---

Freedmen's Bureau Records: Garrick Mallery to Orlando Brown, March 7, 1867

Summary:
Mallery reviews and considers the available evidence pertaining to the various accusations against Frederick Tukey. He concludes that there is no firm evidence to point to fraud or dishonesty on Tukey's part, but recommends that due to his lack of organization, and the fact that his reputation has been damaged beyond repair, that to allow Tukey to continue on as Bureau agent would further damage the Bureau's standing in the community. Mallery also concludes that the counter accusations raised by Tukey against George Cook and several female school teachers merit further investigation.

---

Head Quarters, Dept. of the Potomac
Bureau R. F. and A. Lands
Office Serg. Inspector Genl. Bvt. Brig. Genl O. Brown
A.A.A. Genl

March 7^th 1867

Richmond, Va

General

I have visited Staunton and have carefully examined all the papers referred to me by endorsement of 20^th ult. from Hd. Quarters Dept of the Potomac, Bureau R.F. and A.L. I also held long and patient conversation with Mr F.S. Tukey, Asst. Supt. for the counties of Augusta and Highland, and took the statements of all persons he desired me to see.

I likewise examined other persons whose opinions and knowledge on the subject of Bureau affairs in the Sub-District I consider of value. In order not to increase beyond reasonable bounds the already voluminous mass of papers in this case, I state in the following report what was the result of my investigation instead of giving detailed statements of the various parties examined.

I [unclear: premise] by stating that Mr. Tukey has enjoyed a very ample opporunity for defense. Not only did Capt. and Supt. McDonnell take the evidence of such parties as Mr Tukey presented, but after the departure of the former, the latter sent on a considerable number of exparte statements which the former forwarded with his report. Mr Tukey also prepared an elaborate statement in his defense and after this had been forwarded to Capt.

[page 2]
McDonnell he requested its return for correction and made several pages of additions. After this and the considerable number of hours he spent with me, I do not think Mr Tukey can have any further explanation to make.

On the other hand, Lieut. George T. Cook whose conduct is also the subject of inquiry was not present at the investigations of either Capt McDonnell or myself, and as far as I am aware, is not yet informed of any investigation being ordered.

The specific charges brought against Mr Tukey as shown in the papers referred to me are as follows:
1. That he sympathized with disloyal persons.
2. That he used Govt rations in his family.
3. That he sold clothing sent for gratuitous distribution and kept the proceeds.
4. That he defrauded Oscar Morris, freedman, a former employee in his office, out of part of his pay.
5. That he overcharged and endeavored to make a profit out of the African Church at Staunton in the matter of repairs to the same.

1. I find no sufficient evidence that Mr Tukey has sympathy or prejudice in favor of disloyal persons. The statements made to that effect are at least balanced by counterstatements of loyal and reliable residents.

2. The using of government rations is to some extent disproved by the evidence of Mr Tukey's cook, which is however liable to the objection that she only knows the

[page 3]
time when Mr Tukey brought the stores to his house and remembers his statement that he purchased them from the commissary. But as Oscar Morris who originates this story could not positively know that the identical pork and mackerel were what Mr Tukey received from the Bureau, Mr Tukey's explanations may be allowed due weight in this matter.

3. Mr Tukey acknowledges the sale of clothing sent to him for gratuitous distribution and that he did not turn over the proceeds but gives a detailed explanation to the effect that he procured through Mr Scott, a former teacher, the proper authority from the society contributing the clothing and that the money was lst under circumstances which awaken sympathy for him. As there is some recollection at Head Quarters of this matter, I am not inclined to regard it with severity, except that Mr Tukey's conduct in keeping no account of the sales of [unclear: trust] property -- and not even a copy of the authority given by the society for a proceeding so open to remark deserves attention in connection with his extraordinary want of method and prudence shown in other transactions.

4. Oscar Morris, freedman was employed as messenger in the Asst. Supts. office at Staunton from 15th January 66 to the following July. He charges Mr Tukey with retaining a portion of his pay, which at first was $20.00 per month and afterwards was reduced. Mr Tukey makes an elaborate explanation of this matter the whole of which is based on the theory that "for the first two months Oscar received $20.00 per month and for the balance of the time $10.00 per month," and

[page 4]
he refers to an order from Bvt. Maj. How, then Supt. of the Dist. and to Oscar's receipt book to sustain him. But the order (Among the papers referred to me and dated March 26th 1866) does not state that the pay of Oscar should be reduced to $10 -- only that the pay should be reduced. And on the contrary the books of the Supt. at Winchester show (see exhibit "A" hereto attached) that the pay was reduced to $15 and not to $10 -- to commence on April 1st 1866. The forms No. 2 for this period on file at the Hd.Qrs. of the Asst. Comr. agree with exhibit A and Oscar's memorandum book also herewith forwarded, likewise exactly agrees with the accounts of the Winchester office. It is therefore perfectly clear that Mr Tukey's explanation is not founded in truth, as for the two months of April and May and subsequently, Oscar was entitled to $15 per month instead of $10. -- Mr Tukey says that as Oscar was discharged on the 10th of July, on the assumption of the diminished rate of $10 per month commencing the 1st of April, he was entitled for the whole time to $83. 85/100, his memorandum book showing the receipt of $80 and Mr Tukey thinks Oscar has neglected to put down the odd $3.85. But for the same time at the rate of $15 per month from the 1st April, Oscar was entitled not to $83.85 but to $100.

Mr Tukey was relieved from the duties of Asst. Supt. on 19th May 1866 and some of the latter payments were not made by him but by Lieut. Cook. Mr Tukey entered the office as clerk on the 1st July 1866.

The exact charge which Oscar makes, that

[page 5]
Mr Tukey cheated him out of ten Dollars per month by falsely alleging that his pay was reduced while it was still $20, and keeping the balance, is not correct, as the pay was in fact reduced to $15 and according to his memorandum book he actually got all of his pay until the expiration of Mr Tukey's office as Asst. Supt. in May. The later accounts do not seem to be important.

But the striking point to me is that Mr Tukey cannot at this moment tell what [deleted: he] [added: was] paid or what was due to his regular employee, Oscar Morris, [added: he] being the only messenger regularly employed during the months named, and the only employee except a clerk, with whose accounts there could be no confusion. He makes a gross mistake and a false calculation when he seeks to defend himself even from an unfounded charge. From the time of the last payment when Mr Tukey was clerk, to the commencement of this investigation was not quite seven months, and neither from records, accounts or memory can Mr Tukey make any clear statement, but with great elaboration, and his recollection being warped by a mistaken theory of what, if true, might be some explanation, he evolves a most absurd and silly account. It was by my own search of the books at Winchester that I find Oscar to have received his pay due during the time of Mr Tukey's administration, without which and only examining the latter's false and mistaken defense I should have believed him guilty.

5. The most important charge and the one an understanding of which is most difficult to arrive at, is in reference to the repairs on the African Church.

There appear to have been two sets of rebel buildings which in the early part of 1866 were disposed of by Mr Tukey, one on Beverly street in the Suburbs of Staunton and one at Swoope's Station. These buildings do not appear to have been on any official papers and the transactions connected with them were not kept intelligibly seperate. Mr Tukey claims that by oral orders from Major How, he was authorized to tear them down and dispose of the lumber without rendering account. He has also a written order from Major How bearing relations to one of these barracks which is hereto attached marked "Exhibit B". This gives authority for the freedmen to take the lumber, 2200 feet being left for a Mr Wholly the owner of the land, and concludes by the very strange direction that Mr Tukey shall make no unnecessary explanations to Mr Wholly nor anybody else.

Mr Tukey states that the trustees of the church had partially contracted with a party to do the repairs at the price of one hundred and twenty dollars but that he told them it was too much and that he could have the work done so as not to cost over seventy five dollars and thereupon they entrusted him with the job - which he undertook. There was nothing wrong in this although it was outside of his, Mr Tukey's, duties, provided he did not in fact enter upon it as a speculation, and which is perhaps equally important, provided he so conducted it as to render it

[page 7]
clear that he made no profit out of the freedmen in the transaction so as to bring himself and the Bureau into discredit. Mr Tukey states that a part of this lumber was given to satisfy the claim of Mr Thomas Wholey - but how much he does not in his written defense say. In addition to "Exhibit B" above referred to I find however in the endorsement Book at Winchester (see extract "Exhibit C") that with the approval of the Asst. Commissioner the amount to be retained by Mr Wholey was fixed at 2200 feet, and that the balance was ordered to "be given to the freedmen to be used in the construction of a church."

Mr Tukey also claims that in compliance with oral orders from Major How nine hundred feet were given to a Mr Shaver to satisfy a claim recognized by Bvt. Col. C. C. Clay, former post Commander. He also relies upon oral orders from Major How allowing him to pay for the taking down of the lumber by selling a portion. The portion he acknowledges to have sold amounts to $16.55. There was also an amount used in alterations in Mr Tukey's rented dwelling house which amount is not given.

It is to be observed that there is no attempt to state what was the balance of lumber remaining after these deductions, or what was the cost of taking down the same beyond the above $16.55 if anything. With this indefinite balance, Mr Tukey volunteered the work of repairs on the church. He makes a statement about the purchase of a wagon, harness &c and repairs to the same which he places at $64 but as the wagon and harness became

[page 8]
his property, their costs would not properly be chargeable in this transaction except perhaps the sum of nine dollars alleged to have been expended in repairs made necessary by hauling. He says that he paid out of his pocket $88 though he only rendered the amount to the Trustees as $80 independent of mason work costing eleven dollars, of which he made a present. It is not clearly stated that the above sum of $64 spoken of in connection with the private wagon &c is or is not a part of the sum of $80 charged the Trustees, but leaving that out of the question Mr Tukey does not now give any details about the $80 - though he says he had Bills made out by the parties who did the work and handed them receipted to the Trustees.

The latter refused to pay the amt of $80 and finally compromised with Mr Tukey for $40 by which the latter says he is a considerable loser.

It will thus appear that Mr Tukey while Asst. Supt. entered as an individual into an unwritten contract with the Trustees to repair their church and used government lumber which was turned over to the church for that purpose. The very irregular and reprehensible order of Major How that he should render no unnecessary explanation respecting the lumber as Asst. Supt. cannot of course apply to his business arrangement with the Trustees of the church. There is hardly any transaction known to me which would have been more likely to produce complaints and accusation, and in which a full and clear settlement at the time [added: would] have been

[page 9]
obviously necessary. Yet there is no account to show now on Mr Tukey's behalf. No settlement was made at the time and the Trustees disputed the bill rendered, now a large body of the Freedmen, the objects of his official care, charge that he cheated or attempted to cheat them under the guise of benevolence, and appear religiously to believe the same.

It may be perfectly true that the above charges were instigated or excited by Lieut. G. T. Cook, and his friends owing to that officer being lately relieved, but the fact remains that they are made and are believed by probably a majority of the freedmen, and that Mr Tukey's conduct has been so destitute of either method or prudence that his best friend is without the means of persuading those who have formed this opinion that it is erroneous. Mr Tukey desires to be retained in office that he may regain the good opinion of the freedmen, but under the circumstances the experiment is in my opinion hopeless and would injure the Bureau without benefitting him.

Capt. McDonnell's report about the condition of the office records is correct - and shows the same want of administrative ability as applies to the above specific transactions.

After a most careful and laborious examination I am not of the opinion that Mr Tukey, Asst. Supt. for Augusta & Highland Counties has been guilty of fraud or dishonesty, but I am satisfied that his want of order and prudence has placed him in such an unfortunate position that

[page 10]
his retention at Staunton would be seriously detrimental to the interests of the Bureau. I also believe that though not devoid of intelligence or even of education to a considerable extent, his want of system and of appropriate training render him unfit for duty in that branch of the public service which more than any other is exposed to accusation and reproach.

With reference to that part of the papers which applies to Lieut. George T. Cook, I also submit the following report.

That officer relieved Mr Tukey 19th May 1866, and was in turn relieved by him under order dated 26th Dec. 1866. The office papers and records were in the same situation as while Mr Tukey was on duty - that is - very bad.

His general reputation in the town of Staunton and elsewhere in the Sub District was good and even some of Mr Tukey's friends state that they have no complaint to make of Lieut Cook.

Mr Tukey now however makes accusations concerning his personal character relative to dissipation, undue familiarity with the lady teachers and neglect of duty. Some allowance should be made for recrimination and the excitement produced by the violent and unfortunate quarrel now existing, and the accusations above referred to are somewhat intangible and not well supported by evidence.

On one subject however, Mr Tukey's statement is so clear and definite that I deem it my duty to repeat it in his words, taken down by me as follows:

"During the months of August or September last, when I was clerk in the office, I was aware of Lieut. Cook leaving his District on four different occasions without permission. Twice he went to the Natural Bridge and twice to Washington. I know that he had no leave of absence because he told me so and requested me to shield him in the even of an inspector coming. He requested that if an Inspector came I should say he had gone into the Country, leaving it to be inferred that he was in the rural parts of his Sub District. I agreed to do so."

On examination at Head Quarters, I can find no leaves of absence granted to Lieut. Cook which would apply to the time above specified and consider that the charge requires attention.

In the papers referred to me and still more in his conversation with me, Mr Tukey has assailed the character of all the school teachers stationed at Staunton with the exception of Mrs Anna A. Dunn who is his sister. No charges involving moral character is made against Mr. N.C. Brackett, Supt. of schools, but he is accused of weakness and incompetency. Mr John Piper the male teacher is charged with having been intoxicated, and the ladies, Misses Ellen

[page 12]
Leavitt, Sarah Gillespie and Eliza Gilmore with conduct, which, though no very serious breach of morals is alleged, is considered by Mr Tukey as unbecoming in Christian missionaries. He also distinctly charges neglect of the school interests entrusted to their care.

The same allowance as above suggested should be made for Mr Tukey's acting in self-defense and recrimination in this matter. The absence of Mr Brackett and the illness of the lady teacher most seriously concerned, prevented me from forming any definite opinion respecting the general subject, except that the schools did not appear to be thriving. I may add that it would have been beyond the powers of my office as I understand them, to subject these teachers to a trial of their private characters, that duty being more in the province of the charity which sends and sustains them, and which in my opinion should be notified of Mr Tukey's accusation.

The recommendation I make on this subject in the interest of the Bureau, is that there should be such a change in the teachers as will stop the whole of this discreditable quarrel. Mr Tukey is not without friends at Staunton, and has a party which will undoubtedly injure the schools if the present teachers are continued. Besides this, the charges above referred to, and which Mr Tukey has made to some extent public in Staunton, must impair the efficiency of the teachers and render their always delicate position still more unpleasant.

Respectfully submitted

Garrick Mallery
Capt. 43rd U.S.I.
Serg. Inspector General