Page images

the Interior. After he had overruled, as I shall show he did, his subordinates, and prescribed this mode of calculating the interest in opposition to their judgments, and after the public had got hold of these outrageous payments, and began to bruit them abroad, he attempts to throw the blame of them upon these very subordinates. Sir,

I hold in my hand the certificate of allowance in

this Barron case, which was on appeal decided by himself, overruling the Commissioner of Pensions, made out by the Commissioner under that decision, in which the exact mode of calculating the interest the one which i have stated, is explicitly and minutely set out; and at the bottom of it i find the following: “ Approved: T. Ewing, Secretary of the interior.” But we are told that these certificates are made out ready for his approval, and that presuming them to be correct, he signs them as a matter of course, without stopping to read them. Well, sir, this may be so as a general rule; but it seems to me that this being a case which he had himself decided, overruling the Commissioner of Pensions, he ought, and naturally would, and I presume did, read it to see that it was right before signing it. But suppose he did not; the gentleman shall not escape me so. I will show you one in a case settled before this, which he did examine, in which he expressly overruled the accounting officer and directed him to allow the interest in the same way that it was allowed in the Barron case, and that the Commissioner of Pensions, in making out this certificate, followed that direction. The case I allude to is that of Dr. John M. Galt, who was a surgeon in the Virginia State line in the Revolution. His administrator applied to the Treasury Department for the settlement of this claim in 1833, under the third section of the act of July 5th, 1832, and he was paid the sum then found to be due, $8,757 34, for the half pay for life of Galt. In March, 1849, he applied to the Secretary of the Interior for commutation and interest, and the Secretary of the interior ordered it to be allowed. The Koi... of allowance was made out by the Commissioner of Pensions, and approved by the Secretary of the interior, directing the interest to be computed in the same manner as was afterwards directed in the Barron case. This was sent in due course of proceedings to the Third Auditor’s office for adrainistrative examination and allowance. The clerk who had it in charge in that office, brought it to the attention of Mr. Parris, the Second Comptroller, for directions as to the mode in which he should cast the interest under it. The Second Comptroller laid down the usual rule of calculating interest in such cases, the one which had always been pursued in the department; namely,

that no rest should be made where there was a pay- || the certificate issued from the Pension Office,

ment, unless the payment, when made, exceeded the interest then due. The next day Mr. Lyons, the attorney for the administrator of Galt, called on the Comptroller and insisted upon the other mode of computing the interest—insisted that a rest should be made at the time the claim had been settled at the Treasury in 1833, although the interest was $10,910 16, and the payment then made was only $8,75934. This the Comptroller de clining to do, they went together to the Secretary of the interior for his decision. #e overruled the Comptroller, and directed the interest to be coaputed as Mr. Lyons desired; iiiai is, in the same

way it was afterwards computed in Barron’s case, which was, in fact, allowing compound interest. A claim, therefore, which had once been fully settled at the Treasury with less than nine thousand dollars, now required and was repaid with an additional sum of about $11,000—making about $20,000 in all; and even admitting that commutation and interest was allowable—which I shall show it was not—by this mode of computation, a little over $2,000 more were paid than would have been due had the payment of 1833 never been made— #2,000 more than would have been allowed, had we then thrown the $8,75934 into the Potomac.; and this, sir, by the express direction of the Secretary of the Interior, as is shown by the deposition of the Comptroller himself, which I now hold in my hand. Well, Mr. Speaker, how do you think these astute gentlemen of the minority of the committee excuse the Secretary now * Why, they say that a judgment had been rendered in Galt's case, in the courts of Virginia, which directed the mode of calculating the interest, and that he only decided that the judgment must be followed, and that he did not know that it gave compound interest, Sir, did you, did any man ever see a more arrant piece of special pleading than this I have seen some in my life, but this heads anything I ever saw. Why, sir, what was the matter in dispute between Mr. Lyons and the Cromptrolier * lt was, whether the rest should be made or not— the latter insisting that it should not be made because the payment was less than the interest, and would, therefore, compound the interest. If the payment had exceeded the interest, there would have been no dispute, as then everybody admits the rest would have been proper. Then, sir, the very question was whether the interest should be compounded; and this it was that was submitted to the Secretary, and this it was that he decided. Yet the minority say he did not know that this mode would compound it. Why, what in the name of common sense did he know * They would have us believe that he approved official documents without knowing their contents, that he decided questions without understanding the points submitted to him, that he directed a particular mode of computation without understanding its effect. Surely they make him out an efficient officer. To save him from appearing a knave,

[ocr errors]

they make him a fool. But here is what Mr. Par

ris himself says—I read from the last part of the first answer of his deposition. He says: “After a “short conversation with Mr. Lyons upon the sub‘ject, (of the mode of computing the interest,) Mr. ‘T.yons called with me upon the Secretary of the ‘lnterior, who, upon hearing our statement, coin‘cided with Mr. Lyons, and the interest was com‘puted accordingly, that being in conformity with

[merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

shall not omit that, for I consider it much stronger against the Secretary than what I have read. Here it is, sir. He says:

“The certificate from the Pension Office prescribed the mode of adjusting the claim. Mr. Lyons called with me upon the Secretary of the Interior, to ascertain whether the interest was to be computed according to what I have stated to be the usual practice of the Treasury, or, as contended by Mr. Lyons, in conformity with the judgment of the court of Virginia. When I stated to the Secretary what had been the practice of the Treasury, viz.: where the interest exceeded the payment, the interest is not to be added to the principal, the payment deducted and interest computed on the balance, as that would be allowing compound interest, he assented to its correctness, but, as I understood, considered that the judgment of the court was to be carried out in this case. I cannot say that it was particularly stated that in the case of Galt, the interest exceeded the payment which was to be credited.”

Here he expressly says that he stated to him what had been the practice in the Treasury, and expressly states that the other course would be allowing compound interest. He approved the mode which did not give it, but directed that the other, which did, should be followed. And because the Comptroller says that “he cannot say that it was particularly stated that in the case of Galt the interest exceeded the payment which was to be credited,” therefore, it appears to the minority that the Secretary did not know that fact, notwithstanding the Comptroller stated the practice to be, that where the interest did exceed the payment, the interest is not to be added to the principal, and the payment deducted and interest computed on that balance, as that would be allowing compound interest, and he had gone there expressly to see whether, in that case, he should still follow that practice, and the Secretary decided that he should not. The Secretary himself attempts to carry out the same pretence in a letter written to the Commissioner of Pensions on the 10th January following, some time after the allowance of Galt's claim, and after the public began to get hold of the payment of these enormous sums of interest, and it became necessary to cover up tracks and throw the blame upon somebody else. Here it is, sir: JANUARY 10, 1850. SIR: When my attention was called to your certificate in the case of William Graves, I perceived that you had cast interest upon interest, and immediately wrote to you stating ... that your mode of calculating interest was erroneous, and - that it should be corrected. I did not lay down a rule for the calculation, not deeming it necessary. Since that time several certificates sent up by you have been signed in the ordinary way, Without examination on my part. And now I find, on looking to them, that they contain the same error with the one which I sent back to you, namely, an allowance of interest upon interest. They differ from the first-named case in this only, that there were two compoundings of interest in that case at first, one of which was omitted in the second certificate, and there is but one in the other cases. The error is an unfortunate one, but is excusable on your part, as I perceive that both you and the Third Auditor were misled by the opinion of the court of appeals of Virginia in the case of Galt's administrator against the Commonwealth. You have adopted in terms the mode of calculation prescribed by that decree, which was very correct in the particular case, where all of the interest and part of the principal had been paid at the time fixed upon to commence calcula tion of interest upon the balance; this did not involve interest upon interest, but merely interest upon the remaining principal; whereas, when applied to these cases it involves interest upon interest, and in some of them to a large amount, This must be corrected in all the cases heretofore passed upon, and the money reclaimed as paid by mistake, and in all future cases you will give simple interest merely. Very respectfully, &c., - - T. EWING, Secretary, To the COMMISSIONER OF PENSIONS,

Mr. DUNHAM. Oh, yes, I intend to, sir. I

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

He says “the error is an unfortunate one”— well, sir, I think it was for the Treasury—“but it is excusable on your part.” Excusable, indeed! After that faithful public officer, whose integrity and watchfulness and faithfulness has stood the test of years, had resisted the payment of these claims in every form and at every step until he had been again and again overruled by the Secretary, and compelled to allow them in obedience to his express direction, I should think that it might well be said that he was excusable. Mr. Speaker, i wonder how the late Secretary felt when he penned that sentence. I wonder if a blush did not mantle his cheek. o He says, “Both you and the Third Auditor were misled by the opinion of the court of appeals of Virginia in Galt's case.” Now, he very well knew that the Third Auditor had no control over the matter. The claims were allowed in the Pension Office, under his own direction and control; certificates approved by himself, as I have shown, were made out, expressly pointing out the sum to be allowed; and the mode of calculating the interest; and aii the Third Auditor could do was to follow that certificate, and allow whatever it directed. He had no discretion in the matter. His duties were entirely executory. This letter of the Secretary was written long after the allowance of Galt's case, and after the whole subject had been again brought to his mind; and after, we must presume, he had reëxamined the cases to see in how many of them this “unfortunate mistake” had occurred; and yet the grounds upon which he justifies it are not true, for, as I have before shown, the payment did not equal the interest, as he alleges. I hold in my hand, sir, the certificate issued in the case with his approval and the official statement of the account upon which it was paid, and it shows, as any one can see, that the payment did not equal the interest by $2,073 60. Is it not apparent then that, seeing the ôdium attaching to the payment of these enormous sums of compound interest, and in order to escape the responsibility of having himself directed the payment of it, he sought to make it appear that he had made this egregious blunder as to the relative amount of interest and payment in this case of Galt, as he knew it could be shown that in this case he had directed the mode of computation : And I wish here to remark, for the benefit of the minority of the committee, that he does not justify it, as do they, upon the grounds that a judgment had been rendered by the courts of Virginia, and that he was bound to follow that judgment. He had learned that excuse was too flimsy, and would not do. The judgment was rendered in 1847, and he very well knew, for it has been again and again decided, that judgments rendered by those courts since 1832 in these cases are not binding upon the department. The third section of the act of 1832, the only one under which these claims could possibly be paid, expressly provides for cases which have not been paid, or prosecuted to judgment, upon the principles of the half-pay cases theretofore decided, and not those that might be thereafter decided, and compound interest had never been allowed by those courts in any case prior to 1832. But the Secretary says, “When my attentios, ‘ was called to your certificate in William Graves's “case, I perceived that you had cast interest upon ‘ interest. I immediately wrote to you, stating * that your mode of calculating interest was erro“neous, and it should be corrected.”. Sir, I think this reference to Graves's case an unfortunate one for the Secretary; for it is one of the worst cases, even as it was paid after the correction to which he refers was made, that was settled by him. In that case, as the certificate was first made out, there were two compoundings. That was too much even for the Secretary; and when the dose was too large for him, it must have been enormous indeed. He directed it to be corrected, as he says in his letter. It was corrected, by striking out the last compounding; but the other was still left in. A new certificate, in accordance with this correction thus made by the direction of the Secretary, was made out and approved by him; and upon this the claim was paid. This new certificate directed the interest to be computed in the same manner precisely as the Secretary had himself previously directed in Galt's case; and precisely as it was afterwards computed in Barron’s case. They all alike allowed compound interest. Do you not think, then, that the Commissioner was excusable in following the precedents thus expressly given him by the Secretary himself in these cases of Graves and Galt? And, sir, what must be thought by all honorable men of the conduct of the Secretary, in attempting, under these circumstances, to

throw the blame upon his subordinate officers ? ||

What induced him to do so I know not; but this i know, that if they had attempted to save themselves from public reproach by exposing him, and placing the responsibility where it belonged, he had, as he well knew, the power to remove them from office, and deprive them of their bread. This case of Graves had been twice settled and fully paid off before Mr. Ewing came into office. In 1829 it was paid off by Virginia with $2,500, all that was claimed, and all that was then supposed to be due to that State under the act of 5th July, 1832. in 1833 the representative of Graves applied to the Treasury Department for a new settlement, claim. ing that by some mistake he had not been paid all that was due him in 1829. The case was reviewed, and $11 78 was found due him, which was paid.

This was all that was due him according to all the

decisions of the department prior to the coming in of Mr. Ewing. In October, 1849, he again applied to the department for a new settlement, claiming commutation of five years’ full pay, which amounted to $2,500, with interest thereon

from 1783. The Secretary allowed it; and as the ac- ||

count was first stated, the interest was calculated upon the commutation of five years’ full pay, ($2,500,) to 1829, when he was first paid off. The interest, which was $9,376 99, was added to the principal, and the payment of $2,500 was deducted from the amount, and as the payment was just equal to the principal, the balance left was interest, and upon this interest, as a principal, interest was cast to 1833, when the payment of $11 78 was made, the interest added to the principal, and the payment deducted, and upon the balance interest was again computed to the time of the settlement by Mr. Ewing, in 1849, making a second compounding. fully paid off with $2,511 78, amounted, under this new system of tactics, to $17,166 78, over and above the sum before paid. The correction afterwards made was, to strike off the last com

In this way, a claim which had once been.j

the balance after the $2,500 were deducted, from 1829 to the time of payment in 1849, when the interest was added to the principal, and the $11 78 deducted from the amount, and the balance, $15,38891, was paid. These claims were professedly paid under the third section of the act of the 5th of July, 1832; and if the United States were liable for them at all, this was the only law under which they could have been paid. It will readily be perceived by the statement of these | cases, which I have now made to the House, that the controversy is, whether, under this act, this commutation of five years' full pay, with the in: terest thereon, from the 22d of April, 1783, until the time of payment, could be legally paid In other words, whether the United States, under that act, were liable to the legal representatives of the officers of Virginia who served in her State line or navy during the Revolution, for anything more than the half pay of such officers, from the close of their service to the time of their death, which, in all of these cases, had been long since paid. In order to understand the proper construction of that act, it will be necessary for me to recur to the legislation of the old Continental Congress, not because it afforded any authority for the payment of these claims, but because it cannot be presumed that the United States, by that act, intended to grant any greater privileges to those officers of Virginia, than had been granted to those in the Continental line; and hence it is important to ascertain what was granted to them. I must also recur to the legislation of Virginia, because, as these claims are all based upon it, and whatever of them was due was originally due from that State, and as it cannot be presumed that Congress, by the relief which it extended to her by that act, intended to make the United States liable for more than Virginia herself was liable, it becomes important to ascertain her engagements to these officers, although it by no means follows, nor do I desire to be understood as admitting that Congress undertook by that act, the fulfillment of all of those engagements, for I think the contrary will be clearly established. In May, 1778, Congress, for the encouragement of the desponding and suffering offieers in the contimental service, by resolution, made this provision for them after the expiration of the war, in which many of them had spent the vigor of their manhood: “That all military officers commissioned by Congress, who now are, or hereafter may be, in the service of the United States, and shall continue therein during the war, and not hold any office of profit under these States, or any of them, shall, after the conclusion of the war, be entitled to receive annually, for the term of seven years, if they live so long, one half of the present pay of such officers.” This was the first provision of the kind which had been made for the officers of that war. Afterwards, application was made to Congress, to extend for life this provision of half pay. But their means were exhausted, their credit gone, and they were them already largely indebted; and, therefore, could not venture to increase the liabilities of the Confederacy by extending this provision for life; but, anxious to have ample provision made for those noble and patriotic men, they threw themselves, as they had often before, upon the liberality of the States, by passing the follow

ing resolution: pounding only, and the interest was cast upon

* Resolved, That it be, and it is hereby, recommended to for that purpose, to make such further provisions for the officers and for the soldiers enlisted for the war, to them respectively belonging, who shall continue in service till the establishment of peace, as shall be an adequate compensation for the many dangers, losses, and hardships they have suffered and been exposed to in the course of the present contest, either by granting to their officers half pay for life, and proper rewards to their soldiers; or in such other manner as may appear most expedient to the Legislatures of the Several States.” But the matter was not left here. had provided half pay for life for her officers, to which I shall hereafter refer, and as the other States did not all of them at any rate make a like provision for theirs, it undoubtedly produced dissatisfaction, among them; and as it also became necessary to raise more troops, Congress was compelled to take further action upon the subject. On the 2ist of October, it resolved thus: (see Journal of Congress, vol. 3, page 538:) “That the officers who shall continue in the service to the end of the war, shall also be entitled to half pay during life, to commence from the time of their reduction.” the close of the war, when the officers of the army became very solicitous for Congress to make provision for the payment of their services, for which it was largely in arrear; and in January, 1783, they petitioned Congress upon the subject, and among other things, asked to have a commutation of the half pay allowed, by the different resolutions of that body, for an equivalent in gross. And on the 22d of March, 1783, Congress by resolution made this provision for them: “Therefore, Resolved, That such officers as are now in Service, and shalf continue therein to the end of the war, shall be entitled to receive the amount of five years’ full pay in money, or securities on interest at six per Cetat. per annuth,

the several States that have not already adopted measures i

as Congress shall find most convenient, instead of the half pay promised for life, by the resolution of the 21st day of

October, 1780; the said securities to be such as shall be given to other creditors of the United States, provided it be at the option of the lines of the respective States, and not of officers individually in those lines, to accept or refuse the same: And provided, also, That their election shall be signified to Congress through the commander-in-chief, from the lines under his coiamand, within two months, and through the commanding officer of the southern army, from those under his command, within six triotiths from the date of this resolution : “That the same commutation shall extend to the corps not belonging to the lines of particular States, and who are entitled to half pay for life as aforesaid ; the acceptance or refusal to be determined by corps, and to be signified in the same manner, and witi, in the same time as above meåioned: . “That all officers belonging to the hospital department, who are entitled to half pay by the resolution of the 17th day of January, 1781, may collectively agree to accept or refuse the aforesaid commutation, signifiing the same through the commander-in-chief within six months from this time; that such officers as have retired at different periods, entitled to half pay for life, may collectively, in each State of which they are inhabitants, accept or refuse the same ; their acceptance or refusal to be signified by agents authorized for that purpose, within six months from this period; that with respect to such retiring officers, the commutation, if accepted by them, shall be in lieu of whatever may be now due to them since the time of their retiring from service, as well as of what might hereafter become due ; and that so Soon as their acceptance shall be signified, the superintendent of finance be, and he is hereby directed to take measures for the settlement of their accounts accordingly, and to issue to them certificates bearing interest at six per cent. That all officers entitled to half pay for life not included in the preceding resolution, may also collectively agree to accept or refuse the aforesaid commutation, signifying the same within six months from this time.”

This is all the legislation of the old Congress bearing upon the question; at least it is all that I

As Virginia.

Thus the matter remained until near

have been able, after the most diligent search, to find; and there are two things to which I wish to call the attention of the House, in reference to it, as I think they have a very significant bearing upon the matter I am discussing. The one is, the great care which Congress took to require the of. ficers of the continental army, provided for in the last resolution, to make a speedy election, the longest period allowed not exceeding six months, as to whether they would take the commutation thereby provided, or retain their half pay for life, so that they might not wait to see which would be the most profitable; and if they should live long, they might continue to enjoy their half pay; but if they died early, their representatives could come in and claim the commutation. And the manner in which that election was to be made: they were not allowed as individuals to make it, but it had to be done by corps and States. And the other important fact is, that Congress nowhere provided either half pay or commutation for the naval of. ficers of the Confederacy. . These facts will, I think, aid in the construction of the law of the 5th of July, 1832, under which these claims were paid. The first act of Vir, ginia upon the subject was passed in May, 1779, about three months before Congress passed their resolution recoramending the States to make provision of half pay for life for their officers, and it probably induced that action of Congress. It provides that: “Ali general officers of the army being citizens of this Commonwealth, and als field officers, captains, and subaks terms, comutanditig, or who shall command in the battalions of this Commonwealtà, on continental establishment, or serving in the battalions raised for the particular defence of this State, or for the defence of the United States: And all chaplains, physicians, surgeons, and surgeons’ mates, appointed to said battalions, or any of them, being citizens of this Commonwealth, and not being in the service of Geor. gia, or of any other State, provided Congress do not make some tantažnount provision for them, who shall serve from henceforward, or from the time of their being commissioned, until the end of the war: And all such officers who have, or shail become supernunerary on the reduction of any of the said battalions, and shall again euter into the said service, is required so to do, in the same or any higher rank, and continue therein until the end of the war, shall be entitled to half pay during life, to cominence from the determination of their command or service.”—(See 10th Hero. ning’s Statutes tit Large, page 25.) In October, 1780, in an act making various other provisions in reference to the troops of that State in continental service, is this one: “That the offi‘ cers of this State in continental service, who shall ‘continue therein to the end of the (then) present ‘ war, shall receive half pay during life, or until ‘they shall again be called into service.” Now, sir, these are the only statutes of Virginia, until one passed in 1790, to which i shall hereafter refer, which in terms grant half pay to Virginia officers, or which have any bearing upon commutation pay. They clearly do not grant commutation, but half pay only; and they evidently do not embrace the officers in her State havy. Indeed, I believe no one has ever thought or pretended that they did; and the Legislature and executive offic cers, and perhaps the judges of that State, seem to have doubted for a long time, as will hereafter be seen, whether they even embraced the officers of her State line. There are others which are sup.

posed to refer to these, and to extend this provision

of half pay to those naval officers; but, sir, I will read them, and the House can judge for itself. The first act to which I shall refer, relied upon

as doing this, was passed in November, 1781. The last clause of the eleventh section reads thus: “And that the State officers who now are in actual service, shall have the same advances of pay, and in the same manner, for their present relief, as the officers in continental service.” Sir, this provision cannot refer to the half pay before then granted to the officers in continental service, because that was neither an “advance” nor for “their present relief,” of those officers, as it was not to commence until their service was ended. To what, then, does this provision refer 1 will tell you, sir. The first nine sections of the act make provision for the payment and immediate relief of the officers and soldiers of the State in continental service only, and the sections following from the tenth to the thirteenth, inclusive, are confined entirely to provisions for the officers of the State line, and this clause was intended to extend to them the provisions made in the previous sections for the immediate relief of the officers in the

continental service. Then follows the fourteenth
section, which reads thus: -
“That the officers and seamen of the navy of this State, |
as they stand arranged by a late regulation, shall be entitled |
to the same advantages as the officers belonging to this State |
in the land service, agreeably to their respective ranks.”
This was undoubtedly intended simply to ex- |
tend the advantages, which were numerous, just |
granted by the previous sections of the act to the
officers in the land service, to those of the navy;
but as half pay was not one of those advantages,
and is nowhere named in the act, it could not |
have been granted to them by this section. The
other acts relied upon are one of May, 1780, (See
10th Hen., 298,) which contains this clause:


[ocr errors]

“That the said captains, together with the subaltern and all other commissioned officers in the service of the navy, including the master, surgeon, and surgeon’s mate, shall be . entitled to the same pay and rations, the same privileges and | emoluments, and rank in the same degree with officers of the like rank belonging to the regiments heretofore raised for | the internal defence of this State.” |

- {

And one passed in October, 1782, (See 11th Hem, | 162,) the last clause of the third section of which | reads thus: |

“That all officers, seamen, and marines, or their repre- | sentatives, shall be entitled to the same bounty in lands, and : other emoluments, as the officers and soldiers of the Virginia line, on continental establishment.” |

There is one other from which the minority | have quoted, and upon which they rely, with how much propriety the House shall judge. It is the act of May, 1782, (See 11th Hen., 85,) and the first clause of the thirteenth section reads thus:

“That the navy officers, sailors, and marines of this State, shall, in all respects, have the same claims, and be subject to the same restrictions and regulations, in all matters coming within the purview of this act, as are allowed to the officers and soldiers in the land service of the same.”

I wish here to call the attention of the House to the fidelity with which the minority have given us the law. Here is the clause as quoted in their report:

“That the navy officers, sailors, and marines, of this

State shall, in all respects, have the same claims” “ as are allowed to officers and soldiers in the land service.”

st will be perceived that they unfortunately left out of the middle of the sentence, these words, “in all matters coming within the purview of this act.” And the importance of what was thus left out will be perceived, when I state, what no one will deny, that the act, from beginning to the end of it, does

[ocr errors]

not say one word of half pay, or even allude to it in any way whatever. Sir, I do not know what this should be called, when done by gentlemen in this honorable body— I suppose a slip of the recollection, an oversight or misreading, or some other soft phrase. But in the West, sir, we call it pettifogging; and when a person resorts to it there, we think it pretty good evidence that he has got a bad case. This, then, is the legislation, so far as I have been able to ascertain it, which is supposed to give half pay, or commutation pay, to the officers of the Virginia State navy. It is contended, that as the previous legislation of the State had given half pay to the officers of the State in the land service, this granting to the officers of the navy the same advantages, the same privileges and emoluments, extended that provision of half pay to them. Now, sir, is it not extremely doubtful whether such was the intention ? The half pay had been granted to the officers in the land service upon certain terms and contingencies. They were to serve to the end of the war; or if they had or should become supernumerary upon the reduction of their battalions they were, if required so to do, to again enter the service and continue therein to the end of the war. Nothing is said of these terms and contingencies in these provisions which it is contended extend the half pay to the officers of the navy. Again: in the language of Judge Green, in his opinion in Markham's case, “there ‘ were many privileges, (such as exemption from * taxes during service,) emoluments, (such as the ‘right to a supply of necessaries at prime cost ‘through the agency of public functionaries, &c.,) ‘ and advantages, (such as having their pay made ‘good from the 1st of January, 1777, according to ‘the scale of depreciation,) to which those expres‘sions might be applied without embracing this ‘contingent bounty of half pay.” And do not the terms rather relate to ‘such privileges, advantages, and emoluments, and as the officers in the land service were then in the enjoyment of, and not to such as they were promised contingently in the fnture ? It seems that it was so doubtful whether the Officers of either the State line or navy were entitled to this half pay that the executive officers

of Virginia refused to issue warrants for it in their

behalf. In May, 1783, (11 Hen, 265,) an act was
passed directing “ that the auditors shall yearly
issue to such of the officers of the State line and
navy as are by law entitled to half pay, their war-
rants for the same.” This granted half pay to
It simply directed the auditors to issue
warrants to such as by previous legislation were
entitled to it, leaving it to them to determine. The
doubt was so great that at the very next session
the Legislature of that State, by a joint resolution,
directed that no more warrants for half pay should
be issued to the officers of the State line; and as it
was very clear that if they were not entitled to
half pay, those of the navy were not, no more
warrants were issued to either the officers of the
State line or navy until 1790.
But, sir, it is not now material whether these
acts did extend the provision of half pay to the
officers of the State navy or not; for the courts of
Virginia have decided, whether rightfully or not,
that they do, and the United States have magnan-
imously relieved her of the burden, and by the
act of 1832 provided for their payment at the

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »