Qass_--£ - & C 3 RnnI, , V?U47 1 \ I I 26th Congress, Rep. No. 436. Ho. of Reps. 1^^^ Session. ~ VIRGIlNIA REvOlXTIONARY CLAIMS— BOUNTY LAND AND COMMUTATION PAY. J^J^ April 24, 1840. '~pT~T^ Ordered to be laid on the table, and that -2,000 extra copies be printed. Mr. Hall, from tlie Committee on RevoIiUioi]ar7 Chiims, to which the sub- ject had been referred, submitted the followins^ REPORT : To which is added, " Vieivs of the minor ily of said commiiiee." CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. In the House of Representatives, March 5, 1840. On motion of Mr. Hall, from the Committee on Revohuionary Claims, Resolved, That the Committee on Kevoiutionary Claims be instructed to inquire into the character and amount of proof which is required by exist- ing- laws and regulaiions to establish claims on the United States for revo- lutionary services in the Virginia continental line and navy ; and whether any and what further legislative provisions be necessary in regard to the mode of adjusting and allowing claims for such services; and that the report of a select committee on the same subject, made at the last session, with the papers accompanying said report, be referred to the said Committee on Re- Tolulionary Claims. Attest : H. A. GARLAND, Clerk. ■PAiur & Rives, printers. Rep. No. 436. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Subjects of inquiry - - ' - Virginia bounty land claims, their origin and history Reports of coininittee of the Virginia House of Delegates, on Gov- ernor Tazewell's message of December, 1834, considered and contro- verted .----. Officers' claims, which have been allowed, more numerous than ever could have existed . - - . . Officers' allowances for over six years' service - - . Excessive number of allowances to navy officers Commutation pay, nature and history of - - - Mr. Marshall's bill and report of 1S34, considered Ancient list of officers entitled to commutation - - . Arrangements of Virginia line, September 1778, March 1779, and September 1779, noticed - - - - - Chesterfield arrangement, February 1781, described Cumberland arrangement, May 1782 - . . Winchester arrangement, January 1 , 1783 . . . Ancient list of depreciation payments by Virginia Ancient list of final-settlement certificates by the United States Ancient list of Virginia officers entitled to three and four months" pay, in 1782 and 1783 . . . . . Names of all the Virginia officers who have been allowed commutation by modern acts of Congress - . . . Validity of their claims considered, viz : The claim of Philip Slaughter . . . . James Burnett - - . - Robert H. Harrison, a staff officer William Price . . - . Thomas Blackwell - . . . William Vawters, of Colonel George Gibson's Stale regi- ment . . - . . John Roberts, of convention guards George Baylor . . . . J „ William Carter . . _ - Edmund Brooke, Harrison's artillery John Thornion . . . - Tliomas Triplett . - . - John Thomas . . - . Peter Foster - - - - - , Thomas Minor . . - - James Craine . - . - John Taylor- . . - - Everard Meade . . . - William Teas . _ - - Buller Claiborne - - - . Page. 4 4 10 12' 16 17 19 21 26 27 28 31 32 33 33 34 34 35 36 37 39 41 41 43 4& 50 51 53 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 58 58 Rep. No. 436. 3 Page. The claim of John Emerson - - - - 59 Thomas Wallace - - - - 59 William Royall - - - - 60 Robert Jone'tt - - - - 61 Thornton Taylor - - - - 61 John Spitfathom - - - - 62 Daniel Duval - - - - 63 Charles Snead, (superseded) - - - 64 Timothy Feely ' - - - - 66 Simdry ot?ier cases favorably reported at former sessions, claims un- founded - - - - - - 66 Surgeons' mates, and conclusion of commutation cases - - 69 What hirther legislation may be required in regard to Virginia land warrants - - - - - - 70 Ohio reservation, to be abandoned to claimants - - - 70 Mistake in the deed of cession, controverted - - - 71 Interference of United States to prevent locations in Kentucky, as stated in the Virginia report of December, 1834, denied - - 77 Concluding resolutions - - - - - 81 APPENDIX. Form of bounty-land warrant. 2. (Quantity of Virginia land warrants satisfied by the United States, being a report from the Commissioner of the General Land Office. (Quantity of unsatisfied warrants now outstanding, from the Com- missioner of the General Land Office. Quantity and number of land daims allowed by Virginia, being the reports of the register of the Virginia land office. Bounty Land Office of the United States — report from, in reference to the officer's book, and other revolutionary records. Estimate of the number of regiments which Virginia land warrants that have been granted would satisfy. Depreciation payments by Virginia — letters from Auditor Heath, of Virginia, in reference to. Lists of special acts of commutation passed by Congress, and amount of payments under each. Proceedings of supernumerary and deranged officers of the Vir- ginia line, accepting commutation pay. Reports of the Secretary of War, Third Auditor, and Commissioner of Pensions, in reference to " officer's book/' and other revolu- tionary records. No. 11. Cumberland list of resignations, &c., of September 2, 1782. No. 12, Copy of Virginia deed of cession. No. 13. Correspondence with David H. Burr, showing the quantity of land in the military bounty-land district in Kentucky, No. 14. Copy of Colonel Francis Taylor's commission in the convention guards. No. 15. Modern United States bounty-land allowances, compared with Vir- ginia allowances, showing the excess of the latter allojvances. No. No. 1 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 6 No. 7 No. 8 No. 9 No. 10 4 Rep. No. 436. REPORT OF THE MAJORITY. ,• The Committee on Revolutionary Claims, consisting of Mr. Craig of Va., Mr. Randolph of N. J., Mr. Hall of Vt., Mr. TaUaferro of Va., Mr. Parmenter of Mass., Mr. Montgomery of N. C, Mr. Rogers of S. C, Mr. Ely of N. Y., and Mr. Swearingen of Ohio, who were instructed •' to inquire into the char- acter and amount of proof which is required by existing laws and regula- tions 10 establish claims on the United States for revolutionary services in the Virsinia continental and State lines and navy; and whether any and what further legislative provisions may be necessary in regard to the mode of adjusting and allowing claims for such services," and to whom the report of a select committee on the same subject, made at the last session, with the papers accompanying it, were also referred, make report on the subject, in part, as follows, viz : The committee have considered the three following classes of cases as embraced within the scope of their inquiries : 1. Claims against tlie United States, for the satisfaction, either by land or scrip, of military bounty-land warrants issued under the authority of the State of Virginia. 2. Claims for five years' full pay. ns the commutation of half pay for life, made to Congress for services alleged to have been performed by officers in the Virginia hue of the continental army. 3. Claims of half pay for life for services of officers in the Virginia State line and navy, under the provisions of the act of Congress of July 5, 1832, entitled "An act for liquidating and paying certain claims of the State of Virginia." The amount paid from the Treasury during the last ten years, in satis- faction of these classes of claims, exceeds the sum of three millions of dol« lars ; and claims to the amount of nearly a million of dollars more are now pending before Congress. Hence the importance of a careful and thorough examination of theevidence on which their validity has been supposed to rest. The committee, reserviiig the consideration of the half-pay claims under the act of July 5, 1832, for a future report, will now proceed to examine the other two classes, in the order in which they have been mentioned ; and, first, Virgbiia houniy-land warrants. By acts of the General Assembly of Virginia passed in October, 1779, lind October, 1780, (see 10 Henning's Statutes, 160 and 375,) officers of the Virginia continental and State lines, who should serve to the end of the war, were to be entitled to bounty lands from the State, as follows, viz : A major general - - 15,000 acres. A brigadier general - - 10,000 " A colonel - - - 6,666 1. " A major , . - 5,333^- " A captain - - - 4,000 " A subaltern - - - 2,666| " By the same acts the same quantity of land was to be allowed to officers of the State navy as to officers of the army of equal rank. These nets of Assembly also promised land to non-commissioned officers, soldiers, and sailors, as follows : Rep. No. 436. 5 To every non commissioned officer, who, enlisting for the war, should serve to the end of it, 400 acres ; to every soldier and sailor, for like service under the same enlistment, 200 acres ; to every non-commissioned officer enlisting for three years, and serving ont the same, or to the end of the war' 200 acres ; and to every soldier and sailor, under like circumstances, 100 acres. Before the passage of these acts, others had been in force, promising to officers and soldiers a less quantity of land ; and a large tract of country in Kentucky had been reserved for the satisfaclion of their claims. By a law of May, 1782, provision was made for issuing warrants on the claims of officers and soldiers to the lands appropriated, for the satisfliction of their military bounties ; and it was further enacted, as follows : « That any officer or soldier, who hath not been cashiered or superseded, and who hatli served the term of three years successively, shall have an absolute and uncondition- al title to his respective apportionment of the land appropriated as aforesaid : and tor every year which every officer or soldier may have continued, or shall hereafter continue, in service, beyond the term of six years, to be computed from the time he last went into service, he shall be entitled to one-sixth part in addition to tJie quantity of the land apportioned to his rank respec- tively." By the provisions of this act, warrants were to be issued on the certificate of the Commissioner of War : but in October of the same year, the office of Commissioner of War was abolished, and the duties trans- ferred to the Executive. The Executive has ever since exercised the power of deciding upon these claims to bounty lands. If the claim is ad- mitted, the Executive giv^s a certificate to the claimant to that effect, who carries it to the land office of that Slate, and the register issues to him a warrant, directed ■< to the principal surveyor of the land set apart for the officers and soldiers of the Commonwealth of Virginia," cmpowerino- him to lay off and survey to the person in whose favor the warrant is drawn, the quantity of land therein specified. (See form of warrant, appendix No. 1.) ^^ As a security against the allowance of unfounded claims, it had been provided by act of May, 1779, that the evidence on which warrants should be granted should, in the case of an officer, be the certificate of a general officer, or commanding officer of the troops on the Virginia establishment ; and 111 the case of a non-commissioned officer or soldier, that it should be the certificate of the commanding officer of the regiment or corps to which he belonged; such certificates '"distinguishing particularly the line in which such officer or soldier had served?' The certificates were to be au- thenticated by proof before a court of record, and the several courts were to return annually, in the month of October, to the register's office, a list of all certificates by them examined and authenticated. The act continued in lorce until 1S1.5, when the Executive was authorized to allow claims for land bounty, '•' when satisfactory evidence is adduced that the party is en- titled." This is said by Henning (Stat. 1 i, 562, note) to have been the wac- lice long before. At the time of the cession by Virginia of the northwestern territory to the United States, it seems to have been supposed that there might not have been a sufficient quantity of good land set apart by Virginia in Kentucky to saUsfy the bounties promis'ed to her troops ; and to provide against such deficiency, the following clause was inserted in the deed of cession : "That m case the quantity of good land on the southeast side of the Ohio, upon g Bep. No. 436. the waters of Cumberland river, and between the Green river and Ten- nessee river, which have been reserved by law for the Virginia troops on continental estabUshment, should, from the North Carolina hne bearmg in further upon the Cumberland lands than was expected, prove insufficient for their leo;al bounties, the deficiency should be made up to the said troops in good laiKls to be laid off between the rivers Scioto and Little Miami, on the'northwest side of the river Ohio, iu such proportions as have been en- gao-ed to them by the laws of Virginia." This deed, in pursuance of an acfof the Virginia Assembly, passed at the October session 1783, was ex- ecuted by her delegates in Congress on the 1st of iVlarch, 1784. At the same session of her^General Assembly, at which such assent to tlie cession had been given, an act had been passed, by which certain officers of the continentafline, and certain officers of the State line, were authorized to appoint superintendents on behalf of the respective lines, for the purpose of rec^ulating the locations and surveys, and of performing any act which might be'^necessary to enable the holders of warrants to take possession of their lands and perfect their titles. (II Hen. 309.) The superintendents immediately entered upon the performance ot then- duties, dividing the territory which had been set apart in Kentucky for the satisfaction of'^military warrants between the respective lines of the army, assio-nino- a portion of the territory, by distinct bounds, to the troops of the contlnenUil line, and the residue to those of the State hne and navy. Loca- tions and surveys continued to be made in Kentucky, under warrants for services in both lines ot the army and in the navy, until the 1st of May, 1792, when, by the terms of the compact under which Kentucky became ati independent State, (which terms had been proposed by act of Virginia of the 18th December, 1789,) all the lands then remaining unlocated became sub- ject to the exclusive disposition of Kentucky. But, before the time for locating warrants in Kentucky had expired, and as early, it is believed, as 1787, such of the holders oi continevlal warrants as chose to do so began to locate them on the reservation between the Scioto and Little Miami, iu Ohio. "J^his was done with the sanction of the superintendents of surveys, and before Congress had been certified of there beino- any deficiency of good lands on the southeast side of the Ohio to satisfy such warrants. This conduct of the superintendents, connected with a belief that the checks which had been imposed by Virginia oii the granting of warrants were too slight to prevent their being improvidently issued, ^produced a controversy between Congress and the authorities of that State, the history of which it is unnecessary to detail. (See resolu- tions of Congress, July 17th and September 1st, 1788, and reports to the Houseof Representatives, July 31, 1789— State Papers, I Public Lands, No. 1.) But the superintendents of surveys having reported to the Executive of Viririnia that the deficiency of good lands on the southeast side of the Ohio, contemplated by the deed of cession, had been ascertained, and the same having been communicated to Congress, an act was passed on the 10th day of August, 1790, sanctioning the locations and surveys on the reservation in Ohio, and prescribing regulations by which the holders of warrants might obtain titles to their lands. This act sought to limit the number of warrants to be issued by the au- thorities of Virginia, and the quantity of land to be covered by them, to a list and estimate to be furnished the Executive of that State by the Secretary Of War. The act also provided that, before the seal of the United States Rep. No. 436. T should be affixed to the patent which was to issue for the land, the Secre- tary of War should endorse thereon that " the grantee therein named was originally entitled to such bounty lundsJ' But' this attempt to restrain the free issue of Virginia warrants, and to provide for the re examination of the evidence on which they were granted, as have others of a like character of a subsequent date, proved ineffectual ; and warrants have continued to be issued, without limitation, or any practical supervision by the authorities of this Government, from that time to the present. There have, indeed, been numerous attempts by Congress to put an end to these bounty-land claims, and to take possession, for the United States, of the remnant of the reserva- tion unlocated, by prescribing the time within which locations should be completed. The first act of this description, which passed March 23, 1804, provided that all locations should be completed withm three years from the passage of the act ; and that all the lands in the reservation not then loca- ted should be thenceforth released from any claim for bounty lands, and be disposed of m the same manner as other public lands. Since that time no less than nine different acts have been passed, extending the time for loca- ting these warrants, from two to five years each time ; the last of which pas'sed in July, 1S3S, by which tlie time was extended to the 10th of August, 1840. It appears from a statement furnished by the Commissioner of the Gen- eral Land Office, under date of Februarys, 1839, tliat the quantity then taken up by these warrants in Ohio was 3,495,747 acres ; and he esti- mated the quantity of land then remaining to be about 200,000 acres. (See appendix, No. 2.) It will be noticed that the right to locate warrants on the reservation in Ohio had been confined exclusively to the Virginia troops of the continental line. But on the 30th of May, 1S30, an act was passed making the United States responsible to the amount of 260,000 acres of land lor the bounties which had been promised by Virginia to the officers, soldiers, sailors, and marines, who liad been in service during the Revolution in her iState line and navy. This act provided for the issuing of scrij) by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, in satisfaction of Virginia warrants for State service ; which scrip was transferable by assignment, and receivable in payment for the quantity of land expressed upon its face, at any of the land offices of the United States in Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois. The act also made an appropriation of 50,000 acres of land, for which scrip was authorized to issue for Virgmia warrants, for services in the continental line ; being 310,000 acresof scrip in the whole. This act was passed without being founded on any written report by a committee of either House, and, so far as can now be ascertained, without much discussion in either branch of the Ijegislatnre. The appropriation of land appears to have been intended to /ake up the warrants then out- standintj and unsatisfied, without any expectation of thereby making the Government liable to satisfy warrants that might thereafter be issued. But the acts of 1830 operating as a powerful stimiilus to the allowance of new claims, a farther appropriation of 300,000 acres was demanded and made on the iSth of July, 1832 ; and another of 200,000 acres on the 2d of March, 1833 : and yet another of 050,000 acres on the 3d of March, 1835 : ^naking, in all,' 1,460,000 acres, equivalent to $1,825,000 in money, for which scrip has issued. And the ccmimitlee find that the General Assembly of Virginia, on the 10th of February, 183S, aiid also on the 7th of December, 1839, S Rep. No. 436. passed resolutions inslrncting their Senators, and requesting their Repre- sentatives, " to use their best exertions to procure from Congress an ad- ditional appropriation of land to satisfy the outstanding miUtary bounty- land warrants, issued under the authority of this Commonwealth, to the officers and soldiers of the Revolution, or their legal representatives," These resolutions have both been presented to the Senate of the United States, and may be found among tlie published documents of that body. (See Senate Document No. 223 of the 2d session, 25th Congress ; and Document No. 30 of the present Congress.) These resolutions do not specify the quantity of warrants for which satisfaction is asked, nor are they accompanied by a statement of the quantity remaining outstanding. But, by a letter from the Commissioner of the General Land Office, of ihe 30th of January, 1840, it appears that the quantity of unsatisfied claims which had been allowed by Virginia amounted, at that time, to 629,104 acres. (See appendix No. 3.) It is not the inlention of the committee, in this place, to call in question the justness of the principles on which the act of May, 1830, and the sub- sequent acts appropriating land scrip, were founded ; though, in another part of this report, they may institute an examination of those principles. For the present, taking it for granted that the United States were under obligation to fulfil the promises of Virginia to her ^tate troops, and to make good to Virginia any deficiency in the Ohio reservation to satisfy those of the continental line, the committee will proceed to inquire whether this Government has provided sufficient guards to secure itself against the payment of unfounded claims ; or, in other words, whether, from the man- ner in which claims for land warrants have been adjudicated by the au- thorities of Virginia, this Government has sufficient assurance that the fourteen hundred and sixty thousand acres of scrip which have been issued during the last ten years were issued for services really performed, in con- lormiiy with the laws of Virginia ; and whether there is reasonable proba- bility that tlie six hundred thousand acres more, which are now asked for, would, if granted, be issued for such services? These claims to bounty land being founded on services alleged to have been performed more than half a century ago, and there having been no impediment to the allowance and satisfaction of them for a period of eight years immediately after they accrued, it would seem probable that the great mass of the just claims liad been allowed and satisfied durisig that period, 'i'his presumption receives additional strength from the important fact, that the I^egislature of Virginia, which must have been familiar with the char- acter and extent of the claims, and interested to have them satisfied, volun- tarily abandoned further right to locate the warrants of her State line and navy after the first of May,^1792, by surrendering the territory set apart for that purpose to the State of Tt^ntucky. A tabular statement of the quantity, in acres, of land warrants which have been granted by Virginia during each year, from 1782 to the present pe- riod, is appended to this report, (appendix No. 4, A, B, C,) together with a statement of the quantity of claims allowed, for which^ warrants remain to be issued ; from which it appears that the whole'quantity of allowances to the State line has been 1,160,458 acres ; to the State navy, 977,782 acres ; to the C'-^i^inental line, 4,796,207 acres; and for services in which the line is uncertain, 168,519 acres : making the total of all allowances to have been 7jl20j966 acres. This number of acres is equivalent to 11,126 square Rep. No. 436. 9 miles, covering a territory greater in extent, by about one quarter, than the Jargest of either of the following eight States of this Union, to wit : New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jer- sey, Delaware, and Maryland. It will also be seen, by the details of snch tabular statement, that the early allowances were principally made within lour or five years after the close of the war ; and that the allowances for the four years next previous to the 1st of May, 1792, were comparatively of tritlmg amount ; indicating, as the committee conceive, that all, or nearly all, the claims which, by the princi- ples and rules of evidence then adopted could be allowed, had been pre- sented and adjusted. This indicatiou is particularly strons: in regard to llie allowances to the State line and navy, from the fact, that notice of the expiration, on the 1st of May, 1792, of the time for obtaining satisfaction of their warrants had been given in December, 1789, by the passage of the act by which the whole of the military laud district in Kentucky was to be abandoned to that State by Virginia on that day. Notwithstanding such notice, the quantity of warrants allowed to the State line and navy durmg the years 1790, 1791, and 1792, up to May 1 of the latter year, was only 45,476 acres ; while such allowances, during the seven months in the year 1830, succeeding the passage of the scrip act, were nearly double that quan- tity. It will be seen, also, by such tabular statement, that the modern allow- ances of laud warrants have been extremely large. In the case of the State line, the allowances for the ten years since May, 1830, have exceeded one- thud of all the allowances made during the 48 preceding years, being 297,395 acres ; while, in the State navy, the allowances previous to May, 1830, amounted to 334.163 acres, and since that date to 621,985 acres — the allow- ances since 1830 being almost double those of the whole previous period. Even in the continental line, in which warrants have been granted and satisfied without interruption, from the year 1784 to the present period, and in which it would seem that all claims ought to have been pre- sented many years ago, the quantity of acres granted since 1792 has been 1,981,349 ; whilt^ the allowances since May, 183U, have been 698,439 acres ; making all the allowances since Maj^, 1830, amount to 1,617,820 acres. This great excess of modern allowances over what they might be expected to have been, v/hile it atibrds no direct evidence of the character of the claims, is well calculated to excite suspicion and inquiry ; and if it should be found con- nected with other corroborating circumstances, may have great weight in producing a conviction that the modern warrants, or a great portion of them, have been improvidently granted. It is believed that this suspicion against the validity of the modern Virginia allowances, instead of being weakened by a comparison with the modern allowances made by the Uni- ted States to the troops of the continental army, will, by such comparison, be strengthened and confirmed. For such comparison, and its results, see apper.dix No. 15. In reference to the character of these allowances by Virginia, a very nat- ural inquiry suggests itself : Does the number of warrants which have been issued, and the quantity of land covered by them, correspond with the number and rank of the troops which were in the service of Virginia du- ring the Revolution ? or,is the number of warrants and quantity of land so much greater than could have been reasonably expected, aa to create a well- iO Rep. No. 436. founded belief that the warrants, and especially those granted at a late peri- od, have been habitually issued on loose and insufRcient evidence? Tins question has been brought to the notice of the authorities of Vir- ginia, and will be considered by the committee in connexion with the view which they have taken of it. On the 1st of December, 1834, Governor Tazewell, in his annual mcs- -sage to the General Assembly of Virginia, thus spoke of these claims: " More than fifty years have now elapsed since the origin of all such claims. During the whole of this long period, the several tribunals charged with the investigation of them have !;cen constantly open to every claimant. Not a year has elapsed but some have been acted upon ; and if the number disposed of in past time bears any proportion to that which I have been called upon to decide during the short period I have been in office, the aggregate would very far exceed the total number of just claims of this sort, whicii, by any possibility, could ever have existed against the Common- wealth. Moreover, the proceeding in such cases, from its very nature, in- vites to the commission of numerous frauds, which it will be impossible to prevent : because their detection must ever be a work of the greatest diffi- culty ; and because the detection, wheti made, draws down no punishment upon the perpetrators, as the Legislature have not thought proper to declare such frauds to be crimes." The Governor then reconmiends the repeal of all the acts on this subject; and, in case the General Assembly should not think proper to concur with him in their repeal, then a thorough revision of them. (See journals of House of Delegates, pas^e 11.) This part of the Governor's message was referred to a select committee, who made report on the same on the ISlh of December, 1834. (See Doc. No. 8 of tliat session, appended to the .leurnal.) This report, which is ad- verse to the views of Governor Tazewell, and fiworable to the continued allowance of the claims, was reprinted by order of the House of Representa- tives of the United States, on the lOth'of February, 1835, as an induce- ment to the appropriation of 650,001) acres of scrip made by act of March 3, 1835; it v/as also reported to the House by the Committee on the Public Lands, on the 25th of March, 1S3G, accompanied by a bill for making a further appropriation of land scrip ; and during the present session of Con- gress, it has been incorporated into, and made to constitute the principal part of, a report from the same Connniiteo on the Public Lands, accompanied by bill No. 280, which appropriates five hundred thousand acres of land scrip towards the satisfaction of outstanding Virginia warrants. The im- portance which has been thus attached to this report will require that it should be fully examined by this committee. That part of the report which pertains to tlie point of inquiry now under consideration is as follows, viz : " in relation to the first point, whether the allowance made by Virginia exceeds the amount of good claims wliich could ever have existed against her, your committee beg leave to say, that, after an accurate and caretul ex- amination of the subject, they have no hesitation in saying that the amount of claims allowed by the Executive falls far short of the number of good claims, which, from the nature of tlie case, must have existed against the State; that the amount of good claims has not been overdrawn ; and, fur- thermore, that there are now outstanding good and valid claims against this Commonwealth. Tiiey submit, herewith, the substance of a certificate of General Robert Porterfield, concurred in by Chief Justice Marshall, (both of whom were officers in the Revolution,) that the persons entitled to land Rep. No. 436. It bounty from Viro-inia nuist li^ve amounted to at least 500 for each continental reo-unent. There were in service, in the Kevohilion, twenty one regnnents, viz- sixteen on continental estabUshment, three regiments of the Stale hne proper and the two western recrinients; and the State navy, composed ot twen- ty or twenty-five vessels. Estimalinof, therefore, the number of persons m each contm'entai regiment, entitled toland bounty, nt 500, and putting down the State navv as one regiment : after making up the difference between the State line and conimen'tal resfiments, (which is fir below the estimate.) the number of persons entitled to land bounty would be 11,000. By the cer- tificate of the register of the land office, hereto annexed, it appears that the whole number of warrants issued to 15th October last were for the service of about 6,130 persons : so that there would be 4,864 persons or their representatives, still entitled to land bounty from Virginia. (bor this report at length, see Ex. Doc, iNo. 189, House of Reps., 1st session ^4th Congress.) , r .u This committee are not satisfied with the view here taken of the question, and for two reasons: the first of which is, that it does not appear to bo founded on well authenticated facts; and, secondly, that, it its facts were admitted, the proposition which the report seeks to establish, viz: " that the amount of land bounty allowed by the State of Virginia does not exceed the quantity of good claims wliich might have existed against the Common- wealth," still remains unproved. • i u This committee have so high a regard for every thing connected with the name of Judge Marshall, that ihey would be loath to differ from him, even in a case like'the present, where he had merely undertaken to make a con- jecture. But they think the above report has mistaken the meaning ot Judo-e Marshall, and that his certificate by no means warrants the result which the report draws from it. General Porterfield had certified thai it was probable there were 1,000 men belonginir to each Virginia regiment who were entitled to bounty lands for three vears' service, and imth covji- dence that there v/ere at least five hundred. This certificate was presented to Judge Marshall, who wrote thus: "I should not think there were a thousand to each regiment entitled to bounty, but the number cannot, 1 think, be less than five hundred. I allude to the regiments actually raised in the Virginia line on continental establishment." Now, although there were at one time sixteen regiments authorized to be raised by Virginia, yet it is believed that no more men than were sufficient to make out the com- plement of six or seven full regiments were [ever raised by enlistment, in- cluding^ all who were enlisted "for one year, for eighteen months, and tor two ye!ars. Giving, therefore, a fair interpretation to the language of Judge Marshall, we shall have from 3,000 to 3,500 as the mimber ot persons serv- ing in the continental line who were entitled to bounty land, instead ot the 8,000 estimated in the report. That the number of persons entitled to this bounty in thecontinentalhne must have been greatly below 8,000, will seem probable, from a considera- tion of the number of troops furnished by Virginia after the period had ar- rived when the right to bounties could have accrued, and from the character and terms of enlistment under which they served. The earliest enlistments in the two first regiments raised by Virginia were in September, 1775 ; con- sequently, no rights tf bounties could have been acquired until September, 1778, and those in only two out of the fifteen regiments. It appears from a report of General Knox, Secretary of War, of May 11, 1790, made from 12 Rep. No. 436, actual returns of the army, in his department, (hat the number of troops on continental establishment, furnished by Virginia in the year 1778, and the succeeding years of the war, was as follows, viz : Jn the year 1778 - - - - ... 5 230 " " 1^^9 3,973 " - 1780 - - - - . . 2,486 '^ 1781 -.-... 1225 '=" 17-82 1204 " " 1783 ...... '697 The number of Virginia troops in service previous to 1778 is omitted, as unimportant, because none who were out of service before that time could be entitled to the bounty. It will be remembered, that a right to bounty could only be acquired by successive or uninterrupted service for three years, and by service to the end of the war. A glance at these numbers \f/iU show that but a fraction of the number of 8,000 could have been en- titled for a service to the end of the war. The report of General Knox does not specify the terms for which the troops in service at any period were enlisted; but, from the general historical tact, applicable to the Vir- ginia line, as well as to the lines of other States, that the wreat and almost fatal error in the construction of our revolutionary army was the short en- listments of the men, by which it almost every year 'dwindled to but a handful, it does not seem probable that the class who became entitled to bounty, by continued service under enlistments for three years, or succes- sive enhstments for shorter periods, could have been very large. The en- listments in the two first regiments were for one year : in the seven next regiments, for two years ; and, although in the six additional regiments which began to be recruited in .lannary, 1777, enlistments were to' be for three years rtnd the war, still enlistments for shorter periods also continued until after the passage of the resolutions of October 3 and 21, 1780. Be- sides this, a considerable portion of the line, during each campaign, was composed of men draughted from tije militia, or volunteers for temporary service ; all which are included in the foregoing returns. When these flicts are taken into consideration, together with the facts appearing from the foregoing returns, that, in 1781, as soon as short enlistmenls and draughts had been wholly discarded, the number of troops in service be- came reduced below 1,300 in number, it is submitted, as more probable, that the number who could have been entitled to the Virginia bounties was below 3,500, than above that number. The committee will now proceed to the second and most important objec- tion to the estimate and arguments wliich they have quoted from the fore- going report to the Virginia House of Delegates ; which is, that, if it were ad- nntted to be true that there were 11,000 honest claims for bounty land, and but 6,000 of them had been allowed, it would not by any means follow that '• the amount due on the good claims'' had not been gready exceeded. This will be readily seen. The average quantity of bounty land due to privates may be stated at 150 acres each, while the average bounty of officers is about 3,500 acres each. Now, if these 1 1,000 claims had all been allowed to privates, the amount of land required to satisfy them would be 1,650.000 acres ; whereas, if the same claims had been allowed to officers, the quantity of land required to satisfy them would be 38,500,000 acres. Even if but the 6j000 claitns before mentioned had been allowed to officers, the quan- >'»fcro.ai»ro Tim. - Rep. No. 436. 13 tity of land required would be 21,000,000 acres — more than twelve times the quantity required to satisfy 11,000 claims to privates. Hence the fld- lacy^ not to say absurdity, of estimatino: the number of claims in the lump, without undertakinij to separate the officers from the privates. It seems surprising that the committee who made the foregoing report should have overlooked this striking defect in their argument, and should have wholly forborne to inquire into the number of claims which had been allowed to officers, especially as that committee must have seen that, while the tempta- tion to obtain the allowance of unfounded claims to officers was verv great, the successful prosecution of a single claim being often a fortune, that of a private might little more than pay the expense of obtaining it. From the smallness of the allowance to privates, it may very well liave been that a portion of their bounties may not have been claimed ; whereas no such pre- sumption arises in the case of officers. This committee, so far as the materials within their reach will enable them, will endeavor to supply this important omission in the foregoing re- port. They will, in the first place, endeavor to ascertain the probable number of officers, who, for services for three years, or during the war, became en- titled to bounty land from Virginia. ., The Virginia convention which met in July, 1775, ordered two regiments of regulars to be raised. In December, 1775, the raising of seven other regiments was ordered, -six of which," says Judge Marshall, in his Life of Washington, "in the first place, and afterwards the remaining three, were taken into continental service." At the October session in 1776, an act passed for raising six additional regiments, making fifteen in the whole. In September, 1778, these fifteen regiments were reduced to eleven, and the su- pernumerary officers discharged. If we suppose the officers to have been immediately appointed under the laws directing the regiments to be raised, (which is only probable in a por- tion of the number,) these terms of three years' service would expire as fol- lows, to wit: the terms of the two first regiments in August, 1778 ; of the seven regiments, in January, 1^79 ; and of the six last regiments, in Novem- ber, 1779. At the reduction, therefore, in September, 1778, only those offi- cers of the two first regiments raised in 1775 could, by any possibility, be entitled to bounty land. Among the Washington Papers in the State De- partment (Arrangements, vol. 7) is a list of the officers of the two first regi- ments, with the dates of their appointments ; from which it appears that only four officers, in both those regiments, were appointed in time to have performed three years' service at the period of the arrangement ib Septem- ber, 1778 ; and of those four, the names of throe are found on the list of officers in the Bounty Land Office as having served to ihe end of the war. One officer only could, therefore, have been discharged at that arrangement entitled to the bounty ; all others who were discharged, having porlormed less than three 3'ears' service, could not be entitled. This statement does not include the officers of two companies of riflemen, who in the sunmier of 1775 joined the array before Boston, under General Washington, and were taken into continental service by resolution of Congress. These ollicers were afterwards incorporated into one of the beforenamed regiments ; and it is not impossible that some two or three of them might have been dis- charged at the arrangement in September, 1773, entitled to the Viroinia bounty. With these exceptions, it is believed the officers entitled to bounty 14 Rep. No. 436. land from Virginia must be sought only among those retained in service in September, 1778, and those who afterwards joined the army. It may be here remarked, that the officers who were discharged at this arrangement as supernumeraries were not entitled, as such, to land from Virginia ; because the Virginia resokitions promising the bounty were pass- ed subsequent to the arrangement, and they made no provision for super- numeraries, but only for those who were in actual service for three years, or during the war. We have historical information tliat there was a great deficiency of offi- cers as well as men in the fifteen Viri^inia regiments in 1778. The follow- ing extracts from the letters of General Washington to the President of Con- gress will throw some light on the condition of the army, and of the Vir- ginia line in particular, at that period : >' Valley Forge, March 24, 1778. " As it is not improper for (congress to have some idea of the present temper of the army, it may not be amiss to remark, in this place, that since the month of August last, between two and three hundred officers have re- signed their commissions, and many others were with difficulty dissuaded from it. In the Virginia line only, not less than six colonels, as good as any in the serviccj have left it lately ; and more, I am told, are in the humor to do so." "Valley Forge, April 10, 1778. " I can with truth aver that scarcely a day passes without the offer of two or three commissions ; and my advices from the eastward and southward are, that numbers who had gone home on furlough mean not to return, but are establishing themselves in more lucrative employments. The disadvan- tages resulting from the frequent resignations in the Virginia line, the change of commanding officers to tlie regiments, and other causes equally distressing, have injured that corps beyond conception, and have been the means of reducing very respectable regiments, in some instances, to a mere handfid of men.'' "Valley Forge, April 21, 177S. "The spirit of resigning commissions has long been at an alarming height, and increases daily. The Virginia line has sustained a violent shock in this instance— not less than ninety have already resigned to me." In point of fact, the whole number of officers discharged at the reduction of the Virginia line in September, 1778. as appears by the arrangement it- self, which will be more particularly noticed hereafter, was forty-five ; not more than three or four of whom, as before shown, could have been three years in the service. The committee have been thus particular, because they deem it of import- ance to ascertain what number of persons, as officers of the Virginia con- tinental line, were in a situation in which they could become entitled to bounty lands from the State. It is ascertained, then, that no officers (with the unimportant exceptions beforemcntioned) could be entitled to Virginia bounty lauds for three years' service, but such as were retained in service after the reduction of the line in September, 1778. Bep. No. 436. 15^ An attempt will now be made to ascertain the number of officers who could for three years' service, and for the service of during the war, become entitled to bounty. If we suppose the eleven regiments of infantry, of which the line was composed after September, 177S, to have had their full complement of officers allowed by the resolve of May 27, 1778, twenty nine to each regiment, the whole number in the line would be 319. If to these be added the number of officers found by the rolls to have been in service in September, 1778, in the ten companies of Colonel Harrison's artillery regiment, which were officered from Virginia, (41 in number.) we shall have 360 as the whole number in the infantry and artillery. If, in order to be sure to include all the Virginia officers of other corps, such as Lee's legion, Armand's corps, &c., we add to this number the complement of two full regiments of cavalry, of thirty officers each, we shall have the number of 420 as the highest number of officers that could have been in service at any one time after September, 1778. It is believed the actual number was never so large. Now, of the 360 infantry and artillery officers, who, by the arrangement of September, 1778, and by returns in the Pension Office, are found to have been in service in September, 177S, 184, (being rather more than one-half,) are also found to have served to the end of the war. If, preserving this proportion nearly, we allow one-half of the whole number of officers re- tained in service in September, 1778, to have served to the end of the war, we shall have 210 officers who became entitled to bounties for services throuijhout the whole war, and in whose places no other officers could be entitled ; and 210 other officers, in whose places changes were made, and in which more than one full set of officers might have served. AVhen it is considered that the tlu'ee years' terms of a large proportion of the officers could not expire until more than a year after September, 1778; that, at each subsequent reduction of the army, the vacancies that might then exist would not be filled by any one ; that, after the dismission, as supernumeraries, in May, 1782, of 12 lieutenants from each regiment, k\v, if any, new officers were appointed ; and when it is also considered that there was no induce- ment to an officer to make his term of service extend to three years, the bounty for that service not having been promised till the May session of 1782 — it does not seem probable that more than from one-third to one-half of the places of these 210 officers would have been filled by two different officers entitled to the bounty. Supposing one-half of the places to have been thus filled, the number of officers of this class entitled to bounty would be 315. But still further, in order to be sure of having the estimate sufficiently large to cover all casualties and omissions, and all errors of cal- culation, if any, let the number of two full sets of these 210 officers be sup- posed entitled. This will be an addition of 105 to the foregoing liberal esti- mate, making 420 officers to supply those 210 places ; which, added to the number 210 who served through the whole war, will make 630 officers, by whom it may be supposed the land bounty might, by possibility, have been justly claimed. By the report of the register of the Virginia land office, of the 10th of February, 1840, before referred to, (appendix No. 4, C.) it appears that the number of persons for whose services, as officers, warrants have issued since 1782, is as follows, viz : 16 Rep. No. 436. Officers of the State line - - - . . 234 Officers of the State navy --..'. 968 502 Officers of the continental Hne - - . . j ^3q Making in the whole -.._._ j ^qq officers ; and that the number of other persons for whose service's warrknts have issued is 4,959 ; making 6,491 allowances in the whole, and beina one officer to every three men and a fraction of another. '' If, from the foregoing number of 1,030 officers in the continentalhne who have received bounty from Virginia, be deducted the number of 630 whidi, according to previous calculation, is (bund to be the highest number ot officers which could have been entitled, we shall find an excess of 400— a number which lacks hut 20 of being the full complement of officers of ail the Virginia continental troops which were in service after the arranaement in September, 177S ; and is probably a greater number than actually beloncr- ed to the line at any period after that date. ' "^ But if the quantity of land which has been granted for these bounties be taken as the data of the calculation, tlieexcss of the i^rrants over what (hev ought to have been appears no lesi^ decided and striking tlian is the excess n\ the number of officers. To avoid being tedious, the committee have submitted the details of their calculation m the appendix, (No. 6;) from which it appears, that if from the quantity ot land clanns which have iieen allowed by Virginia for services in the continental line there be deducted the quantity of lands which would satisfy the bounties due 2,724 non-commissioned officers and privates, the (luantity of land remaining for ofncers' bounties would be sufficient to satisfy ihe full complement of 47 regiments of infantry. It further appears, thai if the number of persons not officers, stated l)y tlie reirister of the Virginia and ofhce to have received land warrants, to wit, 4,959, were supposed to he actually entitled to them, and three fourths of them were for services in (he continental line, and a calculaiion were made on that basis, the result would be, that, deducting the quantify of lands to which the non-commis- sioned ofhcers and privates would be entitled, from the quantity of allowances before mentioned, there would still remain sufficient lands to satisfy the war- raiHs of over 45 regiments of officers— equal to more than three full sets of officers which were in service at any period of the war when any of the officers could be entitled to the bountv. But tliere is one further test bv which the question whether a greater amoitnt of claims lias been allowed by Virginia than could have existed «gainst her, may be tried ; the result of which seems very conclusive. Among the documents of the Virginia House of Deleoates, of the session commencing m December, 1833, (No. 30,) the committee find a list of ilie names of the officers of the continental and State lines, and navy, who have received bounty lands from the State for revolutionary services, with the amount ot land granted to each, the date of the cTrant,'and the description of the service for which it was obtained, down to September, 1833. l-'rom the register of the Virginia land office, the committee have lately been fur- mshed with a smiilar list from September, 1S33, to the present period. It will be recollected that, by the act of the Virginia Assemblv. passed in May, 1782. reci'ed in the beginning of liiis report," the land bounty to officers Rep. No. 436. 17 Avhich had before been limited to those who should serve to the end of the war, was not only granted for three years' servic, but that provision was made for the additional grant of the quantity of one-sixth of the oriofinat bounty to all officers who should serve for one year more than six. Now, a recurrence to what has been hereinbefore stated in reference to the com- mencement of the terms of service of the several reiriments, and of the non- appointment of new officers towards the close of the war, will make it very clear that any officer in the Virginia line, who shall be found to have become entitled to this additional bounty, by a service of seven years, or of anv time over six years, must have taken up the whole term of the office which he filled in the army, without leaving any space for any other officer to be- come entitled to the three years, or to the end of the war, bounty. The com- mittee find by the Virginia lists of officers' bounties before mentioned, that the additional bounty for more than six years' service has been granted to 370 officers in the continental line, being fifty-one more than sufficient to supply the 11 regiments of infa.ntry, with their full comj)lenient of officers. If this number 370 be deducted from 420, tlie highest number of officers which could have been in service at any one time a'ter officers could be en- titled to bounty, it will leave 50 as the number of officers, out of the changes in whose places is to be made up the right to bountyof the6G0 remaining offi- cers who have received it : this, it is very clear, is altogether impossible. There is but one answer to this argument, which is this: that the bounties for more than six years' service have been granted where the service had not been performed, and that, therefore, it is no true test of the number of officers who might have been entitled to bounties; which answer is itself a full admis- sion that the warrants have been improvidently issued, and that no confi- dence can be placed in the justness of the claims on which they have been granted. The committee have not the data before them for making a similar ex- amination to the foregoiUij into the number and character of the bounties granted to the troops of the Stale line. Nor do they deem such examina- tion necessary. It is understood tliat the evidence required, and the course of proceeding adopted, in the allowance of claims for warrants, is alike iri both lines; and the character of the allowances, whether good or bad. is doubtless the same. But the committee will call the attention of the House to a few facts in reference to the State navy bounties. An act of Virginia, of November session, 1781, made provision for paying the officers of the army and nnvy such sums as might be due them of their current pay, and also for making good the depreciation of their pay for five years, commencing on the 1st of January, 1777, and ending the 1st of January, 1782. That is to say, they were to receive such sums as might remain unpaid of their regular pay; and as the payments which had been previously made them had been in paper money, which was greatly below par, they were to have the loss they had sustained on it made up to them, according to a scale of depreciation inserted in the act. The accounts of the officers were to be adjusted by the auditors of public accounts: and as the depreciation pay could be obtained through no other channel than this ad- justment of the auditors, tJiere is no reason to doubt that all officers who had served at any time during that period applied for and received it. The payments were made in State certiticates ; a register of which, showing the name of the officer, the date of the settlement, the sum paid, and the nawie 2 18 Rep. No. 436. of the person to whom the certificate was delivered, was kept, and has been preserved : a copy of which may be found in the Pension Office. (See ap- pendix No. 7.) This Hst contains the names of 74 officers of the navy. That it includes the names of all the officers who could have been entitled to bounty, can- not well be doiibted. The first appointments in the navy were made after the 1st of January, 1776; and, at the end of the year 1781, "the officers of the navy, of every denomination,'' were ordered to be disciiarged from the service, "except such as were necessary for the command of the lookout boat Liberty."' (9 Hen. 83; 11 Hen. 450.) Consequently no officer, except those left in command of the lookout boat, (3 or 4 at most,) could have been entitled to bounty for three years' service, without also bein^ etititled to at least two years' depreciation pay ; for, if he entered the service in Janu- ary, 1776, he must, in order to complete his term of three years, have served through the years 1777 and 1778. Now, as this depreciation pay for the years 1777 and 1778 could not have amounted to less than 70 per cent, of the original pay, it is incredible that a single officer entitled to it should have omitted to claim and receive it. jMtliough this list of officers may be relied on as containing ail the offi- cers of the navy who could be entitled to bounty lands, yet it is not con- fined to those oflicers, but includes all others who, for shorter periods than three years' service, settled their accounts with the auditors. If the fluctu- ations among the officers in the navy were as great as among those of the army, (and the committee see no reason to doubt that they were so,) it is probable that about one-half of the 74 officers contained on the register •were officers who performed less than three years' service, and that the ac- tual number of officers entitled to the State bounty could not have exceeded 40, or 50 at the most. Now, from an examination of the lists of bounties before mentioned, it appears that land warrants have been granted to 2(38 persons as officers in^ the State navy, of which number 92 were granted previous to the passage of the act for issuing scrip in May. 1830, and 176 since that date. This number of 268 officers is so extravagantly beyond the number which can be supposed to have been entitled, as to force upon the mind Ifie conviction that the great mass of the warrants have improvidently and improperly issued. And it may be observed, in reference to the grants of bounties, not only for services in the navy, but also those in the Stale Ime, that, as there was a period of ten years, from 1782 to 1792, in which these grants were freely made, and a period of eight years, from 1784 to 1792, when these Avarrants might have been as freely located ; and as the Virginia authori- -ties of that day are known to have been extremely liberal in their allow- ance of bounties, there can be little reason to suppose that any considera- ble number of just claims remained unpresented and unadjusted at that period. On the contrary, the committee think there is strong reason to be- lieve that the great mass of warrants which have been granted since 1792, and especially those which iiave been granted since the act of May, 1830^ and for the satisfaction of which so many hundred thousand acres of land have been repeatedly appropriated, ha\^e issued for services whicli never were performed in conformity with the laws of Virginia promising the iountiesj and to which the persons receiving them had no just claim. From the foregoing facts and circumstances, the committee have come io the conclusion, in conformity with that intimated by Governor Tazewell Rep. No. 436. 19 in his message before quoted, and contrary to that of the committee who made report on that message, that afar "greater amount of land bounty- has been allowed by the State of Virginia than the quantity of good claims "which ever could have existed against her." In order to ascertain the particular character of the evidence on which it has been usual to grant land warrants, the committee have availed them- selves of the testimony in sundry cases, wliich, having been first used before the Executive of Virginia, in obtainhig land allowances, has been since pre- sented to Congress in support of claims to commutation. This testimony will be examined hereafter in connexion with commutation claims. From this evidence, the committee think the conviction which is produced by the excessive number and quantity of these bounty-land warrants, that they have been improvidently granted, will be strengthened and confirmed. It is not the intention of this committee to charge upon the authorities of Virginia any positive design to defraud this Government, by the volun- tary allowance of unfounded claims. Nevertheless, the committee cannot resist the conviction, that the cliecks which the Virginia authorities have provided to guard the Treasury of the United States against such claims, have been of so slight and inefficient a character as to interpose no serious obstacle lo tiieir allowance. Commutation. By resolutions of the old Congress of the 3d and 21st of October, 17S0, a new arrangement of tiie continental army was directed ; and the latter resolution provided that the officers of the line, who sliould continue in the service to the end of tlit war, or who should be reduced (left out of command) by such new arrangement, should be allowed Jialf pay for life. On the 17th of January, 1781, ti-e benefit of this resolution was extended to certain officers in the hospital department and medical staff'; and on the 8th of May, 17S1, to chaplains; and subsequently to all officers of the line who might become supernumerary, under the resolve of the 23d of April, 1782, and also under the arrangement ordered by resolutions of the 7ih of August and 19th ol November, 1782. The provision of half pay for life being viewed in an unfavorable light in many of the States, and appre- hensions existing in the army that it might not be paid, the officers petition- ed Congress that it might be commuted for its equivalent in a compensation for a limited term of years, or for a sum in gross ; and on the 22d of March, 1783, Congress came to the resolution that the officers of the army, to whom half pay for life had been promised, should be entitled to receive five years' full pay in lieu of it; which full pay for five years is Himiliarly denomina- ted "commutation," or "commutatic^i pay." Commutation, then, was promised to two classes of officers : first, to those icho should serve to the end of the war ; and, secondly, to those who had become supernumerary under such reduction.-'i of the army as had hap- ye7ied afttr the passage of the resolution of October 21, 1780. It will be perceived from this statement, that there is nothing in tiie na- ture of these claims that should confine them to persons from any particu- lar State of the Union ; and, in fact, claims have been presented and allow- ed from various sections of the country, though a great majority of all the cases have been for services of officers in the Virginia line. In obe- dience to the resolution under which this report is made, the committee 20 Rep. No. 435. Have confined their inquiries to claims of Virginia, though they doubt not the claims for commutation are of a like character, from whatever quar- ter they may come. At the close of the revolutionary war, the same provision was made for paying these claims that was provided for the monthly pay of the officers, and tliey were usually settled in the same account. They were included in final-settlement certificates, drawing interest Irom the time of disbanding the army ; and these certificates were'afterwards taken up, by being funded under the act of August, 1790. From the year 1794, when these claims became barred from adjustment at the Treasury, by the act of limitation of the 27th of March, 1792, up to the year 1S2S, three claims had been allow- ed by special acts of Congress — one' to Colonel Dubois, in June, 1794 ; one to Philip Turner, a surgeon, in ISOS ; and another to the widow of Alex- ander Hamilton, in 1816. In 1828, commutation pay was allowed by spe- cial acts in three cases ; and there were allowances in five cases in 1830 ; ten in 1832 ; seven in 1833 ; fourteen in 1834; four in 1836 ; and sixteen in 1838 — in the whole, sixty-two claims, on which has been paid at the Treasury $272,551 22. (See appendix, No. 8.) There were pending at the last session, in the House, thirty-six bills granting commutation, favora- bly reported on by the Committee on Revolutionary Claims ; and in the Senate ten other bills, also favorably reported by the corresponding com- mittee of that body ; besides wliich, there were in both branches fifty-eight claims pending, on which the committees had not then acted. The Committee on Revolutionary Claims of the House have, heretofore, not only recommended the ailo vance of the principal, but have urged the addition of interest, computed a cording to the principles of the funding act, by which the original claim is more than trebled. The revival of these claims after they had slept for nearly half a cen- tury — not often by the officer himself, but usually by his heirs, or perhaps as frequently by some adventurer in their name — and their constant and rapid increase from year to year, as a knowledse of their successful prose- cution becomes more widely extended, seem to call for a critical and thorough examination of them. The first inquiry that naturally arises on the presentation of a claim for commutation, is, why has it been so long delayed'/ If the claim is now due, it was due fifty years ago : why was it not then presented and allowed ? In recurring to the history of the early provisions for the settlement of this class of claims, tlie committee look in vain for any extraordinary ob- stacle in the way of their adjustment and liquidation at that period. On the '1th of July, 1783, soon after receiving information of the signing of the })rovisional articles of peace, and four months before the army was disbanded, the Paymaster General was authorized and directed "to adjust and finally settle all accounts whatsoever between the United States and the officers and soldiers of the American army, so as to include all and every detnand which they, or either of them, might have by virtue of the several resolutions and acts of Congress relating thereto ;" and he was to give certificates of the sums found due on such settlements, which certifi- cates were to bear an interest of six per cent. In February, 1782, Congress had provided for the appointment of a commissioner of accounts for each State in the Union : which commissioners were to go into their respective States, and " to give public and early notices of the times and places of their r-i'.ting. at'.d the districts within which they settled accounts, that as well" Rep. No. 436. 21 (says the resolve) " the public officers as the private individuals may have an opportunity to attend." These commissioners acted as deputies to the Paymaster General, who was also styled commissioner of army accounts, and by whom they were furnished with blank certificates, to be filled up and delivered to the officers and soldiers in liquidation of their respective claims. But, as it might be impracticable or inconvenient for all persons having claims to attend in person on the commissioners, and especially for the non-commissioned officers and privates, whose claims, compared with those of the officers, were small in amount, it was provided by a resolve of November, 3, 1783, that the certificates of sums due to the officers and soldiers of the different lines of the army should be delivered to regimental agents, to be by them delivered to the individuals to whom they belonged, or deposited, for their benefit, in such manner as the Governors of the respective States might direct. Mr. Z. Turner appears to have been the first commissioner of accounts for V^irginia, on whose resignation Andrew Dunscomb was appointed, by whom all the settlements with the officers and soldiers of the army within that State appear to have been made. These commissioners were furnished with the muster-rolls and all other papers in the possession of the Government, or abstracts of them, relating to the lines of their respective States; and the officers who might have claims not appearing on these papers, if any, were stimulated to present them by the passage of a resolve, declaring that all claims not presented by the first day of August, 1786, should be for ever barred ; and the commis- sioner of army accounts was directed " to give public notice of this resolve in nil the Slates for the term of six months.^' On the 22d of .hily, 1787, a further time of one year was given for presenting these claims ; and on the 27rh of March, 1792, a further time of two years was granted. In January, 1834, the Committee on Revolutionary Claims of this House reported a bill providing for the adjustment and allowance of claims for commntation at the War Department. In tlieir report, which accompanied the bill, there is found the following statement in reference to the early set- tlement of these claims: "Those officers who remained in actual command until the army was formally disbanded had no difficulty in establishing their claims, and, with probably k\v exceptions, received commutation certificates. But there were many who had retired at different periods, entitled to half pay for life, and therefore to the five years' commutation; and many others, who from va- rious causes had no actual command at the close of the war, but who, as they did not resign, nor abandon the service, nor forfeit their commissions, but continued ready and willing to serve, and were inactive only because they had nothing to do, nobody to command, and no orders to obey, ought properly to be considered as continuing in service, and entitled to all the benefits of such continuance. The officers of both these classes were dis- persed at the close of the war, many of them at a distance from the account- ing officers, many of them (and especially of those who had retired) igno- rant of their right to commutation which had been accepted for them by the votes of their brother officers. Some were discouraged by the narrow con- struction which the financial condition of the country had induced Con- gress to give to their own resolutions ; others by the small comparative val- ue of the certificates, which, when obtained, promised little reinuneration for any trouble or expense which they might cost." 22 Rep. No. 436. This committee have looked in vain for satisfactory proof of the state- ments contained m this extract from the report of 1834. 'I'hey are persua- ded their predecessors must have adopted them without sufficient examina- tion. They belong not to the history of the period of which they purport to speak, but are of modern and recent oriorin. They are only supported by vague and uncertain parol testimony, 2:iven after the lapse of fifty years, and by'the interested declarations of claimants and their attorneys. The officers, as well those who had been reduced as those who contin- ued in service to the end of the war, had, as has already been siiown, abun- dant notice that the Government was ready to adjust and settle their claims, and full opportunity to present them within their respective States. To say that any of the officers were iofuorant of their rights, is a gratuitous asser- tion, of the reality of which the committee cannot but be incredulous. The provision of half pay for life had been the subject of discussion and of po- litical declamation throughout the country, from the time of the passage of the resolutions granting it in 1780, and had become extremely unpopular in some of the States. The apprehension that, from its odiousncss, it might not be paid, had produced great excitement in the army, which, fanned as it was by the famous Newburg address, threatened the very existence of the Government. It is to be remembered, that the meeting of the officers of the army, called by General Washington, in consequence of that address, and to counteract its effects, was holden on the 15th of March 1783; and that on the representation to Congress of the claims of the army, made by General Washington, in obedience to a resolution of the officers adopted at that meet- ing, ihe'resoive of the 22d of March, 1783, which gave commutation, was adopted. This whole transaction was well known and understood through- out the country. It formed an era, and, from its peaceful and happy ter- mination, a proud one in the history of the Revolution. In May thereafter, meetings of the arranged and retiring officers of the Virginia line, of which public and probably private notice by letters must have been given, were held at Fredericksburg, in obedience to the requirements of the commuta- tion resolutions, at which the commutation was unanimously accepted, and notice of its acceptance transmitted to Congress, (for these proceedings of the Virginia officers, see appendix No. 9 ;) and like meetings were held in the other Slates. Under all these circumstances, it seems utterly incredible that a single individual of so intelligent a body of men as the officers of the army are known to have been, c'ould be ignorant of the provision which had been made for his benefit. But, in order to make this plea of ignorance of any avail, it must be extended to the provision of half pay also. For, whether the claim was for half pay for life, or lor commutation, it was equally the interest of the officer to present it; and to suppose the claim of an officer remained unpresented from ignorance of its existence, is to suppose that the officer not only never heard of the commutation resolutions, but was also ignorant that the very resolution under which he had retired from the army'had provided for him the half pay for hfe ; which supposition is so palpablv incredible as to involve an absolute absurdity. Nor does the ex- cuse offered for the non-presentation of these claims, for the reason that they were deemed of little value, seem to have any better foundation. After the organization of the Government under the present constitution, when the claims for commutation were of par value, and known to be so, an op- portunity, for the term of two years, from the 27th of March, 1792, to the Rep. No. 436. 23 27th of March, 1794, was afforded for their presentation and allowance at the Treasury. We have a Ust of all the claims adjusted during this period, which, for personal services in the army and navy, were over 1,400 in. ■number. Among these, there are found but 14 allowances for commuta- tion, (a fraction more than the average of one from each State ;) which, seems to be conclusive evidence that very few claims could have beea omitted under the old Government. The committee will close their remarks on this subject by a quotatioa from the report of the Committee of Claims of the House of Representatives of December 21. 1797, which committee had been instructed to inquire into the expediency of excepting certain classes of claims from the operation of the statutes of limitation. The report, the whole of which is worthy of a careful consideration, may be found in the State Papers, volume — , on Claims, page 202. Treating of the adjustment of claims under the old Confederation, the report says : " It must be acknowledged by all, that, during those periods, every op- portunity which could rationally have been expected was made for the accommodation of individuals having claims against the public, to enable them to obtain proper settlements of their demands. The journals of Con- gress under the Confederation will abundantly justify this remark. Com- missioners were appointed, with special or general powers, to settle the -claims of individuals in all the departments ; and, in every instance, the powers given were plenary and explicit. Sufficient time was given for every one to obtain information and pursue his remedy ; and ample oppor- tunity was given for all to substantiate their claims, or at least to present abstracts of them, which would liave prevented their being foreclosed by the acts designed eventually to operate upon them. The cases cannot be numerous in which the want of opportunity to bring forward claims can be justly pleaded as an excuse for the omission." This conmiittee will not say there may not have been well-founded com- mutation claims, which were not presented, either under the Confederation, or under the act of March, 1792; though, from what has already been shown, as well as from what will hereafter appear, they are of opinion such claims must have been extremely rare. But the committee do say, that; every rational presumption is against the validity of any claim which was not then presented ; and that the holder of such a claim, now first bringing it to the notice of the Government, after it had slept unheeded for more than half a century, should be required to establish it by proof of the high- est and clearest nature. The necessity of establishing such a rule for the examination of these claims will appear to be still stronger, when the greatly superior advantages possessed by the accounting officers of that early period, lor detecting the invalidity of unfounded claims, are considered. The accounting officers were then intimately acquainted with the history of the particular corps and lines of the army with which they were required, to settle, and probably with the particular services of almost every officer composing them. They had before them the original muster rolls and other returns of the army, showing the services of the officers, and, in case- of doubt, could readily call on livmg testimony to solve it. We have none of these advantages. Conflagration and pillage have destroyed and scat- .tered the muster-rolls and other original returns of the revolutionary army, and time has closed over all personal knowledge and parol evidence of the ^4 Rep. No. 436. '^ transactions of that period, but such as must necessarily be of a very un- certain and unsatisfactory character. If the original muster and pay-rolls of the army which were in existence at the close of the war had been preserved, we should doubtless have the means of ascertaining the true character of most, if not all, of the claims which have been presented for commutation. In relation to the destruction of these papers by the burning of the War Office in November, 1800, we have a report of the Secretary of War, of the 17th February, 1801. In describing the papers destroyed, under the head of " Relating (o the accounts of the old army," we have the following : '• Several cases containing muster and pay-rolls, others containing ac- counts and vouchers of sundry paymasters and agents for paying troops, and one case containing individual settlements made by the late Paymaster General and commissary of army accounts."' The Secretary then proceeds : ^' These papers could only be of use in the examination of claims for ser- vices prior to the establishment of the present Government, ivhich, if not already settled, are all barred and foreclosed by acts of limitation. This Joss, therefore, will not materially affect the unsettled accounts of the Uni- ted States." (State Papers, 1 xMiscellaneous, 232.) In relation to the injury which the remaining revolutionary papers re- ceived by the capture of this city during the late war, we have the follow- ing from the report of the Secretary of War of October 27, 1814 : " 1 have the honor to state, that the books and papers belonging to this office were removed, and are now in a state of safety, excepting a part of the papers and army accounts appertaining to the revolutionary war. which had been saved from the flames on the burning of the house occupied by the War Department in 1800. It is not probable that the loss of these pa- pers can have any effect in the adjastment of the unsettled accounts of the ITnited States, as the claims, if any, which might arise under them, liave all been barred by act of limitation^ (State Papers, 2 Miscellaneous, 251.) , It had not entered into the imagination of either of these Secretaries, that, after a lapse of fifty years from their date, the claims depending for the proof of their truth or falsity on the existence of those revolutionary papers, were to be again revived, and their justice and validity to be presiuned, in. consequence of the absence of those very papers. Such, nevertheless, is the fact. In the report of the Committee on Revolutionary Claims made to Con- gress in 1834, before mentioned, the character of these claims is thus de- scribed : " The claims now presented are generally in behalf of officers who can be shown to have been in active service up to the close of 1780, or during the year 1781, and some of them in 1782, and even as late as the spring of 1783, but cannot afterwards be traced in active command. The question of fact, in relation to all these cases, is, from what cause did they cease to be in active service at the.se periods 'V This question of fact the committee proposed to settle, not by the usual rule of requiring the claimant to make out his case by proof, but by the following rules of presjimption, which were incorporated in the bill they reported : " First, It being established that as officer of the continental line was in service, as such, on the 21st of October, 1780, and until the new arrange- ment of the army provided for by the resolution of that date was effected,^ Rep. No. 436. 25- he shall he presumed, unless it appear that he was then retained in service, to have been reduced by that arrangement, and, therefore, entitled to half pay for life, or the commutation in lieu of it." '' Second. A continental officer, proved to have remained in service after the arrangement of the army under said resolution of October, 17S0, shall be presumed to have served to the end of the war, or to have retired, enti- tled to half pay for life, unless it appear that he died in the service, or re- signed, or was dismissed, or voluntarily abandoned an active command in the service of the United States." In reference to these presumptions, the report holds this language : " The resignation of an officer ought to appear upon some record. If it does so appear^ it puts an end to all the other presumptions and determines the case, unless the entry is found to have been erroneously made. If it does not appear upon record, and is not otherwise proved, there is no rea- son why it should take the place of other presumptions, more favorable to the officer, and, considering the consequences of resignation, much more reasonable. In the absence of proof, it is not to be presumed that an offi- cer would volnniardy renounce the advantages held out io those who shoidd jiot resign ; and as the war approached its termination, the presumption against resitjuation became strouijer." Here, then, we iiave a presiiniption raised against the resignation of an officer, because of the great advantages held out to him by the hall-pay reso- lutions, on which presumption he is to be adjudged entitled to commuta- tion ; whereas, the starting-point, on which the report places the propriety of allowing these claims to be presented at all, at this late day, is the con- trary presumption, that the officer was either ignorant of the provision in his behalf at the close of the war, or deemed it of too little importance to apply for it. Surely, a class of claims which require such logic to sustain them cannot but be viewed with suspicion. The bill reported by the committee in 1S31, from which the foregoing rules of evidence have been copied, was debated in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and reported to the House ; when the de- bate was renewed, and the bill finally recommitted to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, by a decided majority. 'J'his last vote was equivalent to a rejection of the bill in the form in which it was report- ed. The bill was never afterwards considered, but the Committee on Rev- olutionary Claims, in the examination of individual applications for com- mutation, have continued to act upon the rules of presumption contained in it; and on the propriety of those rules depends the fate of all the com- mutation claims now pending, as weU as the justness of the acts which have been heretofore passed. As this presumption against the resignation of an officer after the passage of the resolutions of October 21, 1780, is the hinge on which all these cases turn, it seems to deserve a more particular consideration, iV Doubtless, the provision of half pay, made by the resolution of October, 1780, was an additional inducement to the officers to remain in service ; but there would necessarily be various influences operating from time to time in individual cases, that would present still stronger inducements in favor of resignation. Considerations peculiar to military life, such as questions in regard to rank and promotion, personal dissatisfaction with commanding officers, or strong dislike to a particular service, would be -likely to influence some ; while others would be drawn from the army by 26 Rep. No. 436. changes in familjr arrangements, by flattering offers in business, or by ap- pointment to office, or favorable prospt-cts of promotion in civil life, la point of (act, many officers did resign after that period, as will hereafter be shown. Bnt this question of presumption onght not to be considered, as it has heretofore been, with sole reference to the 'motives which may be supposed to have operated either to prevent or produce resignations. A state of facts might perhaps exist, where the rule adopted by the committee of 1834 might not be particularly objectionable. If the muster and pay rolls, and other records of tl)e army, which ought to show the history of the service of all the officers, were in a state of perfect preservation ; or if, while such papers were in existence, an official list of resignations and other casualties had been carefully made from them, and that list were now in the posses- sion of the Government, no great injury might arise from any rule of presumption. A reference to the rolls or list would put an end to the presumption, by ascertaining the fact. But we have already seen that the records of the services of the officers of the revolutionary army have long been destroyed ; and we learn from the report of the Secretary of VV^ir to the select committee of the last session, that no list of resignations was ever made from those papers. (See appendix No 10, A, B, C, and No 5, letters from the Third Auditor, Commissioner of Pensions, and Clerk of Bounty Land Office.) When, therefore, the report of 1834, which has been quoted above, says, " the resigitnt'ioyi of an officer ought to appear upoji some record,^- it should in candor have been added, that it could not so appear, because the records had been destroyed. But the impropriety of this rule of presumption will be placed in a still stronger light, by the important additional fact, that, although there never was any list made of the resignations of the officers of the army, there is an. official list purporting to be a list of all the officers of the army who either served to the end of the war, or retired as supernumeraries. A description of this list, called " the officer's book," will be found in the letters accom- panying the report of the Secretary of War, (Nos. 10 and 5, appendix,) par- ticularly the letter of the Third Auditor, whose knowledge of the list com- menced with his first employment in the department in 1793. The list now referred to purports to be a list of officers entitled to boun- ty lands from the United States, and contains, of course, a list of the names, not only of those who served to the end of the war, and of those who be- came supernumer.4,82l 45. The report on whicli this act was founded (No. 44, 1st session 22d Con- gress.) stales that Vawters belonged to Colonel George Gibsoti's regiment, which it alleges to have been transferred from the State line to the conti- nental line, and to have thereby become a continental regiment. On the ground of its belonging to the continental line, Vawters was allowed the commutation pay. After the passage of the act of July 5, 1832, granting half pay for life to the officers of the Virginia State line, the heirs of Vawters, finding that the half pay for life under tfiat act would amount to a greater sum than they had received for commutation, applied for the half pay, (deducting the sum already received,) alleging that the commutation act had been passed under a mistake — that Gibson's, regiment was a State, and not a continental regi- ment. The claim for half pay being unfavorably received by the Secretary of the Treasury, the heirs of Vawters came again to Congress ; and, on the -22d of December, 1837, the committee made a favorable report on the claim for the excess of the half pay over the commutation, in which they came to the conclusion, "thnt when the act of 25th May passed, allowing commuta- tion to Vawters's heirs, i/wi/ had no claim whatever against the United 42 Rep. No. 436. States, either for commutation or half pay, but had a claim against the State of Virginia for half pay during the life of their father, which claim was af- terwards assumed by the United States, by the act of the 5th of July, 1832 ;" Colonel Gibson's regiment being a State, and not a continental regiment. In the opinion that Gibson's was a State, and not a continental regiment, and, of consequence, that the heirs of Vawters had no claim to commutation, the presetit committee concur. At the October session of the VirginiaAssembly, 1777) Colonel George Gibson's State regiment, and another State regiment then forcing, and afterwards commanded by Colonel Dab- ney, were transferred tefnporariJp into continental service — the former in the place of the 9th Virginia regiment, made prisoners at Germantown ; and the latter, in consequence of the deficiency of the State's quota in tiie conti- nental army. The officers and soldiers of both regiments were to have the same pay and emoluments "as are allowed to the officers and soldiers in the continental service, so long as they contlmie tliereiny (9 Hen. 337, 338.) These regiments continued in continental service till the close of the campaign in 1779, about two years. (Judge Marshall's letter. Report 191, 1st session 22d Congress, page 66.) The service of these regiments in the continental army was but tempo- rary, and they no more became incorporated into the continental line than; did the numerous bodies of militia who, from time to time, from different States, joined that army, and while in service were paid by the continent, 'i'his is api)arent from a great mass of facts, a few of which it will be suffi- cient to mention. They were called the 1st and 2d State regiments in all the returns made to the commander-in-chief, and such returns are numerous among the Washington Papers. The officers retained their State com- missions, and were never commissioned by Congress. In the three arrange- ments of the continental line, which took place during the time those regi- ments remained in continental service, viz : in September, 1778, March, 1779, and September, 1779, they are not included or mentioned ; and after their return from continental service, they were arranged and reduced as State regiments, in obedience to a law of the State, passed at the November session in 1781. This arrangement, made in the month of Febrnary, 1782, by a board of officers appointed by the Governor, may be found at length in report No. 191, 1st session 22d Congress, pages 46 to 58. And, further, in the settlements by Virginia, under the depreciation act of November, 1781, the officers of both these regiments were paid as State officers ; their land bounties were also allowed them as State, and not as continental officers ; and they uniformly claimed half pay as State officers, under the promises of Virginia; and never, till 1830, asked for commutation under those of the United States. The decision, therefore, said to have been made by the Secretary of War, in 1830, by which the benefit of the act of May, 1828, was extended to the officers of Colonel Gibson's regiment, as continental officers, was without warrant in the history of the Virginia line to sustain it. This decision has since been repudiated by the passasre of the act of July 5, 1832, which recognised the regiment as a State regiment, by as- suming the payment of the half pay promised the oflicers by Virginia, as State officers. Although it would seem there could now be no doubt of the true charac- ter of Colonel Gibson's regiment, whatever might have been thought of it in 1830 ; yet. even since the act of July 5, 1832. it has sometimes been considered by the committee of the House as a continental regiment. Iii Rep, No. 436. 43 fact, it has been suffered to assume a kind of amphibious character, some- times being treated as a State, and sometimes as a continental regiment. Thus, on the same 22d of December, 1837, on which the bill allowing the heirs of Vawters the excess of the half pay for life over the commutation, on the ground that the regiment was a State regiment, was reported to the House, another bill was reported from the same committee, by another member of it, allowing to the heirs of Colonel Gibson the excess of his commutation over his half pay for life, on the ground that the regiment was continental, and not iStnte ; the half pay for life of Colonel Gibhon, from the circumstance of his dying early, amounting to a less sum than his commutation. Both these bills were pending through the whole of the last Congress, but remained unacted on. Lieutenant Vawters received a warrant for 2,G66| acres of land, as a lieutenant of the ^'iate line, on the 21st of January, 17S3, and does not seem to have had any subsequent allowance. Major John Roberts, of the convention guards. May 25, 1832, an act passed granting commutation pay and interest to Major John Roberts, under which he has received from the Treasury $9,040 23. On the 11th of January, 1779. John Roberts was appointed a captain in a regiment raised by order of Virginia, and also of Congress, to guard the prisoners of Burgoyne's army which had been marched from tlie north to Charlottesville, in Albemarle county, Virginia; on the 5th of March, 1779, lie was promoted to a majority in the same regiment, and served as major in the same until the 1st of May, 1781, as appears by a certificate from Auditor Heath, of Virginia, showing for what service he was paid by that; State. It is alleged that he served until the regiment was disbanded, and never resigned or gave up his commission ; and, supposing such to be the case, the question arises, whether he was entitled to commutation ; or, ni other words, whether the officers of that regiment were among those who could be entitled to the benefit of that provision 1 On the 16th of October, 1778, Congress directed General Washington, in case certain terms were not complied with by Sir Henry Clinton, in relation to the prisoners captured at Saratoga, that he cause them to be removed to Charlottesville, in Albemarle county, Virginia ; and the board of war were authorized to appoint a proper person to superintend them, and to apply to the Governor of Virginia for a sufficient force of militia to guard them. On the I9th of December, 1778, the General Assembly of Virginia passed a resolution empoweriuir the Governor, with the advice of the Council, to raise " a regiment of soldiers of six hundred men, rank and file, with proper officers to command them, for the particular purpose of guarding the British prisoners then, or who thereafter might be, in the Commonwealth. On the 9th of January, 1779, Congress came to the following resolu- tions, viz : " Resolved, That a battalion consisting of six hundred men, properly offi- cered, be forthwith raised on continental establishment in Virginia, for the space of one year from the time of their enlistment, unless sooner dischar- ged, under tlie direction of the Governor and Council of that State, who are hereby empowered to appoint the officers of the said battalion out of those of the Virginia line who have been left out of the late arrangement of 44 Rep. No. 436. the continental army, as far as their numbers will reach ; the regiment to consist of one lieutenant colonel commandant and captain, one major and captain, six captains, one captain-lieutenant, seven lieutenants, nine ensigns, one surgeon, one surgeon's mate, eiglit companies of seventy-five men each, including corporals, three sergeants, one drum, and one fife to each company. " Resolved, That these troops be stationed at, and not removed (except to such distance as the duty of the post may require) from the barracks, in Albemarle county, as guards over the convention troops; that they receive, the usual pay of the continental army, and a suit of clothes as a bounty to «ach non-commissioned officer and private. " Resolved, That, as soon as the Siud regiment shall be so far completed as to be able to do the duty of the post, the militia now in service there be discharged." From the circumstance that these resolutions of Congress provide that this battalion should be "raised on continental establishment," it is argued that the officers of the battalion were necessarily entitled to half pay and the commutation of it. The connnittee do not perceive that this conse- quence fellows. The word establishment, in a military sense, is not synon- ymous with the word line, but is much more comprehensive. The term line of the army, in its proper sense, and in that in which it is used in the commutation resolutions of 22d March, 1783, is applicable to that portion only of the army which is intended for field operations, or the exertion of physical force against an enemy. It is used in contradistinction to the staff department, the business of statf officers being, not to figlit in the field, but to supply and superintend what are usually called the nuiniments of war, such as arms, clothing, subsistence, and whatever regards its health. The term establishment is much more comprehensive. When we speak of the military establishment, the peace establishment, or the war establishment, of a country or government, we evidently intend to embrace not merely the force employed in field operation:-, but also every other branch of the army which sustains and gives efijcieiicy to warlike efforts. We have already seen, in the. examination of the case of Colonel Harrison, that but a portion of the officers on continental establishment, viz: those only who belong to the line oj the army, are entitled to commutation pay. It of consequence follows, that the putting of this regiment of guards on " continental establish- ment" does not necessarily entitle the officers to commutation. We must look for furtiier evidence of their right to that provision. The fact that the regiment was paid by the continent, affords no such evidence. State troops, and also militia, were uniformly in continental pay when they were attached, as was often the case, to the continental army, or were otherwise employed in the service of the continent. It was the bu- siness of the continent to guard the Saratoga prisoners ; and it is according- ly found, that when Governor .lelferson on an emergency ordered a battal- ion of infantry and a company of cavalry of State troops to Charlottesville, Congress inuDediately resolved (10th December, 1779) that they "be con- sidered in continental service, and receive continental pay and rations, while doing duty at the convention barracks." It cannot be supposed that this temporary employment of State troops gave their officers any right to claim continental land bounties or half pay. But the temporary character of the corps of guards, as well as the limited service they were to perform, shows clearly that they were never intended to belong to the line of the army, and could iiot have been included in the half-pay promises. Rep. No. 436. 45 1. The battalion was to be raised for one year. 2. The officers to be appointed, not by Congress, bnt by the Governor of Vircjinia. 3. The re2:iment was not bonnd to military service generally, not even to repel an invasion of the State, bnt was " to be td to him, and that he^may also be allowed a bounty in land. '« A motion was made ; and the question being put, that the said petition be referred to the consideration of a committee, it passed in the negative. » Resolved, That the petition be rejected."' From several facts and circumstances appearing in the case, this commit- tee are inclined to the opinion that the rank and service ot Dr. Carter were not such as would have given him a title to commutation, had he served to the end of the war ; but as it is very clear that he left the service too early to claim it, whatever his rank might have been, they have not thought It worth while to go into an examination of that question. Notwithstanding the rejection of the claim of Dr. Carter to the land boun- ty by the Yn-ginia House of Delegates, as before slated, he was on the 7th of February, 1792, on the beforementioned evidence of Dr. Gait, allowed 6,000 acres of land, for service as a surgeon of the hospital to the end of the war ; and on the 30th of April, 1S07, he was allowed 1,4113 acres more, for service of seven years and five months, without any further evidence of his •continuance in service to the end of the war. Edmund Brooke^ of Harrison's aitlllenj. The five years' full pay of a lieutenant of arlillery, with interest, was j^Uowed to Edmund Brooke, by special act of March 25, 1S32, under which he received ^5,020 02. . He states that he was appointed a lieutenant in Colonel Charles Harri- .son's re" ""^ ''<'?'"■'> " «"<' witness' slates, during he wVr „ j; . ff""eclion, he continued in the service neverrhets:™^: ;fe," "cSn C^rTr'^'"''-'; '^''J^ ^"-- -" a.r.,esterfie.d,„rS™^ la £: A.' ?„irhTs"n:„:';'.f.,!rn"T wr' ""^"^ ■• -—"oS Rep. No. 436. 57 three years, which he received, by an allowance to him of 4,000 acres, on the lUth of December, 17S3. On the 12th of August, 1808, the authorities of Virginia leaped over the fact of his resignation, and made him an ad- ditional allowance of 1 .500 acres, being for a service of eight years and three months. Supposing his service to have ended hi May, 1782, when here- signed, it must, accorduig to this allowance, have commenced about four teen months before the battle of Lexington. Lieutenant John Taylor. May 30, 1834, an act passed granting the five years' full pay of a lieuten- ant to the representative of John Taylor, under which has been paid the sum of $1,600. He was a lieutenant in the convention guards, and served from the 18th of January, 1770, to the 15th of June, 1781, when the regiment was dis- banded. The officers of this regim.ent, as has been shown in the case of Major John Roberts, were not entitled to commutation. Of course, the claim of Lieutenant Taylor was unfounded. Since it has been discovered that, by the disbanding of this regiment, the officers became supernumerary to the end of the war, instead of being dis- charged, as during the simplicity of the revolutionary period bad been sup- posed, an allowance of bounty land for a service to the end of tbe war has been made to the representatives of Lieutenant Taylor. A warrant issued on the 13tlr of November, 1832, for 2,666 acres, for a service to the end of the war; and John U. Smith, in his report of December. 1835, thinks he may be entitled to an additional allowance for a service of over six years. Captain Everard Meade. %. On the 30th of June, 1834, an act passed granting the representatives of Everard Meade the five years' full pay of a captain of infantry, under which the sum paid was $2,40(J. It appears by a roll of the officers of the several Virginia regiments at their first organization, attached to the arrangement made at White Plains, that Everard Meade was commissioned a captain in the second regiment on the 8th of March, 1776; and by " a roll of the resigned and supernumerary officers of the Virginia continental and State line," found in the Pension Office, furnished from the auditor's office at Richmond, it appears he "re- signed" his commission in that regiment. The date of the resignation does not appear, but it was probably early in the year 1777. It was before Sep- tember, 1778, as his name does not appear among the officers of the second or any other regiment, on that arrangement, or on any of the subsequent ar- rangements. It was supposed by the committee who reported the bill, that he became a supernumerary at this period, instead of resigning ; but that would not affect his right to commutation, as supernumeraries before Octo- ber, 1780, were not entitled to the benefit of that provision. On leaving the line of the army, as before stated, he was appointed an aidde-camp to Major General Benjamin Lincoln, with the rank of major, in which capacity he served, as appears by a certificate from Auditor Heath, from the 1st of June, 1777, to the 1st of May, 1780 ; but he does not appear to have been in continental service after\s ards. He is said to have been in the State and militia service after this period; but as such service could not affect his 58 Rep. No. 436. right to commutation, all the evidence in relation to it may be laid out of the case. ' As Major Meade does not appear to have been in continental service of any kind after May, 17S0, he could not of course have served therein to the end of the war, or have become a supernumerary under the resolution of the succeeding October of that year. It may be observed, that the service of Mojor Meade as aid de-camp to General Lincohi, though it gave him the rank of major, and entitled him to the monthly pay of one, would not, as we have seen in the case of Lieutenant Colonel Robert H. Harrison, en- title him to commutation pay — he being a stafi' officer, and the commuta- tion resolutions including only officers of the line. This claim, then, is wholly without foundation. On the 17th of January, 183S, the Conimittee on Revolutionary Claims reported a bill allowing thej representatives of Meade interest on his com- mutation pay, according to Ihe principles of the funding acts, wliich would have increased (he draft oil the Treasury from $2,400 to over $7,200. This bill remained unacted on. At the same session of the last Congress, the Senate passed a bill increasing the commutation pay of Meade from that of captain to a major ; which bill also received the favorable action of the committee of the House, but did not pass that body. Cornet William Teas. June 30, 1834, the commutation pay of a cornet of cavalry was granted by special act to the heirs of William Teas, under which they received $1,000. The evidence in this case was wholly by parol, and consisted of the affi- davits of two privates, who say they knew Teas in service, in Washington's corps of cavalry, in 1781 ; and one of them says he did duty as a cornet in that corps. No commission is produced, nor is the existence of one men- tioned. Teas died in 1821 without having made any claim for land of Vir- ginia, or for commutation of the United States, or to a pension under the act of 1818. His name is not found on any roll in the War Department, as an officer, nor did fie ever receive any depreciation pay from Virginia. The committee think it impossible lie could have been a cornet in the con- tinental line, and served to the end of the war, without leaving some trace of his service, of a documentary character. They are very clear that the evidence in support of the claim is wholly insufiicient. On the 17th of December, 1832, the heirs of Teas were allowed 2,666 acres of land by the Executive of Virginia, for a three years' service, proved by the same testi- mony which sustained his claim to commutation. Captain B idler Claiborne. The commutation pay of a captain was granted the legal representatives of BuUer Claiborne by act of June 30, 1834. The name of Buller Claiborne is not found on any of the arrangements of the Virginia line, on the list of officers entitled to specie pay in 1782 and 1783, nor on " the officer's book." On the 4th of April, 1786, he set- 'tied his depreciation pay with the auditors of Virginia, and received a cer- tificate for a service as captain, ending the 27th of July, 1777, at which time his service in the line of the army must have ended, doubtless, by re- Rep. No. 436. 59 signation. On looking over the report on which the bill was founded, it appears that the service for which he claims commutation for a service to the end of the war, was, either that of aid to General Lincoln, or as a bri- o-ade major ; for neither of which would he be entitled to commutation. Both these were staff ofhces, which, as we have already seen in the case of Colonel R. H. Harrison, give no right in the holders to the benefit of that provision. Captain Claiborne did not receive land from Virginia in his lifetime, but. on the 14th of February, 1S07, his heirs obtained an allow- ance of 5,333 acres for a service of eight years. Lieutenant John Emerson. On the 30th of June, 1834, the^commutation of a lieutenant was granted to John Emerson, by special act of Congress, under which he received $1,000. John Emerson claimed to have been an oflicer in the thirteenth Virginia regiment, and to have served therein as a captain to the end of the war. One witness testified to his service to the end of the war. The following is copied from the letter of Mr. Hagner, the Third Auditor, to the chairman of the committee who reported the bill, dated 17tli December, 1833 : "John Emerson appears to have been a first lieutenant in the thirteenth Virginia regiment, up to April, 17/8; after which time his name is not found on any rolls of that regiment, or any other record in this oflice."' His name is not found on any of the arrangements of ihe Virginia line, nor on the list of officers entitled to specie pay in 1782 and 1783, nor on " the officer's book;" nor does he appear to have received any certificate for his depreciation pay from Virginia. Tlie witness who testified to his service to the end of the war must have been mistaken. It is utterly incredible he could have thus served, and no trace of his name be found on any of the revolutionary records we have mentioned. It is worthy of remark, that Emerson, in his declaration for a pension under the act of 1828, made before he applied for commutation, testified, that after the close of the war he received a commutation certificate in satisfliction of his claim for five years' full pay; which fact thus stated, is, probably, just as true as the other important fiict stated in connexion with it — that he became entitled to such certificate by a service to the end of the war. He received no land warrant from Virginia until the 10th of June, 1820, when a warrant issued to him for 2,006 acTes, for a service to the end of the war ; and on the 9th May, 1834, an additional allowance of 706 acres, for a service of over six years, was made ; and in December, 1835, John H. Smith reports him entitled to a further additional allowance for a still longer service. On the 13th of May, 1838, the Committee on Revolutionary Claims of the House of Representatives reported a bill, allowing the representatives of Lieutenant Emerson interest, according to the principles of the funding acts, on his commutation pay ; which bill remained unacted on at the close ot the session. The interest is rather more than double the amount of the principal. Lieutenant Thomas Wallace. June 30, 1834, an act was passed granting the commutation of five years' full pay as a lieutenant, to the heirs of Thomas Wallace, and there wa^ paid them the sum of ^1,000. 60 Rep. No. 436. The evidence before the committee appears to have been his commission in the 8th Virginia regiment, dated the 23d of November, 1779 ; and it ap- pearing by an original letter from the colonel of his regiment, dated the 19th of November, 1781, that he was under marching orders to join the southern army, and that he had received land bounty from Virginia for a service of three years, the committee concluded he had served to the end of the war, or become supernumerary ; and therefore reported the bill. The name of Thomas Wallace is found on the Chesterfield arrangement, as an ensign, and afterwards as lieutenant, in the Sth regiment ; but his name is not among the officers belonging to the line, in either of the subse- quent arrangements. But, in the arrangement made at Cumberland court- house, in May, 1782, against the name of Lieutenant Thomas Sears, under the head of " remarks," is this entry, " Wallace's resignation ;" indicating that Lieutenant Sears had been appointed to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Wallace. The name of Lieutenant ThomasWallace is also found -on the list of officers resii^ned, made at Cumberland courthouse, September 2, 1782. The date of the commission of Thomas Wallace, as €nsign, appearing by the Chesterfield arrangement to be the 2d of .lune, 1779, that may be taken as the time of his entering the service ; and it ap- pearing from the Cumberland arrangement that his vacancy was filled by the appointment of Lieutenant Sears on the 5th day of May, 1782, that may be considered as the date of his resignation. Having been in service less than three years, he would not be entitled to land from Virginia, and does not appear to have received it until the 22d of October, 1790, when a warrant issued to him for a service of three years. It may be mentioned, as showing the harmony of the several ancient records with each other, as well as a confirmation of their general accu- racy, that the name of Lieutenant Wallace, who has been shown by the Cumberland arrangement to have left the service, by resignation, on the 5th of May, 1782, is found on the list of officers to whom the three months' specie pay was due in 1782, and the four months' in 1783, as entitled to the pay in 1782, but as not entitled to that in 1783. Captain William Royal. An act passed granting the'five years' full pay of a captain to the heirs of William Royal, on the 30th of June, 1834; under which, $2,400 has been paid from the Treasury. The testimony in this case was wholly parol. One witness says, that William Royal was a captain in the 2d Virginia regiment (continental line) in 1776, " and he believes most of the war — perhaps the whole war ; but of this he is not certain." Another witness says that William Royal was ^'a captain in the revolutionary army of the United States in service about 1777 or 1778, [what line not mentioned,] and that he continued in service until the end of the war." And another, that Captain Royal, about 1781, was appointed captain of a volunteer troop of horse, with which he joined the army during the invasion of Virginia. On this testimony it may be observed, that the service mentioned by the last witness was evidently in the militia ; and that, for aught that is said by the second witness, the ser- vice he mentions might also have been in the militia. Only the first wit- ness positively places Captain Royal in the continental line, and he only during the year 1776. This testimony, uncorroborated by other circum- Rep. No. 436. 61 stances, is clearly insuflicient to establish a claim to a lav^e amount, and which, had it been due, might easily have been obtained fifty years before. But the negative evidence against the claim seems entirely conclusive*. The name of Captain Royal is not found on either of the six arrangement^ of the Virginia line, made at different periods durino- the war, and purport- ing to give a hst of all the officers ; nor on the list of officers to whom spe- cie pay was due in 1782 and 17S3 ; nor on '< the officer's bojDk." Nor did he receive any depreciation pay from Virginia, under the act of November session, 1781 ; ahhough, if he served in ^he continental line from 1776 to the close of the war, as he is claimed to have done, he would have been entitled to that pay for five years, amounting to not less than nineteen hun- dred or two thousand dollars. This, if it had been due him, he could easily have obtained ; and when it is considered that he omitted to claim it, and also his commutation pay, at the close of the war, and that his name is not found as an officer on any revolutionary documents, either at Richmond or Washington, the conclusion seems irresistible that he could not have been an officer serving to the close of the war in the continental line. Nevertheless, his heirs not only received his commutation pay by the special act before mentioned, but, on the 21st of January, 1815, there was allowed them, by Virginia, the quantity of 4,8S9 acres of land for a service of seven years and four months. Lieutejiant Robert Jouett. On the 20th of May, 1836, an act was passed granting commutation pay to the representative of Lieutenant Robert Jouett, of the Viro-inia line and the amount (i$l,600) has been paid from the Treasury. "^ ' The bill originated in the Senate, and the report states it to have been clearly proved that Jouett was a lieutenant of the Virginia line; that he served long and well, and became supernumerary when'the southern army was discharged near Charleston, in May, 1782. It further appeared that, in 1792, Jouett made a settlement with the ac- countant of the War Department, and received his pay as lieutenant up to the 10th of May, 1782, without claiming commutation. Notwithstandino- the irresistible presumption against the^ claim, arising from this fact, the committee deemed the presumption against his having resigned as 'still stronger, and reported the bill which became a law, as before stated. The name of Robert Jouett is found as an ensign on the arrangement of September, 1778, and as a lieutenant on those of March, 1779, and Febru- ary, 1781 ; but it is not found on the succeeding arrangements of May 1782, or of January, 17S3. Tt is found, however, on the Cumberland list of resignations of tlie 2d of September, 1782; and he doubtless resigned on the 10th of May, 1782, the day to which he claimed and received payment for his services. Robert Jouett, having been in service more than three years, was entitled to bounty land from Virginia; which he received on the 2d of March, 1784 Ensign Thornton Taylor. July 2, 1836, an act passed granting commutation pay to the 'representa- tive of Ensign Thornton Taylor. Amount paid under the act, $1,200. There was parol evidence that Taylor was an officer of the Virginia line, and served to the end of the war. There is found on file a certificate of €2 Rep. No. 436. the auditor of Virginia, showino- that on the I9th of May, 1783, Thornton Taylor was paid by Virginia for his services as follows, viz: "For his pay as ensign, from the IStli of JWay, 1777, to the 2Sth of November following; for his pay as lieutenant, from the 28th of November, 1777, to the \Wi of September. 1778; for his pay as conductor of military stores, from the 10th of April, 1779, to the 15th of April, 1780.'" His services, therefore, as an officer of the line, ended the 12th of September, 1778. At the arrangement at White Plains, begun on the Wth of ISeptemher, 1778, Lieutenant Thorn- ton Taylor is entered as a supernumerary, and to his name is appended a, note, as follows: "A sickly youth, not of sufficient constitution to support the fatigues of an officer." Lieutenant Taylor is also among the supernu- merary officers in the arrangement as confirmed at Middlebrook in March following, but his name is not found on any of the subsequent arrangements. On the 29th of May, 1784, Thornton Taylor petitioned the Virginia Assem- bly for bounty land; in which petition, as appears by the journal of the House of Delegates, lie states liis services as follows, viz: "That, in May, 1777, he was appointed an ensign in the 3d Virginia regiment, and contin- ued in service until an arrangement took place iti the army in the year 1778, by which he became a supernumerary; that he has acted in the capacity of a conductor of military stores, and as a deputy field commissary t of the beforementioned highlands, leaving all that part lying east of said highlands unincumbered by Indian clamis. The Indian title lo the whole of Kentucky which lies north and east of said highlands had been extinguished by purchase before the year 1779, (see 1 Marshall's History of Kentucky, p. 12 to 15;) and locations might have been made, and were, in point of fact, made on the same, without interruption or controversy, until the State of Virginia, by her own voluntary act, chose to terminate the right of location by act of her Legislature. On the 18th «f December, 1789, the General Assembly of Virginia passed an act, declariiiir the terms on which the district of Kentucky might become an independent Slate, one of which was as follows, viz : "That the unlocated lands within the said district, which stand appro- priated to individuals, or description of individuals, by the laws of this Commonwealtli, for military or other services, shall be exempt from the dis- position of the proposed State, and shall remain subject to be disposed of by the Commonwealth of Virginia, according to such appropriation, until the first day of May, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, and no longer; thereafter, the residue of all lands remaining within the limits of said district shall be subject to the disposition of the proposed Suite." — (13 Hening's Statutes, 19.) These terms were acceded to by the people of Kentucky ; and thus, on the 1st of May, 1792, after the troops of the State line had had a free and uninterrupted opportunity of satisfying their claims for more than the period of eight years, Virginia chose voluntarily to aban- don any further claim on their behalf— doubtless under the belief that full and adequate opportunity had been given for the satisfaction of all just claims. it must be apparent that there was no deficiency of good lands in the State line territory, excludmg all that covered by the treaty of Hopewell, to satisfy all State warrant claims. It appears from a document hereto appended (appendix No. 4) that the whole quantity of warrants issued to 80 Rep. No. 436. the State line and navy, before the 1st of May, 1792, was 1,140,583 acres. Now, the quantity of land in the State line territory lying east of the high- lands which divide the Tennessee from the Cumberland river, and which was unincumbered by Indian title, was, as before stated, 4,35U,0()() acres. If we suppose all the warrants issued to have been located, there would still have been left 3,209,417 acres unlocated ; which shows, conclusively, that if the Slate line warrants were not located in Kentucky, it was not for the want of unincumbered lands on which to satisfy them. A great portion of the land thus remaining unlocated was among the richest and most desira- ble in Kentucky, from the sale of which the Government of that State after- ward derived a large and continued revenue. In confirmation of the view here taken of the subject, the committee sub- mit a letter from the Hon. J. R. Underwood, member of the House of Rep- resentatives from Kentucky, who resides on the military bounty land terri- tory set apart by Virginia, and who, from his former professional employ- ments, and the judicial stations he has occupied, has become familiar with the history of that territory. The letter, which is in reply to one addressed him by a member of the committee, is as follows : Representative Chamber, January 30, 1840. n Sir : In reply to your letter of this date, I state that, after the termina- tion of the revolutionary war, there was a delegation of officers selected from the Virginia State and continental lines of the army, and sent to Kentucky for the purpose of superintending the location and survey of the lands. These superintending officers, as they were called, did not, accord- ing to my present recollection, appoint their surveyors and commence opera- tions until 1784. From that time until May, 1792, there was no obstruc- tion, from Indian title or otherwise, to prevent the location and survey of military land warrants in that part of the territory assigned to the State line east of the highlands that divide the waters of the Tennessee and Cumber- land rivers. There was a large quantity of land lying east of said hig-hlands, which became the property of Kentucky, under the compact with Virginia, in con- sequeilce of such lands remaining unlocated after the 1st of May, 1793. The precise quantity I have no means of ascertaining, but suppose it was not less than two millions of acres. I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, J. R. UNDERWOOD. Hon. HiLAND Hall. Having shown, contrary to the statement of the beforementioned report, that the opportunity for satisfying State line warrants on the reservation in Kentucky was full and complete from 1784 to 1792, it seems unnecessary to pursue the subject lurther. It may, however, be observed, in reference to that part of the military bounty-land district in Kentucky which lies west of the beforementioned highlands, that, according to a report of Mr. Jeffer- son, while Secretary of State, made in February, 1793, (see State Papers, 1 Public Lands, p. 81,) the same was added to the military bounty land dis- trict by Virginia, in anticipation of a future purchase of the Indian tide by the State ; and that, such purchase not having been made, the treaty of Hopewell was but the acknowledgment of an existing Indian boundary. Rep. No. 436. 81 which imposed no oblio^atioii on the United States towards those who mio-ht desire to make locations witiiin that part of such district. The question arose on the application to Congress of an individual wlio had, be- fore the deed of cession, located a State line warrant west of said highlands, but had been prevented from taking possession of the same, as he alleged, by the provisions of the treaty of Hopewell. The claim was rejected, for the reason before stated ; the holder of the warrant being deemed to have located it with the knowledge that the land was subject to the Indian title, and that it could not be made available until that title should become ex- tinguished. But it is obvious that any questions of this sort are of no im- poi-tance to the present inquiry. Had there been a deficiency of lands east of the highlands to satisfy the'State line warrants, then a question as to the obligation of the United Stales in reference to the Indian title west of the hiohlands might have arisen. As there was no such deficiency, but, on the contrary, a surplus of several millions of acres, a large portion of which was among the mo^t valuable in the State, no such question can properly be made. The holders of warrants had full opportunity of obtaining satis- faction of them, notwithstanding the treaty of Hopewell, and have no ground of complaint against the United States. Having now considered the arguments which are urged in favor of the satisfaction by the United States of the Slate line bounty land claims of Virginia, and ascertained them to be unfounded, it only remains for the committee to inquire whether tiie United States are under obligation to satisfy the bounties of the coiUiupntal line, by other appropriations than the Ohio reservation I This inquiry will be disposed of in a lew words. This committee are not aware of any such obligation. It certainly can- not be derived from the deed of cession. That deed reserved to Virginia, for the satisfaction of her continental hne bounties, the territory between the Scioto and Little Miami. It reserved nothing further ; and the committee are at a loss to conceive on what authority or principle it can be pretended that such additional ohligation has been imposed. By the report of the Commissioner of the General liand Oflice, (appendix No. 2,) it appears that there has been taken up, under continental warrants located on the Virgin- ia reservation in Ohio, 3,495,747 acres; and that, besides this, there has been satisfied by the United States, in scrip, in both lines, the additional quantity or 1,4.5S,022 acres ; making, in the whole, 4.953,709 acres, which the United States have satisfied of these warrants. By the same report, it is ascertained that the quantity of land contained in the Ohio reservation is 3,704,484 acres, which, deducted from the whole quantity of warrants satisfied by tlie United States, leaves 1,249,235 acres, equivalent to a pay- ment in money of . $1,501, ()f)G. which, it would seem, the troops of Virginia have already received, over and above the lull extent of the obligation which was imposed by the deed of cession. If the committee are right in the views they have takMi. (and they know not how these views can be contro- verted,) any further appropriation by Congress, either of land or money, to satisfy Virginia bounties of either line, would be a gratuity, which, in jus- tice to other States of tlie Union, ought not to be made. The committee do not conceive it possible that their object in the investi- gation they have in.ide can be misunderstood. Nevertheless, they will take occasion to say, that nothing could be farther from their design than to dis- parage the services of any portion of the troops composing the revolutiona-= ry army. The services and sacrifices of the troops of Virginia, in common 6 Q2 Rep. No. 436. with those of other States, were eminently valuable and patriotic, and none - would be more ready than the committee gratefully to acknowledge and^ liberally to reward them. But they have conceived it proper to establish certain rules by which the validity of claims for such services may be test- ed and their object has been to ascertain what rules would be most likely to 'do justice both to the claimants and the Government. Whether they have arrived at just conclusions, is for the House to determine. In conclusion, then, considering that no confidence can be placed in the validity of the claims on which'^the Virginia bounty-land warrants novr outstandintT have been aranted. and that, whether they be well or ill found- ed there is*no obligation on this Government to satisfy them ; and consider- in^ that the rules of evidence on which modern allowances of commutation pay have been made are found by experience to furnish no test of the integ- rity of the claims ; the committee submit for the consideration of the House the following resolutions, and recommend their adoption : Resolved, That no further appropriation ought to be made for the satis- faction of Virginia military bounty-land warrants. Resolved, That no claim for the commutation of five years' full pay, in lieu of half pay for lite, ought hereafter to be allowed, unless the name of the officer for whose services the pay is claimed shall be found returned, showincr him entitled thereto, on the officer's book in the Bounty 1-and Office; or unless such officer's title to the pay shall be shown by other equivalent documentary evidence. Kep. No. 436. APPENDIX. No. 1. FORM OF VIRGINIA LAND WARRANT. Land Office military warrant No. 8,658. To the principal surveyor of the land set apart for the officers and soldiers of the Commonwealth of Virginia : This shall be your warrant to survey and lay off, in one or more surveys, for George W. Grayson, one of the heirs of Heaberd Smallwood, his heirs or assigns, the quantity of sixty-two acres of land, due unto the said George W. Grayson, in consideration of said Heaberd Small wood's services lor sTx years and eight months as a captain in the continental line, agreeably to a certificate from the Governor and Council which is received into the land office. Given under my hand and the seal of the said office, this twenty-first [ L. s. ] day of Decembei', in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight. 5£_^£!!!: W. SELDEN, Register Land Office. In pursuance of an advice of Council, I certify that this warrant has issued in conformity with laws of Virginia in force prior to the cession by that State of her western lands to Congress ; and I furthermore certify, that no other warrant has issued from the land office of Virginia, on account of the services of the witliin-mentioned Heaberd Smallwood, except Nos. 8,653, 8,654, 8,655, 8,656, 8,657, 8,659, 8,660, 8,661, and 8,662, issued this day, and that no grant has issued on this warrant. ^ Given under my hand and the seal of the said office, this 21st day of [ L. s. ] December, 1838. W. SELDEN, Register Land Office. 84 Rep. No. 436. 6 "^ >* ^ w a >s . '^ CM S Si -- S -S CO <; -o ^ .2 "^ "^ 2 ^ CO ?>.<; .^ ^ 5^ =^ -So •^ '--.oj CO 's =^ a, ?5^ O cij ijj V) C3 CO cr, ^ •S CO ■S2 S ^ CO O -^ — I o cr. o rH 00 O O Ci •q^ "^ C/D O 'X t— I en to t>. lO > ro a oo © 1— 1 1-1 ^ ^ !-i <-i F— t o rt -;i rO o ^ r^ f—^ CJ ■^ CI, (1) o 'X2 r/7 CS c (-1 C/J o ci r! • t^ C .2 r-i tJO bO « Lh t^ r^;*4 c CQ ^ O Q h (— t w !-► K- rr> W CO g 1— 1 -a^ ,G t-j h: CO 00 OJ 1^ o P* Rep. No. 436. 85 No. 3. General Land Office, Fehnmry 7, 1840. Sir: Agreeably to your request in person this morning, I have the honor, herewith, To enflose a copy of my letter of the 30th ultimo, to the honorable C. C.Clay, of the Senate. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, JAMES WHITCOMB, Commissioner. Hon. HiLAND Hall, House of Reps. General Land Office, January 30, 1840. Sir: In answer to your letter of dale the 17th instant, as to the numbei- of outstanding military land warrants issued by the State of Virginia to the officers and soldiers of the Revolution, or their legal representatives, and the number of acres which would be required to satisfy such claims, &.C., I have the honor to inform you, that, since the 1st of September, 1835, to the 25th of January, 1840 (instant,) the qnaniity of land in warrants issued by the State of Virginia to the officers and soldiers of the Revolution, amounts to 416,285 acres^ It appears from a letter which I received yes- terday from the rcirister of the land office at Richmond, that the unsatisfied claims allowed, and on file in his office, amount to 138.819 acres ; many of which claims allowed will, he states, never be satisfied, '• bacause they have been on file for several years past. Some of them were allowed by the Executive twenty years ago ; and as most of them are the claims of privates^ 1 doubt whether the necessary documents will ever be filed in this oifice; without which, the warrants will never issue."' The register also states in his letter, that "as to the number of acres in warrants which may be presented hereafter, it is impossible for me to give you any satisfactory information. I am, however, clearly of the opinion, that there are not many outstanding claims."' The number of warrants now on file in this office, in anticipation of a further appropriation, embraces a quantity of 165,074 acres. In making the apportionment of the quantity of acres appropriated by the act of 3d of March, 1835, among the warrants filed on the 1st of Sep- tember, 1835, in obedience to the injunction of that act, it was ascertained that the appropriation was only adequate to satisfy ninety per cent, (ex- chiding minute fractions) of the amount of claims filed, thereby requiring that ten per cent, should be deducted from the nominal amount of each claim. The excess of warrants so filed (being the aggregate of the ten per cent, deficit of the appropriation) is set down at 74,000 acres. From the foregoing exhibit you will be pleased to perceive the following result, viz : Amount, in acres, of warrants which have been issued from 1st of September, 1835, to 25th of January, 1840 - 416,285 acres. Amount of claims allowed, and on file in the office at Rich- mond, and for which no warrants have as yet been issued 138,819 " To which add the aforesaid deficit of the last appropriation 74,000 " Constitute an aggregate of - - 629,104 acres, exclusive of claims which remain to be presented to the Executive of Vir- ginia, and of which, in the opinion of the register, " there are not many." 1 have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, JAMES WHITCOMB, Commissioner. Hon, C. C. Clay, United States Senate. S6 Rep. No. 436. No. 4.— A. A statemeM showing the amount^ in acres, of Virginia milimry land war- rants issued prior to the 1st day of May, 1792, in consideration of ser- vices performed in the revolutionary war. Line uncertain. State line and navy. Continental line. TEAR. On acts and resolutions of Assembly. On certifi- cates. Line. Navy. On acts and resolutions of Assembly. On eenificates. -^ 1782 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1790 1 2 i 26,400 75,500 S,666f 2,666| 47,666| 11,000 3,266-1 4,000 2,666| 110,133i 438,468 210,254^ 10,467 6,766| 2,600 9,166| 7,966| 5,777i 10,933> 100 147,73H 70,032^ 5,933^ 24,333^ 16,300 32,066| 2,866| 10,666| 12,000 6,000 10,666| 23,000 6,000 126,689i 1,615,5851 737,4451: 80,0441: 53,233^ 26,065| 18,366| 6,333|. 17,599f 10,500 700 107,253^ 68,600 812,653^ 327,930i 39,666| 2,692,563^7 Total 175,853^ acres. 1,140,583| acres. 2,732,230Vj acres. WM. G. PENDLETON, Reg. Land Office. Land Office, Feb. 2, 1822. I \ Rep. No. 436. No. 4.— B. 87 ^4 statement showing the amount^ in acres^ of Virginia military land vmr- rants issued from the \st day of May, 1792, to the 1st of February, 1822, inclusive, in consideration of services performed in the revolutionary war. Line uncertain. State line and navy. Continental line. TEAR. On acts and On certifi- Line. Navy. On acts and On certificates. resolutions of cates. resolutions of Assembly. Assembly. 1792 6,500 25,244i 3 . - 5,333^ 200 - 11,766| 4 - - 6,666| 2,766| . 13,373| 5 . - 3,266| 300 . 32,755^ 6 - - 1,300 2,766| - 46,388^ T - - - - - 41,652 8 2,666f - 676 - . 36,370f 9 - - - . 38,645 1800 f . 700 200 _ 29,188§ 1 -. - - - - 24,166^ 2 - - - - - 3,833^ 3 4,000 - 300 - . 17,344^ 4 4,000 - - - . 11,066| 5 ; . - 4,000 . . 14,555 6 . . . - - 35,920 7 . . . . . 140,9891 8 . . . . . 139,037^ 9 . - . . - 91, 105 J, 10 - - - - - 119,456^ 11 - - 1,333^ - - 55,953^ 12 . •. 400 - - 33,043| 13 . . 100 . « .39,088 14 - - . - - 7,888 15 . - - - - 5,780 16 . . . - - 773| 17 . - . . - 15,816| 18 . - . . - 17,420| 19 . - 200 - - 27,766| 20 - . 100 - - 39,117t 21 - - 300 - . 20,123 22 * - - - - 1,203^ 10,666§ - 31,176 6,233i - l,136,834f Total 10,666| acres. 37,40^ )^ acres. 1,136,834| acres. WM. G. PEISDLETON, Reg. Land Office. Land Office, February 2, 1822. 88 Rep. No. 436. No. 4.— C. Virginia Land Office, Richmond.) February 10, 1840. Sir : I herewith transmit to you the statement which yon desired me to make for "the Committee on Revolutionary Claims of the House of Repre- sentatives." A statement shoioing the amount, in acres, of Virginia militari/ land war- rants issued from tlie \st of February, 1822, to the 9th of February, 1840, inclusive. Year. State line. State navy. Continental line. On certificates. Acres, Acres. Acres. 1822 - - . 100 _ 36,1771 1823 - 100 .^ 34,289 1824 - 200 60,980 182.5 - 200 1826 - Too 7,133' 1827 - 3,S66| 1828 - 1,840 1829 - 1,589| 1830 - 30,844 56,279| 25,5771 1831 - 26,589 i 111,2774 38,7.521 1832 .. 46,7134 100,141-; 92,4831 1833 - 43,644;- 31.157f 84,016> 1834 - - - 101,601?, 99,1 65| 225,228 1 1835 - 23,879 97,730 40,599| 1836 - 1,900 2,966^ 4,231 1837 - 5,700 5,333 31,8091 1838 - 11,029', 96,7221 114,289 i 1839 - 5,495' 21,2121 41,053 1840, to 10th February - - 400 - 297;8952 621, 984 1 844,515 Officers for whose services warrants have issued from 1782, inclusive, to the 9th of February, 1840, to wit : Of the continental line -...-. 1,030 Of the State line ...... 234 Of the State and continental navy .... 268 The aggregate 1,532 The number of persons other than officers, for whose services military warrants have issued within the period above mentioned, is 4,959. Rep. No. 436. 89 The Executive allowances for military services, now on file, for which no warrants have issued, amount to about 122.994 acres : of which quan- titv 82,627| acres are allowed for services in continental hne ; 18,733^ acres for services in State line ; 21,633 acres ior services in State navy. 122,994 acres. Many of these allowances were made from fifteen to twenty years ago ; and I think it highly probable that warrants will never be issued to satisfy them. Most of these claims are for services rendered by privates and sea- men ; and, as the claims are small, (in no instance exceeding 200 acres.) the parties interested will not incur the expense and trouble to obtain the war- rants. For, in order to obtain one or more warrants, in any one case, the heir or heirs must obtain a duly authenticated order of some court of record, cer- tifying that the officer or soldier died before or after the 1st of January. 1787, and that he died testate or intestate ; if testate, there must be exhibited a certified copy of the will. And if any adult heir is dead, then His heir must exhibit an order of court certifying that he died testate or intestate ; and if he died testate, a copy of his will must be produced here. The order of court must certify who are the heirs, and that they are the only heirs. The heirs must also make affidavit that they are the idevtical persons named in said order, and that they verily believe they are the 07rli/ heirs. And their affidavit must be sustained by that of some other person (who must be cer- tified by a justice of the peace as a man entitled to full credit) that he be- lieves, from his own knowledge, or from common reputation, that they are the heirs of the deceased officer or soldier. I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, S. H. PARKER, Register of Virginia Land Office. Hon. HiLAND Hall. 90 Rep. No. 436. No. 5. Stateynent showing the number and grade of the commissioned officers of the Virgiriia continental line, who served to the close of the revolutionary war, or became supernumerary under the several arrangements of the army, which took place subsequent to the passage of the resolutions of Congress of the Sd and 21st October, 1780, all of whom were entitled to commutation pay and bounty lands at the close of the war. t c o o jA '3 a (U O jA c o "o O J "o O c a 0) CO O a a s ee c 3 3 a '5 Di- es O i2 c a a 3 lA a bp 'm C W 1 <; Number of general officers - Number of officers of infantry whose regiments are not de- signated Officers of 1st regiment in- fantry ... Officers of 2d regiment in- fantry . . - Officers of 3d regiment in- fantry ... Officers of 4th regiment in- fantry ... Officers of 5th regiment in- fantry ... Officers of 6th regiment ia- fantry ... Officers of 7lh regiment in- fantry ... Officers of 8th regiment in- fantry ... Officers of Ist regiment dra- goons Officers of 3d regiment dra- goons - - Officers of 4th regiment dra- goons ... Officers of 1st regiment artil- lery- Officers of Col. Posey's regi- ment infantry Officers of Lieut. Col. Lee's legion . - - 1 1 4 4 9 1 1 1 1 1 14 10 1 _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 13 1 3 1 1 1 1 21 64 1 4 3 2 1 3 6 7 2 10 1 2 106 2 1 2 3 ~ 9 17 62 1 4 1 6 5 5 13 12 1 10 4 3 127 10 2 3 2 2 19 5 180 4 7 14 4 8 « 1 29 25 4 33 9 11 349 Rep. No. 436. 91 Statement of the number and grade of the commissioned officers of the Virginia continental line, who became svpernumerary wider the several arrai^gements of the army mtde prior to the month of October, 1780, and, as such, were entitled, at the end of the war, to bounties in land alone. Officers of infantry whose regiments are not desig- nated . - - - - Officers of 3d regiment of infantry - Officers of 4t?i regiment of infantry - Officers of 2d regiment of infantry - Officers of 5th regiment of infantry - Officers of 6th regiment of infantry - Officers of 8th and 1 1th regiments of infantry 17 13 10 5 3 2 5 5 2 32 Statement of the number and grade of the officers of the Virginia con- tinental line returned as having been " Jcilled in action,'' the heirs of whom are entitled to bounty lands. w a v O a O 3 '5" Vj O Capt. Lieutenants. rry6«i/e that some few others may have been paid in certificates many years since, under special acts, and their names not re- corded. With these exceptions, however, 1 believe these lists contain the names of all the officers with whom settlements v/ere made. Very respectfullv, your obedient servant, JAS. E, HEATH Hon. H. Hall. Rep. No. 436. No. 8. s. List of the conimulation acts jiassed since the Ath of June, 1794. &7 Date of acts. 1794, June 4 1808, April 22 1816, April 29 1828, May 23 24 26 1833, March 2 1830, May 26 28 1833, March 2 1830, Mar. 29 1832, July 14 1830, May 29 1833, March 2 1830, May 28 1832, May 25 25 25 25 25 Mar. 25 June 15 15 July 14 14 1833, Feb. 9 March 2 2 2 2 2 1834, June 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Lewis Dubois, colonel 5ih regiment New York Philip Turner, surgeon ------ Rvpreseniaiives of" Alexander Hamilton, lieutenant colonel, including interest - - - _ - Alexander Garden, lieutenant - - - - - Caleb Stark, lieutenant . . - - - Philip Slaughter, captain Virginia line - ^2,400 00 Do. interest - - - 6,557 20 1,600 00 3,230 SO 3,600 00 7, -^54 58 1,600 00 3,230 30 Mountjoy Bayly, captain Maryland line James Harnett, lieutenant Virginia line Do. interest - - - - Representatives of Robert H. Harrison, lieu- tenant colonel Maryland . - - Representatives of Robert H. Harrison, interest Representatives of William Price, lieutenant 1st Virginia regiment . - . Represeniatives ol William Price, interest Thomas Blackwell, captain Virginia line Representatives of Wm. Vawters, lieutenant, including interest, Virginia line - - - - - - - John Roberts, major Virginia line, including interest, Virginia Representatives of Reginald Hillary, lieutenant, Maryland, including interest, 1st regunent Maryland troops Representatives of George Baylor, colonel of cavalry, including intere&i, Virginia - . - . . - Representatives of Wm. Carter, surgeon, including interest, Virginia - - - - - - - Edmund Brooke, lieutenant, including interest, Virginia - Represeniatives of Samuel J. Axson, surgeon, including inter- est, South Carolina - - " - John Knight, surgeon's male, including interest J. J. Jacobs, lieutenant, including interest, Maryland line Representatives of Thomas Davenport, captain, including in- terest, Georgia line ------ Representatives of John Thornton, colonel, including interest, Virginia ------- Representatives of John P. Wagnor, lieutenant, including in- terest, Georgia ...... Thomas Triplett, captain, including interest, Virginia line - John Thomas, captain Virginia line, including interest, Vir- ginia -------- Peter Foster, lieutenant Virginia line, including interest, Vir- ginia -------- James Gibbon, captain, including interest, Pennsylvania Representatives of Isaac Ledyard, surgeon, including interest Ephraim VVhittal;er, captain - . - - - Thomas Minor, captain, Virginia- . - . . Representatives of James Craine, captain Virginia line Representatives of John Taylor, lieutenant Virginia line Represeniatives of Joseph Torrey, major Hazen's regiment - Representatives of Everard Meade, captain Virginia line Representatives of Wm. Royall, captain Virginia line Robert Wilmott, lieutenant Maryland line Representatives of Wm. Teas, cornet Virginia line - Amount al- lowed. $7,520 00 2,400 00 10,009 64 1,600 00 1,600 00 8,957 20 2,400 00 4,830 30 10,854 58 4,830 30 2,400 00 4,821 45 9,040 23 4,821 45 16,950 44* 10,848 29 6,026 82 10,850 86 7,233 90 4,824 27 7,236 38 13,594 82 4,830 30 7,245 45 7,245 45 4,830 31 7,245 45 14,184 66 2,400 00 2,400 00 2,400 00 1,600 00 3,000 OO 2,400 00 2,400 00 2,000 OO 1,600 00 98 Rep. No. 436. No. 8 — Continued. Date of acts. Amount al- lowed. 1834, June 30 30 30 30 30 1836, June 23 July 28 2 2 1838, May 25 June 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 July Representatives of George Hurlbut, captain Sheldon's regiment Connecticut line ...... Representatives of Enos Granniss, captain Colonel Baldwin's regiment of artificers ------ Representatives of BuUer Claiborne, captain Virginia line John Emerson, lieutenant Virginia - - - - Representatives of Thomas Wallace, lieutenant Virginia line Representatives of Absolom Baird, surgeon regiment of ar- tificers ....... Representatives of Robert Jouett, lieutenant Virginia line Representatives of David Hopkins, captain South Carolina line Representatives of Thornton Taylor, ensign Virginia line Representatives of James Witherell, ensign Massachusetts line John Spitfathom, lieutenant Virginia line - . . Representatives of Wm. Cogswell, surgeon - . - Representatives of Wm. Rusworm,lieutenant North Carolina line -------- Moses Van Campen, lieutenant Pennsylvania line Samuel Warren, captain South Carolina 5th regiment Representatives of Henry Morfit, lieutenant Pennsylvania line Representatives of Daniel Duval, captain Virginia line Representatives of Patrick McGibony, lieutenant North Car- olina -------- Representatives of Wm. Johonnott, surgeon Representatives of Charles Snead, captain of infantry, Vir- ginia line --.---. Representatives of John B. Ashe, lieutenant colonel 1st North Carolina regiment -..-... Joseph Prescott, surgeon . . . - . Representatives of Timothy Feely, lieutenant Virginia line - Representatives of Daniel Williams, captain North Carolina 6th regiment continental line - - - . Representatives of William H. Smith, acting surgeon - Total ^3,000 00 2,000 00 2,400 00 1,600 00 1,600 00 2,400 00 1,600 00 2,400 00 1,200 00 1,200 00 1,200 00 2,400 00 1,066 67 1,600 00 2,400 00 1,600 00 3,000 00 1,600 00 7,200 00 2,400 00 3,600 00 3,600 00 1,600 00 2,400 00 2,400 00 277,495 22 Treasury Department, Registers Office, February 2, 1839. T. L. SMITH, Register. No. 9. [From reports of the Secretary of War, State Department, Lib. 3, No. 149.] Acceptance of the commutation by the Virginia line. At a meeting of the officers of the Virginia line who are arranged to be called into service as occasion may require, Fredericksburg, May 14, 1783 : A resolution of Congress of the 22d of March last, proposing a commu- tation of five years' full pay, in lieu of the half pay for life formerly prom- ised, being read ; after mature deliberation, the meeting unanimously agree to accept of the five years' pay, on the terras mentioned in the said resolu- tion. JOHN GREEN, Colonel 6th Virg. Reg., And agent appointed by the officers to transmit ^ their opinion to the, Commander-in-chief, Rep. No. 436. 99 Fredericksburg, May 15, 1783. At a meeting of the supernumerary and retiring officers of the Virginia line who are entitled to half pay for life, promised by Congress, as resolved by them the 22d day of March last, proposing a commutation of the half pay by the payment of five years' full pay in lieu thereof, being read ; after mature deliberation, the meeting unanimously agree to accept of the five years' full pay on the terms proposed by the said resolution. In con- firmation whereof, the said officers have signed ther names hereto. A. BUFORU, Colonel Wth Reg., And agent apjjoinied by the officers to transmit their opinion to Congress. No. 10.— A. War Department, February 8, 1839. Sir : I respectfully transmit the accompanying reports of the Third Au- ditor, the Commissioner of Pensions, and the officer in charge of the Bounty Land Office, in reply to your letter of the 31st ultimo, inquiring whether there are in this department lists of the officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates of the Virginia continental line of the army of the Revolution, who became entitled to commutation and bounty land; and whether there is a list, also, of the officers of the continental line who died, resigned, or other- wise lost their places in the army, &c. &c. Very respectfully, your most obedient servant, J. R. POINSETT. Hon. HiLAND Hall, Chairman of Select Committee on the subject of Virginia claims, H. R. • [Note. — For statement from Bounty Land Office, see appendix No. ,5.] No. 10.— B. Treasury Department, Third Auditor'' s Office, Febrtiary 5, 1839. Sir : In his letter of the 3 1st ultimo, to you, (and which has been referred to me for a report,) the Hon. Hiland Hall, as chairman of the select com- mittee, appointed in obedience to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 24th of January, 1839, on the subject of Virginia claims, asks for in- formation on the following points, to wit: 1. " Whether there is, in the VVar Department, a list of the names of the ofiicers of all the regiments of the continental army of the Revolution, who, as having served to the end of the war, or as having become supernumerary under the several arrangements of the army, were entitled to bounty land and commutation pay; and if so, at what period, for what purpose, and from what materials, is such list known or supposed to have been made ?" 2. " Whether there is, in the War Department, another ancient list (cor- responding with the former, so far as relates to the officers) of the ofiicers, non-comnxissioned officers, and privates of the Virginia continental line ; 100 Rep. No. 436. and if so, at what period, and for what purpose, is such list supposed to have been made?" 3. " Whether there is any list remaining of the officers of the several regiments of the continental line, who died, resigned, or otherwise lost their places in the army ; and if not, whether the muster and pay rolls of the army, or other authentic materials from which such list could be made, are now in existence?" 4. "A statement of the number of officers of each grade, in each branch of the service, and of the number of non commissioned officers and pri- vates, belonging to the Virginia continental line, who are returned' on the lists before mentioned as entitled to bounty land ; and, also, a statement of the number of officers of each grade, in each branch of the service, who appear from said lists to be entitled to commutation pay." Understanding the first of the foregoing inquiries to relate to a book on file in the Bounty Land Office, known as " the officer's book," I have the honor to state that said book is in the handwriting of Joseph Howell, Esq., who was assistant paymaster general and connnissioner of army accounts, until 1788, when he succeeded to the office of conmiissioner, upon the death of Mr. Pierce; and was subsequently appointed accountant of the War Department, in which latter capacity he continued until the year 1795. The Ust, or officer's book, in question, I have always understood and be- lieved was prepared after the close of the revolutionary war, and from facts ascertained from the muster rolls and other evidences of service, in the course of settling the officers' accounts for their arrearages of pay, &c., that remained due at the close of the war. It is presumed that the names of officers were added to said list or book, in making settlements under the laws suspending the act of limitation. Whether said list or book contains the name of every officer of all the regiments, or corps, of the continental army of the Revolution, who were then considered entitled to bounty land Ipnd commutation pay, 1 cannot say. The purpose for which said list or book was prepared, it is supposed, was to ascertain what officers were en- titled to bounty land ; and it may also have been designed as a check against double payments of commutation, A:c. It is understood that Mr. Gordon, of the Bounty Land Office, will answer Mr. Hall's second inquiry. Of the list referred to in that inquiry, I have no knowledge beyond the fact that I have been informed that such a list was furnished to the Secretary of War, in the year 1811, by the Executive of Virginia. In regard to Mr. Hall's third inquiry, I have to state that I have no knowledge of there beinsf in existence any list "of the officers of the sev- eral regiments of the continental line, who died, resigned, or otherwise lost their places in the army," except such as appear on the list referred to in the first inquiry. Although there are a number of old muster and pay rolls of the revolutionary army still on file in this office, yet they are so imper- fect, (their connexion being broken by many of them having been lost by the burning of the War Office, in the year 1800, and the public buildings, in the year 1814.) that I am satisfied that it would be wholly impracticable to make from them any thing like a perfect list "of the officers who died, re- signed, or otherwise lost their places in the army." The report of Mr. Gordon, it is presumed, will furnish all the informa- tion sought by Mr, Hall's fourth and last inquiry. All the officers who shall appear on the statement which Mr. Gordon will furnish, in reply to Rep, No. 436. 1 01 that inquiry, as having become supernumerary subsequent to the resolu- tions of Congress of October, 1780, (granting half pay for life,) or as having served to the end of the war, were entitled to commutation pay. Mr. Hall's letter is herewith returned. With great respect. PETER HAGNER, Auditor. Hon. J. R. Poinsett, Secretary of War. No. 10.- C. War Department, Pension Office^ February 4, 1839. Sir: In answer to the letter of the Hon. Hiland Hall, of the 31st ultimo, a copy ot which is enclosed, I have to inform you that there is not in this office "a list of the names of the officers of all the regiments of the conti- nental army of the Revolution, who, as having served to the end of the war, or as having become supernumerary under the several arrangements of the army, were entitled to bounty land and commutation pay." There are in this office lists of the officers, non commissioned officers, and privates, of the Virginia continental line ; but they do not purport to be lists of those who were entitled to commutation pay or bounty land. The lists are — 1. " A list of the officers' names who received certificates for one and two years' advanced pay, agreeably to the act of Assembly passed November session, 1781." 2. '• A list of officers of che Virginia, line on continental establishment, who have received certificates for the balance of their full pay, agreeably to an act of Assembly, passed November session, 1781." 3. "A list of soldiers of the Virginia line on continental establishment, who have received certificates for the balance of their full i)ay, agreeably to an act of Assembly passed November session, 1781." These lists were made between the years 1781 and 1790, so far as I call learn ; but for what purpose they were made does not appear. 4 " A list of officers made by the board of Virginia continental officers, under orders from Baron Steuben, in Febrnary, 1781." This list gives the names of some who were supernumerary; but it con- tains no information as to the names or number of those who served to the end of the war, but principally a list of those who were retained under the arrangement made in 1781. This list was made in 1781, as a part of the report of the board of officers, more for the use of those who were retained in the service, than for the purpose of showing who had left the army under resolutions of Conaress. 5. " A list of officers, made agreeably to the arrangement of December, 1782." This gives a list of the names of some who desired to retire with the emoluments of officers retiring under the acts of Congress of the 3d and 21st October, 1780, as well as a list of those who made their election to sup- ply the places of vacant ensignciivs, retaining their rank and pay, agreeably to the resolution of Congress of the llth July, 1782. There is a list of the 102 Rep. No. 436. redundant junior officers of each ^rade. The two last lists were made in 1782 ; for what purpose, I am unable to say. 6. " A list of non-commissioned officers and soldiers of the Virginia line on continental establishment, whose names appear on the Army Register, and who have not received bounty land." 7. " A list of officers of the Virginia continental and State lines, and State navy, whose names appear on the Army Register, and who have not received land for revolutionary services at all, or not in the characters in which they there appear." 8. " A list of officers of the army and navy, who have received lands from Virginia for revolutionary services, the quantity received, when received, the time of service for which each officer received land, &c., down to Sep- tember, 1833." The three last-mentioned lists, prepared since 1830, are printed, and were pubhshed by order, I understand, of the Virginia Legislature ; for what particular purpose I am unable to say. The second inquiry, " Whether there is another ancient list (correspond- ing with the former, so far as relates to the officers) of the officers, non-com- missioned officers, and privates, of the Virginia continental line ; and if so, at what period, and for what purpose, is such list supposed to have been made ?" is answered in the foregoing statement. To the third inquiry, '' Whether there is any list remaining of the officers of the several regiments of the continental line who died, resigned, or other- wise lost their places in the army ; and if not, whetlier the muster and pay rolls of the army, or other authentic materials from which such list could be made, are now in existence ?" I reply, that there is no complete list of such officers, nor can T say positively whether there are in existence the neces- sary materials for forming such a list. 'I'he Washington Papers, which were purchased some years since, and. deposited in the Department of State, contain much information on the subject ; and some information might also be obtained from the muster rolls in this office. But 1 cannot give it as my opinion that a perfect list could be made from such materials. Not possessing the necessary information, it is not in my power to fur- nish " a statement of the number of officers of each grade in each branch of the service, and of the number of noncommissioned officers and privates belonging to the Virginia continental line who are returned as entitled to bounty land ;" nor is it in my power to make " a statement of the number of officers of each grade in each branch of the service who appear to be en- titled to commutation pay." I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, .T. L. EDWARDS, Commissiontr of Pensions. Hon. J. R. Poinsett, Secretary of War. No. 11. Cumberland Old Court-house, September 2, 1782. The following is a list of the officers of the Virginia line, who have been killed, invalided, resigned, superseded, &c., since the Chesterfield arrange- ment, in February, 1781, and not included in a late arrangement at this place in May last. Rep. No. 436. 103 Killed. Lieutenant Colonel Campbell, Captain A. Wallace, Captain C. Oldham, Captain John Spotswood, Captain Joseph Scott, Captain Robert Bell, Captain Archibald Denholm, Captain James Craine, Captain James Culbertson, Captain Nathan Lamme, Captain Robert Vance, Captain George Berry, Lieutenant Thomas Burford, Lieutenant Elisha King, Lieutenant John Townes, Lieutenant Andrew Lewis, Lieutenant John McDowell, Lieutenant Robert Jouett, Lieutenant Henry Boyer, Ensign John Giles, Lieutenant Jonathan Wilson. Lieutenant Philip Huffman. Invalided. Ensign Captain Thomas Thweett, Captain Robert White. Resig?ied. Lieutenant William Baylis, Ensign William McGuire, Ensign John Spitfathom, Ensign Andrew Hayes, Ensign Spencer Morgan, • Ensign William Conner, Ensign Thomas Wallace, Ensign William Ball, Captain Robert Higgins, Lieutenant Charles Erskine, Lieutenant George Blackmere, Ensign Drew, Ensigrj Kellery, Ensign James Green, George Hite. Rcseeded [Supersededl] Captain Francis Minnis, Captain Thomas Ransdell, Captain Charles Snead, Captain Severn Teagle, Captain Willis Reddick, Lieutenant Philip Coatney Lieutenant Robert Livingston, Lieutenant Benjamin Ashby, Lieutenant Robert Foster, Lieutenant John Barns, Ensign John Carr, Ensign WiUiam Scott. Captain William R— [supposed to be Rogers,] in the year 1778. Captain Timothy Feely. [This corner of the original paper is lost, except what appears above, beginning with the words •' (Captain William R."] No. 12. Copy of the deed of cession from Virginia to the United States, executed March 1, 1784. To all who shall see these presents : We, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe, the underwritten delegates for the Commonwealth of Virginia, in the Con- gress of the United States of America, send greeting : 104 Hep. No. 436. Whereas the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, at their sessions beo-un on tlie twentieth day of October, one thousand seven hundred and eighty three, passed an act, entitled " An act to authorize the delegates of this State, in Congress, to convey to the United States in Con- gress assembled ail the right of this CommonweaUh to the territory north- westward of tlie river Ohio," in these words following, to wit : "Whereas the Congress of the United States did, by their act of the sixth day of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty, rec- ommend to the several States in the Union having claims to waste and unappropriated lands in the western country, a liberal cession to the United States of a portion of their respective claims, for the common benefit of the Union ; And whereas this Commonwealth did, on the second day of Janu- ary, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-one, yield to the Congress of the United States, for the benefit of the said States, all right, title, and claim which the said Commonwealth had to the territory north- west of the river Ohio, subject to the conditions annexed to the said act of cession: And whereas the United Slates in Congress assembled have, by their act of the thirteenth of September- last, stipulated the terms on which they agree to accept the cession of tiiis State, should tlie Legislature approve thereof; which terms, although they do not come fully up to the proposi- tions of this Commonwealth, are conceived, on the whole, to approacii so nearly to them as to induce this State to accept thereof, in full confidence that Congress will, in justice to this State for the liberal cession she hath made, earnestly press upon the other States claiming large tracts of waste and uncultivated territory the propriety of making cessions equally liberal, for the common benefit and support of the Union : " Be it enacted by the General Assembly/, That it shall and may be law- ful for the delegates of this Stale to the Congress of the United States, or such of them as shall be assembled in Congress, and the said delegates, or such of them so assembled, are hereby fidly authorized and empowered, for and on behalf of this State, by proper "deeds or instrument in writing, under their hands and seals, to convey,transfer, assign, and makeover unto the Uni- ted States in Congress assembled, for the benefit of the said States, all right, title, and claim, as well of soil as jurisdiction, which this Commonwealth hath to the territory or tract of country within the limits of the Virginia charter, situate, lying, and being to the northwest of the river Ohio, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the before-recited act of Congress of the thirteenth day of September last; that is to say, upon condition that the territory so ceded shall be laid out and formed into States, contrdning a suitable extent of territory, not less than one hundred, nor more than one hundred and fifty miles square, or as nciar thereto as circumstances will ad- mit; and that the States so formed shall be distinct republican States, and admitted members of the Federal Union, having the same rights of sover- eignty, freedom, and independence as the other States. That the necessary and reasonable expenses incurred by this State in subduing any British posts, or in maintaining forts or garrisons within and for the defence, or in acquiring any part of Ihe territory so ceded or relinquished, shall be fully reimbursed by the United States : and that one commissioner shall be ap- pointed by Congress, one by this Commonwealth, and another by those two commissioners, who, or a majority of them, shall be authorized and era- powered to adjust and liquidate the account of the necessary and reason- able expenses incurred by this State, which they shall judge to be com- Rep. No. 436. 105 prised within the intent and meaning of the act of Congress of the tenth of October, one (lionstind seven hundred and eio:hty, respecting- such expenses. That the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other settlers of the Kas- kaskies, St. Vincent's, and the neighboring villages, who have professed themselves citizens of Virginia, shall have their possessions and titles confirm- ed to them, and be protected in the enjoyment of their rights and liberties. That a quantity not exceeding one hundred and fifty thousand acres ot land, promised by this State, shaU be allowed and granted to the then Colonel (now General) George Rogers Clarke, and to the officers and soldiers ot his regiment who marched with him when the posts of Kaskaskies and St. Vin- cent's were reduced, and to the officers and soldiers that have been since incorporated into the said regiment ; to be laid off in one tract, the length of which not to exceed double the breadth, in such place on the iiorlhwest side of the Ohio as a majority of the officers shall choose ; and to be after- wards divided among the said ofiicers and soldiers, in due proportion, ac- cordmg to the laws of Virginia. That in case the quantity of good land on the southeast side of the Ohio, upon the waters of Cumberland river, and between the Green river and Tennessee river, which have been reserved by law for the Virginia troopis upon continental establishment, should, from the North Carolina line bearing in further upon the Cumberland lands than was expected, prove insufficient for their legal bounties, the deficiency should be made up to the said troops, in good lands, to be laid oflT between the rivers Scioto and Little Miami, on the northwest side ol the river Ohio, in such proportions as have been engaged to them by the laws of Virginia. That all the lands within the territory so ceded to the United States, and not reserved for, or appropriated to, any of the beforementioned purposes, or disposed of in bounties to the officers and soldiers of the American army, shall be considered as a common fund for the use and benefit of such of the United States as have become, or shall become, members of the confedera- tion or federal alliance of the said States, Virginia inclusive, according to their usual res|)ertive proportions in the general charge and expenditure, and shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever : Provided^ That the trust hereby re- posed in the delegates of this State shall not be executed, unless three of them, at least, are present; in Congress." And whereas the said General Assembly, by their resolution of June sixth, one ihonsand seven hundred and eighty-three, had constituted and appointed us, the said Thomas Jeffersori, Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe, delegates to represent the said Commonwealth in Congress for one year, from the first Monday in November then next following, which resolution remains in full force : Now, therefore, know ye, that we, the said Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe, by virtue of the power and authority committed to us by the act of the said General Assembly of Virginia, before recited, and in the ^name and for and on behalf of the said Commonwealth, do, by these presents, convey, transfer, assign, and make over unto the United States in Congress assem- bled, for the benefit of the said States, Virginia inclusive, all right, title, and claim, as well of soil as of jurisdiction, which the said Commonwealth hath to the territory or tract of country within the limits of the Virginia charter, situate, lying, and being to the northwest of the river Ohio, to and for the uses and purposes, and on the conditions, of the said recited act. / 106 Rep. No. 436. In testimony whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names and affix- ed our seals, in Congress, the first day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four, and of the independence of the United States the eighth. TH. JEFFERSON, [l. s. S. HARDY, [l. s. ARTHUR LRE, [l. s. JAMES MONROE, [l. s. Signed, sealed, and delivered in presence of Cha. Thompson, Hknry Remsen, jr., Ben. Bankson, jr. No. 13. House of Representatives, January 21, 1840. Sir : On Munsell's large map of Kentucky, published in 1S18, the boundary lines of the territory set apart by Virginia to satisfy her revolu- tionary military land warrants are laid down. The whole tract includes all the land in Kentucky lying south and west of Green river, and a line running from the source of the same, a southeast course, to the Cumberland mountains. The division lines which were made by the superintendents of surveys, between the continental and State lines of troops, are also marked on the map; the land assigned to the continental line being hounded by the riv- ers Ohio, Green, and Big Barren, and a line running parallel with the south line of the State, to the highlands between the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers, and along the said highlands to the Ohio. I wish you to ascertain and inform me the quantity of land which ap- pears from said map to have been assigned to the troops of the continental line ; the quantity assigned to the troops of the State line ; and, also, how much of the land assigned to the State line lies east, and how much west, of the said highlands that divide the Tennessee from the Cumberland river. 1 am, sir, verv respectfully, your obedient servant, HILAND HALL. David H. Burr, Esq., Dravghtsman House of Representatives. Washington, January 22, 1840. Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 21st instant, asking for an estimate of the quantity of land " set apart by Vir- ginia to satisfy her revolutionary military land warrants." According to Munsell's map of Kentucky, to which you refer, it appears that the territory assigned to the troops of the continentalline contains - - - 3,520,000 acres. That the territory assigned to the troops of the State line Rep. No. 43G. 107 east of the highlands that divide the Tennessee from (he (^nmberland nver contains - - 4,350,000 acres And west of the said highlands - 1,858.000 " Being for the State line troops - - 6,208,000 acree. Total for State and continental lines - 9,728,000 acres. I am, with much respect, your obedient servant, DAVID H. BURR, Draughtsman House of Representatives. Hon. HiLAND Hall, House of Representatives. No. 14. Copy of Colonel Taylor^s commission in the convention guards. The Commonwealth of Virginia to Francis Taylor, Esq., greeting : Know you, that, from the special trust and confidence which is reposed in your patriotism, tidelity, courage, and good conduct, you are, by these presents, constituted and appointed colonel of the regiment of volunteers for guarding the convtntion troops at Charlottesville. You are, therefore, carefully and diligently to discharge the duty of colonel of the saidregi- mmJ, by doing and performing all manner of things thereunto belonging; and you are to pay a ready obedience to all orders and instructions which, from time to time, you may receive from the Governor or executive power of this State for the time being, or any of your superior officers, agreeable to the rules and regulations of the convention or General Assembly. All officers and soldiers under your command are hereby strictly charged and required to be obedient to your orders, and to aid you in the execution of this commission, according to the intent and purpose thereof. Witness Patrick Henry, Esquire, Governor or Chief Magistrate of the Commonwealth, at Williamsburg, i\\'\^ fifth day oi March ^ in the third ye^LV of the Commonwealth. Anno Domini 1779. P. HENRY. [Notf:. — For the original commission, a printed blank for a commission in the militia is used ; the words written with a pen being printed in the above copy in italics. In the place of the foregoing words, " of the regi- ment of volunteers for guarding the convention troops at Charlottesville ^^^ the printed words ^^ of militia in the county of^'' are stricken out. So, also, in the place of the words ^^ said regiment,^'' above printed in italics^ the word '■'■militia^'' was printed and stricken out.] No. 15. It has been suggested that the great number of modern allowances of Virginia land claims by that State furnishes no ground of suspicion against 108 Rep. No. 436. the validity of the claims, because it is said that the modern allowances by the Government of the United States to the troops of the continental army, which are admitted to be good, are equally large. The suggestion is be- lieved not to rest either on fact or sound argument. By resolutions of the old Congress, the officers and soldiers of the conti- nental army engaging for and serving during the war, were pronnsed cer- tain land boiuities ; and claims for such bounties have been allowed from time to time, as tliey were presenled and established, up to the 1st of .fanu- ary last. The following letter from the Clerk of the Bounty Land Office will show the whole number of allowances by the United States, together with the number made since September, 1S2S, at which time a publication of the names of those entitled to the bounty was made by order of the Sea- ate of the United States: Department of War, Bounty Land OJice, April 7, 1840. Sir : In answer to the inquiries submitted in yours of tlie 4th instant, I have the honor to inform you, that it appears by the registers of issues of military bounty-land warrants, on file in this office, commencing in the year 1789, and continued until the 1st of January, 1840, that there have been granted, of such warrants, two thousand seven hundred and sixty-two, to commissioned officers ol the line, and of the hospital and medical staff of the revolutionary army; and that, within the periods above mentioned, there has been granted, of similar warrants, nine thousand six hundred and forty-eight, to the non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates of the same army. In answer to your inquiry as to " what number of such commissioned officers, whose names were returned as entitled to the bounty referred to above, have received their warrants for the same since September, 1828," 1 have to state, that, of those so returned, one hundred and fifty six have re- ceived the warrants to which they or then- heirs were entitled ; and to your request for " the same inlbrmation in regard to the rank and file of the ar- my," I have to state, that the number of warrants issued and delivered to the rank and file aforesaid, since the 30th September, 1828, is found to be six hundred and thirty-lour; and that, of this number, six hundred and fifteen are returned on the records as entitled. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, WM. GORDON. Hon. HiLANn Hall, House of Representatives. From the numbers stated in this letter, it will be found that the allow- ances of land bounties to qfjicers, by the United States, since September, 1828, have been 5^ per cent, on the whole number; and that the allow- ances to the rank and Jih, during the same period, have been (H per cent, on the whole number; being about six per cent, on the whole number of allowances to both officers and men since September, 1S2S. In regard to the Virginia bounties, it appears, from the text to which this note is appended (page 24), that the quantity of land covered, by all the allowances of that State, is 7,120,966 acres ; and that of this quantity, 1.617,820 acres have been allowed since May, 1830 ; showing an allowance Rep. No. 436. 109 of 22A per cent, on tlie whole quantity since May, 1S30. It also appears, by lists of Viroinia warrants fnrnislied by the register of the land office of that State, that tlie whole number of allowances to officers has been 1,532; and that of those, 398 have been allowed since May, 1830; showing allow- ances of 26 per cent, on the whole number of officers since May, 1830. It thus appears that the land allowances by Virginia, since May, 1830, have been four times as great, in proportion to the whole number, as the allow- ances by the United States during the still longer period from September, 1828, to the present time. But the modern allowances of Virgiin'a warrants, instead of being greater, ought to have been much less than those of the United States, fur the fol- lowing reasons : 1. The inducement to make early claims for the bounty was much stronger in the case of the Virginia bounties than in that of the United States, from the important circimistance that the former bounties were much the largest. The average amount of the Virginia bounties to officers is about 3,500 acres each ; while the average of tlie United States bounties to officers does not exceed 250 acres each, being about one fourteentli part of the Virginia bounty. The price of land could hardly liave been so low at any period as to induce an individual entitled to 3,500 acres to omit to claim it in consequence of its little value; whereas such omissions would not be unlikely where the quantity was no more than two or three hun- dred acres. The prcsumpiion, therefore, that the Virginia claims were satisfied at an early day, is much stronger than that the claims against the United States were thus satisfied. 2. This presumption of the early satisfaction of the Virginia claims is also increased and strengthened by the fact, that their warrants were more conveniently obtained than the United Stales warrants — the former being allowed within the Stale where tlie claimants resided ; while the latter were allowable only at the seat of the Genaial Government, the claimants being scattered throughout all the Slates. 3. This presumption is still further strengthened by the additional facts, that the Virginia warrants were early satisfied on lands lying in Kentucky, and on the banks of the Ohio, in the vicinity of Virginia, and to which the tide of emigration from Virginia was then rapidly setting; whereas the United States bounties could only be satisfied on lands in the interior of Ohio, with which a great majority of the continental troops had little means of becoming acquainted, and which lands remained unsettled to a much later period than did the Virginia bounty lands. 4. The allowances of United States bounties since September, 1828, ought not to be taken as applicable to Virginia allowances ; because, at that lime, a publication of the names of those who had been returned entitled, was made by order of ihe Senate; thus giving notice to all United States unsatisfied claimants to present their claims. But for this publication, the allowances since 1828 would have been Tauch less numerous. It would seem, therefore, that the presumption against the validity of the Virginia bounty land claims, wliicli have been lately allowed, arising from their recent presentation, instead of being overthrown by a reference to the United States bounty allowances, is, by such reference, strengthened and confirmed. no Rep. No. 436. REPORT OF THE MINORITY. Resolved^ That the Committee on Revolutionary Claims be instructed to inquire into the character and amount of proof which is required, by- existing laws and regulations, to establish claims on the United States for revolutionary services in the Virginia continental and State lines and navy ; and whether any, and what, further legislative provisions be ne- cessary in regard to the mode of adjusting and allowing claims for such services; and that the report of a select committee, on the same sub- ject, made at the last session, with the papers accompanying said report, be referred to said Committee on Revolutionary Claims. The Committee on Revolutionary Claims^ to whom the foregoing resolu- tion of the House urns referred^ have^ according to order, taken the same under consideration, aiid report : That, in regard to the first inquiry which the committee are instructed to make, namely, " into the character and amount of proof which is recjuir- ed, by existing laws and regulations, to establish claims on the United States for revolutionary services in the Virginia continental and State lines and navy," the committee are not aware that there is any law or regulation, as to the character and amount of proof, which applies to the adjustment and allowance, by the United States, of the claims in question, which does not, to the same extent, apply to the adjustment and allowance of the claims of citizens of all the States in the Union, who rendered mili- tary service in the army of the United States in the war of the Revolution. In the course of that war, positive engagements were made by Congress to allow to the officers and soldiers of the continental army land bounty and half pay, for stipulated service. And on the repeated recommendation of Congress as to the means to carry on the war with vigor, Virginia made similar engagements with the officers and men who served in her conti- nental and State lines and corps, and State navy. At the time these en- gagements were made by the United States and the State of Virginia, no law was passed, nor was any regulation made, prescribing the character and amount of proof which would be required to establish claims to the land and pay stipulated to be paid for prescribed service to be performed by the claimants ; nor has any law, known to the committee, been passed making such prescription. When the war ended, the Secretary of War was directed to allow land to all who were entitled, on the evidence of the army returns, and on such other sufficient evidence as the nature of the case would admit, (see journals of Congress 26th of April, 1785, directing on what evidence land warrants should issue ;) and the same rule was made applicable to the allowance of pay. It is by this rule, the committee be- lieve, that all the claims in question have been adjusted from the close of the war to the present time. As Congress is the only judicial tribunal known to the constitution to decide claims of individuals on the Govern- ment, in the discharge of that function it has been, as it surely should Rep. No. 436. Ill be always governed by the established rules of evidence in other judicial tribunals. The committee are aware that a change of this rule has been recently urged, by some who insist that the claims in question ought not to be allowed, except on record evidence of their validity. It must be obvious that such a requisition as this would do great injustice to many ; and it would be strange indeed, now, that nearly all these records are de- stroyed, to make the evidence to be found in the few relics of more avail than when they were in a full state of preservation. Such a rule of evi- dence might at first have made, as it would now, short work of all miU- tary claims on the Government. The destruction of all the army records, whether by design or accident, would have put an end to these claims. That the preservation of these records was important to the Government, is obvious ; and it is as obvious that their destruction has occasioned many valid claims to remain unsatisfied. In regard to the second inquiry to be made, the committee are not aware that any additional legislation is necessary for the adjustment of the claims in question, while Congress continues to act judicially on them. The committee can hardly entertain a doubt that Congress will, as here- tofore, provide suitably for all claims to bounty land and commutation pay, which shall be ascertained to be justly due and unsatisfied. In obedience to instructions, the committee have examined and con- sidered the report of the select committee made at the last session. That report, with considerable addenda, made by a member of this committee, who was chairman of the select committee, is elaborate and unusually voluminous for such a production — too much so, to admit of a satisfactory review of it by one who, in addition to other public duties, is a member of two of the most laborious committees of the House. All that can be done, is to attempt to correct the erroneous conclusions in the report, de- duced, as it is respectfully believed, fi*om unfounded assumptions of fact and numerical estimates. And in attempting this, more cannot be done, in the time allotted, than to notice some of the prominent objections con- tained in the report to the validity of the existing claims to Virginia military land bounty. It is assumed in the report of the select committee, that all the existing claims to Virginia land bounty are spurious, otherwise they would have been applied for in a reasonable time after the war was over. Thus, making the omission to apply for a claim, no matter how justly due, con- clusive evidence against its validity; not taking into consideration all, if any, of the many good and sufficient causes of delay, such as the death of the clziimant ; his ignorance of his claim, or the manner of obtaining it ; remoteness fi^om the land ofiice, and the little value of the warrant ; but, most of all, the suspension of locations by authority of an act of the Vir- ginia Assembly, which was followed by the treaty of Hopewell, which so narrowed down the district set apart for these locations, as that all the good land in the Virginia reserve, not embraced in the treaty of Hopewell for the use and occupancy of the Indians, was exhausted by the year 1788. (See the report of the commissioners appointed to locate these warrants.) Much labor seems to have been bestowed on that part of the report of the select committee which assumes that, notwithstanding this curtailment of the Virginia military reserve, a sufficient quantity of land remained to satisfy the bounties due to the Virginia State line and navy ; and this is assumed on the ground that the treaty of Hopewell included but a small portion of the land assigned to the State line and navy. In making 112 Rep. No. 436. this assumption, the report omits to notice some things which deserved consideration. It is nowhere mentioned in the report that Virginia en- gaged to grant to her officers and men §-oof/ land j and while the report sets forth with critical accuracy the boundaries embracing millions of acres to satisfy these claims, it omits to estimate how many millions of acres in that large area are wholly worthless. It omits even to intimate that this well-described district embraces vast regions of mountains, extensive barrens, and morasses ; and that, owing to these causes, and after the treaty of Hopewell, continental warrants were located in this region, by means of which all the good land was exhausted by the year 1788. As evidence further of this, when this surplus fell to Kentucky in the year 181 8, it sold with difficulty at 25 cents an acre, and vast regions of it re- main unsaleable now. It therefore may be affirmed, to say no more, that from the year 1788 there was no good land remaining to satisfy these warrants. But if delay to make application for Virginia land warrants can be seriously urged as evidence of the invalidity of a claim to them, why is not the same objection made to the allowance of United States land bounty? No impediment has stood in the way of these claims since the war ended ; they have been paid on demand ; yet on the 1st of January, 1830, there were 3,146 officers and men, who by the army returns are entitled to United States land bounty, who had not then clauned it. Of these, 894 have since been allowed warrants ; leaving still 2,252 unclaimed and unsatisfied, though their claims are valid, on authority not to be ques- tioned, except on the plea of delay. Such a plea would derogate from the character oF the Government, especially in a transaction with men to whom the Government owes its existence. The report of the select committee charges that land bounty has been allowed by the authorities of Virginia with great improvidence, and a cul- pable disregard of the interest of the United States ; and, to sustain these charges, certain documents are relied on, professing to be arrangements of the officers of the Virginia line on continental establishment. These arrangements were made in the years 1781 and 1782, as their dates will show ; and by boards of officers hastily convened in time of war, under circumstances necessarily involving them in mistakes, to a considerable extent. The officers were nequired to appear before these boards, in order to ascertain who were ini service and who were supernumerary ; and those who did not appear were to be returned as superseded and out of service. To many of the offijjers, such a requisition was impracticable : some of them were in service in distant parts of the Union ; and that large class of supernumerary officers who had returned to their homes, were scattered in all parts of tpe State, and many of them had gone into other States. Under these ciipumstances, it must be obvious that many mistakes were made in the returns entered on these arrangements. In the absence of the non-attenjiing officers, some were returned, on the best information the board could obtain, resigned, or superseded,, who, in fact, were either in actual service or supernumerary. But what illus- trates the imperfection of thpse proceedings, is the case of Alexander Dick. (See appendix No. l.)i Now, if the board of officers were ignorant of the true character of their own members, as they manifestly were in the case of Major Dick, it may be well questioned whether they could be well informed in regard to many who were necessarily absent. Such is the history of those ar- Rep. No. 436. 113 rangements ; so that, whatever authority age may have imparted to these remnants of the army records, at their birth they were loudly complained of, and universally considered grossly erroneous. To free the Executive Council of Virginia from the apparent inconsistency, alleged in the report, of allowing claims not sanctioned by these arrangements, it is proper to state that they were lost very shortly after the war, and it was about forty- four years before they were accidentally discovered. In the mean time, the claims, referred to in the report, have been decided by the Executive of Virginia on such evidence as appeared satisfactory, without reference to these lost documents, which, if present, could only be considered as prima facie evidence. Assuming, as the report does, on the foregoing premises, that large allowances of land have been erroneously granted, the conclusion is, that no further provision ought to be made for such as are now due. Admitting that unfounded claims have been allowed, (as, in the nature of the case, is almost unavoidable,) the committee cannot see in this just cause for the disallowance of a bona fide claim. It may be assumed, as a general position, that a Government will always do what it ought to do, and that it ought to abide by the same established rules of justice which regulate the affairs of individuals. Much is said, and many considerations are urged, in the report, to show that, even though there be valid claims to military land bounty against Virginia, the United States are in no manner bound to provide for them. To carry out this proposition, would involve a violation of positive engage- ment and good faith wholly unknown, and never sanctioned by our Gov- ernment. Pending the war of the Revolution, the State of^irginia en- gaged, on the urgent recommendation of Congress, to allow the land bounty in question to her officers and soldiers. For a compliance with this engagement, the State pledged her entire western domain, thus cre- ating an equitable lien on that immense region, covered now by four States and two extensive Territories. At the close of the war, Virginia again, on the urgent appeal of Congress, surrendered to the United States her entire domain, a great portion of which had been conquered by her own unaided means, north and west of the river Ohio ; out of which the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, and the Territories of Wiskonsin and Iowa, have been formed. At the time of makmg this cession, Virginia reserved, by probable estimate, as much land on the southeast side of the river Ohio as was deemed sufficient to satisfy the land to be allowed to her oficers and soldiers on her con- tinental and State establishment, and of her navy. And, in the ful- ness of caution, a reservation was made in her deed of cession to the United States, providing, that in the event of a deficiency of good land on the southeast side of the river Ohio tc satisfy the bounty due to the officers and soldiers on her continental establishment, the deficiency was to be made up by Congress in lands between the Scioto and Miami rivers. Such is the deed from Virginia to the United States ; but there is evidence to establish in a court of equity, that the proviso in the deed was de- signed to extend to the Virginia State line and navy, as well as to the continental line ; such it can be proven was the tenor of the original terms proposed by Virginia. And what corroborates this is the notorious fact, that during the whole war Virginia most scrupulously avoided any discrimination as to pay, land bounty, &c. &c. between her continental and State troops. It can therefore hardly be imagined, in looking to an 8 114 Rep. No. 436. ultimate provision, she would designedly make such a distinction. Nor can it be reasonably supposed that Congress could have objected to the contingent provision for the State as well as the continental troops, seeing it was connected with so vast and liberal a cession of territory. Independent of the equitable obligation of the United States to provide for these claims to land bounty, it is a debt incurred by Virginia in the prosecution of the war of the Revolution, which, by the act of Congress of 1790, the United States became bound and engaged to pay. Influ- enced by all these considerations. Congress, after mature consideration, assumed to provide for these claims, as will be seen by the act of May, 1830, and other subsequent acts ; in pursuance of which more than three- fourths of them have been satisfied. This, therefore, the committee con- sider as res adjudicata, and no longer a matter to be settled. [See report of Knox, American State Papers, Military Aflairs, vol. 1, pages 14 and 15.] The report of the select committee begins with quoting the various Vir- ginia laws which granted land bounty and half pay ; but it omits the fol- lowing, viz : 1st. The act giving land bounty to chaplains, surgeons, and surgeon's mates : (see 10th volume Hening, page 141, for this act.) Under this, up- wards of half a million allowed. 2d. It omits the joint resolution giving land to all Virginians in the service of Congress, though not in the Virginia line : (same volume, puge 539.) Under this act, the records in the Virginia laud office will show that a vast number drew land bounty. Also, the act putting the navy on the same footing with the army, which brought all Virginians under the opera- tion of the above joint resolujion : (see 10th volume Hening, page 467; and 11th volume, pages 84, 85, aud 161.) 3d. It omits the act passed 2d of January, 1782, allowing Virginians promoted in the lines of other Jltates, land bounty : (see 10th Hening, page 466, last clause of the 9ih secti)n.) 4th. It omits, also, the resdlution of Congress of October, 1780, (see Journals of Congress, volume pd, page 533,) assigning the officers of the cavalry, artillery, and artificer^ as they then stood arranged, to the States to which they had been assigned, and crediting such States with those offi- cers. Under this resolution, luany officers of other States became entitled to land bounty, as officers in a |Vliginia regiment, particularly in Harrison's artillery regiment. i 5th. The report attempts to sjiovv that Chief Justice Marshall, with whom General Porterfield agreed, coi^ld never have ?neant that there were five hundred entitled to land bount^ from all the Virginia regiments. The an- swer to this is, the known fact [hat the statement of Mr. Marshall referred to was obtained for a committep of the Virginia Assembly, then acting on that very subject, and he was then on the spot, and saw the use which was made of his statement. No onp who knew Mr. Marshall can suppose that he would look silently on, and permit so gross a perversion of his meaning as the report alleges the committee to have made. 6th. The report states, that though sixteen Virginia continental regi- ments were ordered to be raised, no more than six or seven were ever raised. This is a mere assumption, without authority to sustain it. Fif- teen regiments of infantry, and Harrison's regiment of artillery, were acta- Rep. No. 436. , 115 ally raised, as a proper attention to the army records and the history of the war will show. 7th. The report gives a table, purporting to be taken from the report of General Knox, which states that the 5,744 men for 1777, from Virginia, in- cluded those for one year, eighteen months, &c.; &c. The report of Knox expressly states that there were 5,744 men for three years, or during the war, besides the miliiia. These were sufficient for twelve regiments, though the author of the report in question expressed the belief that six or seven regiments were the most that ever were raised. But the reasoning in the report on this point is artificial, and based on suppositions unsus- taint-d by evidence. And what is conclusive in support of the statement of Mr. Marshall, is, the foct that there now exists a full roll of the 12th Vir- ginia regiment. On that roll are forty-two officers, thirty of whom were entitled to and received land bounty, and about 546 men, who were entitled to land. This is the only full roll now to be had. Make this regiment (the 12th) the criterion, and all the estimates of the Virginia committee are fully sustained. 8th. The report not only omits many material laws of Virginia, bearing directly on the subject which it professes to examine and illustrate, but it also omits numerous regiments and corps that ought to have been included, even under the laws it did refer to. It omits, 1st, Lee's legion ; 2d, Armand's corps; 3d, Stephensoii's riile regiment, (two-thirds of which were officered and raised in Virginia ;) 4ih, the officers of the regiment of guards ; 5lh, officers transferred from other States to Virginia under a resolution of Con- gress ; Gth, all Virginia officers in the service of Congress, by land or sea; 7th, Colonel Bland's regiment of cavalry, and many other corps which could be enumerated. But sufficient is exhibited to show the erroneous as- sumptions and conclusions of the report. 9th. The report professes to show that, of the 5,744 men for the year 1777, not many could have been entitled to land, as there were only 2,486 in 1780, when the three years could not have expired. The error in this estimate is, that no notice is taken of the 6,181 men who were in the ser- vice in 1776, and by inattention to the fact that Knox's return, of necessity, had reference to the end of the years : so tliat every man of the 5,744 may have served three years and left the army, entitled to land, prior to the re- turn made by Knox for the year 1780, and without including one in the 2,486 in service at the time of that report. Again : many of the 6,181 men in service in the year 1776 must have been disabled or killed in the severe confficts of 1777, 1778, 1779, and 1780, all entitled to land. One entire regiment was annihilated in the battle at Germantown, and was immedi- ately substituted by the assignment of Gibson's, then a State regiment, to the continental service : (see acts of the Virginia Assembly and of Congress, as to this.) But the return of Knox shows 5,744 men in service in the year 1777, every one of whom was entitled to land, unless he deserted. This is double the whole number of Virginia continental troops estimated by the report to be entitled to land during the entire eight years' war ! 10th. The report assumes 3,000 to be a liberal allowance of continental troops entitled to land ; and, adopting the ratio of the Virginia committee, it gives 1,312 to the State line and navy. By reference to the records in the Virginia land office, it will appear that 6,444 persons have received land bounty ; and the report of J. H. Smith, Esq., specially appointed to examine a very large mass of papers relating 116 Rep. No. 436. to the war of the Revolution, shows 6,000 more who have not received land, and who (most of them) appear, by the papers submitted to his exam- ination, to be entitled to it. But the certificate of Indole Marshall, and the data furnished by the roll of the 12th regiment, show that there were more than 8,000 men entitled to Virginia land bounty. It has been ascertained by subsequent investigation into the claims of the Virginia State line and navy to land bounty, that the Virginia committee, as is intimated on the face of the report of that committee, made too low an estimate of tlie extent of that claim, by a large amount. The report above referred to omits the 1st and 2d State regiments, so called ; the State artillery regiment. Colonel Marshall ; the State garrison regiment. Colonel Muter ; the State cavalry — several corps; the Illinois regiment; Colonel Crockett's regiment; besides many corps attached to these several regiments. And the State navy may be as- sumed to be equal to three regiments. In 1835, Commissioner Smith, above referred to, reported 478 of the State navy entitled, by authentic documents, to land, but who had not received it ; to say nothing of many who became entitled, but whose claims conid not be established by documentary evidence. By an act of the Virginia Assembly, 1,300 seamen were at one time ordered to be raised, to serve three years, or during the war, (see volume 9, page 196, Hening's Statutes.) These data furnish at least 5,000 men in the Virginia State line and navy entitled to land ; sixteen continental regiments, at 500 each, 8,000 ; seven State regiments, including Crockett's and the Illinois, 3,500 ; navy, equal to three regiments, 1,500 : amountuig, in all, to 13,000 : besides the omitted classes — say Lee's legion, Armand's corps, Bland's regi- ment of cavalry, Virginians in the service of Congress, and the like. Compare all this with the assumption in the report of the select committee ; and can it be considered at all justifiable to assume, as that report does, that 3,000 would be a liberal estimate of the number of me"i entitled to Virginia continental land bounty, and that 1,312 only of the State line and navy are entitled to State bounty ? thus, making an; aggregate of all who became entitled to land amount to the inconsiderable number of 4,312. 11th. It is suggested, in the jeport of the select committee, as a strong presumption against the merit hi' the existing claims to Virginia military land bounty, that, seeing the lar^e bounties promised, especially to officers, all entitled are presumed to hs^ve applied for and obtained their warrants immediately on the close of the )ivar. In point of fiict, 804 officers, (nearly double the number estimated in the report as entitled,) did receive tneir warrants within about one year after peace ; and these warrants werebbtained at a time, and under circumstan- ces, when no one not entitled iould be presumed to obtain them. As to the imputation cast upon the merits of these claims, that they have remain- ed dormant such a length of time, a few facts must redeem them from that objection. The low price of Und warrants then — often as low as 6|- cents, and never more than 124 cents an acre — and the heavy expense (never less than half the subject) attending their location in a wilderness oc- cupied by hostile Indians, induced many, very many, living at a great dis- tance from the land office, to belindifferent as to an immediate attention to their claims. Be it rememberer, that was not the palmy day of railroads and steamboats; nor did the mail then fly, as now, on the wings of the wind, in every direction, to the remotest corner of this extensive Uniow. No : whoever had busmess at the seat of Government had a tedious, laborious, and expensive journey to make, either on horseback or on foot : in pursuit Rep. No. 436. 117 then, of cTlaiid warrant of such inconsiderable value, few would go. This accounts for tardiness of application. But a suspension of the location of these warrants by an order of the Government of Virginia in 17S5, in order to avert Indian hostilities from Kentucky, withiu which the lands to be lo- cated were — Ibllowed by the treaty of Hopewell, made by Congress with the Indians, which secured to the latter the possession of the lands set apart to satisfy these claims to land — left not an acre of good land, as has been Slated, on which these warrants could be located, from some time in the year 1788, to the year 1830, when Congress made the first appropriation to pro- vide for them. Hence the apparent neglect to make application. Can it be matter of surprise to any one, that, under all the foregoing circumstances, many of those claims should now remain unsatisfied ? Owing to this inter- dict to the location, and a deficit of good land, many of the warrants which were issued could not be located, and were finally lost. And it might be safe to say, that the warrants lost, and the bona fide dormant claims which cannot be established for the want of that rigorous evidence of claim now required, would more than double the amount of any unfounded claims which may have been allowed, and about which the report of the com- mittee and others make such loud complaint. 12th. It is insisted, in the report of tiie committee, that supernumeraries are not entitled to land. As respects the continental line of the army, the laws on that subject, and the uniform action of the Government, allow land to super- numeraries. As respects claimants of that description to Virginia conti- nental or Slate land bounty, it has been accorded to them by the highest judicial sanction, and acquiesced in by Congress. ISth. The report of the committee assumes that two or three officers, be- sides those retained in service at the reduction in 1778, were all who were entitled to land, as they could not have served three years. And it allows 29 officers to each of the 11 regiments retained in service in 1778, as the maximum number entitled to land. lu making these estimates on the first assumption, no allowance is made for such as had been killed in battle prior to that reduction ; for such as had been disabled by wounds and disease, or who had died of disease ; and for invalids and prisoners : these amounted to a considerable number, and all were entitled to land. Again, the estimate allowing 29 ofiiccrs to each of the 11 regiments is erroneous in this: it omits staff officers; all engaged in the recruiting service; ail the prisoners; and those allowed by the commander-in-chief to go home without resigning. The 12th regiment has a roll of 42 officers ; and one of the State regiments had 46 officers. Take these as an average, and it adds about fifty per cent, to the estimate of the committee. As a cor- roboration of the estimate made by the committee, the number of resigna- tions spoken of in a letter of General Washington is referred to, and relied on. A little attention to the matter will show the irrelevancy of this. It is true, many resignations took place ; but it is equally true, that as often as vacancies occurred, they were filled by those who succeeded to the claim to land which would have enured to their predecessors. The report as- sumes 319 as the probable number, and 4lS as the highest possible number who could he entitled to land. The records of the land office show that, within a year after the close of the war, 3,000 persons received land bounty ; of these, 804 were officers, of whom 575 were of the continental line. It is hard to presume that any unfounded claims could have been admitted then. Such are the facts of the case, opposed to the suppositions 118 Rep. No. 43G. and assumptions of the committee, nnsiistained by evidence, based on un- founded data, and sustained by the most artificial reasoning. The repori insists that more than 418 officers could not, by possibihty, be entitled to land ; yet the records show that 575 received it within one year irom the end of the war — at a period, and, as has been said, under circumstances which forbid the idea that any one could have received it who was not en- titled. So much for this assumption of the committee. The errors in the report consist, in part, in the omission to notice many of the laws of Vir- ginia allowing land bounty ; and in the omission of many classes, regiments, and corps, the officers of wliich became entitled to land bounty chiefly imder the omitted laws, as heretofore referred to, viz r Harrison's artillery regiment had 8U officers; the report estimates no more than 29. The omissions referred to are — 1st. Staff officers— more than 500,000 acres drawn under the act. (10th vol. Hening, page 141.) 2d. All Virginians in the service of Congress; (10th vol. Hening, page 539 :) this was a numerous class. Navy the same. (Hen. vol. 10. page 467 ; and vol. 11, pages 84, 85, and 161.) 3d, Virginians promoted into the lines of other States. (Hening 10, page 466 ; last clause of the ninth seclion.) 4th. Officers of other States trtinsferred to tlie Virginia line. (See resa- lution of Congress of 3d October, 1780 — Journals of Consfrcss, vol. 3, page 533.) 5th. The officers credited to Virginia, viz : 1st, Lee's legion; 2d, Ar- mand's corps ; 3d, Colonel Stephetison's rifle regiment — two-thirds of which was raised in Virginia, and went to Canada in 1776 ; 4th. the regiment of guards : 5th, two State regiments omitted — the estimate being five, instead of seven ; 6th, navy estimated at one regiment, instead of three at the least, 6th. All superninneraries whodid not resign before three years' service. 7th, All who died in service; nil prisoners; all soldiers who were pro- moted towards the close and dm-ing the progress of the war. Though some of these classes are alludecj to in the body of the report, they are not taken into the estimate when theconclusion is made that not more than 418 continental officers could, by posbibility, be entitled to Virginia land bounty, 8th, The report assumes eleven as the full number of continental regi- ments, and allows twenty-nine Wlicers to each. There were fifteen regi- ments officered. Fifteen of infaiitry were, in 1778, reduced to eleven ; but this reduction did not embrace t\]e artillery regiment, Baylor's cavaliy, and the officers of the four reduced regiments, who were all entitled to land bounty. That the estimate of the numlinr of Virginia officers, assumed in the re- port of the select committee, is erroneous, will manifestly appear hy a reference to the number and character of those officers who received land at the close of the war. These were, besides the commander in chief, 2 major generals, 1 1 brigadiers, in the arm}'", of whom ten received land within a few months after the close of the war. Virginia had 39 colonels and 47 lieutenant colonels — 86 in all, of whom 62 received land within a year after the close of the war. INow, the single fact that Virginia had 14 generals, and 86 colonels and lieutenant colonels, shows conclusivelv that her forces must have exceeded vastly the number estimated in the report of the com- mittee, which estimate forms the basis of the speculative reasoning and re- sults exhibited in that document. It is not assumed, nor intended to be Rep. No. 436. ' 119 claimed, that Virginia had, at any one time, as many ofRcers in actual ser- vice as are above estimated. Some were killed ; some were prisoners ; some became supernumerary ; and some resigned after three years' service : all, nevertheless, entitled to Virginia land bounty. The same casualties apply to the inferior officers, whose numerical proportion to the colonels could not have been less than forty to one, estimating ten companies to a regiment, and four officers to each. In truth, the number of inferior officers, from greater exposure to hardship and danger, who were killed, died in service, invahds, prisoners, &c., was, it is fair to conclude, much beyond a mere nu- merical proportion, compared with the generals and colonels ; yet, if even this rule be adopted, and 43 be taken as the medium between colonels and lieutenant colonels, that number multiplied by 40, and it exhibits 1,720 ofR- cers of the continental and State lines, who would be entitled to land ; inde- pendent of the navy, which had a largernumber of officers, in proportion to the men, than the lines in the land service had, from the fact that the war- rant ofRcers in the navy, ranking with the subalterns on the land, were very numerous : these all were entitled to land. There were, as has been stated, fifteen Virginia continental regiments of inflmtry, all the ofRcers of which, reduced or not, were entitled to land. Bland's cavalry regiment; Harrison's artillery regiment, equal in officers to two infantry regiments; Stephenson's regiment; the regiment of guards ; Lee's legion; Armand's corps ; the State legion : in all, equal to five regi- ments. To which is to be added, all those in the service of Congress, either in the army or navy ; equal, at least, to five regiments more — making an aggregate of 25 regiments. Taking, then, 40 officers as the average number to each of these 25 regfiments — and 42 is the number on the roll of the twelfth regiment — and in assuming 40 as the average, all are included who died, invalids, prisoners, supernumeraries, and those resigned, who served three years: it shows 1,000 officers, besides general and staff offi- cers, amountino, at the. least, to 100; in all, 1. 100 entitled to Virginia conti- nental land bounty ; and of these, 976 only have received it, leaving 124 unsatisfied.! The report of the committee assumes that the number of changes from death, resignations, &c., (fcc, could not amount to many, seeina: there appeared to be so many who had served over six years, and to the end of the war ; thus showing thev had left no vacancies from the beginning, to be filled. In assuming this, the following facts are overlooked : 1st. That all super- numeraries, whether of 1778, or any other period, and all the reduced and retiring officers, were entitled to land, as if in service at the end of the war. 2d. All who died or were killed received the same as if in service at the end of the war. 3d. All who, having served as privates or non-commis- sioned ofRcers, and afterwards were promoted and commissioned, (and there were many such.) were allowed land as officers from their first service, to the end of the war, though they misrht have been officers a few months only prior to the close of the war. These three classes (and they were all numerous) are to be deducted from the number of those assumed in the report as bavins: left no vacancies. The large grants of land already is- sued in satisfaction of these bounties is more than intimated in the report as evidence of error in allowing those grants. These large grants, in the aggregate, are to be accounted for by the very liberal bounties allowed, both to officers and soldiers, in pursuance of repeated appeals by the commander-in-chief and by Congress to the patriotism and generosity of 120 ' Rep. No. 436. the several States, to make ample provision for the army at the close of the war — to the end of insuring a vigorous prosecution of it. But those times- are, by too many, forgotten ; and few now seem to take into tlie estimate that the land thus granted was the price, in part, paid for tliat Uberty and independence they now enjoy. It was under these circnmstances that Virginia allowed a major general 15,000 acres, brigadier general 10,000, colonel 6,606|, lieutenant colonel 6,000, chaplain 0,000, surgeon 6,000, major 5,333, captain 4,000, subalterns, each, 2,666|, besides one sixth for each year in addition to the above, lor service over six years ; and, under this provision, many received as much as half, in addition to the above bounties. Sufficient has been stated to correct many of the prominent errors in the report of the select committee, and to justify the committee of the Virginia Assembly against all the material charges against their report. Sufficientj it is confidently believed, has been adduced to show that many just claims to Virginia military land bounty remain unsatisfied ; and the demand on Congress to make provision for the satisfaction of all such claims as can be shown to be valid, is unquestionable. This is a debt contracted by Virginia in the prosecution of the revolutionary war, and, as has been remarked, at the repeated solicitation of Congress ; and if no other consideration could be urged, the act of Congress, called the as- sumption act, is sufficient to demonstrate the claim of Virginia on Con- gress to provide for these land bounties. By that act, Congress assumed to pay all the debts of the several States, contracted by each in the prose- cution of the war, and is thereby justly bound to pay this. But it is alleged in the report of the committee, that Congress has already given scrip for more than all thejUnappropriated land between the Scioto and Miami; that, therefore, no further claim can be properly made on Congress, as that land only was reserved. Here the committee err, in tak- ing no proper notice of that extensive region of land set apart by Virginia, west of the Tennessee river. Tf(is, if added to the lands set apart between the Scioto and Miami, would have been an ample quantity of land to satisfy all the engagements of Virginia to all her troops. Of this her troops have been deprived by the treaty of Hopewell, and no equivalent has been pro- vided. Agam : Virginia, having^ as has been shown, promised large boun- ties to her troops, did, by an act of her Legislature, in 178-2, pledge all her western lands to satisfy those bounties ; thus creating an equitable lien on lier entire domain. Afterwards, Virginia gave all this domain to Congress, making the reservations above rejferred to ; and it may be justly asked. Can the second donee, in conscience, hold to the gift, to the exclusion of the officers and soldiers? The queslion, then, now to be settled, is. Do any of these claims, appearing justly due, remain unsatisfied? If so, it is confi- dently expected that Congress will, as a m.atter of justice, provide for the satisfaction of all such. It is strongly intimated in the report of tiie com- mittee, that land bounty has been allowed by the authorities of Virginia improvidently, and to large amomit, to many not entitled. A ie,\v cases out of the thousands acted on may be selected to give color to this allega- tion, which, if true to its utmost extent, would be an atom, compared with the omission to grant bounties, in land and pay justly due, to a very large amoinit, by those authorities. Ha'f pay for life was promised by Virginia to all her officers who became deranged by the reduction of the army, at any period of the war. (See act of Virginia Assembly, May, 1779.) Yet not one of these officers who were reduced prior to May, 1779, has, to Rep. No. 436. 121 this day, received that pay. And by an act ot Assembly of — (see Hening) Virginia promised 100 acres additional land bounty, and $200, to be paid in specie, at the end of the war, to all her soldiers who should serve to the end of the war in the continental line. Though thousands became entitled to these bounties, not a man has received them. Does this wear the ap- pearaLce of improvidence, or a design on the part of the Virginia authori- ties to extend the amount of these claims beyond what was considered justly due? Certainly not. But the antiquity of these claims, and that many of them have fallen into the hands of speculators, are urged in the report, and elsewhere, as insu- perable grounds of objection to the payment of them. A violation of the contract on which those claims are founded, by the Government, is the cause both of their antiquity, and that many of them fell into the hands of speculators. The Government agreed to pay specie in discharge ot them ; but, instead of specie, all the means for payment consisted of bonds, so de- preciated and worthless, that many claimants either would not receive them, or would not incur the trouble and expense of applying for them. So that, in all this business, the Government was the parent of the specu- lations now so severely denounced. But it is said that a full and fair op- portunity was afforded by the Government to the claiiuants to liquidate their claims at the close of the war ; that, after the close of the war, com- missioners were appointed in each State for that object. True, such com- missioners were appointed; but to do what? Why, to perform a mere mockery. It was only to ascertain what was due to the individual, and to send him off with a bond, which would often not defray his expenses in seeking this full and fair opportunity afforded him to receive payment of his claim. There is no one, acquamted with the history of that period, who will not aflirm that the public bonds, then issued m discharge of revo- lutionary claims, were not nearly as worthless as the millions of paper- money was, just then defunct. And there was a prevailing opinion that no better provision could ever be made for tiiese bonds (called certificates of debt,) than had been made to redeem paper-money. Such was the full and fair opportunity said to have been afforded. And to this were added statutes of limitation, which barred these claims more than thirty years; and now it is their antiquity is a reproach, and furnishes with many a sufficient reason to reject them. The application to Congress to provide for the unsatisfied land bounty is not, as the report assumes, an appeal to the benevolence of that body. It is not asked as a gratuity, but it is an appeal to the justice of Congress. The reservation in Ohio, to satisfy these land warrants, never belonged to Con- gress. It is reserved by the deed of gift of Virginia ; and Congress should take no credit to itself for any locations therein made ; it never had a right to prohibit them. The application, then, of Virginia to Congress, is, that as the former owes on account of the revolutionary war more land than was reserved in the deed of cession to the latter — as the latter has received the consideration of the debt, and has got from the former, by donation, the means of paying that debt — can it be questioned but that a sufficient portion of those means should be devoted to extinguish that debt? It is insisted, in the report of the select committee, that the officers at- tached to the regiment of guards raised in Virginia in 1779, and those at- tached to tlie regiiuent under Colonel George Gibson, were not continental officers in the line of the army, and, therefore, not entitled to United States 122 . Rep. No. 436. land bounty and pay; and this is urged on the ground that land bounty and half pay were promised to such oflicers only as were commissioned by Congress, whereas these were commissioned by the Governor of Virginia. The maxim, qnifacitper alium^facit per se, has ever been held a sound one, and it applies most aptly to this objection. By a resolution of Con- gress of the 9th of January, 1779, (see journals of Congrfess,) it was order- ed that a battalion of six hundred men should be raised in Virginia, on con- tinental establishment, to be officered by the Executive of Virginia, and to be denominated the regiment of guards. The regiment was, according to order, raised, and the officers commissioned by the Governor of Virginia; and it continued in the continental service till May, 1781, when the men were discharged, and the officers became supernumerary, entitled to all the benefits of officers of that class ; and though not actually commissioned by Congress, it was under that authority alone they were commissioned. George Gibson's was originally a State regiment, and the officers commis- sioned by the Governor of Virginia; and the history of it is, that, upon the requisition of Congress on Virginia to replace her 9th continental regi- ment, which was annihilated at the memorable and bloody battle of Ger- mantown. Colonel George Gibson's regiment was, on the 12th of Septem- ber, 1777, by an act of the Virginia Assembly, substituted for the 9th regi- ment, and tliereby transferred from the State into the continental service. Accordingly, by a resolution of Congress, this regiment was ordered into the continental service. (See journals of Congress, September, 1777.) Thus it appears, that, by law, Gibson's became a continental regiment; and Vir- ginia could not, if she desired to do so, recall it. (See letter of the Secre- tary of War.) This regiment was in all the hard-fought b:iltles to the north — from the battle of Brandywine to the victory at Monmouth ; and though, from its being originally a State regiment, mistakes have, from time to time, been made as to its true character, by those unacquainted with its true history, nothing is more clear than that from 1777 to the close of the war it was a continental regiment. The report of the select comjnittee concludes with a recommendation that no further appropriation of land ought to be made by Congress to sat- isfy existing claims to Virginia rrHlitary land bounty; and that no claim to commutation pay ought hereafter to be allowed, except upon record or other documentary evidence. Besides the considerations already stated, to show that the United States are justly and in good faith bound to provide for the claims on Virginia to the land bounty in question, if Congress adopt the recommendation of the select committee, what is to become of the 10 per cent, due on about 350,000 acres of land warrants now on file in the United States Land Office, on which, by act of Congress, 90 per cent, has actually been paid? What is to become of about 350.000 acres of warrants now on file in the Land Office of the United States, placed there by the claimants, in full faith that the Government, in the exercise of a consistent, even-handed justice, would make the same provision for these which liad been made for others, identical in all respects, but which, owing to the failure, for the last four years, of Congress to make the expected provision for them, are reduced in value from $1 25 an acre, to 37 cents? and such is the necessitous condition of some who actually paid in blood, and the descendants of others who paid the like price for these wan ants, as to com- pel a sale of them at the abovenamed reduced price. It is asked, who is to provide for them? Is Virginia to provide for them, after surrendering to Rep. No. 436. . 123 the United States, orratuitonsly, the means she had pledged for their satis- faction ? Such must be the result, if Congress fail to provide for them. In the Ions and labored report of the select committee, no reason is as- si^rned for the unjust discrimination which has always been made, and es- pe'ciallv during the past five or six ve^Ts, in the provision made by Con- cri-ess for United States continental land bounty and Virginia continental Fand bounty. Seeing that the United States are equally bound to satisiy both, it is difficult to imagine why the first, in all time up to the present period, should have been provided for by acts of Congress on demand, while a laro:e amount of Virginia continental land bounty has for the past five or six years remained wholly unprovided for, to the great loss of the holders of these warrants, many of whom, (as has been said.) from necessity, being ohlio-ed to sell their warrants at 37 to 50 cents an acre. When it is recollect- ed that the State of Virginia gratnitonsl7 reded and granted the land to the United States, out of which the United States land bounty has been and is to be satisfied, with this proviso in the deed of cession— that if Virginia had not reserved a sufficiency of good land on the southeast side of the river Ohio, to satisfy the land bounty promised by her to her officers and soldiers who served in the continental army, the deficiency was to be made up by Congress out of the good lands between the b'cioto and Miami rivers— why, thent has this distinction been made ? It is difficult to imagine how, with such' facts before them, the select committee came to the conclusion that no provision ought to be made for these claims. The other recommendation of the select committee, to allow no claim to commutation pay, except on record or documentary proof, is, as has been said, unprecedented and unjust. The claims which have been presented for the last twelve years, and which will probably be presented, are in be- half of such officers as can be shown to have been in service subsequent to the 21st day of October, 1780, at which date half pay for life was promised by Congress to all officers who continued in service to the end of the war, or whoj'^subsequent to that date, became supernumerary. At the time of the passage of the aforesaid resolution, a reduction of the army took place, and several reductions took place afterwards, by means of which many officers became supernumerary and entitled to half pay for life. Add to this, as the war drew to a close, many officers were left without command, owing to the expiration of the enlistment of the soldiers: they, of course, went out of actual service, as did many others on leave. It is also true, that, subsequent to the passage of the aforesaid resolution allowing half pay for life, some officers resigned, and a few were cashiered. Whether any accu- rate account was ever made and recorded as to all these matters, so as to show what officers became supernumerary— went out of service for want of command, or on leave, as the war approached its end ; who resigned or were cashiered— certain it is, that no such evidence of these facts now exists, owing to the almost entire destruction of these revolutionary archives by fire and other casualties. Hence the difficultly now, and for the last twelve years, attending the adjustment of these claims. In the examination of them, when the claim is in behalf of an officer shown, by satisfactory proof, to have been in service subsequent to the 2lst day of October, 1780, and at different periods thereafter, extending through 1781 and into 1782, but who, subsequent to some one or other date within those periods, does not appear to have been in actual service, the presumption is, that such officer then left the service; and the question arises, how did he leave it? was he 124 Rep. No. 436. supernumerary, without command, or absent on leave at the end of the war? or did lie resign? or was he cashiered? In the absence of record or other documentary evidence to explain this, in order to a decision, presumptive evidence must, of necessity, be resorted to. It must be presumed that the officer went out of service in some of the modes above mentioned, entitled to half pay ; or that he resigned, or was cashiered, and thereby forfeited claim to that pay: one or the other of these presumptions is, as has been said, necessary to a decision. Is it more reasonable, and does it better com- port with the nature of things, to presume that a patriotic officer, with the prospect before him of the liberal provision made for him by Congress for his service to the end of a war, then near its close, would resign ? or that his disappearance from the service at any period after the 21st of October, 17S0, arose from his having become supernumerary, by reason of the seve- ral reductions of the army ; that he had left the service for want of a com- mand ; or that he retired on leave, as many did, not to return till ordered? The latter presumption has been adopted and acted on by this committee and by Congress for the last twelve years ; most of the claims which have been allowed during that period were sanctioned on this presumption, and the committee can suggest no other just rule for their adjustment. To re- quire these claims to be proven now, by record or documentary evidence, would be to require that which is impossible, and an act of injustice. In conclusion, the committee perceive nothing in the statements made in the report of the select committee which calls for a change in the character of the proof for establishing claims on the United States for the revolution- ary chums referred to. The (Committee on Revolutionary Claims, acting as the judicial organ of the House, has decided, heretofore, each claim as it occurred, on such evidence, record and parol, as, in their opinion, would be aduiitted in a judicial forum. All which is submitted, with the following resolutions : Resolved, That as Congress continues to adjudicate and allow claims of individuals on the United States, for revolutionary services, no cijange in the cliaracter and amount of proof now required to adjust and allow those claims is deemed necessary. Resolved, That provision ought to be made by Congress for the unsatis- fied military land-bounty warrants promised by Virginia, in the prosecu- tion of the war of the Revolution, to her officers and soldiers who were engaged in that war, and who served in her continental and State battal- ions, and other corps, and in herlState navy. Rep. No. 436. 125 APPENDIX TO THE REPORT OF THE MINORITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON REVOLU- TIONARY CLAIMS. No. 1. To show the loose and irregular proceed ino^s of those boards of officers charged with ascertaining what was the actual condition of officers toward the close of the war, the case of Major Alexander Dick furnishes a striking instance. Alexander Dick was, early in the war, commissioned a captain in the continental line of the army. Some time in 1779 he was captured, sent to England, and lodged in Fortune jail. Some time in the year 1780 he made his escape from jail, and after various perils he reached the United States. During his absence, he became entitled, b^ promotion, to a majority in the continental line ; but, as there was then no command for him in the north- ern army, he went to the south, on the earnest recommendation of the Vir- ginia Assembly, addressed to General Green, to give Major Dick service in the continental army under his command. As, however, General Green could give him no employment. Major Dick returned to Virginia a super- numerary, in 1781, a short time previous to the invasion of that State by Cornwallis. He took the field as a supernumerary major, and was in active command up to the surrender of Yorktown; after which, the men under his command were discharged, and Major Dick was not again called into ser- vice. Such was the true condition of Alexander Dick ; yet, without hav- ing ever been commissioned an officer ii. the Virginia State line, he was detailed as one of a board of State line officers, to arrange the officers of that line ; by which arrangement, Alexander Dick was returned as a major in the Virginia State line^ and in service at tie end of the war. By this erro- neous return, Alexander Dick was allowed land bounty, as a major in the Virginia State line ; and he has been, on tie faith of that return, disallowed United States land bounty and commutaton. If, then, a board of officers could be palpably in error as to the true ch\racter of its own members, what must have been the errors as to officers not present? (See the proceedings of a board of officers of the Virginia State line, which met at Richmond, 6th of February, and 14th of April, 1782.) No. 2. (No. 1.) — Captain Thcmas Triplett. There were four persons of this name, viz : Captain Thomas Triplett, who served to the end of the war, and afterwards removed to South Caro- lina, His representatives, on the 14th of October, 1817, received the land 126 Rep. No. 436. for seven years' services. The records of the Virginia land office show that they wtre then residents of South Carolina. They are now entitled to comnmtation ; but have never asked it. The second Thonias Triplett was from Fairfax. He entered the service in 1775, and either resigned or returned home on furlough in very bad health, and died in 1780. . He was the brother-in-law of General John Chap- man Hunter, now of Fairfax. The third Thomas Triplett lived in Kentucky, and had been in his dotage many years before the pension was obtained in his name — not only in his dotage, but entirely without intellect. His son was the fourth of the name ; he was the j'elon^ who used the evidences of the services of the true man, and, using his father's name, appropriated them accordingly; and thus im- posed on the Government at Washington. The services had been rendered by one of the name, and the commutation was due ; it was paid to the wrong person. If the heirs of the real Captain Triplett shall ever present their claim, the proof will doubtless be readily furnished. Here was no fraud on behalf of the officer or ^is heirs; but by a drunken man, without principle, using the name of his father, who was never one hour in service. (No. 2.)— Captain Robert Beall There were two of this name. On the 9th of December, 1784, the com- mutation was paid to one: he tvas in service 25th oi March, 17b3, when he received his warrant (No. 19B, for 4,666| acres) for services from 10th of February^ 1776. He was injthe 3d Virginia continental regiment, and drew his land on the certificate ofColonel John Gibson, dated 25th of March, 1783. This same Colonel Johij Gibson, on the 17th of June, 1783, (not three months after.) certified thiit the other Captain Robert Beall entered the service also in 1776, and continued in service till 1781, "when he be- came a supernumerary f^ and l^edrew warrant No. 853, for 4,000 acres. One Captain Robert Rell is said to have resigned. But the pos'tive cer- tificates ofColonel John Gibson of 25th of March and 17th of June, 1783, that one of these officers was thdn in actual service, and that the other was then supernumerary , would jusjiry the belief, either that the roll was itself erroneous, or had reference to so[iie third individual. That the roll or return was erroneous in other respects, and in other cases, will be clearly shown hereafter. Colonel James Wood, in 1803, and in 1808, when additional bounty wis allowed, corroborates the two certificaies of Colonel Gibson, and speaks o'both as good officers. Not only is the co- temporaneous evidence in JunA 1783, of Colonel Gibson, that the other Robert Beall was a swpemumercry in 1781, almost conclusive, but the fact of Captain Beall's drawing his warrant under that certificate is an endorse- ment of its truth by him ; the contrary of which, if not true, he must neces- sarily have known. To suppose he was not a supernumerary, we must put more reliance on the list referred to (which will hereafter be shown to be incorrect in other cases) than^n the positive testimony of two high offi- cers and gentlemen at the date of the transaction. This list was made from the best evidence before the boarti, but imperfect evidence nevertheless, and was erroneous in many cases. The memoranda on the previous rolls were made long after those rolls, and were probably made by the clerk or other officer having charge of them — in some instances from the hearsay of tran- sient officers, who, being aware that certain officers were no longer in ac' Rep. No. 436. 127 tual service, may have heard or supposed they had resigned, and, from the repetition of the rumor or averment, the annotations were made by the clerk having charge of the rolls. That they were often erroneous, is clearly shown. (No. 3.) — Lieutenant John McDoioell. On the 14th of June, 1783, he received his land bounty from Virginia for three years' services. The records, and the oral testimony in his case, show conclusively he was entitled to it. Virginia did not grant an acre of land to which he was not entitled. (No. 4.) — Ensign John Spiifaihom. From the testimony on which he received his Virginia land, it appears he was in service at the battle of Great Bridge, December 12, 1775, and con- tinued in active service in the seven northern campaigns, until 17th De- cember, 17S0, when he was appointed an ensign ; and the records show him to have continued in active service till after the arrangement of 1781. Two of the witnesses say he continued m service to the end of the war. The list dated 2d September, 1782, contains his name among the resigned officers. If he resigned, he was entitled only to 2,666| acres, having served for about six years ; he was allowed 518 acres over that quantity. Let it be borne in mind, these rolls showing the different arrangements of the officers were lost or 7nislaid in ^785, and were found by Judge Ca- bell on 2d of October, 1829 ; during th^t interval of forty-four years, it is believed no human eye ever saw them. They were before the Legis- lature in 1785, when the claims of the supernumerary officers were argued at great length. Captain Edmund Read .vas a member of the House, and doubtless put these by mistake among his private papers. He died not long after ; and Judge Cabell, his executor, in .829, when examining his papers, found these rolls, which he immediately deposited among the public ar- chives of the State. Thus, if it be true that some allowances have been made, for more than would appear by these rolls to have been due, Virginia is not in fault if the other testimony in the absence of this were satisfactory, as was most con- clusively the case in Spitfathom's claim. (No. 5.) — Captain miliam Vause. After serving nearly all the war, he wis superseded at Cumberland for absence. In 1783 he was unanimously reinstated ; he having shown that he was in the western country at the line, and could not possibly have heard of the order convening the board. Colonel James "Wood says he was president of the board which unanimously reinstated Captain V. (No. 6.) — Lieutenant Thomas Wallace. He was in service over three years, whether he resigned or not. This made the allowance by Virginia unquestionably correct. If he resigned before the end of the war, he is entitled to nothing more. 128 Rep. No. 436. (No. 7.) — Captain James Craine. Tt was thought that his having received depreciation pay to 31st Decem- ber, 1781, was prima /acie evidence that his time ended then. No de- preciation was paid after that time, because there was no depreciation after that date. To receive to that date, is conchisive of service lor that period ; but as no payments in depreciated currency were made afterward, no in- ference can possibly be fairly drawn that an officer resigned then, becatise his settlement for depreciation ended there. And this is again conchisive that the word " resigned," opposite Captain C.'s name on the arrangement of February, 1781, must necessarily have been written of ter the year 1781; which is remarked, in order to show that these annotations or notes have not the authority of the board even, but were made according to the infor- mation collected by the keeper of the returns. If Captain C. resigned, the Executive of Virginia had no evidence of the fact, and was obliged to act as it did, upon the evidence pres^ted ; which is admitted to be very strong, and is probably entitled to more yeight than the evidence of resignation. (No. 8.) — Lieiienant John Townes. On 28th November, 1783, he received for three years' service. Mr. Hag- ner certifies that his accounts w^'e settled up to 12th March, 1782. His commission in the 6th regiment, at Chesterfield arrangement, is stated to have borne date 1st July, 1777. tlere, then, is positive proof of record that he was entitled to all the land which Virginia gave him. Here, again, it is to be remarket], that it is manifest the word " cashiered" was not written opposite his narne by proper authority, as the subsequent records show that he had not beei cashiered. (No. 9.) — Ca^taifi Charles Snead Is said to have been superseded 2d September, 1782 — probably for non-attendance. He is said to h; ve been a good officer, of great pride and high character; and his having men superseded (overslaughed) would not deprive him of his rights, unless he claimed the bounty under the act of 1782. His claim under the previous laws v/as good, unless he had, by mis- condnct, forfeited his rights. Tqs act of 1782 gave the bounty to certain officers, (not before entitled,) on condition that they had not been superseded ; but if the claims were not made ulider this law, no such condition attached. Arbitrary superseding (without jibt cause,) so far as is known, could not deprive an officer of his rights ; hnd upon the conviction of the propriety of this position, all the discriminded officers (who were not tried by court martial) have been, on solemn agument, paid their half pay, after taking counsel from some of the ablest m n in the country. If Captain Snead was superseded, it may have been for the same reason that Captain Vause was ; and the reproach, if it were one, may have been removed in the same manner ; altfiough we see no evidence on the subject, as there would have been none inl Captain Vause's case, but for the certifi- cate of Colonel Wood — that is, if 'Vause had not applied very early for his land bounty, this return of the bolrd could not have been satisfactorily ex- plained. Captain Snead was entitled to the Virginia land, whether he was superseded or not, unless he left the service. Rep. No. 436. 129 (No. 10.) — Lieutenant John Barns. The records show him to have been more than three years in service. (See Smitli's Report, No. 2, page 3.) If the return of 2d September, 1782, be correct in regard to him, nothing was due him. (No. 11.) — Captain Nathan Lamme. January 17, 1786, he received land for three years' services; his com- mission was dated September 10, 1778, and it is conceded he resigned after May, 1782. Virginia did right in granting the land. Here again it is seen the word "superseded" opposite his name, as the arrangement of 1781, was made without Mithority, for the return of Sep- leruber, 1782, states that he had resigned. These repeated errors show that but htlle confidence can be placed in those arrangements, as they are so frequently inconsistent wiih each other. (No. 12.) — Lieutenant Robert Jouett. He was manifestly, by the records qucited, more than three years in ser- vice, prior to his alleged resignation^ (September 1782,) and Virginia un- questionably did right in granting the la^d. It appears his accounts were settled to May 10, J 782. It is not verylprobable an officer would have re- signed after that period ; yet it may hale been true. This same list enu- merates Lieutenant William McGuire among the resigned officers, whereas the proof in his case is conclusive that h^ served to the end of the war. So with Captain Francis Minnis on the same list. (No. 13.) — Ensign Thornton Taylor Was a supernumerary of 1 778, and is cdmitted to have been entitled to land. All those i^upernumeraries were alsD entitled to half pay. (No. 14.) — Lieut anant Barnes Burnett. See remarks in the preceding case, which apply to this. (No. 15.) — Captain Thomas Blackwell. See remarks on Thornton Taylor's case. (No. 16.) — Captain John Thomas, See Smith's report, December 10, 1835, p. 112. He was in service as a sergeant early in 1776, and, after serving more than three } ears at the north, was appointed a captain in the regiment af guards, and became supernu- merary with the rest of the officers of that regiment. (No. 17.) — Ensign James Broadus. 19th February, 1784, three months and four days after the war ended, he received his land bounty. He was manifestly entitled to it. 130 Rep. No. 436. (No. 18.) — Captain Samuel Jones. On 19th December, 1782, before the war was ended, and before any ces- sion to Congress, he received his bounty land, (No. 19.) — Lieutenant Simon Summers. 16th December, 1764, he received land as lientenant for three years' service. 1st March, 1817, he revived for the seventh year's service. The records show he was a lieutenant as well as adjutant, which appears to have been overlooked. The seplement to lOt/i February, 1781, no more shows his resignation than thjit Captain Vause's settlement to 10th Feb- ruary, 1781, showed his. j It may be remarked, that ab|)iit that time most of the officers became supernumerary, and payments teased lo them ; and, of course, there was no depreciation to make ^ood. {Again, it often happened that officers drew nothing after the money becamd so much depreciated ; those that could do it. preferred to wait ; the c'onseq[ience was, that after the 1st January, 1782, when the pay became good, they drew, in good money, the arrears ; and, in the depreciation account, ihef would settle up to the period when they last rtceived depreciated money. (Nos. 20, 21, and 22.)— Captains John Winston, Tarpley Whita, and John Marks. 20th April, 1783, John AVinst|)ii received for three years ; Captain White on 15th July, 1783; and Captaii Marks on 3d September, 1782, The periods at which they received their lands show they were entitled. how it. They were doubtless supernume- Virginia granted the lands properly. The other public records also raries ; but whether so, or not (No. 23.) — dptain Philip Slaughter. It is shown that he entered tie service at the commencement of the war, and was in active service in all the arduous campaigns of 1776, '77, '78, and '79. Subsequently, in 1779 or '80, he authorized his friend, the late Chief Jus- tice, to hand in his resignation f he should be called into service again ; but not being called on, he sayS(and Judge Marshall was satisfied of the fact) that the resignation was ndt handed in. At a subsequent period. Captain Slaughter swears that General Muhlen- berg returned to him his comihission, (which he had sent to the General wiia his intention to resign,) and stated that he could not think of accepting it. If General Muhlenberg kcfit a diary, this statement of Captain S. might be proved by it. An intention to resign is nothing. Did he actually resign, and was iheresignatioji. acceptd, ? This is the only question. Captain S. stands as high as any man for honor and integrity ; he says he offered to resign, and for two or three mojiths thought his resignation had been ac- cepted, when he received it back from his commanding ofliccr, who declin- ed to accept it, and urged it apo[i him to hold it. He did hold it. and in proof exhibits the commission afe having been in his possession ever smce. His intention to resign at one tiine, does not affect his kgal rights ; and the Rep. No. 436. 131 campaigns through which he actually served should settle any question about equity. (No. 24.) — Lieutenant Wm. Madison. It appears by the affidavits of General Madison, the petitioner, and of George Corbin, and other evidence, that ihe court of Madison county loas satisfied that Lieutenant Madison was appointed a lieutenant in Harrison's artillery in 1781, and never resigned. The court knew the parties, and, knowing them, was satisfied of the truth of the statement. The affidavit of Corbin, an unirnpeached witneoS, is posiitire as to the fact of Madison being an officer in that regiment. The affidavit of General Madison, a man of the highest character, taken in connexion with the other evidence, satiohed the Executive of Virginia that he had been, f rst, a lieutenant of Harrison's ar- tillery, and, secondly, that he never resified his commission. Whether he was in active service two months or more, is immaterial ; il he hold his com- mission, he was entitled to the bounty! if he held his " appointment" it was the same thing. Hundreds of ofhiers never received their " commis- sions" at all. The journals of Congress are filled with cases of commissions being issued to take date years before tioy were issued, viz : from the time of the appointment ; which often took 3 ace jnst before, or during; or im- mediately ajter action, and in face of he enemy. If it be conceded that 'Madison had the appointment for any fme, no matter how short, then he is entitled to the land, (fee, unless he gave it up. • His having been but a short time ii service, may answer very well to create a prejudice against him, but doesli ot touch his legal rights. , It may be repeated: the only questions in the case are, first, did he ever hold the appointment of lieutenant in Hau'ison's artillery 1 And if so, se- condly, did he ever resign it '? If he held that appointment, no matter for how short a time, and did not resign it, he was entitled to the land bcunty. And if he had the legal right, the Government should not withholl it for any supposed want of meri- torions service. Judge Brooke says. General Madison vished to bring forward his claim at an earlier day — in the lifetmie of ids bother, the late President; but was dissuaded by the latter. This shows he must have considered himself en- titled, and that the presentation of the claim was not the result of any recent thought or determination. No. 3. In regard to the allegation that ^500,010 was accepted by Virginia in full for expenses incurred in the Illinois campaigns; that, nor no other sum paid to Vu-ginia, did by possibility inclnds the half pay claimed by the offi- cers who served in the Illinois expeditipi from Yirginia, because Virginia then did not consider herself bound for tie claim, and in the deed of cession does not appear even to have contemplcfied such cases ; all her other corps were especir.ily provided for in that .deed. But the courts decided that Virginia was bound to pay these claims : and as no charge on that ac- count had ever been made against the United States, and as Virginia had 132 Rep. No. 436. not voluntarily paid them, Congress made provision for them by an act passed 1832. It is manifest that the $500,000 spoken of by Knox must have been esti- mated on the amount either actually paid by Virginia at the time of settle- ment, or known to be due on acknowledo-ed engagements, and could not in- clude claims then and for many years thereafter resisted by Virginia. The United States, therefore, can no more avail themselves of that settlement, or agreement to bar the claim, than they could of the limitation acts of 1792, 1793, and 1794. If the determination not to pay wants an excuse, why not appeal to these acts of limitation ? To avail of a settlement, when it is known these claims were not even contemplated in the adjustment, would surely be as inequitable as a resort to the act of limitation. So. 4. By a resolution of Congress, (see journals, 27th of May, 1778, vol. 2, page 567,) the regiments were to Have officers, as follows, viz : Infantry, thirty two commissioned officers ; three staft' officers to be taken from the supernumeraries. i Artillery, seventy-seven commissioned officers, (see page 568.) On the 18th of May, 1776, twoisubalterns and forty privates were added to the artillery regiments. i On the 3d ofOctobeij, 1780, (tol. 3. page 532.) the artillery regiments were reduced to nine companies, [but with the same number of commis- sioned officers as at present. By the resolution of Congress, Blst of October, 17S0, (page 538,) the in- fantry regiments were lo have thiiy-six commissioned officers and four su- pernumerary subalterns, to recrui , n = 'JS £ t-^ ~ cc 5 ci ??o 5 rQ « 11 S2 -S f^ £2 -ri <^ S2 S2 n CO J K fc- CJ f OJ ^ (U (U QJ tL> aj (U K L> "s S cT , o" . o" , o" ^ o" . o . o" , cT ^o~ , 0" .0" 0; ^« ^^►^ s^^ s^- %z ^^ S" S^ ^^ S" S" ^" rt" 1 S ' =« S Rank and Gr^^-DE. a." t- OJ u. 1 !- 0) •-, > OJ >>-. OJ t-, 0) >^(U >.1 o >% .-. QJ o| QJ .*" ".^ ^ x: X! ^ ^ ^ zi^QGO •5 S a, p. ■5 S "3 ^ 1. g a. 2 5 ■£ 5 Si s tr. *-i li; (Tj I— 1 ^- H. P- , '£■ &- &. c_ c. 0. c. !-. 0) 5- QJ 1- CL> Em i a* !-. o t- cT t- 0/ s- D !-i OJ !- QJ fcX) 'A -5^ to Pw °w Pco ^^C/2 Oc/3 rfi ,2 CC ,^02 °tZ2 ^- cc C C) /:■ ^ _^ 'j-t Cjh ^ ff fcH Ph b fa fa fa fa fa "^ <~ Colonels - - - 2 1 2 1 6 Lieutenant colonels 1 _ T 3 1 2 _ 1 _ 1 1 1 11 Majors . - - 1 1 1 5 1 1 _ 1 _ _ _ 11 Captains - 8 6 8 .9 6 6 3 7 3 8 5 _ 79 Lieutenants 15 11 16 .4 13 11 5 7 12 7 1 112 Ensigns and cornets 2 3 2 3 2 o 1 _ T 1 1 21 Physicians and surgeons - _ _ o 1 1 _ 4 _ _ 2 _ 2 _ 11 Surgeon's mates - _ 3 _ _ 1 1 _ 1 _ _ 1 _ 7 Deputy purveyors _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ • 1 Assistant apothecary _ • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 _ _ 1 Rank and file 146 173 93 119 68 57 70 67 46 21 19 25 16 G 634 Aggregate of each year - 98 102 94 97 55 39 •25 49 34 9 894 Very respectful! ■, your obedien t se Wl rvant, LLIAM GORDON. Hon. John Taliaferro, House oj Re pres enU tiv( 3S. Rep. No. 436. No. 9. 135 Department op War, Bounty Land Office, February 25, 1840. Sir: Agreeably to your request, I have now the honor to send you the subjoined list, showing the number of ofiicers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers of the several continental hnes and corps of the revolutionary army, wh'^se claims to bounty lands, due on the part of the United iStates, are, at this date, unsatisfied. This list is taken from one which was care- fully prepared in this department in 1S2S, and is comprised in Senate document No. 42, 20th Congress 1st session. Names of States and corps. . No. of officers. No. of non-com- missioned officers and soldiers. New Hampshire - Massachusetts - 3 22 50 286 Connecticut - • - - 4 126 Rhode Island - - — 48 New York . - 2 46 New Jersey Pennsylvania Delaware - - - 2 33 113' 387 64 Maryland - Virginia - - 12 15 213 203 North Carolina - - ^ 5 64 South Carolina - - 22 Georgia - - 15 Artillery artificers, &c. Armand's legion - - - — 25 181 Hazen's regiment - - - — 134 Von Herr's dragoons - - — 11 Invalid regiment - - - — 101 Foreign officers - - 18 W^arrants on file, not de ivered 8 39 161 2,091 Aggregate of officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers - 2,252 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, VVM. GORDON. Hon. John Taliaferro, House of Representatives, j LBJe2 '8^ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 0011 800 821 2 # - - ^ ^ -,^ ».^ jC ^:^ ,€ ^4 v*^ ^ir *^?; ^?^'^ *^ ^^ ■^^- .* !>■ ■*!; :'t vM: ;»t t /i ;« .■■-» ^;''-.>^-'-^- ■- ,, ,- ,if "# uf i;f :| iS' .4 t^. ;«^.'^,.,'^.r-, — \ ■ ■' "- • " ^ »■ ^ i } ' "£. .<. 4, i . Im €, r» i . r- lA .lift r I . J . > .i' N< Hf nv ^u. 1^ It ^'^i j% ;^ ^■'■ ■^■'v' " ' 'f ^jf Ml^ vl ^5? it *^^- .-^v :^ ',x*'- ./^^'f-^rV w V -Si: wi vi. '4 1* ,J« .'<.* iti %^ ¥i ^:s i^l *M. ^" 4 "tJ! '*i? IV :-:^ ■ • ^•' € v^- ;^. ^^ # '^ .'^ '< .;^' /^- *i( ^^' ■'it ■ ■ /^'. '^' \.f '.«f ".«f 'stf 'tSi^- n ^i| 4 rf ^^ ■■••a .-.r '.{ ^*^^ :^ <:=i . ^ ^. ^? '•■i u ^^ ,. 1 yf u{ i^ m- .^^ ;^i ; 1- iif .4^ m ■ :/^/y' -.i 'U'^ • . ;< ].i ;^ ^^ .^ :^^.^^ ;^^ % ^ - ..«if 'i d .:£ • • *ii ^J ;'A ^^, ^ 'H .^v...-^ 4 »- .■■•*•■ /^ .,-,.r' ; ■:» v >..■ --a i-P -fi -M n •% *, -l >U ^u tit ■^. ;^^ ^^ ;'^ y- i '4 '^«C ^^- ^* 'fl ^'t Z^- 'f^ m M .M. ::4. /H. -'i.^'" 4 4^. .,. -4 .| . V -v^ . is^* ^v? -i^ ^ .^sl: ;ll. ^l ^'iw %..:-•«.«■ m. '■^■^.. f;:i ^I -d hi ^. !;fe 4: '11 "4 •»«- \».K i«» <.: a <5u /J -'S:. vif # ^^ 'M *u .-v .'h ,^ .,^ > . ■ '-^^ if t *.^: .:H 'M -'^t ' C ''€. '^■' :^ ':^ ; a ^ -H,