.MTAzNA.NjkzMTg

[red ink] 1873 from this flour was issued to troops, but appears that about 4952 bread tickets have been sold at 5[cents sign] each realizing $229.59 to bakery. These tickets called for 21 ounce loaves hence 6699 ½ lbs of flour. 33 1/6 Brls have been saved and the money collected. This saving of 33 ½ Brls from 118 1/2 Brls is about as great a saving as can be expected from a small bakery using not much more than 1/2 Brl per day. I do not think there is any loss in the Flour. I would however call attention to one point which seems to have escaped the attention of the Post Comdr and the Post Council. 33 1/6 Brls of Flour brought but $229.59 hence the flour savings have been sold at $6 88/100 pr. barrel. The average price of flour has been for those months $9 95/100 per barrel, a loss of $101 82/100 has been sustained in the value of the savings. This loss added to the amount collected $229.59 would have made the proper savings about $330.41 approximating to the amount ($400/) the Post Commander estimated should have been realized. It is probable that the leakage exists in the low price at which the Council has fixed the price of Bread Viz. 5[cents sign] per ration loaf of 21 ounces. (Sgd) S T Cushing Capt CCS

Respectfully returned to Comdg Officer San Antonio, Tx The Dept Comdr. sees no reason for any misunderstanding about such a matter as this. The Proceedings of the Council as recorded are certainly not very clear and afford no data for deciding whether proper savings have been made or not. The endorsement of the Chf. Com. of Subs may throw some light on the subject. Two things are very certain, 1st. Savings of Bakehouse never exceed in practice thirty percent - hardly can come up to it. 2d 21 ounces of bread cannot be sold for five cents with proper gain for Post Fund. If Capt. Prince? desires the Council to make actual experiment at the bake house which I think would be well let, him order them specially.

DT May 10/73 By Command of Gen'l Augur (Sgd) C M Keever A A General

Griffin Ft C.O. [red ink] 156

Endorsement on Charges and Specifications preferred against Lt. J. Whitnery? 11 Inf (LR 2226 DT 1 encl)

Recd DT May 28, 1873 with the following endorsement, dated Hq Ft. Griffin, Tx May 11 1873. Respectfully forwarded to the AA Genl Dept of Texas. I have investigated these charges. The first specification can in one sense be sustained, the latter portion of the second specification cannot be sustained. The first cause was an