5. The most important charge and the one an understanding of which is most difficult to arrive at, is in reference to the repairs on the African Church.

There appear to have been two sets of rebel buildings which in the early part of 1866 were disposed of by Mr Tukey, one on Beverly street in the Suburbs of Staunton and one at Swoope's Station. These buildings do not appear to have been on any official papers and the transactions connected with them were not kept intelligibly seperate. Mr Tukey claims that by oral orders from Major How, he was authorized to tear them down and dispose of the lumber without rendering account. He has also a written order from Major How bearing relations to one of these barracks which is hereto attached marked "Exhibit B". This gives authority for the freedmen to take the lumber, 2200 feet being left for a Mr Wholly the owner of the land, and concludes by the very strange direction that Mr Tukey shall make no unnecessary explanations to Mr Wholly nor anybody else.

Mr Tukey states that the trustees of the church had partially contracted with a party to do the repairs at the price of one hundred and twenty dollars but that he told them it was too much and that he could have the work done so as not to cost over seventy five dollars and thereupon they entrusted him with the job - which he undertook. There was nothing wrong in this although it was outside of his, Mr Tukey's, duties, provided he did not in fact enter upon it as a speculation, and which is perhaps equally important, provided he so conducted it as to render it clear that he made no profit out of the freedmen in the transaction so as to bring himself and the Bureau into discredit. Mr Tukey states that a part of this lumber was given to satisfy the claim of Mr Thomas Wholey - but how much he does not in his written defense say. In addition to "Exhibit B" above referred to I find however in the endorsement Book at Winchester (see extract "Exhibit C") that with the approval of the Asst. Commissioner the amount to be retained by Mr Wholey was fixed at 2200 feet, and that the balance was ordered to "be given to the freedmen to be used in the construction of a church."

Mr Tukey also claims that in compliance with oral orders from Major How nine hundred feet were given to a Mr Shaver to satisfy a claim recognized by Bvt. Col. C. C. Clay, former post Commander. He also relies upon oral orders from Major How allowing him to pay for the taking down of the lumber by selling a portion. The portion he acknowledges to have sold amounts to $16.55. There was also an amount used in alterations in Mr Tukey's rented dwelling house which amount is not given.

It is to be observed that there is no attempt to state what was the balance of lumber remaining after these deductions, or what was the cost of taking down the same beyond the above $16.55 if anything. With this indefinite balance, Mr Tukey volunteered the work of repairs on the church. He makes a statement about the purchase of a wagon, harness &c and repairs to the same which he places at $64 but as the wagon and harness became his property, their costs would not properly be chargeable in this transaction except perhaps the sum of nine dollars alleged to have been expended in repairs made necessary by hauling. He says that he paid out of his pocket $88 though he only rendered the amount to the Trustees as $80 independent of mason work costing eleven dollars, of which he made a present. It is not clearly stated that the above sum of $64 spoken of in connection with the private wagon &c is or is not a part of the sum of $80 charged the Trustees, but leaving that out of the question Mr Tukey does not now give any details about the $80 - though he says he had Bills made out by the parties who did the work and handed them receipted to the Trustees.

The latter refused to pay the amt of $80 and finally compromised with Mr Tukey for $40 by which the latter says he is a considerable loser.

It will thus appear that Mr Tukey while Asst. Supt. entered as an individual into an unwritten contract with the Trustees to repair their church and used government lumber which was turned over to the church for that purpose. The very irregular and reprehensible order of Major How that he should render no unnecessary explanation respecting the lumber as Asst. Supt. cannot of course apply to his business arrangement with the Trustees of the church. There is hardly any transaction known to me which would have been more likely to produce complaints and accusation, and in which a full and clear settlement at the time would have been obviously necessary. Yet there is no account to show now on Mr Tukey's behalf. No settlement was made at the time and the Trustees disputed the bill rendered, now a large body of the Freedmen, the objects of his official care, charge that he cheated or attempted to cheat them under the guise of benevolence, and appear religiously to believe the same.

It may be perfectly true that the above charges were instigated or excited by Lieut. G. T. Cook, and his friends owing to that officer being lately relieved, but the fact remains that they are made and are believed by probably a majority of the freedmen, and that Mr Tukey's conduct has been so destitute of either method or prudence that his best friend is without the means of persuading those who have formed this opinion that it is erroneous. Mr Tukey desires to be retained in office that he may regain the good opinion of the freedmen, but under the circumstances the experiment is in my opinion hopeless and would injure the Bureau without benefitting him.

Capt. McDonnell's report about the condition of the office records is correct - and shows the same want of administrative ability as applies to the above specific transactions.

After a most careful and laborious examination I am not of the opinion that Mr Tukey, Asst. Supt. for Augusta & Highland Counties has been guilty of fraud or dishonesty, but I am satisfied that his want of order and prudence has placed him in such an unfortunate position that his retention at Staunton would be seriously detrimental to the interests of the Bureau. I also believe that though not devoid of intelligence or even of education to a considerable extent, his want of system and of appropriate training render him unfit for duty in that branch of the public service which more than any other is exposed to accusation and reproach.

With reference to that part of the papers which applies to Lieut. George T. Cook, I also submit the following report.

That officer relieved Mr Tukey 19th May 1866, and was in turn relieved by him under order dated 26th Dec. 1866. The office papers and records were in the same situation as while Mr Tukey was on duty - that is - very bad.

His general reputation in the town of Staunton and elsewhere in the Sub District was good and even some of Mr Tukey's friends state that they have no complaint to make of Lieut Cook.

Mr Tukey now however makes accusations concerning his personal character relative to dissipation, undue familiarity with the lady teachers and neglect of duty. Some allowance should be made for recrimination and the excitement produced by the violent and unfortunate quarrel now existing, and the accusations above referred to are somewhat intangible and not well supported by evidence.