ABSTRACT—The U.S. Army used the George A. Cowles and Company patent moth, water and mildewproofing process from 1869 until 1876 to treat over 1.5 million yards of fabric, 150,000 enlistment men's uniforms, and 20,000 tents. The New York City Metropolitan police and several New York City awning and tent manufacturers also applied this process. The U.S. Army showed the process to be effective in water and moth repellency and possibly for mildewproofing. Copper, zinc, mercury, and alum may be left on these fabrics causing false positives for tests such as dye mordant identification. Caution should be used in treating these items since conservation work may remove or alter compounds destroying historical evidence and possibly causing further damage to the object. Identification of Cowles's-treated garments is by sleeve lining markings or by dating of uniform styles within the range of Cowles's process use.

1 INTRODUCTION

At the close of the American Civil War the U.S. Army Quartermaster's Department had evolved an efficient method of enlistment men's uniform construction and procurement that resulted not only in an adequate supply but a surplus. The war's end in 1865 caused stockpiling, increasing the chances of pest damage to garments.1 New efforts were made to protect these stored items against moth and mildew attack—some bizarre and ineffective, others trial-tested for long periods. Additionally, in-the-field use of tents and garments brought attention to the need for improved waterproofing techniques. This paper presents the George A. Cowles and Company process, used extensively by the U.S. Army from 1869 until 1876 for moth, mildew and waterproofing (henceforth called Cowles's process). The research is based on historical data and not on laboratory testing of extant items or simulation of the process on modern fabric.

There are several reasons for conservators to be aware of this post-Civil War treatment. Knowledge of the ingredients can provide data on the possibility of toxicity to those who handle the fabric, false positives that might appear in laboratory tests, and compounds that may exacerbate routine storage and handling problems. Garments and other items that have been treated should be identifiable so that conservators can be cautious in treating these pieces to avoid removal or alteration of historical materials. This requires knowledge of dates of treatment and how to identify treated items. The efficacy of the moth, mildew and waterproofing can give us data as to the possible conservation value these treatments may have today. This would include both positive and negative side effects.

2 INGREDIENTS

Cowles's process was patented in 1864.2 The U.S. Army used this patent for moth, water, and mildewproofing of wool garments and cotton tents. The ingredients are listed in Table 1 and will be discussed by their end-use role.3 Claims of ingredient roles were from historical documents (patent papers and other statements of the patent holders) and not from modern laboratory confirmation testing.

TABLE I: COWLES PATENT INGREDIENTS

Waterproofing of fibers was stated as accomplished through use of gelatine and/or glue (later albumen). Acetate of lead and/or gum-arabic appear to have been optional but also involved in waterproofing.4 The lead acetate and gum-arabic may have been omitted by 1871.5

Blue vitriol (copper sulfate) was claimed to protect against mildew.6 Alterations to the basic recipe (1871) included substituting chloride of zinc or bichloride of mercury for copper sulfate or using a combination of the three.7

The exact ingredients for mothproofing were not specified in the 1864 patent since this patent was originally listed for mildew and waterproofing. However, Cowles approached the U.S. Army for use of the patent as a mothproofing treatment as early as 1869.8 Cowles never specified the exact ingredients used for mothproofing.

Auxiliary ingredients included alum and soap or olive oil. Alum was stated to perform as a mordant.9 Alum has been used as a mordant for natural dyes (as has copper sulfate). Soap or oil (olive oil soap) probably solubilized the alum and kept the fabric pliable.10

Water was the solvent for this process (133–158 pounds per vat) but the patent neglected to state the amount of fabric and/or garments used in each vat: the total amount of ingredients on weight of fabric is missing.11 The percentage of each ingredient by weight in the vat is given in Table 1 for both the patent of 1864 and an 1871 updated recipe. Vat preparation was very straightforward. Most ingredients were first dissolved in warm or hot water and then added sequentially.12

Toxicity of these ingredients can relate to exposure during application of the process or in handling or wearing treated items. The Quartermaster's Department made inquiries that revealed no lead in the solutions and no toxic effects to long-term employees of Cowles's plant in Philadelphia.13 These employees applied the treatment by wading with bare legs in solution vats.14 Whether there would be bias by Cowles employees from fear of losing their jobs is difficult to say.

At least one field officer questioned the possible toxicity of Cowles's-treated garments when worn by the soldiers.15 Only one officer reported anything approaching a health problem: “those who alter or repair this clothing [Cowles's-treated] complain that it is poisonous in handling and causes a burning sensation in the fingers.”16 This comment was never addressed in any of the inquiries or other documents.

3 APPLICATION

In 1872 the Quartermaster's Office sent an officer to examine Cowles's factory where the solution was applied. This officer's clear commentary explains the application process:17

Large wooden tanks are provided to hold the solution in which the clothing is saturated. Boys get into these tanks with their bare legs and feet, and tread the clothing in order to thoroughly saturate it…The goods, after being thoroughly saturated in the solution, are placed (by hand) in a large wooden receptacle where they are allowed to remain for some time to drain. They are next placed in a large revolving wire frame surrounded by an iron bowl or basin separated [sic] from it by a space of some two or three inches. This bowl or basin is stationary, the wire frame revolving within it and with great velocity, making as I was informed, some 900 revolutions a minute. By this process the solution is thrown off from the clothing to the sides and bottom of the iron basin, escaping thence by a pipe attached to the bottom of the basin. It might be remarked that the clothing while in this wire frame lies perfectly still and motionless…This is known as the drying process and with this exception no machinery appears to be used.

4 TREATED ITEMS

A variety of completed garments (greatcoats, sack and frock coats and trousers), tents (wall, shelter, and common tents), and bolt fabric (for coats and trousers) were subjected to Cowles's treatment from 1869 to 1876.18 The total amount of fabric, garments, and tents known to have been treated was compiled from Quartermaster's Department annual reports and two Congressional reports.19 Over 1.5 million yards of bolt fabric, 150,000 garments, and 20,000 tents were treated with Cowles's process, giving an idea of the significance and widespread usage of Cowles's process from 1869 until 1876.

The first year of use, 1869, saw experimental treatment of tents and a few of greatcoats to test the efficacy of the treatment. Testing continued during 1870–1871 on garments, tents, and fabric.20 Most Cowles's-treated garments were Civil War surplus until issue of the new 1872 uniforms in 1872–1873.21 Thereafter fabric, to be made into the new uniform pattern, became the main treated item plus a number of tents. The only exception was infantry greatcoats that were altered slightly from the Civil War pattern, treated, and issued until about 1875.22

Garments treated after construction can be identified since they were to be marked on the sleeve lining near the armhole with the initials and date of the Cowles patent using a stencil and indelible ink. This mark was used to insure that the work had been completed and to identify treated items.23 A Civil War-style greatcoat from the Smithsonian Institution Division of Armed Forces History was marked with “Cowles and Co.” and “Pat. Sept. 20.64” (for the 20 September, 1864 patent date). A date below of “Apr.73” probably indicates that the application was done in April 1873; another coat similarly marked had “June.73” as the application date.

Cowles was associated with a variety of individuals during the company's contact with the Army making it possible that more than one form of Cowles's company name may be in the markings even though it was to be the patent holder's initials. A list of Cowles's company names and dates appear in footnote twenty-four.

Garments that were made from prepared bolt fabric (trousers from sky blue kersey, frock coats of blue cloth, and sack coats of blue flannel) probably did not have a mark in each garment. Instead the entire bale of treated fabric had a red letter attached to it on the outside which very likely would have become disassociated from the bolt when the fabric was removed for cutting.25 There are probably many enlisted men's uniforms made from fabric treated by the Cowles process that do not have markings. If they date from within the 1869–1876 period they should be treated as having been potentially exposed to the solution.

5 EFFICACY OF COWLES'S TREATMENT

The U.S. Army pre-tested Cowles's process from 1869 to 1871 before investing heavily. Additionally, the Quartermaster's Department required field testing of Cowles's-treated items. Two Quartermaster Boards of Inquiry investigated the efficacy of this process and requested more tests.26 All testing results (from historical records) have been divided into end-use catagories: water, mildew, and mothproofing and side effects.

Waterproofing. Quartermaster's Department tests and field officer responses indicated that Cowles's process caused cotton tents and woolen garments to be water-repellent.27 Civilian users also liked the water-repellency for both cotton and wool. The New York City Metropolitan police treated their overcoats with Cowles's process as did several awning and tent manufacturers in New York City.28 No responses directly related to cotton waterproofing appeared in the field reports.

Mildewproofing. All tests by the Quartermaster's Department involved Cowles's-treated cotton tents both wet and dry, indoors and outdoors for no period exceeding 16 months. These tests indicated that the treatment protected somewhat from mildew.29 The testing was done on very few samples so the results are hard to generalize. Conditions did cover severe testing extremes of soaking wet and hot along with direct dirt contact.30 No negative mildewproofing responses were received from quartermaster field officers. Field reports came from forts both in cool and in humid, warm areas.31 Based on Quartermaster's Department tent tests and officer reports it appears that, for cotton, the Cowles process may have had some mildewproofing virtues.

Mothproofing. This was the most controversial area related to Cowles's process. The Army wanted to safeguard its woolens in storage and had an urgent need to find a safe, cheap, and effective means of doing so. There were numerous Quartermaster's Department tests related to mothproofing and field test reports.

Use of Cowles's process resulted in less moth damage than that on untreated items both in terms of numbers of garments attacked and severity of damage on each garment. The treatment apparently repelled moths and/or slowed their activity. This slowing behavior was noted by a military storekeeper who had seen several thousand Cowles's-treated garments:32

In some instances moths have been found on this clothing, but generally near the edge of the package, and when found seem to be in a torpid or inactive state, and their work upon the material is scarcely perceptible.

Shipping boxes and bales for clothing were lined with petroleum paper (contents unknown) filled with garments, covered with plain wrapping paper and wrapped with burlap and canvas.33 By 1873 two coats of paint were applied on the outside to prevent the entrance of moisture.34 The 1874 Army Board of Inquiry found that “proper” baling appeared to be an effective deterrent to moths.35 However, exposure of opened or broken bales and loose garments in storage revealed that treated items suffered less from moth damage than untreated ones.36

Side Effects. Very few complaints were received about appearance changes in treated items. Those that occurred centered on ease of staining and color change of blue fabric to yellow-brown, dull blue, or dirty blue.37 One officer mentioned that after he had washed the Cowles's-treated garments, the fabric stains spread and then became fixed.38 It is possible that the fabric may have become oleophilic after treatment with Cowles's process due to the olive oil used. Certainly the glue/gelatine used could make the fabric tacky and allow dirt to adhere to the fabric.

Soldiers also commented that Cowles's items sometimes felt stiffened, coarse, and easily creased.39 Cowles pointed out that some of the fabric had been treated by a singeing process after the Cowles treatment (by Army orders and by another company) which he felt might have caused a harsh hand.40 Singeing is the application of flame to the fabric just close enough to the surface to burn off protruding fibers.41 Stiffened fabric could also result from excessive solution retention on the fabric.42

Several officers noted that woolen fabrics were warmer, firmer, thicker, and stronger after Cowles's treatment.43 The Board of 1874 was of the opinion that this was due to the fulling action of the water on fabric in the Cowles processing.44 Fulling is accomplished by taking fabric from the loom and subjecting it to the action of water, pressure, and heat, causing the yarns to swell and shrink towards one another making the fabric thicker and less air permeable (warmer and firmer).45 The Army did not require fabric fulling prior to enlisted men's uniform manufacture during 1869–1876.46 This fulling could be helpful in identifying Cowles's-treated uniforms only if subsequent washing of the garment (after manufacture) or other processing did not also create a fulling effect.

6 ABANDONMENT OF COWLES'S PROCESS

The U.S. Army ceased using Cowles's process after 1876.47 The reasons for cessation of use did not question the efficacy of the treatment. The Army's tests and officer reports generally supported its use as did the results of two Army Boards of Inquiry (1872 and 1874).48

By 1872–1873 most of the Civil War Army enlisted clothing surplus was exhausted and a new pattern of uniform appeared.49 The size of the Army decreased from that of the Civil War era as its main roles changed to frontier patrol and control of civil disturbance.50 The large quantities of woolen garments in storage decreased as did concern about exposure of fabric and garments to pests.

The major reason for the Army's abandonment of Cowles's process seems to have come from charges that Cowles and Company bribed Army officers. In 1874 an employee of Cowles and Company, hired to be a lobbyist with Congress, claimed that his salary was lower than he was to have received. He quit and promptly charged that bribes had been made to and accepted by Quartermaster Officers in return for use of Cowles's process—not that the treatment was ineffective.51 This resulted in cessation of use of Cowles's treatment to allow for military inquiry (1874 Board of Inquiry).52 An anti-Army House of Representatives, eager to save money, responded by inserting a clause in the Army appropriation bill of 1875–1876 stating that “no part of this sum…shall be paid for the use of any patent process for the preservation of cloth from moth and mildew.”53 This effectively stopped the use of Cowles's process despite the fact that the military board ruled positively on Cowles's process and a House investigation provided no proof that Army officers had taken bribes.54

Cowles's treatment was never reintroduced by the Army during the years after 1876 as this was a period when Congress tried to decrease the size of the Army and was loath to appropriate monies for them—not an auspicious time to reintroduce the use of a treatment that Congress had so quickly suppressed.

7 CONCLUSIONS

The ingredients found in Cowles's process present challenges to conservators. Copper, zinc, mercury, and aluminum were used and, if retained, could yield false positives in laboratory tests for dye mordants. Although no lead was said to be in the solutions there may be other irritants present requiring care in handling. Gelatine or glycerine that provided water-repellency also may hold dirt on the fabric creating additional conservation work. The olive oil soap could also produce a tacky surface and lend an oleophilic nature to the fabric increasing oil stain retention.

Cowles's-treated garments can be identified by sleeve markings. These are most likely to be Civil War surplus items. Fabric treated with Cowles's solution and then made into garments will have no markings but would include the 1872 style of uniform since this process was applied from 1869 to 1876. Civil War surplus tents or those made during this era may also have been exposed.

Cowles's process proved to be effective as a moth and water-repellent product. Moths either were killed or made sluggish by the compounds. Water was repelled but on saturation allowed penetration (not waterproof). Mildewproofing tests were limited and provide less proof of actual success. Changes in hand and appearance were minimal with Cowles's treatment but if wool garments are wet cleaned they may show color change and possible stain spread. Conservationists planning to use wet cleaning should be cautious when dealing with items suspected or identified as Cowles's-treated. Any conservation treatment that may solubilize ingredients in the Cowles recipe should be considered carefully prior to treatment as irreplaceable historical evidence may be removed.

8 FUTURE NEEDS

This research concentrated on data from historical documents. Questions have been raised through this research that others may wish to consider. Very little data emerged on fiber retention of solution ingredients or what may remove them. Extant Cowles's-marked garments exist in several major public and private museums in this country. Elemental analysis for copper, zinc, mercury, and aluminum should be undertaken on fiber samples from these garments with an effort to associate presence with Cowles's treatment. Consistent occurrence of the same elements may aid in developing an identification technique for unmarked but treated Cowles items. Copper was not used in indigo wool dyeing during the mid-nineteenth century. Unless the copper comes from other cleaning or finishing techniques this may provide a means for identifying Cowles's-treated wool uniforms.

The efficacy of the moth, water, and mildew-repelling power of this treatment should also be examined by application of this solution to fabric with subsequent tests for resistance to various environmental factors such as light, heat, and water along with reversibility and surface tackiness. Despite appropriation handicaps, disgruntled employees, and non-modern testing methods Cowles's process emerges with modern potential that merits our attention.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A special thank-you is extended to Margaret Vining, Specialist Historian, Division of Armed Forces History, Smithsonian Institution, for providing the Cowles's greatcoat information.

REFERENCES

U.S. Congress, “Quartermaster Annual Report,” U.S. Serial Set #1503, 42nd Cong., 2nd sess., September 27, 1871, pp. 163–164; U.S. Congress, “Quartermaster Annual Report,” U. S. Serial Set #1558, 42nd Cong., 3rd sess., September 30, 1872, pp. 178–179.

Invention Patent #44285, G.A.Cowles, J.P.Case, and V.Vierow, September 20, 1864, RG 241, Suitland Branch of the National Archives, Suitland, MD.

U.S. Congress, “Report of the Army Board of Inquiry1874,” U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., pp. 3–4. 6, 8; Letter from Meigs to Secretary of War, December 1, 1874, RG 92 QMCCF Box 211, National Archives, Washington, D.C. (see #2); Scientific American 34, #15 (April 8, 1876), RG 92 QMCCF Box 210, National Archives, Washington, D.C.; U.S. Congress, “Meigs to Committee,” U. S. Serial Set #1715, 44th Cong., 1st Sess., May 29, 1871, p. 465; and U.S. Cong., Letter from Cowles to Meigs, U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd sess., May 29, 1871, p. 64.

See #2.

U.S. Congress, Letter from Cowles to Meigs, U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., May 29, 1871, p. 64.

See #2.

See #5.

Typeset History of Cowles and the U.S. Army. 1876, RG 92 QMCCF Box 210, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

See #5.

Ibid.

See #2 and #5.

See #2.

U.S. Congress, “Cowles to Board,” October 29, 1874, p. 6 and November 11, 1874, p. 8, U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd sess.; and Letter from the Deputy Quartermaster General's Office, July 2, 1872, RG 92 QMCCF Box 208, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Letter from the Deputy Quartermaster General's Office, July 2, 1872, RG 92 QMCCF Box 208, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Congress, “Lt. Lord, Ft. McHenry, MD,” U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., August 17, 1873, p. 33.

U.S. Congress, “Report by Lt. Kingsbury, Ft. Griffin, TX,” U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd sess., 1874, p. 23.

See #14.

Frederick P.Todd, American Military Equipage 1851–1872, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1980.

U.S. Congress, “Quartermaster Annual Report,” U.S. Serial Set #1635, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., 1874, p. 155; U.S. Congress, “Quartermaster Annual Report,” U.S. Serial Set #1674, 44th Cong., 1st Sess., 1875, p. 252; U.S. Congress, “Quartermaster Annual Report,” U.S. Serial Set #1742, 44th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1876, p. 181; U.S. Congress, “Board of 1874,”U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., tables for 1871–1874 of Cowles's-treated items, p. 66; U.S. Congress, “Testimony,” U.S. Serial Set #1715, 44th Cong., 1st Sess., Quartermaster Office tables of Cowles's treated items, 1871–1876, pp. 464–465.

See #1.

U.S. Congress, “Quartermaster Annual Report,” U.S. Serial Set #1597, 43rd Cong., 1st Sess., October 2, 1873, p. 151.

Ibid., pp. 151–152.

Sworn and notarized statement of George Cowles, June 20, 1872 and Letter from Van Antwerp to Easton, June 20, 1872, RG 92 QMCCF Box 208, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Cowles, Case, and Vierow (Patent, 1864): see #2; Cowles and Case (February–April, 1871): Letter from Van Antwerp to Campbell, April 17, 1871, Box 73 and Letter from Van Antwerp to Van Vliet, February 23, 1871, Box 40 RG 92 #2182, National Archives, Washington, D.C.; Cowles and Brega (January–June, 1872): Letter from Van Antwerp to Campbell, January 29, 1872, RG 92 #2182 Box 60 and Sworn and notarized statement of George Cowles, June 20, 1872, RG 92 QMCCF Box 208, National Archives, Washington, D.C.; Cowles and Co./Geo. Cowles & Co. (June 1872–1876): Letter from Van Antwerp to Easton, June 20, 1871, RG 92 QMCCF Box 208; Letter from Johnston to Van Antwerp, July 2, 1872, RG 92 #2182 Box 40, National Archives, Washington, D.C.; and U.S. Congress, “Testimony,” U.S. Serial Set #1715, 44th Cong., 1st Sess., 1876; N.Y.W. & M.P. & P. Co. New York Water-Repellent, Moth and Mildew Preventative Company—at least by 1872): U.S. Congress, “Testimony,” U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd sess., 1874, pp. 70, 71, 78, 80, 84.

Letter from Van Antwerp to Easton, June 20, 1872, RG 92 QMCCF Box 208, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Congress, “Cowles and Brega,” U.S. Serial Set #1715, 44th Cong., 1st Sess., April 12, 1876, p. 430; see #8 the Army Board of 1872 was formed by Special Orders #329 of the Adjutant General's Office and U.S. Congress, “Board of 1874,”U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., December 7, 1874, p.1.

Letter from Johnston to Van Antwerp, July 2, 1872, Box 40 and Letter from Van Antwerp to Campbell, January 30, 1872, Box 60, RG 92 #2182, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Congress, “Report of the Army Board of Inquiry, 1874,” U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., October 26, 1874, pp. 3–4.

Letters from Campbell to Van Antwerp on February 22 and April 19, 1871, RG 92 #2182 Boxes 40 and 73, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Ibid.

U.S. Congress, “Board of Inquiry, 1874,” U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., pp. 15, 20, 29–31, 33, 38, 41, 43.

Ibid., p. 29.

U.S. Congress, “Quartermaster Annual Report,” U.S. Serial Set #1597, 43rd Cong., 1st Sess., October 2, 1873, p. 153; and U.S. Congress Report of Capt. Rodgers, U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., 1874, p. 41.

U.S. Congress Quartermaster's Annual Report, U.S. Serial Set #1597, 43rd Cong., 1st Sess., October 2, 1873, p. 153.

U.S. Congress, “Board of 1874 Report,” U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., pp. 8, 16, 17, 48; and Letter from Campbell to Van Antwerp, April 19, 1871, RG 92 #2182 Box 73, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Letters from Van Antwerp to Easton and Johnston to Van Antwerp, July 2, 1872, RG 92 #2182 Box 40; Letter from Campbell to Van Antwerp, April 19, 1871, Box 73, and Letter from Campbell to Van Antwerp, February 22, 1871, Box 40, RG 92 #2182, National Archives, Washington, D.C.; U.S. Congress, “Board of 1874,” U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., pp. 16, 17, 25, 28–29, 48, 50–51, 80.

U.S. Congress, U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd sess., pp. 41–42, 53, 55.

U.S. Congress, “Lt. Willard, Plattsburgh Barracks, NY,” U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., August 19, 1873, p. 43.

U.S. Congress, U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., pp. 42, 43, 53.

U.S. Congress, Cowles Letter to Meigs, U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd sess., September 7, 1874, pp. 56–57.

Marjory L.Joseph, Introductory Textile Science, 2nd ed., New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1972, p. 270.

See #14.

U.S. Congress, U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., pp. 14, 33, 55, 59; Letter from Johnston to Van Antwerp, July 2, 1872, RG 92 #2182 Box 40, National Archives, Washington, D.C.; and Letter from Campbell to Van Antwerp, January 30, 1872, RG 92 #2182 Box 60, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Congress, “Johnston Response to Board of 1874,”U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., October 28, 1874, p. 5.

See #41, p. 267.

Letter from Campbell to Van Antwerp, January 30, 1872, RG 92 #2182 Box 60, National Archives, Washington, D.C.; and U.S. Congress, Cowles Letter to Meigs, July 14, 1874, p. 39 and Rodgers Letter to Easton, July 23, 1874, U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 61.

See #8 and U.S. Congress, “Annual Report of the Quartermaster,” U.S. Serial Set #1742, 44th Cong., 2nd Sess., September 8, 1876, p. 168.

U.S. Congress, “Board of the 1874 Report,” U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., pp. 7–8; Letter from Johnston to Van Antwerp and Letter from Easton to Meigs, July 2, 1872, RG 92 #2182 Box 40, National Archives, Washington, D.C.; Letter from Campbell to Van Antwerp, January 30, 1872, RG 92 #2182 Box 60; See #8; and U.S. Congress, “Ingalls Report,” U.S. Serial Set #1715, 44th Cong., 1st Sess., April 26, 1876, p. 454.

See #21.

Robert M.Utley, Frontier Regulars: The United States Army and the Indian, 1866–1891, Lincoln, NE, University of Nebraska Press, 1984, pp. 59–62.

U.S. Congress, U.S. Serial Set #1715, 44th Cong., 1st Sess., 1876, p. 442.

Ibid., pp. 457–458.

Ibid., p. 458.

U.S. Congress, “Reports of Committees, #799,” U.S. Serial Set #1715, 44th Cong., 1st Sess., August 5, 1876, pp. vxiii–xx and xxiv–xxv; and U.S. Congress, “Report of the Army Board of Inquiry1874,” U.S. Serial Set #1644, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., pp. 7–9.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Manuscripts. Washington, D.C. National Archives. Records of the Office of the Quartermaster General. Record Group 92. Quartermaster Consolidated Correspondence File (QMCCF) Boxes 208, 210, 211. Entry #2182, Boxes 40, 60, 73. Suitland, Maryland. Suitland Branch of the National Archives. Invention Patents. Record Group 241.

Printed Government Publications. U.S. Congress. Annual Reports of the Secretary of War to Congress. 41st Cong., 2nd Sess., 1869(U.S. Serial Set #1412, CIS, Washington, D.C.). 41st Cong., 3rd Sess., 1870(U.S. Serial Set #1446, CIS, Washington, D.C.). 42nd Cong., 2nd Sess., 1871(U.S. Serial Set #1503, CIS, Washington, D.C.). 42nd Cong., 3rd Sess., 1872(U.S. Serial Set #1558, CIS, Washington, D.C.). 43rd Cong., 1st Sess., 1873(U.S. Serial Set #1597, CIS, Washington, D.C.). 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., 1874(U.S. Serial Set #1635, CIS, Washington, D.C.). 44th Cong., 1st Sess., 1875(U.S. Serial Set #1674, CIS, Washington, D.C.). 44th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1876(U.S. Serial Set #1742, CIS, Washington, D.C.). U.S. Congress. House. Report of the Board of Officers Appointed to Investigate the Process of George A. Cowles and Co. for the Preservation of Clothing from Moth and Mildew. H. Ex. Doc. 17, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., 1874, (U.S. Serial Set #1644, CIS, Washington, D.C.). U.S. Congress. House. Report of the Committee on Expenditures in the War Department on “Contracts with Cowles and Brega for the Extermination of Moths in Army Clothing,” pp. vxiii–xxv and Testimony Regarding the Contracts with Cowles and Brega for the Extermination of Moths in Army Clothing, pp. 415–466. House Reports of Committees #799, “The Management of the War Department,” 44th Cong., 1st Sess., 1876(U.S. Serial Set #1715, CIS, Washington, D.C.).

Joseph, Marjory L.Introductory Textile Science. 2nd ed.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1972.

Todd, Frederick P.American Military Equipage 1851–1872. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1980.

Utley, Robert M.Frontier Regulars: The United States Army and the Indian 1866–1891. Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press, 1984.

Section Index