complaint of jayhawking to any extent. I hear but little from the Twelfth Regiment, and suppose they are acting upon orders received from you. I am not now informed where they are stationed. I am of the opinion, however, that a couple of good companies of cavalry would be more efficient than the whole regiment in that particular duty.
B. S. HENNING,
Major Third Wisconsin Cavalry.
HEADQUARTERS CENTRAL DISTRICT OF MISSOURI,
Jefferson City, December 17, 1862.
General CLINTON B. FISK, Saint Louis, Mo.:
GENERAL: Of my return from Saint Louis, I found the trade in the western part of my district and the transportation that could be furnished by the Pacific Railroad monopolized by disloyalists, and that there was great complaint of the want of transportation by our Union friends and traders. I was, and am, satisfied that great injury was being done to the country, our cause, and our friends by reason thereof, and I believed it to be my imperative duty to check the evil at once. To enable me to do so effectually, I do not propose to allow evil at once. To enable me to do so effectually, I do not propose to allow any stock to be shipped past this place without a special permit from these headquarters, so that I may as far as possible prevent permits being given to those who are not known to be loyal. Messrs. Newland and Courtney are notoriously disloyal. I have a remonstrance in my office remonstrating against any permits to trade of ship stock being issued to these men, signed by the prominent Union men of the country of Pettis. Among the names I notice that of Colonel Spedden, of the Enrolled Militia, and Samuel Lowe, clerk of the circuit court of Pettis County.
You will pardon me for saying, in this, that it insinuates wrong on my part in prohibiting these men from shipping hogs. You say that "I have the certificate of your provost-marshal at Sedalia that they are loyal men, and upon such certificate they were permitted to purchase 3,000 hogs for Henry Ames & Co., of this city." The provost-marshal at Sedalia is not my provost-marshal, nor am I bound for any blunder or fraud he may commit, should he unfortunately be guilty of the one or the other. They (Newland and Courtney) ought to have known whether they were loyal or disloyal men, and it is only adding insult to injury for them or their friends to claim any advantages on account of their fraud in procuring said certificate from the provost-marshal at Sedalia. Your statement is not exactly accurate when you say it was "upon such certificate they were permitted to purchase 3,000 hogs for Henry Ames & Co." No certificate or permit was required to enable them to purchase these hogs. There never was, by my authority, any prohibition against purchasing property. The restriction is against shipping it without a permit; but even if they had purchased upon the certificate, that fact has nothing to do with the case. No one objects to the purchase, nor do I understand them to complain of the purchase. It is the prohibition to ship that I understand is the cause of complaint.
Of Messrs. Ames & Co. I know nothing; but,as at present advised, I am satisfied that it would be prejudicial to the interest of the district to permit these hogs to be shipped. If Messrs. Ames & Co. are loyal merchants, they should not have held any commerce with traitors for the sake of filthy lucre. Such things are forbidden, and their loss in this