1/ I lUUUil I J 
 
 /z mo 
 #3f*f 
 
TO THE PUBLIC. 
 
 When the public mind h-ifc been pre-occupied, as it is 
 r.owj with matters of surpassing moment, I am fully 
 aware how difficult it is is fir any one, let alone one so 
 humble as myself, to obtain a hearing as to any thing of 
 a personal nature. Notwithstanding this, I feel it to* be 
 my duty to vindicate myself from unjust and slanderous 
 aspersions contained in a publication made some time 
 je and extensively circulated over the State. I should 
 have done this sooner, but for the delay in procuring 
 some evidence which. I herewith publish. If in perform- 
 ing this unpleasant duty, I shall hold up to the public 
 scorn and contempt, the base tricksters, their aiders and 
 abettors, who have attempted to injure me and others, 
 - will have only themselves to thank for the exposure 
 of their knavery. At the list session of the Legisla 
 a joint select^ committee of tfhe two houses was appointed, 
 ostensibly, to inquire and report " why our soldiers had 
 been paid in Confederate money' instead of State treasury 
 notes." The resolution originated in the Senate. If i'; 
 ever passed the House I was not aware of it. It seems, 
 however, that I was appointed a member of that com- 
 mittee, though the fact was unknown to me until after 
 the " committee had had several meetings. Though a 
 regular attendant of the House of Commons, and atten- 
 tive to all my duties, I was so unfortunate as never to 
 have heard of my appointment until informed by R. Y. 
 McAden, a member from the county of Alamance, that I 
 was a member of the committee, that he was chairman, 
 and that a meeting would be held that afternoon. This 
 was shortly before the adjournment of the Legislature in 
 the latter part of December, to meet again on the 19th 
 January following . How this happened I cannot explain . 
 It is usual to announce from the clerk's desk the names 
 of members of committees, when appointed, and also the 
 times of their meetings. I knew nothing of either. I 
 
repaired to" the place of meeting as requested by McAden 
 and there found him and Mr. Warren. Soon after Mr. 
 Courts came in, and then Mr. iCllis, who was also a mem- 
 ber of the committee, on the part of the Senate. The rest 
 of the committee, four in number, as I afterwards learned, 
 were absent. The chairman asked Mr, Courts a few 
 questions, and Mr. Warren wrote down the answers. Mr. 
 McAden then said " gentlemen we will adjourn until 
 after Christmas, when we will look into "this matter/ 1 
 % Short as the time was, I thought I discovered a dispo- 
 sition to criminate Mr. Courts, as I believed for party- 
 purposes, and to furnish some excuse for his removal 
 from office, which has already been accomplished ; and 
 then it was that Mr. Ellis and myself, upon our retiring 
 agreed, as his letter hereto appended and marked A will 
 show, that we would endeavpr to have justice done. It 
 is not pretended that any regular meeting of the Com- 
 mittee was again called or held before a report was made, 
 though it seems that the Chairman wrote sundry letters 
 and collected such evidence as he thought proper in the 
 meantime. The next I heard of trfe matter was that,' on 
 the 5th of February McAden, while the House was in ses- 
 sion, called me into a room next to the Commons Hall, 
 where also was Mr. Henderson, and read his report which 
 he asked us to sign. The report contained matters which 
 I did not know then to be either true or false ; it crim- 
 inated both Messrs. Courts alnd Lewis, the State paymas- 
 ter. I was not willing to sign it until I could, read the 
 evidence and judge for myself with all the facts before 
 me. That I said so at the time will fully appear from 
 Mr. Henderson's letters hereto appended marked B and 
 C. I beg the reader to bear in mind this fact, and the 
 date of this occurrence. That night I went to McAden's 
 room and asked him for the report and evidence, that I 
 might take them to my room and examine them, lie de- 
 clined to permit me to take the papers from his room, but 
 again read to .me the report, and as that refered to 
 certain legal opinions of B. F. Moore and Thomas Bragg 
 in relation to Mr. Court's power to sell bonds under the 
 Ordinances of the Convention, and which I expressed a 
 wish to read, he allowed me to take them. But he de- 
 dlined to let me have the evidence. The legal opinions 
 were not read there, nor any other paper, ordinance or 
 law, saving the report. I still declined to sign the report, 
 until I h ad an opportunity to examine into the matter. 
 
I was. in the room but a very few minutes. I am confi- 
 dent of this, because I had an engagement to attend a 
 political meeting that evening, in the Commons Hall, and 
 
 I left as soon as I could for that purpose and was present 
 at the meeting and acted as Secretary. On the next 
 morning, I read the opinions of Messrs. Moore and Bragg, 
 and when I reached the Capitol, McAden came to me and 
 handed me a letter from Mr. Cunningham, the same pub- 
 lished with the report, and asked me to read it. Soon after, 
 he came to my seat with his report and wished to know, 
 
 II what I had concluded to plo. " I again declined to sign 
 it. He seemed excited, demanded of me the opinions of 
 Messrs. Moore and Bragg, and Mr. Cunningham's letter, 
 which I handed to him, and he then said " I am inde- 
 pendent of you, I have again gotten Mr. Henderson on the 
 report. " It is proper for me to say that Mr. Henderson 
 had signed the report, then taken his name off, and then 
 again signed it. Mr. Ellis, the only other member of the 
 Committee who seemed to be free from party feeling be- 
 ing absent. ( Thus it will be seen that, on three several 
 occasions this man McAden attempted to palm upon me 
 a one-sided report, withholding from me the facts which 
 he had collected, except Mr. Cunningham's letter, which 
 he thought would, when taken alone, influence me to sign. 
 His purpose was to secure a unanimous report, and thus 
 deal, what he thought, would be a crushing blow to Mr. 
 Courts. Foiled in this purpose we shall see to what fur- 
 ther dishonest tricks and subterfuges this pittiful petti- 
 fogger resorted. A few minutes after I refused to sign, 
 McAden made his report to the House. What was then 
 said and done ? Let the report of his own political friend, 
 Mr. Litchford, in the Daily Progress of that date answer. 
 It is as follows : 
 
 t " Mr. McAden from the Joint Select Committee appointed to enquire 
 into •• the causes of the payment of soldiers' claims by disbursing officers 
 and agents of this State, in Confederate Treasury Notes instead of North 
 Carolina Treasury Notes, which were authorized to be issued by the State 
 Convention for the payment of such claims, " made an extended report. 
 
 Mr. Watson moved that the report be ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Foy said that he hoped the motion would not prevail at this time. 
 He was a member of the Committee, had not signed the report for the 
 reason that he had not had sufficient time to examine into the evidence 
 on which it was based. He had met but once with the Committee, and 
 that was in December last. He said that he was not aware that the Com- 
 mittee had had more than one meeting. He said that the Chairman" had 
 Galled his attention to this report and read it to him, but he had declinod 
 
o sign it, for the reason that he had not examined the papers and evidence 
 upon yvhich it was made. He therefore hoped that the House would not 
 order the report to be printed until he had time to write out a minority re- 
 port, that they might be printed together. 
 
 , Mr. McAden said that the Committee was in no way responsible for the 
 non-attendance of the gentleman from Onslow (Mr. Foy,) upon the meet- 
 ing of the Committee. The Committee had met some five or six times, 
 and on each occasion, notice of the meetings had been read at the Clerk's 
 desk. Every member of the Committee in the city, had signed the report 
 but the gentleman. He had read the report to the gentleman yesterday, 
 and last evening in his (Mr. McA's) room, and he understood the gentle- 
 man to say, that he thought the report correct, but declined to sign it. — 
 Nothing was 9aid to him by the gentleman of any intention to bring in a 
 minority report, and no request was made for the report or papers for any 
 such purpose. 
 
 Mr. Shepherd moved that the matter be laid on the table until to-mor- 
 row 11 o'clock, to allow Mr. Foy time to examine the papers and report, 
 with the view of making a minority report. Upon this motion a running 
 discussion ensued. The House agreed to the motion." 
 
 This report of what I then said, sustains me in the 
 statement of facts I have made herein. And now as to 
 Mc Aden's reply. Does it contradict me in a single ma- 
 terial particular ? He admits I attended but one meet- 
 ing of the Committee. He says there were several meet- 
 ings, and that publie notice was given. It is only ma- 
 terial to my defence to say that I knew nothing of them, 
 and that I do not believe that such notices were given. 
 He says he read his report to me, but he does not pretend 
 that he read to me the evidence or suffered me to see it, 
 or that any other paper or document touching the mat- 
 ter was read at his room, or at either of the times when 
 he read his report. He represents me as saying that I 
 thought the report correct, but that I declined to sign it. 
 How silly this is — what I dids&y in his room, referring 
 to that part of his report concerning Major Lewis, was 
 this : "Do you suppose he has speculated with the pub- 
 lic funds?" "He replied that it seemed that he had." 
 And then I said, "if that was so he ought to be cashiered." 
 Of course this was conditional only, and based upon what 
 McAden had said and which was found by me afterwards 
 to be untrue. Mr. Henderson's letter shows however 
 that I said in the presence of McAden the day before, 
 that I would not sign the report without an examination 
 of the evidence. Again, McAden says that I declared no 
 intention to bring in a minority report. Was it necessa- 
 ry or material.that I should have so stated ? That, in 
 fact, depended upon the opinion I might form upon an 
 
examination of all the papers. It is perfectly evident 
 that there was a design to keep these out of sight, and I 
 never did get sight of them until the House ordered them , 
 to be placed in my possession, despite the strenuous and 
 shameful efforts to the contrary of McAden, aided and 
 assisted from the outset, as the Progress report shows, by 
 his man Friday (Watson,) who stood ready to serve him. 
 then and also the next day, as the sequel will show in con- 
 junction with another, as a swift and unscrupulous wit- 
 ness. On the next morning, being the 7th, I was ready 
 to make a minority report. ' At his request it was shown 
 to McAden before it was read in the House. I was soon 
 after informed by Harrison, one of McAden's witnesses, 
 that they had "shot and shell prepared for me." When 
 my report was read, McAden caused to be read the fol- 
 lowing, purporting to be a letter from Watson and Har- 
 rison : 
 
 "Raleigh, N. G., Feb. 6, 1863. 
 R. Y. McAden, Esq.. „ 
 
 Dear Sir : — A3 we hare been requested by you to state what occurred 
 between yourself and Mr. Foy last night, we take pleasure in doing so. 
 Mr. Foy came to our room about eight oclock. He said he came for 
 the purpose of examining the report relative to the Treasurer and other 
 disbursing agents, and wished to take the report to his room. Mr. McAden 
 preferred that the report should ^be examined there; to which Mr. Foy 
 did not object. The report was handed to Mr. Foy. He carefully read 
 it over, and they compared it with the various ordinances of the Conven- 
 tion, and the evidence filed with fhe report, and commented on it. Mr. 
 Foy then remarked, that he heartily concurred in the report of the com- 
 mittee, and said Maj. Lowis ought 10 be turned out of his office. To 
 which Mr. McAden replied, that Maj. Lewis had resigned. Mr. Foy then 
 said, he did not see anything wrong in the report, and that he would sign 
 ' it, but first desired to read the defence of the Treasurer. Mr. McAden 
 gave him* the opinions of Messrs. Bragg and Moore, and stated that he 
 had appended them to the report. 
 
 Mr. Foy gave no intimation that he was dissatisfied in any manner with 
 the report of the committee, or that he wan ted. further time for examina- 
 tion, or of any intention to file a minority report. 
 Yours truly, 
 
 E. F. WATSON, 
 SAM'L. S. HARRISON, 
 
 It will be seen that it bears date the 6th, but that is 
 not the true date. It was not written until after the 
 House met on the Tth, and after McAden had read my 
 report, as Harrison admitted to me. This was the " shot 
 and shell" with which I was to be killed off. Who pre- 
 pared it ? Why no body but McAden himself. It is in 
 
6 
 
 his hand-writing, as an inspection of the paper will show, 
 and was written by him at his desk in the Commons Hall, 
 in other words, a letter from himself to himself, and then 
 and there. signed by his but too willing tools and coadju- 
 tors. " The roice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the 
 hands of Esau." Neither McAden nor his witnesses 
 will dare deny either of these facts. They are too well 
 known to many members of the House for them to do it. 
 This false statement was intended to'hold me upas the 
 mere tool of others^ and thus, as he supposed, break the 
 force of the minority report. When it was read, owing 
 to the difficulty of hearing in the House of Commons, I 
 did not clearly understand its purport. An examination, 
 however, as soon as I could get possession of the paper, 
 satisfied me, and I then demanded of Harrison a paper 
 retracting the statement, which he admitted to me 
 was in several particulars unture ; but I believe he was 
 prevented from signing it by McAden. Finally it was 
 said that the majority and the minority reports would be 
 published, and would go out for what they were worth, 
 and that all matters of a personal nature had as well be 
 dropped. 
 
 To this I assented, as I did not wish to keep alive any 
 such controversy. I should have stated that I found this 
 paper, whieh was no part of the report, had been sent to 
 the public printer to be printed with the reports. Here 
 was another piece of dishonorable petty trickery. I 
 brought the matter to the attention of the House, an d the 
 paper was erdered by the House to be withdrawn from 
 the public printer, which was done. After the Legisla- 
 ture had finally adjourned, I saw a notice in the Standard 
 that, by request, would be published a number of the 
 majority and minority reports for circulation. I have one 
 of them before me now, and it is the publication which 
 has called from me this paper. It purports to be Legis- 
 tive Document, No. 24. But there is published as a part 
 of this public document, a letter from Mr. Hoyt, as fur- 
 ther testimony, and which was not before the committee 
 so far as I believe or have heard, and' certainly was not 
 laid before the Legislature ; and also the above quoted 
 letter, signed by Watson and Harrison, which the House 
 had expressly ordered not to be printed as a part of the 
 Document, and yet this all comes out as a regular docu- 
 ment, printed by order of the House. Could impudence 
 and fraud go further than this ? For it will be seen 
 
before I get through that, while the perpetrators of it 
 were annexing evidence, as they thought to help out their 
 charges, there was a large portion of the evidence in the 
 hands of McAden, when he made his report, which has 
 been suppressed and not yet published. I charged this 
 upon him in the House of Commons and he did not deny 
 it. But to return to his witnesses. They admit that I 
 wanted to take the papers to my room to examine them. 
 McAden,. they say, preferred my doing it there. That is, 
 he refused my request. And Ihen, it is said, I carefully 
 examined the report, ordnances and evidence, comparing 
 the same, and that I heartily concurred in the report. 
 Not one word of 'which is true save that the report was 
 read to me by McAden. 
 
 Did McAden pretend that this was so when I made my 
 statement in the House of Commons, and which I have 
 before given as reported in the Progress together with 
 his reply? Where then were his witnesses? There 
 were some five or six Ordinances of the Convention bear- 
 ing on the subject, several tables of figures, annexed to 
 the report, besides the evidence reported, and the long 
 written opinions of Messrs. Bragg and Moore, and I now 
 say if any one will read them as published he will find 
 that it will take him more than one. hour to do. so, let a 
 lone the time required to understand what he was read- 
 ing. I remained but a few minutes and these men know 
 the thing was impossible in that time. But it is said tc I 
 heartily concured in the report," and said I would sign it 
 but first wished to read Mr. Courts' defence. If I hearti- 
 ly concured in the report and intended to sign it, what dif- 
 ference could it make whether I did so before or after 
 reading Mr. Courts' defence ? Can any reasonable man 
 give a sensible reason for such conduct ? I had refused 
 to sign the report in the morning as Mr. Henderson's 
 letter shows. I again refused on the next morning when 
 pressed by McAden, and after he had given me Mr. Cun- 
 ningham's letter to read. If I had heartily concurred in 
 the report why all this trouble on the part of McAden ? 
 And if I had the night before carefully compaired all the 
 evidence with the report, and commented on it, and then 
 heartily concurred in the report, why did McAden hand 
 me the letter of Mr. Cunningham to read in the morn- 
 ing ? For according to these willing witnesses I had 
 already read it, commented on it, and compared it with 
 the report. Such is the tissue of falsehood and absurdity 
 
in which these willing witnesses have involved them- 
 selves. 
 
 The great mistake I made when McAden declined to 
 let me have the papers, which in all fainess and courtesy 
 I was entitled to, was, in remaining in their room one 
 moment after that time. Had I known them then, as well 
 as I do now, I never would have placed myself in such a 
 situation, or having done so would have fled from them 
 as from a pestilence, when I discovered my error. I dis- 
 miss these poor tools of McAden to the infamy which they 
 so richly merit. I have referred herein to the letters of 
 Mr. Henderson and Mr. Ellis. I also annex letters mark- 
 ed D and E from Daniel L. Kussel and J. B. Carpenter, 
 also members of the Committee, and all signers of the 
 majority report, save Mr. Ellis. It will be seen that these 
 letters differ in some respects. Henderson, Kussel and El- 
 lis say they attended no meeting of the Committee, nor 
 knew of any after December. I did not, and therefore 
 there could have been none that was regular, as there was 
 no quorum, Carpenter says- however that, he was pres- 
 ent at one at the second* session, when the Chairman read 
 certain letters as evidence which he had received after 
 the adjournment. Why were not these letters submitted 
 to a full Committee ? Mr. -JSllis says that but little of 
 the evidence, taken when he was present, is published 
 with the report, and that Mr. Richardson's evidence, (Mr. 
 Court's chief clerk) is entirely omitted, Mr. Russel saw 
 no evidence taken after December, says he heard enough 
 to satisfy him before, and did not read the evidence, and 
 knows that Mr. Richardson's was not published, which 
 stated that part, of tl^e 8 per cent. Bonds issued to J. Gr. 
 Williams & Co., were for Treasury Notes funded, while 
 Mr. Williams said he obtained all he got with Confede- 
 rate money. Mr. Henderson says he heard Mr. Richard- 
 son's evidence, but don't know why it was not filed with 
 the report and published. But Mr. Carpenter's letter is 
 rich in this particular, and furnishes a clue to unravel 
 the mystery. He states that the Chairman read the evi- 
 dence to some of. the committee at the Adjourned Session 
 as already stated, and then adds in reply to my question 
 " I am satsfied that some of the evidence ivas not published, 
 and the reason was that it could not possibly have any hear- 
 ing on the subject , to wit, letters stating that these Bonds had 
 been obtained by Treasury Notes." Simple Mr. Carpen- 
 ter. There were deeper and longer heads on that Com- 
 
mittee than yours. So that evidence was deliberately sup- 
 pressed, and they made you believe that it could not pos- 
 sibly have any bearing on the subject. ■ 
 
 In the minority report, I combatted the position oi the 
 majority, that all the 8 per cent. Bonds were sold by Mr. 
 Courts, -whereas it was very certain that a large portion 
 of them had been issued for Treasury notes, under the 
 provisions of the Ordinance requiring the Treasurer to 
 fund them, and about which he had no discretion what- 
 ever. I did not then know that the evidence on this 
 point had been suppressed for the express purpose, as 
 now appears, of making out' a false case against Mr.. 
 Courts. 
 
 And now I ask, could anything have been more infa- 
 mous? I learn that not only the evidence of Mr. Rich- 
 ardson was withheld, but of the following : Branch & 
 Son, Petersberg, Va.; T. W. Dewey, Charlotte; W. H. 
 H. Tucker, John W. Albertson and Geo. W. Mordecai, 
 Raleigh, and Jesse H. Lindsay, Greensboro'. 
 
 I excuse Mr. Carpenter, in his simplicity, from any 
 blame in the suppression of this testimony. 
 
 Mr. Henderson is an honorable man, who was only too 
 careless, I think, in signing a report without proper care 
 and examination. And there may be others entitled to 
 the same excuse. But what shall be said for this man 
 Mr. McAden, and such as he is, who seems to have had 
 the chief management of the matter, and whose vilain- 
 ies towards Mr. Courts and myself, I have been compelled 
 to expose ? I charge him here with deliberately suppres- 
 sing important , testimony, which every consideration of 
 justice and truth, and the oath he had* taken as a mem- 
 ber of the Assembly, required him to introduce. I 
 charge him with preparing and procuring to be sign- 
 ed a statement as regards mvself which he knew to be 
 false, when I had done him no earthly injury, save to re- 
 fuse to be used by him in his unholy purpose, and because 
 I had, in discharge of a public duty, made a report differ- 
 ing from that made by him. And lastly, I charge him 
 with adding to and publishing, as a legislative document, 
 what was no part of it when it came from the Legisla- 
 ture, and thus attempting to practice a fraud upon the 
 piiblic. 
 
 And so I dismiss R. Y. McAden, I confess that lean 
 
10. 
 
 drrd no language adequate to express the scorn and con- 
 tempt which I feel for such a creature. 
 
 J. H. FOY. 
 
 RlCHLABDS, ONBLOW CO.,N. C, 
 
 May 13, 1863. 
 
11 
 
 A PPENDIX. 
 
 Camp 30th Regiment, near ) 
 
 Fredericksburg, Va., March 21, 1863. j 
 
 J. H. Foy, Esq.: ■ • 
 
 Dear Sir: Your favor of the 12th inst. is just to hand. In reply to 
 your several inquiries, I have to say that on the evening when yourself, 
 McAden, Warren and myself were present on the " Star Chamber Com- 
 mittee," on leaving the committee room, you remarked tu me that you 
 intended to see Mr. Courts have justice done him. I replied that such 
 were my intentions. I attended three or four meetings of the committee. 
 I do not recollect which. I was first notified that I was a member of the 
 committee by hearing the Speaker of the Senate announce my name on 
 it. Notice of the first meeting that I heard of, and suppose it the first 
 held, was read out by the Door-keeper. No other public notice of any 
 meeting that I ever heard of was given ; certainly none was read in the 
 Senate. At one of the meetings I think we adjourned to meet at the call 
 of the Chair, and some one (but I have no recollection who) told me 
 when the committee would meet again. At the . time of meetiug the 
 time we were to meet again was agreed upon. Our last meeting, or the 
 last I attended, was several days previous to *Dur adjournment before 
 Christmas. We then adjourned to meet again at the call of the Chair. 
 That call, so far as I know, or have been able to learn, has never been 
 made. I heard all the testimony in the case up to the time I have men- 
 tioned or given at the meetings I attended. It was just related by the 
 witnesses, in a conversational style, except the written statement of Mr. 
 Lewis ; but little of it is reported in the published reports of the committee. 
 They have omitted to give any of the evidence of Mr. Richardson, Chief , 
 Clerk. 
 
 It was understood when I was last present with the committee, that 
 the Chairman would address letters to a number of gentlemen said to 
 have had monied transactions with the Treasury Departments. 
 
 I have heard nothing more of this celebrated committee until its dis- 
 torted and senseless majority reports appeared. My immediate return 
 to duty here, after the Legislature adjourned, compelled me to ask a few 
 days leave of absence before the adjournment. It was during that absence 
 that the report was made. I look upon the majority report as a con- 
 temptible bateh of nonsence, and cannot refrain from expressing the 
 opinion that bad the Legislature addressed itself in a calm, dignified and 
 statesmanlike manner to the responsible task of providing for our troops, 
 taking care of the suffering wemen and children at home, adopting 
 measures fur the development of our resources, it would have been en- 
 
12 
 
 jaged in a more laudible and patriotic enterprise than it was in appoint- 
 ing " Star Chamber, Thumb Screw, Smelling Committees" to carry out 
 prescriptive partizan arrangements, in the removal of old, well-tried and 
 skillful officials. 
 
 I have seen, the majority and minority reports, and I do not hesitate to 
 give the majority report an unqualified condemnation, and to say that in 
 my opinion there was no evidence before the committee to justify such a 
 report. I should have cheerfully signed the minority report had I been 
 present. It has my cordial approval. I believe I have answered the 
 inquiries in your note. 
 
 If these patriotic, Conservative^ committee-making, political gentlemen 
 have nothing to do but amuse themselves by writing glorifications of their 
 own acts, 1 think it would be well to turn them over to the enrolling 
 officers, and send them out here to be amused with the euphonious ca- 
 lence of '"hep, hep, hep, with right-shoulder shift arms — double-qrtfck/' 
 
 You must excuse this scribbling, as it is a camp production. 
 I am sir, very truly, your ob't serv't, 
 
 JOHN W. ELLIS. 
 
 B. 
 
 Manson, April 2d, 1863. 
 J. H. Foy, Esq : 
 
 Sir: — Your last letter is to hand and tho contents noted. I will pro- 
 ceed to answer your questions and then give my reasons for not wishing 
 my name handed round in the public prints. 
 
 Question 1. Did you ever hear the Speaker of the House or any Clerk 
 thereof announce who was the Committee ? 
 
 2d. Did you ever, meet me On the Committee ? 
 
 Answer to 1st. I do not think I ever did. 
 
 Answer to 2d. I think I did at the 1st meeting of the committee. That 
 impression is on my mind, and I think it is corroborated by a statement of 
 yours in your remarks in the Homse of Commons on the occasion of your 
 asking for the report and evidence in order to examine' them, which state- 
 ment was that you only attended the first meeting of the committee, and 
 I knew I was at the first meeting, and also the further circumstance, which 
 you mention in your last letter, that Mr. Courts came before the commit- 
 tee and we did nothing. 1 was present when he came before us at the first 
 meeting of the committee, and he could not furnish then the evidence the 
 committee wanted and they adjourned to another time, I think, at which 
 time Mr. Courts was requested to be present. All of these circumstan- 
 ces tend to strengthen the impression on my mind that I met you at that 
 session of the committee. If the committee met during the adjourned 
 session, except the time to which you allude, when the Chairman read 
 his report to several of us, I am not aware of it. • 
 
 You misapprehend my motives in not wishing to appear in the news- 
 paper. It is not from a fear of being criminated, and I did not think you 
 had any such design at the time I received your letter. If you deem it essen- 
 tial to your defence' and insist on publishing extracts from what I wrote 
 you, I shall prefer your publishing the whole together with this, though I 
 would rather not have my name handed round at all, in the public prints. 
 But if you think it necessary to your vindication I will consent to your 
 publiphing the whole, ljut no extracts. 
 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 L. HENDERSON. 
 
13 
 
 Manson, March 21st, 1863. 
 J.H. Fot, Esq.: 
 
 Dear Sir : Your letter of the 12th is to hand, and I proceed to comply 
 with your requests as near as I can, although I cannot say that my mem- 
 ory is very accurate. 
 
 In reply to your first inquiry' on the occasion of our being called by the 
 Chairman iDto the Committee room, I think you said you could not sign 
 the report, as you had not been present at any but the first meeting of 
 the Committee, but that it seemed to you to be right, but you did not like 
 to sign it without examining the evidence. I did not hear, that I recollect . 
 you say it did Mr. Courts injustice. The impression made on my mind 
 Was that you wanted time to look into the matter before you signed it. 
 
 2. In reply to your second question I was informed of my appointment 
 on the Committee by Mr. Warren at my seat. 
 
 3. In reply to quesiton 3d, I think I must have heard the first meeting 
 announced, as I have no recollection of Mr. Warren telling me when the 
 Committee would meet, at the time he informed me of my being a mem- 
 ber. As to the other meetings I am unable to say precisely .how I became 
 aware of their times appointed, whether we adjourned to a day certain) or 
 whether it was announced from the desk. I am under the impression, 
 however, that I have heard it announced. 
 
 4. In reply to this, I attended some thiee or four meetings of the Com- 
 mittee, can't say positively who was present each time. I think I met 
 every member at gome one or other of the meetings. 
 
 5. In reply to question 5, the Committee did not meet during the short 
 sessions that I am aware of. 
 
 G. In reply to your sixth inquiry I do not know whether I saw all the 
 testimony or not as I do not know whether the Committee held any meet- 
 ings from which I was absent or not. I saw all that was given in at the 
 meetings that I attended. I think I read all that was published before it 
 was published, I do not think Mr. Richardson's testimony was published. 
 I heard that. The reason for not publishing it I do not know. 
 
 I saw sufficient testimony, I thought, to warrant me in signing the re- 
 port, although its tone and temper was rather more criminating than I 
 would have proposed, but as no attempt was made to fix corruption on 
 the Treasurer, I did not think I ought to keep my name from the report, 
 as it stated facts correctly, as far as I could judge. 
 
 I write this for your satisfaction and not for publication, as I have a 
 very great aversion to appearing in the newspapers, and do not wish you 
 to publish it as I do not think it will have any bearing on the matter one 
 way or the other. Yours, Respectfully, 
 
 L. HENDERSON. 
 
14 
 
 Brunswick Co., March 26, 1863. 
 Mb. J. H. Poy: 
 
 Sir : — Your letter of the 11th '.instant reached me on the night of the 
 16th and I had made arrangements to leave at an early hour next morn- 
 ing for my plantation in Robeson county, and did leave and only return- 
 ed this week. This is the first opportunity I have had to answer. You 
 ask me to state how many meetings of the Committee relative to Ex- 
 Treasure Courts' State Bonds, &c, I attended since Christmas. I sup- 
 pose, of course, you mean the Joint Committee appointed under a joint res- 
 olution, to enquire into the cause why soldiers were paid in Con- 
 federal notes instead of North Carolina} Treasury notes ? I did not 
 attend any meeting after Christmas, nor" do I know that there was any- 
 held after that time. The meetings I attended took place in December. 
 
 You ask, who of the Committee was present when I attended ? I b< - 
 leve all were present except yourself; and I recollect Mr. Courts seemed 
 somewhat excited, and enquired, where you were, to which no ^answer 
 was given that I recollect of. Mr. Courts was present each time I atten- 
 ded the Committee,, and Major Lewis was present at one meeting. I 
 heard his statement. You wish to know if I ever read over all the evi- 
 dence connected with the report. I did not read the evidence taken down 
 by the committee at the meetings which I did not attend. As to all the 
 evidence being published with the report of the majority of the committtee, 
 as far as I know, it is, except the statement of Mr. Courts' principal clerk, 
 who stated that J. G. Williams paid, for 8 per cent bonds in fundable 
 Treasury notes, while Mr. Williams himself states he paid in common 
 currency. You ask how did I know I was a member of the committee? 
 Was it announced publicly from the clerk's desk or did the Chairman in- 
 form me privately that I was a member of the committee? To which I 
 reply, that I do not recollect who informed me or in what manner I vras 
 so informed. I did not think there was any secrecy about the meetings 
 of the committee, and took it for granted that -if any member failed to be 
 present it was his own fault. I heard evidence enough before I left Ral- 
 eigh, in December, and after I returned in February, and the report was 
 carefully read over to me by the Chairman of the committee. I was 
 satisfied it contained nothing not fully warranted by the testimony before 
 the committee. I therefore had no hesitation in signing the majority re- 
 port. Respectfully, 
 
 DAN'L. L. RUSSELL. 
 
 Island Ford, Rutheford Co. N. C \ 
 March 21, 186S. j 
 Mr. Fot, Richlands, N. C. 
 
 Dear Sir: Yours of the 11th inst., is at hand and I will endeavor to 
 answer it asTully as possible. 
 
 I attended but one meeting of the committee to enquire into the causes 
 why soldiers were paid in Confederate Treasury notes, instead of North 
 Carolina Treasury notes. During the last Session of the Legislature the 
 
time tbat I attended, I was notified by one of the committee. The com- 
 mittee bad been notified by the Clerk publicly once or twice before to ray 
 knowledge, but I could not attend . . : 
 tended there was a quorum I think. 
 
 I do not now remember who of, the committee were present. When I at- 
 
 I did not read but very little'of the evidence. The Chairman read ;he 
 letters he had received during the recess of the session, and having been. 
 present at nearly all the meetings the first session I think I heard all 
 the evidence. I an satisfied that some the evidence was not published, 
 and the reason was that it could not possibly have any bearing on the 
 subject, to-wit, letters stating that these bonds had been obtained by 
 Treasury Notes. 
 
 The way that I found out that I was a member of the committee. H e 
 committee was publicly announced by the clerk. 
 I remain, very' respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 J. B. CARPENTER. 
 
 1/ on any point I have not WTote as fully as you may wish, write to 
 me again, and I will take pleasure in doing the best I can. J. B. 0. 
 
 N. B.~ I wrote Mr. Carpenter a second letter but received no answer 
 
 J, H. F, 
 
Hollinger Corp. 
 pH 8.5