General Pope has turned Island Numbers 10 at Point Pleasant, but enemy shows no disposition to evacuate. General Curtis is asking for re-enforcements in Arkansas. I must send him some troops intended for the Tennessee. You do not say whether we are to expect any re-enforcements from Nashville.
H. W. HALLECK,
CAIRO, March 10, 1862.
Major General U. S. GRANT, Fort Henry:
Send back steamers as soon as they can be spared. No transports here and very few in Saint Louis.
G. W. CULLUM,
FORT HENRY, March 10, 1862.
Brigadier General G. W. CULLUM, Cairo, Ill.:
No steamers will be detained here. As fast as they return from above I will send them to report to you.
U. S. GRANT,
SAINT LOUIS, March 10, 1862.
Honorable M. S. LATHAM,
U. S. Senate, Washington:
MY DEAR SIR: My attention has often been called to the injustice of the distinction in our laws in regard to captures made by the Army and Navy. The law of April 23, 1800, and subsequent laws direct the manner of distributing the proceeds of prizes on condemnation among the naval captors "as a reward for bravery and a stimulus." But the act of April 10, 1806, article 58, governing the Army, requires that "all public stores taken in the enemy's camp, towns, forts, or magazines, whether artillery, ammunition, clothing, forage, or provisions, shall, be secured for the service of the United States;" but no provision is made, as in the case of capture by naval forces, for any prize distribution among the army captors. This works a great injustice, and there is no reason for the distinction. For example: Land batteries cut off and capture a valuable vessel and cargo in a bay or river, no reward is given; but if the Navy does the same, they get the prize money. Again, such vessel is captured by joint operation of land and naval forces; the latter get the prize money and the former get nothing. This is certainly unjust and wrong. Moreover, it has a most injurious influence upon the discipline of our troops. Knowing when they make a capture that they are to receive nothing for the captured property, each one goes to pillaging, and concealing whatever he can for his own use. If, as in all other countries, our military captors shared in the prize, each individual would be interested in protecting and preserving all captured property.
As an example of the effects of the present system I will refer to the capture of Fort Donelson. As no one was interested in the property captured or caused to be accountable for it, large quantities were destroyed or carried away. This army was for some days almost as