in waiting for the funds. 
Question. Have you ever had any of them discounted ? 
Answer. No, sir. 
Question. Who are the principals for whom you have acted in 
effecting these charters, other than the sailing vessels you have 
spoken of ? 
Answer. For the last steamers I have mentioned, the principals 
were R. F. Loper, president of the Transportation Company, and 
Thomas Clyde, president of the New York Express Company. 
Question. Then the vessels you have recently chartered were for 
Captain Loper as president of his company, and for Thomas Clyde, 
jun., as president of his company ? 
Answer. Yes, sir. 
Question. Did you charge all of these persons five per cent. ?■ 
Answer. That is what I expect them to pay me, sir. 
Question. Why did Captain Loper and Mr. Clyde effect these 
charters through you rather than make them themselves ? 
Answer. For the reason that I had employed barges to transport 
coal. 
Question. Did you ever charter any vessel, or agree to return or 
pay to any person any portion of the earnings of the vessel ; have 
you ever agreed to pay any person or persons any part of the earn- 
ings of a vessel which you have chartered to any agent of the 
government ? 
Answer. No, sir ; not a3 I understand the question—to an agent 
of the government. 
Question. To any other person than the owner ? 
Answer. No, sir. 
Question. How long have you been in the ship broker business ? 
Answer. I have been in it for my own account about twenty-five 
years ; I have been at it since I was fifteen years of age. 
Question. Do you know of any advantage being derived by the 
government in chartering its vessels by private contract over the 
former method of advertising for vessels ? 
Answer. The advantage in doing it by private contract is, that 
you have a better chance of obtaining the situation of the market 
than by publishing it. Question. Explain, if you please, how that happens. 
Answer. I will explain it in this way ; if you advertise for a 
certain number of vessels, or a certain amount of transportation, you 
at once put up the rates of freight to all points frojn the market 
from which you are going to ship. But, under the system of 
privately securing the freight, you have a chance to feel the market, 
and govern yourself by the rates to the points where you are about 
to ship, and you get it at about the rate at which it is ruling the 
day you go into the market. 
Question. Is it your opinion that the government has secured its 
transportation cheaper than it would have secured it had it advertised 
for vessels ? 
Answer. In almost every case, as far as my information goes, 
they have. 
Question. Has government been able to effect charters upon lower 
terms than private individuals have been able to effect them ? 
Answer. In almost every case, yes, as far as comes under my 
knowledge. 
Question. Have you chartered vessels to private individuals 
while you have been acting for the government ? 
Answer. Yes, sir. 
Question. Have you chartered at higher rates to individuals than 
to the government ? 
Answer. Yes, sir. 
The Committee did not examine Mr. M. S. Bulkley, 
who was also brought prominently to their notice by 
me, which I regret, as he, from my long official 
acquaintance with him, and the prominent part which 
he took in securing transports, was well informed 
with reference to the zeal and fidelity exhibited by 
me. Other witnesses (not referred to) were ex- 
amined. Some of these had been in the business for 
thirty years, are chartering vessels to the Quarter- 
master’s Department and merchants almost daily, but 
like all other owners, testify that they have not 
divided their contracts or commissions with any 
officer of the government. 
I will here call your attention to the evidence of 
the witnesses on this particular point, and will furnish 
it in the order it appears in the testimony. 
Mr. John P. Aker’s evidence— Question. I understand you to say that neither you nor your com- 
pany have ever, directly or indirectly, paid, or promised to pay, nor 
do you hold yourself under any obligation in equity or law to pay, 
to any person, any sum of money or property in consideration of his 
or their having assisted you in securing a contract, or in securing 
favorable terms, of any description whatever ? 
Answer. I have not paid anything, sir, to any gentleman ; that 
is, no commission at all. As to the repairs on the Metamora, I will 
say this to you: the order was given for her repairs by the govern- 
ment in this way : she run from Fortress Monroe over to Cherry 
Stone Inlet; she carried despatches for the government before the 
telegraph was laid there ; she made two or three trips a day across 
there ; it is a very dangerous place, boisterous and rough ; at one 
time she was ordered to go when no other vessel would go. Mr. 
Tucker was there one night, and ordered her to go out, but the 
captain refused to go. Mr. Tucker said the Baltimore despatches 
must go, and if the vessel was damaged, he said, “ I will see that 
the government pays it.” She went out, and she was strained and 
damaged. Mr. Tucker said, “ I think it is no more than just and 
right that government should pay this expense. Your time shall 
not be lost, and she shall be repaired.” She was only gone ten 
days, as the records will show. 1 employed a man last spring in 
Washington, for awhile, to see to my affairs there which I could not 
attend to, among other things, the Metamora, for which I paid 
some $200. 
Question. Who was that man ? 
Answer. Captain Schultz. I paid him for seeing to the boat for a 
couple of months, which amounted to a few hundred dollars, and 
which I paid him. His name is E. Schultz. He was an agent 
which the company authorized me to employ to see to the boat. I 
did not call it the company. I asked him to assist me and see to 
the boat, which he was kind enough to do, and I made him a present 
of some amount. I think it was some four or five hundred dollars, 
along in April or May. I look upon that as nothing more than what 
is right. Some might call that a commission; I do not. I asked 
him to see to our business, and he did so. 
Question. State now, if you please, whether you as the ship’s 
husband of the Metamora, or any other boat, or as the owner or 
part owner, paid any commission for, or reward, or promised any to 
any person for his services in connection with securing charter 
parties for you ? 
Answer. None at all, sir, except the money I paid Schultz, and 
to Mr. John Danforth, (meaning Jas. B. Danforth.) 
Question. Was that the only money of the kind you ever paid? 
Answer. Yes, sir; that and to Schultz. 
Qustion. Or ever promised to pay ? 
Answer. Yes, sir; and since I have not paid one dollar as com- 
mission on any of my boat or boats, that I am connected with.* 
* It is to be presumed the remarks I made to one of the owners in August 
last, when I first heard of these commissions, stopped further payments. 
Such would be the natural result. ANTHONY GROVES. 
Question. Have you ever, directly or indirectly, paid, or promised 
to pay, any money or thing of value for the purpose of securing a 
charter, other than the five per cent, that you paid which you have 
mentioned? (To Captain Loper). 
Answer. No ; not one cent of money or any kind of present what- 
ever. 
Question. Have you ever, directly or indirectly, paid back any 
portion of the money you have received for a charter to any person 
or persons for the purpose of securing a charter party, or any other 
advantage in connection therewith ? 
Answer. Not one cent, sir. 
Question. Have you ever employed any person or persons to se- 
cure a discount of a charter party ? 
Answer. No, sir. 
Question. Have you ever paid to any person, other than Mr. Lo- 
per, any per cent, in connection with the procurement of these 
charters ? 
Answer. No, sir. 
STEPHEN FLANAGAN. 
Question. Did you pay to any person, any percentage for the ves- 
sels you chartered to Mr. Tucker ? 
Answer. None, sir, to anybody but Captain Loper. 
Question. Did you pay to Captain Loper five per cent, for the ves- 
sels that were chartered to Mr. Tucker ? 
Answer. No, sir ; those that I chartered direct to Mr. Tucker we 
never paid a cent for. I can enumerate them : the Atlantic is one : 
the Pendulum—she was lost in going from the Capes of Delaware to 
Fortress Monroe. Of course we never got anything for her, but we 
expect to up to the time she was lost; the Robert Morris, up to the 
first of April. 
Question. Did Mr. Tucker send you to Captain Loper? 
Answrer. No, sir. 
Question. Did he advise you to call on Captain Loper ? 
Answer. No, sir, not to my knowledge. 
Question. Have you ever paid or caused to be paid to any person, 
any sum of money or other thing of value, for the purpose of secur- 
ing your pay upon any charter party that was due you ? 
Answer. No, sir, never. 
WILMON WHILLDIN. 
Question. Have you, either directly or indirectly, in order to se- 
cure your pay for a charter, been compelled to employ any broker, 
or pay any percentage. 
Answer. No, sir; I have not been compelled to ; I have done it. 
I will tell you all that I have paid. I have paid Captain Loper a 
percentage for collecting my bills, and I have not paid anybody else 
one cent. Question. What did you pay him ? 
Answer. I was to pay him five per cent, for collecting my bills. 
I paid him that, and I paid him at one time—a man might as well 
acknowledge his poverty—I paid him five per cent, for advancing me 
money. I had a debt of $30,000 on my shoulders. Government was 
owing that much to me, but I had to pay it then, and I had to do 
this. First I paid him a commission of five per cent. 
Question. And then you paid him five per cent, more for advanc- 
ing the money ? 
Answer. Yes, sir. 
Question. Was the money which he advanced to you due on these 
charter parties ? 
Answer. Yes, sir, he advanced me money to carry on my business 
with. 
Question. Was as much money due from the government to you 
on these charter parties as he advanced to you ? 
Answer. Not quite, but pretty near. 
Question. ITow long was that advance for? 
Answer. Until I got the money to pay him back. 
Question. How long did you have it? 
Answer. It was six months before I got it. 
Question. Did he advance you this amount at the commencement 
of the six months ? 
Answer. It was soon after the commencement of six months. 
You see I went into very heavy expenses. 
Question. Did you have Captain Loper’s money for six months 
or for any length of time ? 
Answer. Some of it I had for six months ; some of it I did not. 1 
got what I wanted of it to carry my business on with. I had to meet 
the expense of putting the boats in very good order. I had other 
business too ; this Express Steamboat Company I had on my shoul- 
ders tnade it necessary I should have the money. When I chartered 
these boats I said to him, “ Captain, I want you to have the charters 
so drawn that I shall get my money at the end of every month. In 
that case I shall pay five per cent.” He said he would, and the 
charters were so drawn, but the government did not pay one cent for 
six months. 
Question. How much did you pay'Captain Loper on the advance ? 
Answer. I told him if he would advance me the money I would 
give him ten per cent. 
Question. And you paid him that? 
Answer. Yes, sir; I want you to understand, however, that I was 
to pay him five per cent, commission. 
Question. Was that besides? 
Answer. No, sir: I said if I could get my money I would pay ten 
per cent. I did not want women (the wives of my men) coming to 
me for money and I not have it. If the government had payed me 
according to contract I should have payed him five per cent.; as it is, 
I paid him ten per cent. The paying of that five per cent., I think, 
is justly chargeable to the government not paying me. Question. Are you paying Captain Loper any sum of money on the 
earnings of these vessels at this time ? 
Answer. Not one cent. 
Question. On the charter parties now you are not compelled to pay 
him ? 
Answer. No, sir ; I would rather pay him, because I do not under- 
stand going to Washington and collecting these things ; I do not un- 
derstand the routine. 
Question. You employ and give him five per cent, to collect'? 
Answer. Yes, sir. 
Question. That arrangement still continues ? 
Answer. Yes, sir; the five per cent, still continues. 
Question. Have you ever been to collect any money? 
Answer. Never but once, and then I did not collect anything. 1 
was going down to Washington and had—I don’t know what they 
call it, but I think an order or certificate of indebtedness that I got 
from Colonel Crossman here; I was going down to Washington with 
it. I had a cousin residing there. I gave it to General Spinner and 
told him that Captain Loper would be there to receive the money, f 
never received a cent except through Captain Loper, and 1 never 
begrudged him a cent, because, if he did not do it, I would have to 
run there and attend to it, and I do not know about these things. 
s. s. bishop. 
Question. Hid you ever, directly or indirectly, through yourself 
or another, pay or promise to pay to any person, any sum of money 
or property for the purpose of securing you a charter ? 
Answer. No, sir. 
Question. Hid you ever pay to any person any money or anything 
of value for the purpose of securing you the payment of any charter 
party ? 
Answer. No, sir. 
Question. Ho you know of its having been done ? 
Answer. No, sir. 
AMASA C. HALL. 
Question. Have you made any agreement, or are you under any 
obligations in law or in honor, to divide with or pay any one any sum 
of money for assisting you in making these charters ? 
Answer. Not to anybody, sir. 
CHARLES COBLENS. 
Question Hid you ever pay or give any present or sum of money 
to any person who was in the employment of the government, for the 
purpose of getting him to aid you in getting a charter? 
Answer. No, sir. 
JOHN F. PICKRELL. 
Question. Is any person to have, by any contract or agreement, 
express or implied, any part of the profits that you are to receive 
from these transactions with Coblens? 
Answer. Not a cent, sir. Question. Are you under any obligation, express or implied, legal, 
equitable or honorable, to pay any person any portion of these 
profits ? 
Answer. I am not, sir ; such a thing has never been intimated to 
me. 
CAPTAIN HENRY C. HODGES. 
Do you know of any person in the employment of the govern- 
ment, either directly or indirectly receiving any money or valuable 
thing for securing or aiding in securing a charter party ? 
Answer. 1 do not sir; I never heard such a proposition made, 
and I have never heard of its being made. 
ANTHONY REYBOLD. 
Question. Have you ever paid Loper any more than five per 
cent. ? 
Answer. No, sir. Captain Loper knew nothing at all about the 
charter of the Tucker. He was in Stonington. The man I purchased 
her of in New York, told me the government offered him $500 a day 
for her. I don’t know anything about that, whether it was so or 
not—only he said so. After I bought her, 1 insisted on that much 
a day for her ; but Mr. Tucker said he would not recommend the 
government to pay that—that he would not recommend the govern- 
ment to pay over $300 a day for her. I felt that it tvas rather too 
low for a boat of her class. After the things were all fixed and 
settled, I mentioned then to Mr. Tucker that I was going to let 
Captain Loper collect her charter, as he collected ours ; that it was 
a great deal of trouble to me, and I could not attend to it. I didn’t 
understand it, and as he had collected the others, I would pay him 
to collect that. He said, “ Very well.” T did not say a word to 
Captain Loper about her charter until after he came home from 
Stonington. I then asked him if he would take it. Frequently 
along during the season, the boats were behind considerably in their 
payments, and I wanted money, and I went to Captain Loper, and 
he agreed to advance me money. He advanced me once as high as 
$15,000 on the charters. This paying five per cent, is all voluntary 
on my part. Captain Loper offered to give it up three or four 
months after the boats were chartered. I told him I would rather 
let him do it. My principal business is farming. 
Question. At what time did he offer to give it up ? 
Answer. About three or four months after the first boats were 
chartered—before I owned the Tucker. 
Question. At what time was that % 
Answer. I should safely say, it was in the neighborhood of three 
months after the Express was chartered. She was not chartered 
until after the Whilldin. 
With such an array of testimony, and from such 
answers by every witness examined on this subject, 
I submit it is not surprising the committee state “ the testimony may not warrant the conclusion that any 
officer shared with him (Hall) the profits derived from 
his business.” I think they might safely and properly 
have stated the reverse was established, not only as 
applicable to Mr. Hall, but to all the other parties. 
The committee, when reporting on the charters of 
twenty-six steamers, not made by me, think proper to 
remark, “ the terms of the charters of the steam 
vessels are understood to compare favorably with 
those effected with the Government in similar trans- 
actions.” Eight'of these steamers, which is as far as 
the comparison can be exactly carried, had been pre- 
viously chartered by me for the Burnside and McClel- 
lan Expeditions. The prices paid in both instances 
were before the committee. On the occasions thus 
commended, to a certain degree, by the committee, 
the owners received sixty-two per cent, more than 
when they were chartered through me. It is proper 
to state, that in the cases to which reference is 
made by the committee, the owners were to furnish 
the coal for one steamer, and for twenty days for the 
seven others, and that in the meantime two had been 
rebuilt, somewhat improved and enlarged, but under 
no possible circumstances can it be shown that the 
prices which do not receive the censure of the com- 
mittee were not fifty per cent, higher than those paid 
by me for the identical steamers. 
It is in evidence that on my return to Washington, 
from my first visit to Fort Monroe (April 10th, 1862) 
on learning that it was the intention and policy to 
retain the transports for the McClellan Expedition 
longer in the service, (the propriety of which was 
afterwards made manifest,) I wrote to Captain Hodges, 
not at the suggestion of any one, proposing a reduc- tion in the prices paid to steamers chartered at $150, 
or less, ten per cent., all over $150, and less than $350, 
twenty per cent., all over $350 twenty-five per cent. 
I added, “ you will please report to me the decision of 
the parties as early as possible, as it is intended to 
discharge at an early day such as may refuse to make 
the abatement.” 
The reasons for the proposed reduction are given in 
the letter which is appended to my testimony. May 
I not respectfully ask if such a letter would have been 
natural if I had had any other interest in these char- 
ters than that of the government; and also to inquire 
whether if the committee had desired to make a 
truthful impression upon the Senate and the public, 
they would have entirely omitted all allusion to this 
fact in their Report, which was prominently brought 
to their notice more than once by me, and also by 
other witnesses ? 
If the Senators from Iowa, Maine and Maryland 
supposed that three hundred and eighty-nine trans- 
ports, procured from all the cities and prominent 
towns from Portland to Baltimore, could be chartered 
and despatched in fourteen days (see Captain Hodges’ 
testimony) avoiding and excluding ship brokers, they 
merely confess their want of familiarity with the 
usages of the world. The committee somewhere re- 
mark, it is no apology for me to say that I did not 
know Mr. Hall was receiving a commission. 
Apology! I have none to make. I deny the in- 
sinuation that I gave to Mr. Hall, or any other broker, 
agent or owner, any preference. I know of no occa- 
sion for an apology. When Mr. Hall and other ship 
brokers offered their transports, my knowledge of the 
business of the world led to the inference (if I thought about it at all) that they were receiving the usual 
commission. To pretend anything else would be 
an admission that I was ignorant of an established 
custom. The evidence of Mr. Bishop shows, that 
the day before he was examined, he chartered a 
transport to the regular Quartermaster, on which he 
states he received a commission of five per cent.; 
and that a few days before, he had even chartered 
transports for the Government from Captain Loper on 
which he expected (as a matter of course) to receive 
the usual commission of live per cent. This estab- 
lishes the custom, which is more general with sailing 
vessels than steamers. 
I cannot, however, express my views in any more 
pertinent manner than I did in my report with refer- 
ence to the McClellan Expedition, made to you April 
5th, 1862, from which I here introduce the following 
extract. 
All parties who offered suitable transports in reply to your adver- 
tisement had been requested to meet me. With few exceptions, such 
vessels were taken, and generally at a reduction from the bids. These, 
however, were by no means sufficient. As much publicity as possi- 
ble was given, without further resort to the newspapers, that the gov- 
ernment was in the market to charter vessels. In fact, with your 
advertisement and our action, it was notorious. Every owner of a 
vessel had the opportunity to deal directly with the representatives 
of the department. It was publicly avowed that the government pre- 
ferred this course. When, however, a transport was offered, I did 
not stop to ask the party whether he was the sole owner, part owner, 
or merely represented the owners. Time being such an important 
element, it was enough for me to know (or I thought it was) that the 
party had proper authority to charter, that the vessel was suitable, 
and offered at the fair current price. To have refused suitable ves- 
sels till I could have ascertained who were the owners, or because 
they preferred to send an agent or even pay a ship broker, might 
have taken weeks, instead of days, to have secured the required ton- 
nage, and also greatly increased the cost, by having a part of the 
fleet under charter waiting for the balance. I am induced to make 
these remarks in consequence of the objections which I have recently 
heard urged against the interference of agents or ship brokers. It 
may not be fully understood that in all great maritime cities negotia- tions for the sale, charter, and freighting of vessels are carried on, to 
a considerable extent at least, through ship brokers—a business class 
as firmly established as stock, land, money, or merchandise brokers. 
In New York they are well known as a class comprising many men 
of integrity and intelligence, whose services are not ignored by ship- 
owners. In France, Belgium, Prussia, and many other places, the 
charges for their services are regulated by a legalized tariff, from 
which the broker is not allowed to deviate. In Great Britain and 
the United States he is paid a commission, which, in the absence of 
a special agreement with the owner for whom he is acting, is regu- 
lated by custom and sanction of local chambers of commerce, boards 
of trade, &c. 
In the case under consideration, however, no application was made 
to ship brokers, no commission tendered or asked, and no preferences 
shown. The wants of the government were made public. Every 
party interested had the opportunity of direct negotiation. The 
business was conducted with entire fairness to the owners of vessels, 
and with fidelity to the government. I beg to band herewith a state- 
ment, prepared by Captain Hodges, of the vessels chartered, which 
exhibits the prices paid and the parties with whom the contracts 
were made. From this it is shown there were engaged : 
113 steamers, at an average price per day of - - - - $218 10 
188 schooners, at an average price per day of - - - - 24 45 
88 barges, at an average price per day of - - - - 14 27 
In thirty-seven days from the time I received the order in Wash- 
ington (and most of it tvas accomplished within thirty days) these 
vessels were laden at Perryville, Alexandria, and Washington, (the 
place of embarking the troops having been changed after all the 
transports had sailed, which caused confusion and delay,) with 
121,500 men, 14,592 animals, 1,150 wagons, 44 batteries, besides 
pontoon bridges, ambulances, telegraph materials, and the immense 
quantity of equipage, &c., required tor an army of such magnitude. 
The only loss of which I have heard (and I am confident there is no 
other) is eight mules and nine barges, which latter went ashore in a 
gale within a few miles of Fort Monroe, the cargoes being saved. 
With this trifling exception, not the slightest accident has occurred, 
to my knowledge. 
The custom of employing ship brokers by owners of 
vessels can be further demonstrated by reference to 
the immense business of the Quartermaster in this 
city. His advertisements for transports appear daily 
in the prominent papers here, and occasionally else- 
where. Yet I am warranted in stating that more than 
nine-tenths of all the charters he makes are through 
commission merchants or ship brokers, and that there is no difference in the price whether he deals directly 
with the owners or their appointed agents. The “Su- 
perintendent of coal shipments for the Navy,” who is 
stationed here for no other purpose than to secure such 
transports, will also attest the latter fact. Custom has 
so established. In the case of the barges especially 
a ship broker soon became a necessity. Most of 
them were engaged by Mr. M. S. Buckley, before re- 
ferred to, who made no charge to any party. They 
were taken at the close of winter, when their small 
savings of the previous year were much exhausted. 
The government made them no payments for three 
months. Many have been postponed for half a year, 
and in some instances even longer. In the meantime 
money and supplies were indispensable, for which an 
assignment of the charter party was an available se- 
curity, and recourse to a commission merchant or ship 
broker the natural channel to procure relief. For 
these and other reasons, among which may be stated 
many of the captains were unable to write, (which 
appears in the tables in the testimony,) they, or most 
of them, soon applied to such agents to transact their 
business, make the necessary advances, &c. It may 
be asked why with these views did I exclude Captain 
Loper from commissions ? The answer is clear and 
patent. I proposed to extend to him my confidence, 
to be influenced by his judgment in the inspection of 
the transports offered. It was therefore essentially 
requisite he should be entirely disinterested. He pro- 
fessed his willingness (as is clearly proved) to thus 
serve the government, of which I availed. But I am 
dwelling on this point longer than the occasion de- 
mands. 
In this connection it may not be improper to state that many of these barges were destroyed by fire by 
orders of the General in command, to prevent their 
falling into the hands of the enemy. Although this 
occurred in June last, no payments for these losses, 
although such risk was directly assumed by the De- 
partment, has yet been made. 
Here I may observe, when thus acting for the Go- 
vernment in large transactions, fixed prices were es- 
tablished, after diligent inquiry as to the proper rate, 
whenever possible, without reference, as to whether 
they were made with the owners or their appointed 
agents. For the McClellan Expedition exact.priees were 
male for schooners and barges, and although such an 
immense number was required and procured, not even 
one could now be chartered for less. With steamers 
it was impossible to have an inflexible law as to price, 
especially on the occasions when all that were availa- 
ble were required. As a rule they were chartered 
for only thirty days. It was not supposed they would 
be longer required. They were to be loaded to their 
utmost capacity with soldiers, many of whom were 
utterly reckless as to the damage and injury they oc- 
casioned, sufficient in most cases to render expensive 
repairs and refitting necessary before their ordinary 
business could be resumed. Many were engaged in 
regular and profitable trade, in well established lines, 
to be abandoned, never, in some cases, to be resumed. 
No owner knew how long his vessel might be retained 
in service, or on what day she might be thrown on his 
hands. 
They were to be sent into waters with which those 
in command were not familiar. They were to be 
guided in narrow, crooked and shallow rivers by un- 
known pilots. They were to be under the directions of officers of the army, many of whom were inex- 
perienced, while any disobedience of an order, how- 
ever improper or even reckless to the property or life 
itself, exposed the offender to immediate punishment, 
and the owner to the loss of his previous earnings. 
Insurance, particularly on the river boats which were 
to make an outside voyage in the boisterous month of 
March, was enormously high. In some cases as much 
as ten per cent, a month was demanded. This on a 
vessel worth $50,000, even if chartered so high as 
$500 per day, would be one-third of the charter 
money. On steamers of very light draught of water 
sent to Ilatteras even 33a per cent, for the voyage 
was refused. Under such circumstances minimum 
rates for ordinary service should not be expected. 
I will admit that had it been known these 
transports would be so long retained in the service, 
they could have been procured at lower rates. When 
this was known I made the effort before referred to, 
which in most cases was successful. 
I now claim the right to submit some facts in 
connection with this subject which the committee 
have ignored, but which it is due to myself should 
be stated in my reply. 
I asseverate that Captain Loper, A. C. Hall, 
and all the other parties to whom reference is 
made, or any of them, have never proposed or sug- 
gested to me in any manner to take or receive any 
interest in any charter or other transaction, nor have 
I received, nor do I expect to receive, from them or 
any other person in their behalf, or any of them, 
one farthing of the money they have received from 
the government or from the owners of the transports 
thus chartered. I here repeat I had not the charge of the ordinary 
current business of transportation for the Quarter- 
master’s Department; as a rule, it was only in great 
emergencies that I was called upon, the most import- 
ant of which, were sending the McClellan Expedition 
to and from the Peninsula. I need not now hesitate 
to state the exigencies under which I acted, and in 
forming judgment of my acts, these should be con- 
sidered. During my first interview with the Presi- 
dent and General McClellan, relative to the proposed 
movement by water, the time estimated as requisite 
was a serious objection with the President. At this 
interview, the President made the impressive declara- 
tion, that each day’s delay was costing the country a 
million of dollars, and that every hour of detention 
was even more disastrous to the nation than the loss of 
the money. As the committee have magnified charters 
for 30 days into charters for 365,1 may at least be par- 
doned for reducing the President’s estimate of the 
results of delay to hours, $83,333.33, and even to 
minutes, of $1,388.89. The entire cost of the expe- 
dition for a month, the time for which it was char- 
tered, was less than the President’s estimate of the 
loss in money by delay for a single day. I therefore 
feel that in such an emergency, I need not further dis- 
cuss whether the charter of the barge Delaware, with 
a capacity to move 1000 men at $70 per day, and the 
few other charters to which the committee take ex- 
ception, were or were not wisely made. I have al- 
ready stated the great expedition with which the 
movement was made. The next prominent duty in 
which I was engaged, connected with the procurement 
of transports, was in bringing back the army of the 
Potomac. On the 18th day of August, a few minutes after three o’clock P. M., I was requested by you to 
start forthwith for Fort Monroe to expedite the' return 
of the army. I replied I could take the train that left 
at 31 o’clock. You rejoined, “ Go, and make the whole 
power of the War Department bend to bringing that 
army away in the shortest possible space of time.” 
The General-in-Chief was present, and in order that 
nothing might be left unsaid to impress upon me the 
profound necessity for the strain of every sinew of the 
national arm to effect an immediate movement of the 
army, used this expression: “Remember this is a 
great emergency, when every soldier you get here is 
worth a gold dollar a minute.” 
I knew that General Pope’s army was retiring, and 
the enemy was moving to place himself between that 
army and the capital. Under the pressure of orders 
and facts like these, every transport then at Fort 
Monroe, or which touched at that place, was chartered, 
and others were ordered by telegraph to be sent there 
in forty-eight hours. The result was, that in less than 
six days, over 80,000 men were on their way to Wash- 
ington, and within three weeks 27,500 animals, 2,600 
wagons and the batteries belonging to the various Di- 
visions, with the immense equipage of such an army, 
were ready for offensive or defensive service at the 
point indicated by the General-in-Chief. This again 
was accomplished without the loss of a human life. 
In speaking of movements of such magnitude, involv- 
ing consequences so vital, it would seem to belittle 
the subject to refer to inculpatory insinuations against 
individuals, but as the fact is—so it must be stated— 
that on this occasion not one of the persons who 
are the subject of the animadversions of the com- 
mittee furnished through me any of the additional transports required for this service, or was in any way 
connected with the movement. 
I fully recognize the truth, that in this momentous 
drama, involving consequences so grave, that the civi- 
lized world are its spectators, no one as an individual 
is of any consequence outside of the circle in which his 
interest and affections are centered. But when that in- 
dividual from his official position represents by his acts 
and conduct, even to a humble extent, • the adminis- 
tration to whose hands is committed the defence of the 
principle of self-government, he may then question 
the propriety of such insinuations and “conclusions,” 
based on such evidence. 
I remain sir, very respectfully, 
Your obedient servant, 
JOHN TUCKER.