.MTAzNA.NjkzMzY

From Newberry Transcribe
Revision as of 21:19, 29 April 2020 by imported>CastleCourt (Created page with "stores unless the Dept. be reimbursed for such service. While the Chf C. S. is properly solicitous that the Subistence Dept. shall suffer no loss he appears to think it rig...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

stores unless the Dept. be reimbursed for such service.

  While the Chf C. S. is properly solicitous that the Subistence Dept. shall suffer no loss he appears to think it right, proper and consistent to have the QM Dept. transport rotten and worthless potatoes at its expenses.

(Sgd) S. B. Holabird Dy, Q.M. Gen'l Chf QM

5th Endorsement Hq Dept of Texas Office of A. A. I. General San Antonio, Tx. Attention invited to the 2nd & 4th endorsements. The enclosed with endorsements presents another case needing a general understanding of the rulings in the case of the purchase of stores through the Subsistence Dept. under Circular No. 1 from Office Commissary Genl of Subsistence C.S.

    The Subis. Dept. presents the opinion that potatoes are the private property of the officers ordering them that therefore no loss should fall upon the Govt.
    The QM Dept through the Chf QM holds that being private property they should not be transported as "public stores".
    Attention is invited to communication from the Office of Nov. 7 1874 in which a decision was requested on points arising in this manner.
   In the case of the decision of the Commissary Genl is adhered to the officer ordering should pay for the amount of potatoes as invoiced.
   It is recommended that Mr. R. J. Evans be held blameless in the affair, and that those papers be forwarded for decision.

Sgd. G. R. Russell Captain 9 Inf. A.D.C. A.A.I Genl. Respectfully referred to Hq. Mil. Div. of the Mo. with a request that a decision may be had upon questions involved in this matter. The present condition of this question is what might reasonably be expected when each of the departments of the General Staff is permitted to define its own duties and to limit the scope of its positions entirely in its own interest.

  The interests of the Army at large seem to be lost sight of in this struggle of each department for its own particular benefit.  I respectfully submit that Section 25 of the Act approved July 28, 1866 clearly defines the duties of the Subsistence. Dept. in this matter, and that, that department has no authority to say what it shall or shall not furnish to the troops under that act.
  To troops who have been serving in the field