Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File R. 15233, Isaac Holmes, Va.
Page 1

Va.

Holmes, Isaac

NUMBER
R 15233

Va. Half Pay

CONTENTS
[blank]
Page 2

Washington City 3rd of March 1850
To the Commissioner of Pensions
Sir
There is a case before you which has long lain
in your office and that of the Territory of the Interior and which I earnestly request may be taken up and disposed of as early as practicable.  There being nothing now as I believe to prevent the taking up and passing this claim which surely unless all precedent is to be disregarded and letter of the 3d section of the act of Congress of 5th July 1832 intitled "an act to remunerate Virginia" is also to be disregarded this claim surely must be admitted and paid
As early as the the 14th of February 1850 the papers pertaining to this claim was filed by gen ?] John M Mc Grath so far as to the sustaining the claim. Although administration was not then taken out wholly a secondary thing to wit to who is authorised  to receive the money after the claim is admitted. A course often pursued not deeming it necessary to indure the trouble and expense of administering and [illegible] security untill it is [illegible]
Whether or not the claim will be admitted. In this case I had been in correspondence with Vivian Brooking Holmes of Roth County Illinois formerly of Mc Donough County, and I had as early as Nov 1849 written John B Holmes of [illegible] of Memphis Tennessee and had at the Hustings Court in January 1850 for the City of Richmond processed through an attorney 
heirship proven by Vivian Brooking a very aged 
man and the brother in law of Isaac Holmes had also some time previously got the necessary certificates from the Auditors office & at the [illegible] and the office of the Court of Appeals of Va and on the receipt of the letter of John R Holmes of Jany 1850 (see the certified Copy on file) having long before that made arrangements with Vivian Brooking Holmes This claim was filed on the 14th of February 1850 with the expectation that John B
Holmes could immediately administer which I wrote
Page 3

to at an early day. I waited for this document until weary and then got a power of attorney from the other Brother visiting me with all the right and authority which he himself could exercise were he personally present and then after the receipt of this power of attorney I procured Gen John M. McGrath administer an administrative which was done at the Orphans Court in Washington City A Certified copy of said power of attorney being on file in the office along with the papers pertaining to this claim which had then been filed since the 14th Feby 1850, then same six weeks or two months then after this claim had been regularly filed a
Mr Ravulto of Richmond Virginia with a full knowledge as I verily believe that I was already prosecuting the said Claim as at all [illegible]  knowing that I had procured heirship proven  at the Hustings Court. Presents a second and claim in right of David Holmes in which case
administration is granted in Nottoway County Virginia to Mr. Smith claiming to be a grandson to wit the son of a deceased daughter of David Holmes -  I was not at [illegible] then heirship was proven and Mr Brooking probably thought only of the living children of his Brother in law David Holmes - Hence the same claim is now before 
the department prosecuting by two set of Claims only But the party prosecuting under the admr John H Smith [illegible] that undelays  by heir has descended to make [illegible] Statements or state falsehoods which are here reputed and the falsehood exposed. In a statement or argument prepared by himself or agent he admits to this letter of John B. Holmes and states that letter to be without date or any place from whence written and further that John B. Holmes in that letter adverted to, heirs in Virginia. Also that he J. B. Holmes would come on and administer when the claim was allowed Ive letter on file and the total misrepresentation and perversion of the
truth -  again [illegible] request to Vivian Brooking Holmes and the evidence of Mr Brooking at Richmond stating [illegible] Brooking James to be living in McDonough County Illinois whereas this man who I represented lived in Bath County Judge the iniquity and right of such argument. Richmond Va and McDonough County Illinois are one thousand Miles or more apart and Mr Brooking may not have Heard of J R. Holmes for a year. The family lived
Page 4

in McDonough County But lately lived in Bath County and lives there now when last heard of
Another important discovery for which he [illegible] I have great Credit he has discovered that the power of R P Holmes is good for nothing to wit
That he signed and it was witnessed in Bath County and the acknowledgement was at Jersey wonderful discovery and for which the party should have a [marked out: illegible] their power of attorney was signed and witnessed in
Bath County Illinois he then went in person with with it to Quincey to deliver to my son to Mail me when he got there he was informed that a power of attorney must be acknowledged before some public officer otherwise it was of no value when he forthwith went before a public officer and formally acknowledged it and the officer finished by giving the proper of
special Certificate signature seal &c. I had always supposed that he could execute a power of attorney at any place where he might be and it was necessary to be done and that the acknowledgement before the proper officer was the execution of the same no matter when or where he signed it as whether there was any witness subscribed, or not was
wholly immaterial he acknowledged it as his act and deed before the public officer and this was all sufficient to act for the injurious discoveries of imperfections in the two document of John B. and Mrs Holmes General McCalla in his statement has I have beyond controversy with who the right of administering belongs. In which the party advocating the care of the other administrator holding the right of administrating Washing and admit to a [illegible] [illegible] & since 
I knew not what the decision was on that point to wit the administration  But I've I had not administered here I had administered at Louisville Kentucky and the papers on file in the Treasury department all which the account was titled will this this what decision as then made I know not other than the plaintiff was cast. But sir I will know that it has for the last thirty years been a common thing to administer here and the right has allways [sic] been
Page 5

admitted and the same attention paid in the department as though it had been any where else. I will here refer to Virginia cases coming within my own immediate Knowledge Their Capt Wm Long Capt George Elliott Lieutenant Isaac Browning those were admitted and paid by XXX Secretary of the Treasury to wit all McLears, Duane & Woodberry, By J. L. Edwards Capt George Goosley, Lt. William Roberts Surgeon, Mathew Pope, Major [illegible] Meredith Surgeon, Joseph Hay, Major Joseph Hay Major John Margaret, Capt John Harris, Capt Edward Travis, Sailing master John Tu[man, Capt. Thomas Elwell and within the last eighteen months there are probably a dozen more [illegible] in each case above named will shew that the administration was here I would respectfully ask what should be done with a public officer or officers ([illegible] they have [illegible] that [illegible]) who would act in open violation of the known decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
Such sir is my answer to the objections urged against the papers of J B and C M Holmes and our [illegible] being here. On the validity of the Claim and right to the commutation and  interest as Paymaster I refer you to the argument or statement of General McCalla
filed with the papers -
While this party has sought for the mote in one eye they forgot to cast the reason out of their area -
I refer to a document purporting to be the affidavit of a lady a very long deceased or affidavit without any sort of authentication whatever, yet this [illegible] unauthenticated is filed as evidence in this Case

I have sir to ask that this case may be taken up and disposed of early as practical I Remain Sir yours truly
Henry  Wartauk for -
J B and V R Holmes

P.S. Enclosed you will see a letter from Jno B. Holmes as his agent as late as 10th Feby last
Page 6

p. 77
Letter from
J M M Calla
Washington
June 24/ 50
Enclosing papers rel. to
the case of the Heirs of
Isaac Holmes, claiming
Commutation pay
6 in Number
Page 7

Washington 24 June 1850

To the Hon Thomas Ewing
Secy of the Interior

Sir.
The claim of the heirs of Isaac Holmes
decd late a Lieut and Paymaster in the war of the revolution, for commutation and interest for his services as Paymaster was filed by me in the Pension office on the 14th February last, at which time no other claim on that behalf was in that office. On the 23 March following, a Mr Smith, who had taken out letters of administration in Virginia on said estate, after the taking of proof in the case had been begun
by Mr Northup, by authority of one of the sons of the deceased, filed a claim, as  representative, for the same amount of
the fact, as I have informed you in a previous letter, I was not informed until the claims had been examined & rejected by the Commissioner of Pensions. Since the date of that communication, at the request of H. Northup Esqs. the agent of John B. and Vivian B. Holmes, the only surviving children of
the intestate, and the attorney in fact for one of them, I have taken out letters of administration in the Orphans Court of
this city on said estate, the Judge of that court deeming the authority of Mr. Northup sufficient for the purpose, to be appointed himself, or to select a person in his stead
I enclose herewith as evidence of the facts alleged
Page 8

the following papers.
1.  Jno. B. Holmes' letter January 23d 1850 authorizing Mr. Northup to proceed in the claim.
2.  Vivian B. Holmes' letter March 8 1850, of similar tendency and that he had agreed with Mr Northups son. 
3.  Power of attorney from same 30 April 1850, with authority to act for him
4.  Letter from Same 30 April 1850 - further assent
5.  Certified copy of Mr Northups application to Orphans Court for my appointment as Administrator.
6.  Letters of administration granted accordingly, in which I have given bond and approved security in the penalty of $10000, and am willing to increase it, if required, to any amount.
In a contest between Mr Smith & myself for
the fund in this case, I have strong hopes you will consider my pretentious superior to his for several reasons, among which are the following.
His action was an unauthored interference with proceedings previously begun under proper authority, for the collection of proof to sustain the claim
He is appointed admor.  by a state court, whilst
the letters filed herewith are granted by a court of the United States, immediately under the supervision and observation of your Department, by which the safety of the funds can be judged of and the payments to the proper parties secured.
But a stronger reason, and which I presume
Page 9

will have the greatest weight with you, is that the law of administration is in my favor. Although that law is no doubt perfectly familiar to you, I will refer you to Kent Co. 2nd Vol. page 411 et seq. for the principles which govern in such cases. By the rule there laid down, the widow and children stand first in rank, and sons before daughters; and if those in that rank are living, no other can be lawfully appointed unless they are notified and decline. Here there is no difficulty in the case, Action is first taken by the sons to collect the assets by an agent & atto, and in pursuance of authority vested by such powers, an administrator is appointed where the fund lies, and application is made to the proper Department.
I trust therefore, sir, that when you shall have time to investigate the matter, you will direct the fund to be paid over to me as the legal representative of the decd. Isaac Holmes,
Very Resply
Your ob [obedient] Servt [Servant]
Jno. M McCalla
Page 10

To the Honble [Honorable] Judges of the District Court, sitting in the City of Richmond. The petition of Isaac Holmes sheweth. That he entered into the service of this State in the year 1776, with the rank of Lieutt  [Lieut.] in the second State Regiment, at that time under the command of Col Wm Brent, and continued therein until he was captured by the British troops, in the month of May 1781. That on the 25th day of May 1781, being then a Lieutenant & paymaster & a prisoner as aforesaid he was liberated on parole, as will appear from the instrument which is hereto annexed, and to which he begs leave to refer - That whilst he was thus at large but continuing a prisoner, by some arrangement, which took place  respecting the regiment to which he belonged, he became supernumerary, but was never liberated from his parole until the general discharge of all prisoners, which took place of course at the conclusion of the war; your petitioner therefore was in fact a prisoner & of course in the service of the country until that period. Under these circumstances, your
petitioner, conceiving himself entitled to half pay, according to the Terms of the act of General Assembly of May 1779, applied to the Auditor of Public Accounts for a warrant for his pay as aforesaid, or a commutation of 5 years full pay in lieu thereof, which hath been refused him; from which decision, he hath appealed to the judgment of this Honorable Court.
Notice admitted 10 Sep: 1791-
J Pendleton audr.

p [page ?]  2 -
I Isaac Holmes Lieutenant of the second Virginia State Regiment, in the American Army do acknowledge myself to be a prisoner on parole to his majesty the King of Great Britain, and I do hereby engage to remain as such in the County of Dinwiddie untill [sic] properly exchanged or recalled, and
Page 11

and I do solemnly promise not to be aiding or assisting in any respect to the Enemies of  Great Britain whilst I continue under this obligation-
Given under my hand at Brandon on board Selina this Twenty fifth day of May 1781-
[signature] I. Holmes
[signature] G Robertson

I John Robinson, Clerk of the Circuit Superior Court of Law and Chancery for the County of Henrico and City of Richmond, on the common law side, having in my possession and under my case, the records and papers of the former common law District Court held in the said City, do hereby certify that the preceding are copies of two papers filed in the case of
Isaac Holmes against the Commonwealth in the said District Court.
In testimony whereof I hereto set my hand
and annex the seal of the aforesaid Circuit
Superior Court, this 20th day of March one
thousand eight hundred & fifty
J Robinson
Page 12

Evidence of the time of Isaac Holme's [sic] death
Page 13

No 1

At a Court held for Nottoway County the 7th day of March 1793
This Inventory and appraisement of the Estate of James B Walter Decd was returned into Court and ordered to be recorded
Teste
Is: Holmes C. N.C.

No 2
"At a court held for Nottoway County on Thursday the 4th April 1793 Isaac Holmes the Clerk of this Court being dead, the Court proceeded to the appointment of Clerk in his room, and made choice of Peter Randolph Gentleman, Whereupon the said Peter Randolph took the oath for giving assurance of fidelity to this commonwealth, and also the oath of Office, and with Francis Muir and Samuel Pincham his securities entered into and acknowledged a bond for the faithful execution of the said Office according to Law"

State of Virginia
County of Nottoway
I, Richard Epes, Clerk of the County Court, in and for the County and State above  mentioned, do certify that the above are true copies taken from the Record Books kept in my office. No 1, taken from "Will Book"
and No 2, from "Order Book" of 1793 -
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my
hand and affixed my seal of Office this 17th day of May 1853
Richd Epes, Clk.
Page 14

REJECTED
(3 - 223)

No. 18198

[blank] ,Ex'r.

OLD WAR INVALID.
Jeremiah Stivers
P. O.[blank]
Service:[blank]
Enlisted:[blank]
Discharged:[blank]
Application filed:[blank]
Alleges:[blank]
Re-enlisted:[blank]
Page 15

1890
Feby 11  E S Smith-- has no title to
pension & commutation rejected
Many years ago
Issac H Smith


Prior
Feby 15 Isaac H Smith that claim was rejected
Prior
Page 16

REJECTED

(3 -- 223.)
No. 15233
[blank] , Exr.

OLD WAR INVALID.
Isaac Holms [Holmes]

P.O. Died 1793

Service:  Lieut: 2d Va Line
Revolutionary war

Enlisted: [blank]18

Discharged:[blank] 18

Application filed:[blank] 18

Alleges:[blank]

Re-enlisted:[blank]
Page 17

Mr Heath,
You have the case of Holmes at your office &
here are some papers which appear to have been
[illegible] by Genl McCalla on the 15th ulto.
They do not appear to have been filed with his other papers - I send them to you in order that they may take that direction
Truly yours
Geo C Whiting
Nov 5/52
Page 18

p 55
Washington Oct 3, 1850
William T. Berrett,
---
Correcting error in his letter
of the 2d inst relating to the
Letter of John B. Holmes. &c.
(pension case)
Page 19

No. 15233

Isaac Holms 
Lt.
2d Va Line

Revolution
Discharged [blank]
4061

H'f Pay______  Act 32

Received [blank] 187_

REJECTED
Page 20

7  2/3    12 ______ 92.00 Lieut. Pay Mr & Clothier

40 _____12 _____48.00  Captain

26 2/3 ____ 12 ____ 32.00   Lieutenant
Page 21

H [illegible] [illegible] of the
10th Feby 1857
Page 22

New York Feby 10th 1857

Henry Northup Esq
Washington City

Dear Sir

I am the authorized agent of Mr John B
Holms of Shelby County Tennessee and the object of this note is to ascertain whether anything has been collected of the Government for the Estate of Isaac Holms  Decd.
Will you be pleased to let me hear from you upon the subject immediately. address me to the care of Messrs. Caleb Cope & Co Philadelphia and oblige

Very Respectfully
Your obt Svt 
W Joyner
Page 23

Bertie Co N C
Colerain N.C.
Jan 21 1890

Hon. Commissioner of Pensions
Washington D.C.

Dear Sir

In Feb 1883 my father Dr R. H. Smith, with the joint heirs of Lieut Isaac Holmes, gave Mr Jas. T. Sutton Jr of Richmond, Va the Power of Atty to collect a claim against the State of Va, & also one against the Federal Government. The said claims due Lieut Holmes for services rendered in the Revolutionary war.
My father died Oct 30th 1884.
Page 24

and Feb 10-1887 was the date of last letter
recd. from said Sutton. I have written to Mr Jas. T. Sutton several times since, but he has not
answered either letter.
Now I would like to know if the said claims have
been collected, or not,
By answering the above you will greatly oblige 
Yours respectfully
E. S. Smith

P. S.
Will you also inform me what year, & at what
age Lieut. Isaac Holmes entered the war, & also the date of his death
E. S. S.

[postmark]
U. S.
PENSIONS OFFICE
JAN 24 1890

[stamp]
[illegible]
FEB 10 1890
DIVISION
Page 25

In Nottaway County Court the 7th day of May 1789 
Isaac Holmes is appointed clerk of this Court who together with William Yates and Vivian Brooking his securities entered into & acknowledged bond and then took the oath as appointed by law to be taken by the County Court clerks
A Copy from the Record
Teste
Francis Fitzgerald Clk
Page 26

Helena Arks June 24/57
Sir
Allow me to inquire the condition of the claim of the Pension (or perhaps Communication) of the heirs of Lieut Isaac B Holmes of Virginia. One of the heirs a widow resides in the State, & is solicitous to know. she cannot find its condition, from those our acting as attorneys or agents. I Desire indeed not to know who they are. Please also inform me, who is the recognized Atty in the matter & oblige Very resply
Yours &c
W K Sebastian
Hon Geo: C. Whiting
Comr of Pens.
Page 27

H. of Reps. Feby 11. 1852.
Hon James E. Heath
Commr of Pensions.
Dear Sir
Please inform me as to the inquiries of the enclosed letter and very much oblige
Yours very Respectfully
Richd. Yates
H. of R. 7th D. Illinois
Please return Mr. Holmes letter with your answer-
Page 28

Isaac Holmes
Half pay
Copy letter enclosing the decision of the Secretary-
Page 29

Pension Office October 13. 1853
Sir
I herewith have the honor to enclose to you the decision of the Secretary of the Interior in the matter of the application of Isaac Holmes for Half pay & commutation under the act of May 5th 1852 and receive yours Respectfully

John M McCalla &
Thomas Green Esqs.
Present.
Page 30

Pension Office, January 28, 1857 - Received of Mr. Cole, Clief Clerk, the arguments of Mr. Pritchett and Mr. Green in the case of Isaac Holmes, (claim for half pay under act of July 5, 1835-) and the written decision of the Secretary of the Interior address to said claim, dated October 10, 1853. which are to be returned when required to the Pension bureau -
Jno. D. McPherson
Deputy Solicitor Ct Claims
Page 31

Certificate Col Dabney
for Paymaster Isaac Holmes-
8
Jno M McCalla
f.
Page 32

I do certify that Isaac Holmes was a Lieutenant and paymaster to the 2d Virginia State Regiment and became supernumerary by the arrangement made in the year 1781- And from information I believe that he was taken a prisoner by the enemy in the Spring of the year 1781-
Charles Dabner
May 18" 1791
Extract from the record of the Commonwealth against Holmes. decided by the Court of Appeals, on the 29" of October 1792
Teste. J. Allen. C.C.
Page 33

Evidence upon which Lt Isaac Holmes received land bounty from Va
Page 34

I do certify on honor that I have served Three years successively in the State line  Given under my hand this 9th September 1783.
Is. Holmes Sr.

Executive Department
6th April 1853
I hereby certify that above to be a true copy of a paper on file in this department.
George W. Munford
Secy of the Comth.
Page 35

Certificate
Auditor of Virginia
in Isaac Holmes case

D.

4.

Jno M McCalla

e.
Page 36

This is to certify, that it appears from a list in this office of such Officers and Soldiers of the Virginia State Line as settled their accounts and received certificates for the balance of their Full Pay, according to an act of assembly, passed the November session 1781, directing the Auditors of Public Accounts to settle and adjust the pay and accounts of the said Officers and Soldiers from the 1st January 1777 to 31st December 1781, (see Hening's Statutes at Large, Vol. 10, p. 462,) that a settlement was made on the 14th day of May 1783 in the name of Isaac Holmes as Lieut. P.M & Clothr. and evidence of the indebtedness of the State to him for £454.14.1 delivered to himself but as the original settlements or copies thereof are not to be found in this office, the term of service embraced therein cannot be stated.
Given under my hand at the First Auditor's Office, Richmond, this 30th day of November 1849
Jas. E. Heath  1st Aud

No seal of office
Page 37

May 20/50
Certificate James E Health
of commutation and 
interest paid Isaac Holmes

Isaac Holmes

Jno M McCalla
26 May 1850
Page 38

This is to certify that it appears from a voucher on file in this office that on the 10 July 1794 Certificates for £480 and warrants for £307-16 were issued, and received by Vivion Brooking, admr of Isaac Holmes for said Holmes commutation for half pay during life
Jas. E. Heath  Audr.

Auditors Office
26th February 1850
Page 39

15
Page 40

Washington City  May 27th 1850

Dear Sir
I ask of you to look at the papers filed by Isaac H. Smith administrator of Lieutenant Isaac Holmes claim under a judgt. of the court of appeals of Va  And write to me so that we may know whether the papers & all are in form.  This Sir is the same case that I called on you to see about on Saturday last
Please attend to this request as soon as possible
Very respectfully

T.S. Haywood

J.L. Edwards Esqr
Comr. of Pensions
Page 41

Mch '50

F.

6
Page 42

Richmond Virginia  14th May 1783.

Warrant to Isaac Holmes for one years interest on a Certificate dated this day No. 283, in full of the balance of his pay as a Lieutenant Pay Master & Clothier in the State Line.
£26.6.10

The above is truly copied from Journal A No 2.  page 110

Given under my hand at the Auditors Office Richmond this 23rd day of March 1850.
Ro Johnston
First Auditor
Page 43

Va. L. Office, Richmond, Sept. 29th 1852
Col: Henry Northup:

D Sir:
Your of the 27th Inst. was recd. on yesterday.
Mr. Dorrington is dead, and it so happened that on yesterday morning just before I recd. your letter, his admin. took his book, containing the returns called for, saying that it was his private property & refuses to let others inspect it.  I accordingly had to get all the returns on file & now send you a copy of all cases returned to the 1st Auditor's office.
Fee for searches & copying $2 which you will please send by mail & oblige.
Yours most respectfully
S.H. Parker
Page 44

U.S. Senate  June 8/54

Sir 
Referring you to your letter to me of 27 ulto: respecting the claim of the heirs of Lieut Isaac Holmes I have to request that you will at the earliest day convenient a copy of the decision of the Secretary of the Interior & oblige
Yours resply
W.K. Sebastian

Hon. L.P. Waldo
Com of Pensions
Page 45

May 16, 1850.

Honbl. James A Seddon
Jeremiah Morton
& T.S. Haymond.

Ask that the pension case of Lieut Isaac Holmes may be taken up at one of its regular order.


Ansd May 22/1850
Page 46

House of Reps May 16th 1850

Hon. Thomas Ewing
Secy of the Interior

Sir

On application in behalf of the heirs of Lieut Isaac Holmes to the Comm of Pensions to obtain a speedy consideration and decision of their claim, the papers of which have his filed in the office seven February last, we are informed by Mr Edwards that he has positive instructions from your department not to take up claims out of their regular order and that without authority from you, he will not feel at liberty to make an exception -  the circumstances of the case referred to as peculiar There has been a decision, to be informed of by the Superior Court of Va affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals, and in the event of it not being allowed by the Genl Government, recourse may be had for its recovery in State legislature, but as a  preliminary measure to such proceeding, it will be necessary to prove before a Court of Va now in Session which will very soon adjourn. Prompt decision of the claim by the Federal Government is therefore very desirable, that in the event of non allowance
Page 47

the case may be moved, so that the binding effect of the Judgment may to manifest and to exhibited to the next Session of the Virginia Legislature under these circumstances, we would respectfully request that the Comm of Pensions may be authorised [sic] at once to take and decide the case
Respectfully 
James A Seddon
Jeremiah Morten

Having this case and the circumstances explained to [illegible] extent to me, I write is urging that this application may have immediate consideration
very respectfully
T.S. Haymond

Hon T. Ewing
Secr. of the Interior
Page 48

Petersburg Va  June 28/50

Sir
I am one of the heirs and administrator de bonis non of Lt: Isaac Holmes of the Virginia State line, and understand that a person by the name of Harry Northup has induced a Mr. McCalla to obtain letters of administration upon the estate of Lt. Isaac Holmes in the  District of Columbia.  I therefore write to say that such a course was unauthorised upon my part, and was entirely unnecessary as my letters of administration de bonis now are still subsisting and in full force.  They having been obtained in the county in which said Holmes died, and an exemplification of them is already filed in the office of the Commissioner of Pensions, I therefore write and request you to disregard all application from Mr. Northup or Mr. McCalla in his behalf, or otherwise, and recognise Mr. Wm. F Barret as my authorised agent in the claim for the Revolutionary services of Lt. Isaac Holmes.
Very Resply
Isaac Holmes Smith administrator de non bonis of Lt. Isaac Holmes

To Mr. Thos Ewing
Secretary of the Interior  Washington City DC
Page 49

Know all men by these presents, that I Isaac Holmes Smith, Administrator de bonis non, of Lt. Isaac Holmes an officer in the war of the Revolution do hereby constitute nominate and appoint William T Barret of the City of Richmond my true and lawful attorney for me and in my name as administrator aforesaid, to prosecute, sue for and demand from the proper Office at Washington in the United States or Richmond in the State of Virginia or both, any and all Monies that may be due me as administrator aforesaid, either as Commutation Half pay Interest or otherwise on
account of the Revolutionary services of the above named Lt. Isaac Holmes, Signed sealed and delivered as witness my hand and seal this 18th day of April Eighteen hundred and fifty
Isaac H. Smith Administr. d b n [de bonis non] [seal]

Town of Petersburg to wit

This day personally appeared before us Isaac H Smith and acknowledged the above to be his act and deed and desired the same to certified by us
Given under our hands & seals this 18th April 1850
W E Hinton J.P. [seal]
John Howard [seal]
Page 50

Contract
McCalla & Holmes
with I. H. Smith

25 May 1853
Page 51

This memo of an agreement made this 25th May 1853 between V. B. Holmes and J. M.
McCalla of the one part and Isaac Holmes Smith by his attorney Thomas Green of the other part
Witnesseth
Whereas said McCalla at the instance of John W. Holmes & V.B. Holmes by their agent has qualified as administrator de bonis non of Isaac  Holmes who was a Paymaster Lieutenant and Clothier of the Va State line in the revolution & is believed to be entitled to Half-pay or commutation for his staff services aforesaid
and Whereas the said Smith, a grandson of said Isaac Holmes, at the instance of other distributees of said Isaac Holmes has qualified
as administrator de bonis non of said Isaac Holmes in Nottoway County Virginia the place of his domicile and each administrator has applied to the Commissioner of Pensions
for the money due for the staff service aforesaid and it is uncertain to whom the money will be directed to be
Page 52

paid, now it is agreed between the parties
in compromise that no matter to whom the
Department may direct the money to be paid,
the distribution of it shall be as follows viz: Three fifth of it shall be paid to said Smith and two fifths to said McCalla, who is to accord
with V.B. Holmes and John B. Holmes and
for the three fifths, the said Smith is to account
with the other distributees -- The division
between said Smith & McCalla is to be made
thus. If the Department shall direct the payment to be made to said Smith he shall receive from the Treasurer, the amount in two checks or drafts, to his order, one of which he shall endorse and deliver for collection to said J. M. McCulla & the other, he shall retain -- and if the money shall be directed to be paid to said McCalla then he shall receive two like drafts or checks and shall endorse the one for
three fifths to said Isaac H. Smith
It is further agreed, that whereas the said Smith avers that there are representatives of
five branches Distributees of Isaac Holmes viz: John B. Holmes
Page 53

V.B. Holmes, Frances T Holmes, and Margaret B. Holmes. and Lucy Holmes, and whereas the said V. B. Holmes contends that Frances T. left no representatives who could or can in law  assert a claim to her portion & that consequently the estate should be divided into four parts only
Now if it shall be ascertained the decision of
a competent tribunal or otherwise, that her interest does of right belong to the distributees of her two brothers and two sisters aforesaid then the said Smith shall account accordingly for the third which he receives -- being the one fifth of the original sum - deducting of course the expenses of administration including the commissions paid to his Agent or attorney
This agreement is to extend to the whole
amount due for said Holmes services in the revolution, whether now or hereafter paid
provided no additional bonds are required from said McCalla & Smith and the payments
are always received from the Treasury as above specified and the money handed over to the
Page 54

distributees or to their order by said Smith and McCalla, upon the receipt thereof or as soon thereafter as they can get receipts for the same
Withers waiting the usual term of twelve months to enquire for creditors as none are believed to exist and the said V. B. Holmes
agrees that he will be responsible for the full 
faithful compliance by his his brother John B. Holmes for the performance of this agreement so far as his interests are concerned -- This paper is to be filed with the present application to the Comm of Pensions so as to show the true intention of the parties
As Witness our hands this day & year aforesaid
V. B. Mohney
Jn M McCalla
Thomas Green for J. H. Smith
Page 55

Petersburg Va May 24th

M T Green
Washington

Sir

I received your dispatch yesterday or should more be in Washington Also your two letters of 21 or 23 are just now recd and are before me, I will settle the thing with my opponents upon the first proposition made by them as stated by you, to wit I to have 3/5 & they 2/5 the whole being issued to them or I, according to the decision of the Commr Barret gives his consent to that nothing else will I do under any circumstances. They have acted by strangely in the matter & I assure you I was surprised when I
read your letters. If they will not stand to that proposition, then let them come to Nottoway and I will meet them and let them see that I
can give as large a bond as they can. I have done all that I intend to do. If they are willing take it down in writing [missing text]
Page 56

Petersburg Va May 24th

M T Green
Washington

Sir

I received your dispatch yesterday or should more be in Washington Also your two letters of 21 or 23 are just now recd and are before me, I will settle the thing with my opponents upon the first proposition made by them as stated by you, to wit I to have 3/5 & they 2/5 the whole being issued to them or I, according to the decision of the Commr Barret gives his consent to that nothing else will I do under any circumstances. They have acted by strangely in the matter & I assure you I was surprised when I
read your letters. If they will not stand to that proposition, then let them come to Nottoway and I will meet them and let them see that I
can give as large a bond as they can. I have done all that I intend to do. If they are willing take it down in writing and Let me and I will come and attend to the business I presume this is prompt enough for you,
[illegible] [illegible] Is H Smith
Page 57

3
Page 58

List of Half pay Payments in 1783 by auditor of Va.

1783
Nov. 15.
There was paid on this day to Major Ch. Magill
for 2 years ½ pay, agreeably to act, "entitled an act directing the Auditors to issue Warrants in certain cases"             L 180.
on same day to Col George Muter agreeably to the above act for 2 years pay, each L 135 to April 1st 83                     L 270..0..0

Nov. 21
To Thos.  Merriweather 2 pay, as Major to 1st Nov. 1783                      L 180

Nov. 22 " Lt. Isaac Holmes 1years ½ pay to 31 Decr. 82, pursuant toact   L 48.

Nov. 24 Lt. Walter Scott, 1 yrs ½ pay to 14 Feb. 1783 pursuant to act    L 60

Decr. 15. Capt Wm Hoffler for 3 years ½ pay, as Capt. State to 15 June 83 pursuant   L 216

Decr. 15 [illegible] Jno. Thurston 1 yr ½ pay to 14 June 83 of Illinois Regt.   L 48.

Decr. 16 " Aut. T. Dixon 2 yrs ½ pay as Surgeon to Apl 1. 1833  L 216

marked
(3)
Page 59

Bath April 30th / 50

Dear Sir

I recd yours informing me of your returning my power of Attorney on the ground that you would not prosecute the claim for less than the one third I have done more business for others
than myself and never without full pay unless for nothing, and should be the last man in the world to underrate a gentlemans services and have no hesitation in stating that it was my
ignorance probably of the expense and trouble together with The fact that two other members of Congress had previously undertaken to prosecute the claim, but soon found out that
all the members of Congress are not nearly related Dan Webster but as soon as I found my [illegible] I went to Quincey to see your son and Mr Dills and made an arrangement with them agreeable to your wish that in allowing you The one Third of all moneys, Land or Scrip
for we are either intitled to Land or Scrip as soon as congress will make an appropriation of Land to locate the claims of of the Va. Officers and soldiers of the Revolution the 1st & 2nd
Regiments being entitled to double pay M. Dills or myself mentioned to you something of the claim of Capt Robt Ballard he was uncle of my Father & Capt of the Company that my
Father served in I do not think he ever married and if not we are heirs I have written to my brother [missing words] in gaining the amt You think due That I would request you to forward to him of my portion $650 (Six hundred and fifty dollars) at Memphis Tennessee and the bal [balance] to me at Bath Mason County Ill, unless you should
Page 60

intend returning to Quincy imediatly [sic] after the termination of the claim in that event I would rather you would bring it Than risk it [illegible] Male Sir be pleased to give me every information relative to the claim of Capt Ballard and how you progress with my Fathers claim
Sir I am Yours very
Resp fuly
V. B. Holmes
Page 61

Petersburg Va Mch 21st 1850
Mr Wm T Barret
Sear Sir
   having heard that there are parties now in Washington City claiming to be the true and legal heirs of Liet Isaac Holmes who was an officer in the war of the revolution, and trying
to establish their claims before congress, I therefore request you as the only authorised [sic] agent of the heirs of said Holmes (for I know them all in the state of Virginia and furthermore, have reasons to believe that there has been no administration on his estate since the death of my uncle W. Brooking) to protest against any and all proceedings whatever by said parties, at the same time making known to the proper authorities that in a few weeks the rightful heirs will make known pretensions which will admit of no doubt whatever, I would here take occasion to say that I am a grand son of said Holmes and as such have a right to be heard,
Very Resply &c
Isaac Holmes Smith
Page 62

Wash. Septr 30th 1850
Sir
I am requested by Mr Barret to say to you that I acquainted with Mr. John A Robertson of Amelia County Va. I know him to be a man of standing and respectability and quite independant [sic] in his circumstances.
I remain Yours very
Respectfully
R K Meade

Hon A H H Stewart
Scty of INterior
Page 63

Certificate of [illegible]
Isaac Holmes heirs

10
Jn. M McCalla
Page 64

State of Virginia,
City of Richmond, to wit:
At a Court of Hustings held for the said City
at the Courthouse, the 22d day of January 1850,
It was this day proved in open Court to the satisfaction of the Court, by the oath of Thomas V. Brooking, aged seventy nine years,
whom the Court certify to be a witness of credibility, that Isaac Holmes, an officer of the Virginia line in the war of the Revolution, intermarried with Elizabeth T. Brooking, the sister of the said Thomas V. Brooking, shortly before the said war, and that the said Thomas V. Brooking's father, Vivian Brooking administered on the estate of the said deceased Isaac Holmes, that the said Isaac Holmes has now living, or had when last
heard from, two sons as his sole and only heirs, to wit: John B. Holmes near Memphis, Tennessee, and Vivian B. Holmes of McDonough County in the State of Illinois, all of which is ordered to be certified.
The above is a true copy from the records of the said Court of Hustings. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said Court, this Second day of February, one thousand eight hundred
and fifty
Chs. Howard, Clk.

[seal]
Page 65

Washington Oct. 3rd 1850

Dear Sir

In my letter of the 2nd inst;
In refering to the letter of Jno. B Holmes. I stated he refered [sic] to his Fathers Heirs in Virginia. I find upon reference to that letter I was mistaken, and write this to correct that mistake, as I have no desire to misrepresent, or do injustice to any of the parties. the words used as you will find by refering [sic] to that
letter as follows. I dont [sic]  wish to lay myself liable to the rest of the Heirs of my Father, this letter it will be observed is a copy of the original, and is, as is the original, without date of Location, or post mark. Again Thos V Brooking in his deposition says, that V B Holmes lives in McDonough County
Illinois. It will be perceived that this Vivian B Holmes executed this power of Atto; before one witness in Mason County Illinois, and the Clerks Certificate is attached in Adams County of the same State, 
with many thanks for your early consideration of this claim. I am Sir Yours vy. Respty
William T Barret


Honble A. H. H. Stuart
Secretary of the Interior

N. B.
(turn over)
Page 66

N. B
I also enclose you two Certificates of the Clerk
of Notoway [sic] County, which you will perceive coresponds [sic] with the certificate of Mrs Harriet Smith that of Heirship to wit, that Lt. Isaac Holmes the Officer in the War of
the Revolution, was clerk of Notoway [sic] County at the time of his death also coresponds [sic] with the facts shewn in the suit on as being revived by his administrator, by an appeal to the Court of Appeals for an
affirmation of the judgement obtained by said Holmes in the lower Court, and it is owing to this circumstance, to wit, Holmes is death, that I account, for the judgement not being satisfied in full, the administrator not being
aware, in what consisted, Lt.  Isaac Holmes' five years full pay, (as will be seen what he contemplated receiving as five years full pay, the proving by the Col of his Regiment and several other officers not that he was Lt: but Lt: Pay master and Clothier, and Petitioning for five years full pay as such) the Auditor
and received through ignorance, whatever the auditor chose to pay believing that to be correct
that to be right correct,
Wm T B
Page 67

Richmond March 23d 1850

Dear Sir-

As the Agent and representative of the Heirs of Lt. Isaac Holmes,
I herewith enclose evidence of his proof of service, as taken from Record, and found in
paper marked No 2. It would appear that he acted in capacity of Lt. Pay Master & Clothier up to the time he was taken prisoner, and consequently to the end of the War as will more fully appear in paper No 3 containing petition and parole of said Lt. Isaac Holmes as filed in the Va Court on application for Commutation, paper No 4 contains Judgement in favour of Vivian Brooking the administrator for 5 years full commutation as Lt. and Pay Master with interest of six percent pr annum
from 23d Apl 83 to the present time, it seems that he recd his pay as Lt. but not as pay master as per Judgement rendered, I now as aforesaid agent beg that you will allow Commutation according to judgement herein enclosed and also as clothier If in your opinion he be entitled
Verry Respyy yours
Wm. T Barret

N.B. No 1 is a letter from a Grand son of
Lt. Isaac Holmes, written in consequence of hearing there was an agent in Washington claiming to Represent the heirs of Lt Isaac Holmes, the Isaac Holmes here spoken of and died in the County in which he was taken prisoner, and Vivian Brooking administered in said County
Page 68

Washington March 4th 1857

To Jas. E. Heath Esq
Com of Pensions

Sir

I have the honor to enclose a letter from
Col. Henry Northup accompanied by a letter from H Joyner agent of Jn. B. Holmes, concerning the claim now pending before you in behalf of the heirs of Isaac Holmes of the Revolutionary army. At the request of Col. Northup I administered upon the estate of the deceased in this city, and am now ready and desirous to close the affairs of the estate, by receiving and distributing whatever may be due it from the U.S. Should you be disposed at any time to confer with me, or with Col Northup on the subject, I shall be happy
to wait on you, and to notify him also.
I hope you will give his communication a careful examination, as I am strongly in the hope it will be considered satisfactory
Respy
Your Ob st [Your obedient servant]
Jn M McCalla
Page 69

[illegible] [illegible] of the
8th of March 1856 - 
Vivian B Holmes letters

(2)
Page 70

Bath Mason County Ill. March 8th / 50

Dear Sir

I called on Mr Dills and Your Son of Quincy of whom I accidently heard had business with me They informed me of Your knowledge of our claim on the goverment [sic] for the Military Services of our father Isaac Holmes Lieutenant
in the 2nd Va Redgment [sic] which together with the 1st Regiment was taken in to the Continental service which entitles them to double pay agreeable to act of Cong which you will refer to under this act we contend that
we are entitled to double pay as Lieutenant & Pay Master together with an additional allowance of Land or Scrip but of this you will Judge and act. My Fathers Uncle Capt Robt or Frances Ballard has a claim [illegible] whether he ever married or not I do not know if left
no issue we are his heirs at Law I entered into an agreement with Mr Dills and forwarded [illegible] a power attorny [sic] to act for me which if you approve of please Apprise me as soon as convenient. This is the history of the
case the greater part of which I learnt by my mother by the time I could lisp She was a Soldier wife and she dwelt on Military exploits particularly those that our father was engaged in with a pleasure bordering on extacy [sic], and at the first Tap of the Drum in the last
British war she called her only two sons to her. And in The most energetic manner observed to us (You must both go, should you think that it would be of any use either in my fathers case or Capt Ballard for me to come to the city please inform me and will be their [sic] I know of nothing more at present
Yours very Resptfuly
V. B. Holmes
Page 71

Honble. A. H. H. Stewart
Secretary of the Interior
Washington D. C.

p 21

Washington Oct 2 / 30
William T Barret
Enc: letter from R K Meade 
[illegible] to the case of Isaac Holmes' heirs &c.
Page 72

Washington Oct 2d 1850

Dear Sir

It will be observed upon examination of the papers before you, in the case of Lt. Isaac
Holmes decd; (a case to which Honble J Morton informed me, he had asked your attention) that M. Jno. McCalla at the instance of Mr Northup of this City, has obtained
letters of Administration in the Orphans Court of this City, upon authority which is before you, and to which I beg leave to ask your particular attention Mr  Northup, first, filed a Power of Atto; of Vivian B. Holmes of [blank] County Illinois, It will be perceived that he is not identified as the son of SL. Isaac Holmes
of Notoway [sic] Va.,  but to the contrary, you will find a letter addressed to Mr Ewing the former Secretary by Mr. Jno: Alexander Robertson of Amelia County, in which he States that Vivian B. Holmes, the son of Lt. Isaac Holmes  was dead, as to the reliability of that letter I will refer you to the enclosed letter of Honb R. K. Meade, Mr. Robertson's representative, secondly, there is a letter from Jno. B Holmes to Mr. Northup, and to this I ask your special Attention, he says in reply to
Mr. Northup, I do not wish to bind, or
Page 73

come in conflict with, (if my memory serves me, this is the substance of his remarks), my Fathers Heirs in Virginia, now here, you have the evidence of the son that their [sic] are Heirs in Va, this son also reply,s [sic] to
Mr. Northup, that he can go on prosecute the claim and if he should succeed in getting it allowed, he Jno. B Holmes would administer in Tennessee, would then send on an Agent, or come on himself and pay him Northup his fee, In these two documents, to wit, the letter of Jno. B Holmes, and power of Atto: of Vivion B Holmes. You have the authority upon which letters of Administration have been granted in the Orphans Court of this City, to Jno: McCalla at the instance of the above named Northup
I deem it unnecessary to cite instances in which this question of Administration has been settled. in the Courts of this District, but will take the liberty of citing one instance, in which Mr Northup bore a conspicuous part, and I think you will find very much to the point in this case. Vaughan vs Northup, see 15 Peters page 1 N B

I also enclose a certifificate [sic] of the Heirs of Isaac Holmes, by Mrs Harriet Smith, of  Brunswick Co, 

Vy Repty
I am Yours
Wm Barret

Honbl A. H. H. Stuart
Page 74

Amelia County Va  July 18 / 50

Dear Sir

As I am somewhat interested in the Claim due by the general government to Lt. Isaac Holmes for services rendered during the revolutionary war & which Mr Isaac Smith of Petersburg, through his agent Mr William J Barret is endeavoring to obtain, I will mention a [illegible] particular relative to Lt. Holmes's  Heirs & show in what way I am connected with his family
Lt. Isaac Holmes at his death left Four heirs two sons & two daughters three of which two sons & one daughter I was intimately acquainted
with for a number of years his oldest daughter Peggy Holmes and Samuel Brodnax by whom she had & left at her death three children one Son & two daughters, the oldest daughter Fanny Holmes Brodnax I married in 1827
Lucy Holmes Married Edward C Smith by whom she had & left at her death five sons & one daughter that daughter Mary Brodnx Smith is my present wife, you will therefore receive that I have married to Grand daughters of Lt Isaac Holmes the only surviving children of Lt. Isaac Holmes resides near Memphis Tennessee, Mr William
Page 75

J Barnet in the authorized agent of Mrs
Smith of Petersburg I am in hopes the above
statement will be sufficient apology for them
writing you
Very respectfully yrs
Jno. A [illegible]
Page 76

Pension Office
June 7th 1850.

Sir,

I have the honor herewith to transmit the papers, numbered from 1 to 20 inclusive relating to the case of Isaac Holmes, decd, on which Mr W. T. Barrett appeals, and a brief of the evidence.
It appears that Isaac Holmes in his life time filed a Petition in Chancery against the State of Virginia, asking the Commutation of 5 years pay in lien of Half pay for life due him as Lieutenant and Pay Master in the State line, and that on his death the suit was revived by his Administrator, in 1793, and judgement was pronounced in his favor
By reference to the list of payments made under the judgments of the County of Virginia to Officers, as furnished by the Auditor of Public Accounts, and published in House Report No 191 of the 1st Session of the 22nd Congress, it appears that he received the full pay of Lieutenant and Pay Master, the commutation being L 480 and the interest L 307.16
The ground then, upon which my rejection of the claim was based is not any questions as to the fact, that Holmes was
Page 77

both Pay Master and Lieutenant, but the fact
that his estate has long since received
Virginia the gratuity it now seeks from this
government.
There is no evidence of the day of Holmes death, but his Administrator's Petition was filed in 1793, and his commutation was therefore equal to half pay for life
As the record shows that he received pay for his Staff Office, I have not thought it necessary to inquire how far the decision of the Virginia County concludes the questions relating
to his grade.
It is proper to observe that two agents,
J. M. McCall and Wm T. Barrett, are asserting
the claim, and each contending for the right to
receive any sum that may be adjudged upon it
The papers filed by the former are marked in
small letters from a to g inclusive.
I have the honor to be
very Respectfully
your Obedt Servt
J. L. Edwards

Hon Thomas Ewing
Secretary of the Interior
Page 78

June 5th 1850
Wm T. Barrett

appeals from the decision of
the Comr Pensions in the
case of the Heirs of Isaac Holmes
for commutation both as Lieut
paymaster.-

Ref. to Comm of Pensions
for a report
Dep. Interior


Recd  June 5 / 50
Page 79

Washington City June the 5th 1850
Hon. Thomas Ewing
Sir
Being the agent of the Heirs of Isaac Holmes
and having presented at the pension office before the Commissioner the claim of the heirs in the name of the administrator Isaac Smith and he the Commissioners having refused to allow commutation except as Lieutenant while the Judgment [illegible words] which accompanies this application he should be allowed commutation pay both as [illegible] and paymaster I therefore ask that you may examine the papers with a view of granting me an appeal and having the case reexamined
Address through the Hon T S Raymond
I am very respectfully 
Wm T Barret
Page 80

Copy of a letter
McCalla to Barrett
Page 81

Copy of a letter to Wm. T. Barrett Richmond Va
July 13 1852 - as agent of Admr in Virginia
Sir
The case of Isaac Holmes's heirs is a situation which requires an adjustment of administration of the estate.
I am informed at the Department of the Interior, that if there shall be an agreement
among the parties, the case will be taken up and acted on. I would therefore propose to you, that we agree to have the proceeds divided so, that the heirs in Virginia shall receive their portion, through the Virginia administrator, and those whom represent, to be paid to me here. If that meets your views, please procure from your admr.  a written consent to it, and send it to Mr Stuart or to myself, when it will be decided. Please answer at once and oblige
Respy
Jno M McCalla

When I saw my nephew Isaac H Smith in
Virginia about the middle of last March, he told me he had received the above letter
V. B. Holmes

I also asked him why he had not answered my
letter, asking who was his agent, where he lived and what did he give him which I repeated in three separate letters which he failed to answer and he said he was afraid I might advertently mention to Col Northup that he was prosecuting a claim in Virginia
V.B. Holmes
Page 82

p 74

Washington City
June 17. 1850

Henry Northup By
his atty J. M. McCalla
Let. to the appeal from
the decision of the Comr.
Pensions in the case of
the Heirs of Isaac Holmes
for commutation  H. H.
Page 83

Washington City June 17 1850

To the Hon. Thos. Ewing
Secy. of the Interior

Sir

The claim of Isaac Holmes' representatives for commutation and interest, has been taken to you, by appeal from the decision of the Court
of Pensions, at the instance of a certain Mr. Smith of Va who has taken out letters of administration upon said Holmes' estate in Virginia. I represent the two sons and only living children of said decd. and on the 14th February last, filed papers to support said claim by Gen McCalla, at which time no other
claim was filed, the endorsements on the papers of Mr Smith show they were not filed until the 23rd March following. My atto, repeated by enquired if any conflicting claim was filed, and was informed by the Com of Pensions, there was none nor was he undeceived, until the case was decided and rejected, of which the atto. of Mr Smith
above was informed, he having had no opportunity to be heard in the case. As it is my intention to ask an investigation into the official conduct of the Commissioner in this and other matters, in which I expect to exhibit acts of great injustice towards myself and others, I will say no more upon the subject now
Page 84

2
As it is an undoubted right of the nearest of kin to the decd. to administer upon his estate, and as I represent the only living children, the widow also being dead, I shall apply for administration thereupon, and therefore enter this as my notice and protest against payment to Mr Smith of any part of the fund in contest.
In this case the commissioner has departed from the precedents set by himself in about eleven cases, within the last six or eight months; in fact leaving not more than two or three similar ones in existence unpaid. He has paid the following claims as I am informed & believe. Cornet Will. Graves, Cornet & Quarter Master, and with compound interest, altho
the official roll of Col. Dabney's Legion shows he retired on the 8th Feby 1783.-- Robert Boush as ensign and Paymaster, commutation and interest, although a paymaster for the same corps had been already paid in 1791 or 2- thus making two paymasters in one corps. Graves was cornet & Quarter Master of Nelsons dragoons, and Boush Ensign & Paymaster of the State Garrison Regiment, and where they were consolidated into Dabneys corps, the staff appointments of those officers ceased, and others acted till the end of the war were paid accordingly. See Hennings state at large vol 10  p. 449. also Lieutenant James
Kennedy, Charles Russell, Nathl Welch, Hugh McGavock and Peter Moore half pay for staff offices. Also
Page 85

3
Captain Gideon Johnson, Capt Thos. Marshall (and in this case as I believe about $1000 more than he was entitled to ) & Lieuts. Quarles and Vowles half pay on their staff officer. In the four cases above named, they obtained judgment against Virginia in Novr 1830 for half pay in their lineal rank only, which was affirmed in 1833 by the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
But now Sir, where the claim of Isaac Holmes is presented, claiming commutation & interest as Paymaster, after having paid fourteen similar cases, it is rejected. It is proved he was a prisoner to the end of the war, and therefore in service to that period, by which he is entitled to it. The only other cases unpaid are Samuel Carry Lt. & 2 Master and perhaps two or three citizens who served for a time in staff appointments, but not being commissioned officers are not entitled. See Hennings Stat. at large Vol. 10, p. 25 where it reads "commissioned."
By the copy of the record of the Hustings Court of Richmond Va January 23 1850, it is shown that Vivian B. Holmes & Jno B. Holmes are the only living heirs of decd. on which day I was employed by Jno. B. Holmes as his attorney, on the 14th February the papers of the claim were filed in the Pension office, & on the 25 of same month, Vivian B. Holmes employed me in the case soon after filing said papers, I requested Gen. McCalla
to request a speedy attention to this case, when he was informed by the Comr. that an order had
Page 86

4
been received by him requiring that all claims
of the kind should be registered and acted on in turn. It was when repeatedly applying to know when its turn would come, that the commissioner was asked if any conflicting claims were filed, and replied in the negative. When the case is finally taken up for action, although my papers were the first filed, & were there before him, he acts in reference to
the other party alone, without even notifying my agent or myself and when an appeal is granted instead of retaining my papers, or informing me of it, he sends them with those of the other for your examination as a mere matter of ceremony I care nothing about this lack of official & courtesy & propriety, but a great injustice is done as my agent was thereby prevented from being heard, and urging what we consider understandable arguments in favor of the claim, some of
which I will now briefly state. Had the court given an opportunity, he might have avoided
giving a decision which conflicts with the evidence in the case which he himself produced against the claim
In his report of the 7th June inst. he says "Isaac Holmes recd L 480 commutation and L 307. 16 interest, the full pay of Lieut and Paymaster," and refers to doc. No  191 1st sess. 22 Cong. to sustain it. By reference thereto it will appear
Page 87

5
Wm Slaughter, David Mann, Churchill Gibbes, Pratt Hughes and Isaac Holmes, Lieuts. of Infantry, each received L 480 commutation, and interest from 22d April 1783 till paid, while Capt. Abner Crump and Cary Wyatt recd. L 720 each commutation, and interest; Windsor Brown Capt & Paymaster recd. L 1260 and interest and Wyatt Coleman Lt. and Adjt.  recd. L 714 and interest and James Harper Lt. & Q Master recd. the same. Although Isaac Holmes is named in the document as Lieut & Paymaster it is evident it was merely as a description, for other officers in the same list, who held no staff office, recd the same that he did, from which it follows irresistably that he recd then his pay for his lineal rank, as they did, and not for his staff office, as did Lieuts.
Coleman & Harper who recd for both, that is L 714 each instead of $480 which Holmes recd.
It is strange that the Court should reject Holmes' claim for his staff service, because doct. No 191 shews he was paid for his lineal service, when he has lately paid the representative of Ens. Boush for a staff appointment which he did not hold at the end of the war, yet whose name appears as paid L 360 as Ensign on doc. No 191. Perhaps he can explain it, as also why he should pay two paymasters for the same regt. or Legion, Dabneys, when the law allows but one; viz Boush & Capt Windsor Brown, the latter being in service in said Legion to the end of war, and Boush having ceased to be pay Master of State Garrison Regt when it was disbanded,
Page 88

6
and having never been paymaster of Dabneys Legion
Holmes was a prisoner to the end of the war, and both Virginia and the United States have decided that such are "in service" during captivity. This is as to the land service. See cases of Churchill Gibbes &  Isaac Holmes who were both allowed commutation & interest
for lineal service, but no action had in Holmes case in staff service. The case of Thos Marshall & Gideon Johnson, Captains, and Henry Vowles and Wharton Quarles Lieuts, were decided in the same way, each being allowed
for lineal service by decree of Court, in 1830, confirmed by Co of Appeals in 1833, and all of whose representatives within a few months have recd commutation and interest on their staff appointments, and Isaac Holmes, claim, precisely similar is Rejected.
At the session of the of appeals of Va of 1833 the decision giving commutation and interest was given in consequence since that time, it has been given in the case of Gen. Geo. Rogers Clarke, Capt. Robt & Thomas Ewell Lieuts. James Meriwether, William and Richard Clark,
Jarrett Williams and Valentine T. Dalton, a Supernumerary and prisoner with the Indians, all paid by Virginia and repaid by the United States in appropriation bill of session of Congress 1847- 8.
At all times the United States has paid commutation & interest for lineal & staff service, as I can shew by fifty to one hundred cases. Such were Capt Isaac B. Dunn of the Penn. line, as Capt. and aid, - Lieuts. Hezekiah Ford,
Page 89

7
Henry Baldwin & John Hartshorn of the Maryland line, as lineal & staff officers, and to Lts. Henry Boyer & John and Francis Brooke of Virginia line, as will be seen by reference to the settlement of their accounts in the Treasury Department. The pension act of June 1832
and all subsequent acts are construed to include the same principle, and in computing the amount of pension the staff as well lineal rank of the officer is computed, only restricted by the proviso, that the total shall not exceed $600 per an.
I think Sir, I have thus shown, that the case of Isaac Holmes is clearly within the law, as decided and applied by both Virginia and the United States to a great member of analagous cases, and that in his rejection of it, the Commissioner of Pensions has trampled on law and justice, as well as violated his own repeated precedents. From such a decision, I now appeal to you, and hope to receive the Justice in your more elevated tribunal, which has been denied in the inferior one.
With Respect
I am Your ObSt. [Obedient Servent]
Henry Northup
by Jno. M. McCalla
Page 90


Old War Div.
J. K. P.  Ex'r.
Return this letter with your reply.

Department of the Interior.
BUREAU OF PENSIONS.
Washington, D.C. Feby 11th, 1890

Sir,

In answer to your enquiry of the 21st ult. relative to an application made through J. T. Sutton, in behalf of the heirs, on account of the Service of Lt Isaac Holmes, an officer in the war of the Revolution, from Virginia (who died in 1793) I have to state that no such claim is on record as having been received -
As the character of the claim is not described, the only reply that can now be made, if it was pension, is that he was not entitled to one in his life time, and there is no law existing under which his heirs can claim a pension or arrears of pension -
It is probable you may suppose that there is Half pay or Commutation due him from the United States, but that claim was presented & rejected many years ago.
Elgin was presented
To E S Smith Feby 15, 1890 that Claim was rejected
Page 91

Statements of half pay
Paid officers of the Va state
line previous to suspending
the payment of [illegible]
half pay claims in the
spring of 1783
Page 92

Statement of half pay to officers of the Virginia State line previous to suspending the payment of such claims by Virginia in the year 1783. Reported per [illegible] Auditor [illegible] E Heath to the Legislative of Virginia in the session of 1835. 6. See in Lowrock of House of Delegates document
No 2
Payment [illegible]
Charles McGill Major paid to 18th of April 1783
George Martin Col paid to 1st of April  1783
Thomas Meriweather Major paid to 1st of Nov 1783
Isaac Holms Lieut. paid to  & last of December 1782
Walter Scott Lt paid to 14th of July 1783
John H. Hart Capt. paid to the 14th July 1783
William Hafler Capt. paid to 15th June 1783
Edward Read Capt. paid to 20th July 1783
John Williams Capt. paid to 6th July 1783
Wm White Lt. paid to 6th July 1783
Wharton Quarles Lt. paid to 6th July 1783
[illegible] M Marshall Lt. paid to 6th July 1784
Samuel Tinsley Lt. 6th July 1784
John [illegible] Cornett Lt. paid to 14th December 1783
such Thereby Certify was taken myself in person from [illegible]  Auditor Heaths report to the House of Delegates here it will be seen that Lt. Isaac Holmes was paid to last of December 1782 being one month and six days life time of half pay than any other one of the list of Officers who
were paid half pay previous to the Suspension in 1783 session.
Heath this day stated that Lt. Holmes had been paid half pay up to 22nd of April 1783
28th of May 1853,
Thomas Northup
Page 93

Washington April 1st 1853
To the Commr of Pensions,
Sir,
As the administrator of the estate of Isaac Holmes decd. I have been urging a claim for half pay & commutation, for his services in the Revolutionary war, my right to receive any part of the proceeds was contested by a person who administered on the estate, in Virginia, as a grandson of the deceased. My official action had been under a power of atty from one of the sons of the deceased. The Com of Pensions referred the question to the Department of the Interior for a decision of the question, which administrator had the best right. On the 8th of last October, the papers were referred back to
this office for a report, which report has not
yet been made.
An event however, has occurred which renders a report necessary, but calls for immediate decision of the claim. It is the arrival in this City of Vivian B Holmes one of the sons of the deceased, by whose authority I administered
in this city. He is prepared to enter upon the
Page 94

any assent to my authority, as a confirmation,
which may be required, which will be, I suppose,
entirely satisfactory to this office.
Under this state of Case, I earnestly request that speedy action may be had in the case, as Mr Holmes has travelled along distance, and is in bad health-- and anxious to return home. I believe no difficulty exists in the smaller of the
two claims, except the one I mentioned and I am prepared to show that the other also, has no substantial objection to it. It was has particular claims to prompt action in its favor
Respy
your Obed Sevy [Your Obedient Servant]
Jno M McCalla
Page 95

Isaac Holmes case

Precedents of Admon.
in the D. C.
Page 96

Cares cited to sustain the admin. Washington City 
In 1837 Col Henry Northup, prosecuting the claim of the heirs of Ensign Will Roberds [Roberts ?] of Virginia, obtained a decision in their favor. At that time there were two administrators of his estate - one in Virginia, from which state he had removed,  and one by a relative, in Kentucky where he removed to and died. The Court of Pensions declared that he would pay to neither but if Col Northup would administer in this District he would pay the proceeds to him. By his agency, Mr. St. Clair Clark administered here and received payment accordingly.
In 1847 the same agent prosecuted successfully the claim of the heirs of John Tupman of the Virginia Navy, and obtained a favorable decision when Col. Northup administered in this city of and received the money. In both the above cases administration was taken in this District, after the cases were decided
Page 97

Isaac Holmes case

note - in reply to Brief
on one point.
Page 98

Washington 30 May 1853

Mr. Waldo
Comm of Pension
Sir
The additional brief of your Clerk, makes a curious suggestion about deducting the one years' half pay recd for 1782 from the present claim of Isaac Holmes' administrator for Commutation from 22 April 1783
The facts are there. The Auditor of Va. finding Isaac Holmes reported as a supernumerary, paid him his 1/2 pay for the year 1782
The Court of Appeals more than 10 years after decided that as he was a prisoner of war, to the end of the war he was as much entitled to commutation as if he had been in actual service all the time It decided he should have commutation as Lieutenant and Paymaster which in effect was, that he had been wronged
in allowing him only half pay, prior to the end of the war when he was entitled to full pay to that period.
His admin recd. the commutation as  Lieutenant the auditor "suspending for the present", as he said in 1784, the commutation
as paymaster The admin now asks it-- you
decline at present to consider the question of commutation but are willing to pay the Half pay- from 22 April 1783 We claim for no further date back, as we prove equivalent service to that date. And it is suggested by the author of the brief that the Half pay wrongfully forced upon him for 1782, when he ought to have had full pay. shall now be deducted from the Half pay intended to be paid from 22 April 1783; because the half pay recd for 1782
was not deducted from
Page 99

he commutation which commenced 22 April 1783!!!
A perspicuous statement of the facts as above
can require no argument to refute such a suggestion
The author of the brief says such deductions has been made in all other like cases'
You will probably find, there not only never was any such deduction in any Commutation case but that it was impossible that payments for service be 1782 could have been deducted in settlements for commutation which always commenced 22 April 1783 & was in lieu of such pay as would be due from that date
If the author meant such deductions were made in the Half-pay cases proper, then the answer is-- they were made in such cases only
where the claims were asserted from a date, anterior, to the payment by the auditors in Va.
In this case it is asserted & proved, he was a prisoner of war on the footing of actual service till 22 April 1783
In no possible, intelligent view of the facts of the case is there the shadow of a shade of just foundation for the deduction of the half pay recd. for 1782 from the present claim of either commutation or Half-pay from 22 April 1783
The auditors made a mistake & paid him as a supernumerary-- when they should have given
him full pay You have no power to restore his rights, in that respects Your jurisdiction begins - when his full pay, ceased.
I am Yrs Respectfully
Thomas Green
for J. H. Smith
admin  [illegible]
Page 100

Letters of Administration
Washington D. C.
Isaac Holmes Estate
To
Jno. M. McCalla
June 22 1850.
(6)
Page 101

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, Sct:
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
TO ALL PERSONS TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING:
Know ye, That whereas Isaac Holmes late of the Virginia Line in the war of Revolution, deceased, hath died intestate, as it is said, leaving certain goods, chattels, and personal estate, to be administered: NOW KNOW YE, That administration of all and singular the goods, chattels, rights and credits, of the said Isaac Holmes deceased, is hereby granted and committed unto John M. McCalla of Washington County, D.C. and that he has
entered into Bond with security approved
by the Orphans Court
Witness William F. Purcell esquire,
Judge of the Orphan's Court Washington county aforesaid this 22 - day of June
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 50 and of the Independence of
the United States the 74th
TEST:
Ed. N. Roach,
Register of Wills.
Page 102

I DO SWEAR, that I will well and truly administer the goods, chattels, and personal estate of Isaac Holmes deceased, to the best of my knowledge, according to law, and will give a just account
of my administration when thereto I shall be lawfully called. So help me God.
Jno. M McCalla
Sworn to in open Court
Test, Ed. N. Roach Reg. wills
Page 103

Pension Office
26 May 1853
I certify that I have examined the claim of the administrator of Isaac Holmes decd who was a
Lieutenant and paymaster of the Second Virginia State regiment in the revolutionary war, and find that he received from the State of Virginia his commutation of five years full pay and interest as a Lieutenant but not as a paymaster. I therefore certify that under the
act of 5 July 1832, he is entitled to half-pay for life as paymaster in said regiment at the rate of
One hundred and eighty dollars per annum to commence the 22 April 1783 when the war ended, and terminate the 7th March 1793, on or about which day Isaac Holmes died. From this amount however is to be deducted One hundred and sixty dollars one year's half pay
received by said Holmes in 1783 from the State of Virginia. The amount is payable to Isaac H Smith administrator of the estate of Isaac Holmes decd
Approved
J P Waldo
Comr of Pensions

Secretary of the Interior
Page 104

dug a will City Jan 22 1852

Friend Gales
I like much to hear from my friends at all times and particularly so when a long way off and in a position to impart news of interest Not that I wish or expect a long letter, discussing the merits of the Hungarian I might say the European-- worlds question of no Three times only to let me know that you are well if you are only will in health. I have no fears on That or any other question you will greatly oblige me
by calling on the Secretary of the Interior Mr Stuart and ascertain what disposition has been made with The claim of my father Isaac Holmes who was a Lieutenant and paymaster in the 2nd Va Redgment [sic] and was taken into to survice [sic] of the Continental Congress in the war of the Revolution. This is a
Claim of upwards of sixty years standing he went in the army at the first day of the Drum and remained until the final Surrender of the British Army at York Town Mr Stuart is a [illegible] and knows well how to appreciate my feeling when I say I say I would rather justice be done my Father than to receive ten times the amt. in any other way The claim has been presented for about two years and I suppose would have been paid off but they took alarm at some old Scoch Galphin Claim that has not to do with the Va claimes than my riding Horse Zack Taylor has with some Tom Thumb or the devle
Page 105

I will stop for fear I might get under head way and not stop [illegible]
Your friend
V B Holmes
P.S. Please have the National Intelligence forwarded to me at Tremont, during the setting [sic sitting] of Congress
V. B.K.
Page 106

Letter, advising
to forfeit the administration
Page 107

Pension Office
9 January 1852

Sir

I regret that in the great press of official engagements. I have been prevented from attending earlier to the Half pay & claim of Isaac Holmes & Reps. for staff services of that officer. After due consideration I am of opinion that the claim is a valid one but you will find from the enclosed printed rules approved by the Secretary of the Interior (particularly the
fourth) that you have not brought yourself within their requirements in respect to administration on the estate

I am Yours very respectfully
JEH

Mr Brown will please say if this letter was recorded and to whom it was addressed
act 5 July 1832
RMH

The above letter does not appear to have been recorded
L. I. Brown
Page 108

Memorandum in the case of Isaac Holmes Lt 
and paymaster of the 2nd Va State Regt.
May see Col. Dabneys Certificate herewith filed showing him a supernumerary Lt and Paymaster and Captured in the spring of 1754 Consequently he was a prisoner of the war whether in close confinement or on parole untill [sic] the end of the war, Virginia Could not if she would have negotiated exchanges Congress above on the commander in Chief of the army could have negotiated any such exchanges and then it would have been for the continental troops and not of the State troops
Virginia has ever and all times recognised [sic] an officer in captivity as in service to the end of the war
See the case of Churchill Gibbs reported by the board of officers which sat on 6th of February  1782 both of the refuted as supernumerary Lt but not intitled to half pay he having left his post at Richmond Va, without permission and gone to a Ball at Petersburg and then captured by the enemy. See this in Barbers report by Chairman of the Committee of Claims on which the act of 5th July 1832 to a renumerate  Virginia passed. Churchill Gibbs brought suit against the State of Virginia and their highest
Judicial Tribunal gave him not half pay as a supernumerary officer but commutation and interest as an officer in service to the end of the war he being a prisoner of the war in service untill [sic] reclaimed
Again Isaac Holmes living in captivity and a  captivity and a prisoner of war was deemed in service to the end of the war and on the 10th of July 1794 was paid the commutation and interest of a Lt of Infantry, See a Transcript from the Court of Appeals on file with the papers of Charles Russel recently Paid as as Paymaster.
Again see more recent Decisions of the Courts of Va to wit in the case of it Valentine Thomas Dalton a Lt of Artillery of the Illinois Regt Reported by [illegible] or Clerk a prisoner of war in Captivity by the Indians in 1842 or three the Court of appeals of Va gave commutation and interest he being a prisoner of war was in service to the end of the war
Page 109

The Heirs of Isaac Holmes herewith present there
Claim for the commutation and interest of a Paymaster and Clothier and their and pray the same may be adjudicated as early as practicable

Statement
Isaac Holmes case
for commutation & interest

Jno M McCalla

b.
Page 110

Washington June 4th 1850

Dear Sir

Upon an application to Col Edwards the Commissioner of Pensions, for the balance of Commutation due Isaac Holmes a Lt; and Pay Master of the 2d Va State Regiment,  commanded by Cols Brent & Dabney, under a
Special Judgement of the District Court of Va Affirmed by the Court of Appeals of that State, and which I had conceived was specially provided for, under the act of Congress of the
5th July 32, 
He Col Edwards has rejected the same, the reasons for which you will find assigned in his letter herewith enclosed, I therefore beg leave to call your particular attention the petition and evidence herewith enclosed in connection with the evidence and judgement on file in the
Commissioners office. It will be seen that all the evidence adduced to to the Court, goes to show, as well as the petition, and not only to show, but to prove that Isaac Holmes was not only a Lt; but a Lt. Pay Master & Clothier of
the 2d Va State Regiment, the Col of his Regiment Col Dabney certifying to that affect, with other officers, the district, and Court of Appeals, both assuming that he was Lt. & Pay Master and awarding him five years full pay, as such, not five
Page 111

years pay in part, not five years full pay as Lt. only (If so why assert in his petition, why adduce all the evidence here shown, to prove that he was a Lt, and Pay Master) but the Courts award him five years full Pay in Commutation, in Lieu of half pay for life, bearing an interest at the rate of six per centum per annum from these 22nd day of Apl 1783 the day on which the troops raised for
the late war were discharged in the State-- the Judgement then assumeing [sic], that he was Lt Pay Master, is he not. (I submit it to your superior Judgement) is he not entitled to such
pay as the Pay Masters department, was worth.
while he had charge of the clothing department, particularly when from the evidence adduced, it is shown that he was paid by the state as such, up to the 22d of April 1783, with these few suggestions for your
consideration
I am Very Respty
Yours Wm T Barret

Honble Thos S Haymond
Washington
D. C
Page 112

Richmond Apl 27th 1850

Dear Sir

Enclosed is the Power of Atto, of Isaac H Smith (administrator de bonis non of Lt. Isaac Holmes) empowering me to act as his atto;
in the Prosecution of the claim of said Holmes for Commutation according to the judgement of the Court of Appeals. and papers sent on in March last. Your early attention to this case will greatly oblige
Yours Vy [Very] Repty
Wm T. Barret

J. S. Edwards Esqr
Washington,
DC
Page 113

Certificate of Administration on the estate of Isaac Holmes decd. granted to Isaac H. Smith
Page 114

State of Virginia, Nottoway County, to wit:
Whereas at a circuit Superior Court of Law and
Chancery held for the said county of Nottoway, before the judge of the said court on the eleventh day of April 1850. On the motion of Isaac H. Smith, who made oath according to law and with John A. Robertson his security, entered into and acknowledged a bond in the penalty of ten thousand dollars, conditioned as the law directed, certificate was granted the said Isaac H Smith for obtaining letters of administration on the personal estate of Isaac Holmes deceased, in due form; and whereas
by Title 38. Chapter 130 of the Code of Virginia, it is among other things provided, that the clerk of the court by which such order is made, shall, when required by any personal representative, make out such letters in due form. Therefore, I Francis Fitzgerald, Clerk of the said Court in pursuance of the above recited law, do issue these letters of administration, authorizing and empowering the said Isaac H. Smith well and truly to collect and administer all and singular the goods, chattels and credits of the said Isaac Holmes deceased in all matters and things concerning the same, hereby requiring the said Isaac H. Smith to make and exhibit to the said court a true and perfect inventory of the said goods chattels and credits, and also; to make a just and true account of his actings and doing therein, when thereto lawfully required. Given under my hand the seal of the said court, the
7th day of September 1850
Francis Fitzgerald

[seal]
Page 115

12 Sept 1781 Wednesday
203. LIeu't Paymaster & Clothier Isaac Holmes
Warr on [illegible] as per resol of assembly 9200 " "

330. Dr.  Officers of the Army for four months pay as per resol of assembly  Cr.
By Lieut Isaac Holmes | 95 | 9200 | " | " |

I hereby certify the first of the above entries to be a true copy from the day book of his officer for September 178[illegible] and the last true extracts from the 330. of a Ledger of this office, which said folio contains an enumeration of sundry officers with the [illegible] of certain warrants previously issued to them, collected from other folios of the same Ledger.
Ro Johnson
1st Aud

Aud'rs office}
13th July 1832}
Page 116

Tuesday the 9th day of October 1781
Lieut John Steele
226  A warrant on acc agreeable to the resolution of the General Assembly - - -3200 - " - "

Captain James Holt
226 A Warrant on acct agreeable to the resolution of the general Assembly - - - 4800 - " - "

 I hereby certify the foregoing to be true extracts from the Day book of this officer for October 1781
Ro Johnston
1st Aud

Auditors Office
13 July 1850}
Page 117

Statement related
to case of
Paymaster Holmes
Page 118

Memorandum in addition to statement deposited by General McCalla in  ___ last, showing the mode and practice of Virginia in paying the officers of the Virginia State Line - See Hemmings Statutes at large Vol 10 - page 25

Virginia had six regiments of State troops besides Nelson's Corps of Cavalry, At the surrender of Cornwallis in October 1781, the war was deemed virtually ended, and Virginia, to get rid of her great military expenditures, dismissed a large portion of the men; and the officers retired as supernumeries, of the two western regiments, to wit. the Illinois and Crockett's Reg'ts 3 Companies were retained, to wit Captains Robert George, John Baily and Ab'h Chaplin, and Maj'r Walls as field officer, and Surgeon Greer, of the 4 eastern reg'ts, to wit, 1st and 2d Infty State ar'ty State Garrison, and Nelson's Corps of Cavalry - they were organized into one Corps or Reg't and known as Dabney's Legion, being composed of some of the officers
Page 119

of each of these 4 Reg'ts and Nelson's Cavalry, and all other officers retired, at that time as Supern'y officers; when in Nov'r the Legislature sat and an act or resolution was passed requiring the Executive to take steps to ascertain who were entitled to half pay, and who were not - that commission did sit in Jan'y or Feb'y 1782, and reported on the 6th Feb'y1782 See that report -- OF the reg't or Legion known as Dabney's Legion the 3d or half of the officers of that legion retired at various times as supern's from the 1st Jan'ry 1782 to the 22d April 1783, when Virginia decided the war ended as to her State troops -- In the spring of 1783 Virginia paid some 15 or 20 of her Supern'y officers half pay up to various periods See the List handed the Commissioner on 28 May -
Virginia then suspended paying any more half pay when the subject rested until 1791, See McComms Heath's Report in Holmes' Case. When Virginia paid per Judgment of the Court of appeals of Virg'a Commutation and Interest on such as served to the end of the war taking precisely the same steps as the United States did
Page 120

thus seeing those payments adverted to in Mr Heath's report Wyatt Coleman Lieut and Adgt, Windsor Brown Captain and paymaster, and James Harper Lieut and Qr. Master, were each paid Commutation and Interest for their pay in
the Staff the same as their lineal rank, also Lieutenant Churchill Gibbs and Lieut and paymaster Isaac Holmes being prisoners of war on parol were also by Judgment of the Court of appeals decided to be in service to the end of the war, and paid Commutation and Interest for the lineal rank, but their was neither action or report, by the Court as to the Staff pay of Pay of Mr Holmes
Virga. from 1791 to '94 or '95 paid the commutation & Interest to the officers who were in service to the and of the war
but paid none other- The subject thus rested for 20 or 30 years when Virga by special acts of her legislature made some payments for 5 or 6 years, when suits were again brought against the commonwealth of Virga. in the cases of Capt Markam and Lilly of the Virginia State Navy giving half pay but not commutation and Interest, and again in
Page 121

4
in Novr 1830 Judgments were obtained against Virga in 34 cases two of them Major Walls and Surgeon Grier for Commutation and Interest, and all others for half pay all of those cases were taken to the Court of Appeals by
the Commonwealth attorney- this resulted in the act of Congress of the 5th July 1832 to remunerate Virga. In that act-- the third section is as plain and pointed as words could be, to wit, that the Secty of the treasury should audit and pay the claims of those who had "not prosecute to Judgment and became entitled agreeable to the principles of the decision of the Supreme Court of appeals of Virga." words would not be planer, there had at that time been no decisions by the Court of appeal of Virga. other than those referred to in 1791, '92 &c. -- these Judgments obtained in 1830, and taken to the Court of appeals were not adjudicated by that court untill [sic] Jany or Feby. 1833, and the Courts gave half pay to the officers of the Navy but never at any time commutation and Interest and
Page 122

and until May or June 1850 there has been no instance of one of those Virga. Claims, when properly sustained as was this of Lieut and PayMr. [Paymaster] Holmes, presented and payment refused in strict conformity with the 3d section of the act of Congress of 5 July 1832
when in the close of the year 1849 the department commenced paying commutation and Interest, and in one case compound Interest, to wit Commodore Barron case,
but in all others commutation and Interest, in all some 10 or 15 Naval Cases, in direct violation of the decision of the Court of appeals and of the provisions of the 3d section of the act of Congress of 5 July 1832, which expressly provides, the claim should be paid 
agreeable to the decisions of the Supreme Court of appeals of Virga. yet of those Naval officers thus paid in Washington under this 3d Section of this act were 5 naval cases paid commutation and Interest, and one of which
compound Interest, to wit, Commodore James Barrow
Page 123

Capt Richard Barron Thos. Lilly, James Markum, and Edwd Travis, each of which the Court of appeals of Virga. have decided were entitled to half pay but not commutation and Interest, and I here challenge, that the action of Virga.
in 1791 and '22 in paying her Revy. Officers had in view the rule practised [sic]  by the U. States, and it is here challenged that an instance cannot be named in which commutation and Interest has been paid by the U. States to a Naval officer, they were ever and at all times entitled to prize money; had they taken the entire shipping of Great Britain
they were entitled to the proceeds of the same, but neither Commutation nor Interest was ever paid to them-- of those Virga. claims, payable under the 3d Section of the act of Congress of the 5 July 1832 there had been
no difficulty, all have been audited and paid in a reasonable time after presentment, and this case of paymaster Isaac Holmes was the only one impair of those who became entitled to commutation and Interest, as per decision of the Supreme Court of appeals of Virginia
Page 124

this had been duly filed with the proofs and vouchers to sustain the claim on the 17 or 18 Feby 1850, but there have previously, say in Nov or Decr, been paid Commitance and
Compound Interest in Commodore Barron's case, and the it was progressed in paying commutation and Interest in some 12 or 15 Naval Cases, five of which, the Court of appeals
of Virga. which was expressly referred to, in the act of July 1832, and had been expressly restricted in the payment of those claims to the rule of decisions of that Court: these facts coming before Congress, a resolution was adopted and a Committee appointed to investigate and Report upon these alleged frauds, and upon the appointment of this Committee at a time when this claim of Lieut Holmes would have been reached in a very few days when Mr Secty. Ewing of the Interior directed the suspending of the payment of any more commutation claims; there the subject rested until Congress adjourned on the last of Sep, 1850 without any report by that Committee-- mean time Genl Taylors death produced a change of Cabinet and
5
Page 125

8
Mr. Stuart the new Secty,, when applied to, remarked that he being a Virginian and this being a Virginia claim he preferred not to act on it, lest it should create a prejudice against him, and thus this claim has rested until the
present day, being the only solitary case where a party became clearly entitled who has not got it-- If we advert to precedent we will find that officers of the Continental line who held Staff appointment recd, commutation and
Interest for their Staff as well as their lineal rank See the commutation paid, the several revoly. officers in the Treasury dep rt., again, see the pensions paid under the act of 7 June 1832 - Pension was paid for Staff as well as the lineal rank unless the united pension exceeded $600, the amount of pension of Lieut Colonel
beyond that sum per annum pension was not granted, again, see act of Congress of 4 July 1836 and 7 July 1838, pension was granted to widows, and in each case where it was shown the officer held a Staff appointment, the pension of his lineal and Staff Rank was allowed, unless the pension of Staff and lineal exceeded $600, any
Page 126

9
excess was always deducted
But now most strange and unheard of until the present day the Commissr of the Genl Law office has been applied to for his opinion on the subject, who I am told has given one, an officer who never at any time was vested with any right or authority either by law or otherwise to adjudicate such cases, thus this claim now is in this strange State of suspense; when this man Holmes one of the sons, a poor man 1000 miles from home has been now 3 to 4 months waiting for his money in a claim strictly provided for by the laws of Virga. and
decision of her Courts, and also by the 3d section of the act of Congress of the 5 July 1832, and for the auditing of which application was made and all the vouchers filed as early as the 17 or 18 February 1850

9.
Page 127

9 Jan 1852

Copy of a letter from Com'r of Pensions to Jno M McCalla stating that the half-pay claim of Lt Isaac Holmes was a valid one by before the money could be paid the regulations in regard to administration must be complied with.

This letter was omitted to be recorded.

R M Heath
Page 128

Copy

Washington
Pension Office 9 January 1852

Sir

I regret that in the press of official engagements I have been prevented from attending earlier to the half pay claim of Isaac Holmes rep for the staff services of that officer. After due consideration, I am of opinion that the claim is a valid one, but you will find from the enclosed printed mules, approved by the
Secretary of the Interior, (particularly the 4th) that you have not brought yourself within their requirements, in respect to administration on the Estate.
I am yours
Very respectfully
J. E. Heath Comm
The above is a true copy of the original
exhibited to me by J. M. McCalla Esq
Francis A Dickins
S. Cole
Page 129

Washington Aug 27 1857

To J. E. Heath Esq
Com of Pensions

Sir

In the case of Isaac Holmes admr. claiming commutation & interest, I addressed a letter
to the Hon. Secretary of the Interior on the 24 June 1850, and another on the 7th October 1850, urging my claim as his legal representative, to have the amount which might be found due, paid over to me. It was determined to suspend the claims for Commutation & interest in certain cases, and on that a court this case was not acted on. I suppose that suspension is now removed, and I therefore, respect fully urge action in this case, which has been so long delayed.
Independent of its general merits, there is one fact in the case which justifies the hope. a part of the claim is for his services as paymaster, which has been sanctioned by decisions of the Court of Virginia, and always paid here. In that part, therefore, there is no difficulty.
I presume the objection to my right as adms under authority of the son of the deceased is considered as settled in my favor, it being so clearly according to law, I therefore earnestly ask a decision of the case,
Respy [Respectfully]
Your obst [Obedient Servant]
Jno M. McCalladin
Page 130

Washington October 7 1850
To the Hon
A. H. H. Stuart
Secy of the Interior

Sir,

In the absence of an answer to my letter of the 2d inst. on the claim of Isaac Holmes
representatives for commutation & interest, I have been informed by your letter to W. T. Barrett Esq. that you have suspended that and similar cases till the next session of Congress, to afford that body an opportunity to act on them.
Holmes case presents one feature which perhaps may exempt it in part from suspension. He was a paymaster as well as Lieutenant, and according to the decisions of the Virginia courts & the Department here, is entitled to commutation of pay as such. To that course of decision no exception is taken in any of the proceedings in the H of R. at the last session, that I have seen. If so, will it be asking too much to request action on that branch of the claim, leaving the disputed part for future
legislation of Congress.
Respectfully 
Your Ob. St. [Obedient Servant]
Jno M McCalla
admr of I Holmes
Page 131

Washington October 2 1850

To the Hon
A. H. H. Stuart
Secy of the Dept of Interior,

Sir.

there is a case now pending in your department, on an appeal from a decision of
the Commissioner of Pensions, to which I would respectfully call your attention. It is the claim of the legal representative of Lieut Isaac Holmes decd. of the Virginia troops of the revolutionary war for commutation and interest. It has been for some time suspended, as I have been informed, awaiting the action
of Congress on the subject at large. Congress having adjourned, I hope you will feel released from any supposed difficulty from that source, and be at leisure to act in the case.
I shall be glad to have an opportunity to be heard in the case personally at such time & place as may be designated by you, especially as there is a conflict between opposing claimants for the disposition of the fund,
Respy
Your ob Servt [Obedient Servant]
Jno M McCalla
admr of I. Holmes decd.
Page 132

p 71  June 10 1850
Hon J. A. Seddon
& others

asking for Speedy action
on the claim of the heirs
of Isaac Holmes for commutation.

Aus'd June 13/50
Page 133

House of Reps June 10th 1850

Hon Thomas Ewing
Secretary of the Interior

Sir

An appeal has been taken from the Decision of Mr Edwards the Comm of Pensions on the claim of the heirs of Isaac Holmes Lieutenant and paymaster in Col Dabney's Regiment to be allowed commutation pay with interest for his staff appointment and is now pending for your adjudication. Mr Barnett the agent prosecuting this claim has already been  detained his - to his serious inconvenient and detriment for near a month in attention to this matter, and his way is made a more [illegible] and painful by the illness of a member of his family, under these circumstances, we would respectfully ask your early consideration and decision of the appeal
Respectfully yours
James A Seddon
Wm Hanke
[illegible]
Wm J Alston
A. G. Watkins
I. M. Anderson
Page 134

I unite in the within request
Fayette McMullin
R.K. Meade
Paulus Powell
Page 135

Pension Office
May 29, 1852

Sir

In answer to your letter of the 27th inst. I have to inform you that the papers in the case of Isaac Holmes, deceased, are drawn up in proper form, and have been filed among papers in rejected cases.
The administrator has no claim whatever
under the act of July 5, 1832. In September
1794, the administrator, Vivian [Vivion]  Brooking obtained a judgment against the State of Virginia for commutation and interest on account of the service of Holmes as a
Lieutenant in Brent's Virginia State regt
The commutation, principal and interest,
amounting to L 787.16 Virginia Currency was paid by the Commonwealth. There is therefore now no claim against the U. States.
I have the honor to be
very respectfully
Your Obt Sevt
J. L. Edwards
Commissioner of Pensions

Hon. T.S. Haymond
House of Representatives
Page 136

Washington Sept 28th 1851

Dear Sir

At your request. I herewith hand a statement of what I desire of the Secretary of the Interior, I have a claim before that department for Commutation with Interest, a judgement for which has been obtained against the State of Virginia in the district Court, of that State, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, in behalf of the Heirs and representatives of Lt, Isaac Holmes, and it has occured [sic] to me that in the event of the department not deeming themselves justifiable in paying this claim under the act of the 5th of July 1832, they might at last pay me, the unexpended balance
appropriated under the act of the 12th of August 1848.
with many thanks for your kindness
I am Yours Vry Repty
Wm T Barret


N. B.
Having been in the City several weeks, and being anxious to return to my family. I earnestly entreat early action
WTB
Page 137

Washington, Sep. 27th 1830

Dear Sir

Under care is a letter from Mr. Wm H. Barrett which I should be gratified [illegible] to give your attention, at as early a day as possible after the adjournment of Congress
I remain sir
yours very [illegible]
Jeremiah Morton

Hon. A. H. H. Stuart
Secy of Interior
Washington
Page 138

Decision of
Sec'y of Interior

McGeddes
27 Aug 1838
Page 139

Department of the Interior,
August 23rd, 1858

Sir:

The claim of the State of Virginia, presented by her Auditor, for five years commutation in lieu of half pay for the services of Isaac Holmes, decd as paymaster, has been examined with reference to the provisions made by Act July
5th, 1832, for this particular class of cases.
It is in effect asserted that a Judgment was rendered against Virginia for these services, but that the Auditor of Virginia in settling Holmes' claim paid only for the Lieutenants services, suspending the payment of that portion of the Judgment which was rendered in his favor as Paymaster
In examining into the merits of this claim I have become fully satisfied that the Courts of Virginia never gave Judgment for this staff service. The reasons which have led me to this conclusion are: 1st That in the settlement of this Judgment by Virginia in 1794, she refused to make any allowance for the staff service. 2nd. That when under the Act July 5th, 1832, an appropriation was made by the United States by which to re-imburse Virginia for the
Judgments which had been obtained by her State officers
Page 140

against her, a settlement was made for this identical case, without the least reference to any claim for Paymaster's services. 3rd. There is nothing in the body of the Judgment referring in any manner to its being rendered for such
services-- so  far from it, where allusion is made to the rank for which commutation was allowed, "pay of Lieut. of Infy "p. month L 8." is the only thing mentioned. (The memorandum
by the Auditor in the margin of the exemplification forning no part of the Judgment)
The above reasons would seem conclusive against the assumption that Holmes' administrator ever obtained a Judgment against Virginia for the Paymaster's services.
Does it not also appear rather late for Virginia to ask the payment of this claim from the United States? So long as the claim stood as against her she refused to pay it, and even when supplied by Congress with money to meet the Judgments procured against her, she still failed to recognize it. Up to the present time she has in effect repudiated it, upon what plea therefore can she ask its payment? Not
because it stands as a Judgement against her, for she has steadily refused to treat it as such. Not because she has paid it, for she has refused to do so to this day.
I am of the opinion therefore that under the
peculiar circumstances of this case Virginia can have
Page 141

no claim to its payment by the Government of the United States; for the promise of Congress under act July 5th, 1832 was based upon the consideration of satisfying those judgment alone for which Virginia was bound, but in no case provided for such as she had refused to recognize and pay.
Your decision rejecting this claim is therefore affirmed, and the papers which accompanied
your report are herewith returned to your office.
I am, very respectfully,
Your Obt Sert
J. Thompson
Secretary

Hon. G. C. Whiting,
Commissioner of
Pensions
Page 142

J. M. Bennett
Richmond Va.
March 24, 1858

additional evidence

As auditor of Pub. a/c for Va. transmit an act requiring him to obtain the balance of a judgment in fav of Isaac Holmes Late Lieut. & Paymaster in the army of the Revolution.

Respectfully referred to the Comm'r of Pensions
Moses Kelly
Chr. Clk.

Dept. Int.}
March 29/58}
Page 143

Auditor's Office, Richmond
March 24 1858
To the Hon Secretary for the Department
of the Interior of the United States
Sir
Enclosed you will find an act passed by the General Assembly of Virginia at its last Session requiring the undersigned, first Auditor of the state to prosecute the claim of the State to the balance of a judgment in favor of Isaac Holmes late Lieut. and Paymaster in the Army of the revolution That balance consists in his
commutation as Paymaster, with interest. The
portion of judgment giving him commutation
as Lieut. has been paid to his administrator, and refunded to the State of Virginia by the General Government The commutation as Paymaster has never been paid to him or his administrator, and is the balance of the judgment, which is the subject of the act referred to, A copy of the judgment on which the act of the General Assembly is predicated accompanies this letter
In accordance with my instructions in said
act, I have to request that speedy action will be
had in the matter and that this claim will be made to the subscribed for said State
I am very Respy &c.
J M Bennett
and [illegible]
Page 144

Letter of the
Secretary of the
Interior
respecting the claim
Oct 10. 1843
Page 145

Department of the Interior
Washington,
October 10 1853

Sir

I have duly examined and considered the claim for commutation and interest, in lieu of half pay, presented under the act of 5th of July 1832 by the administrator of the estate of Isaac
Holmes, deceased, on account of his services as Paymaster in the 2nd Virginia State Regiment in the War of the Revolution, and am clearly of opinion that no valid claim now exists, as against the United States on account of said services.
The 1st Section of the act of 5th July 1832, provided for the reimbursement to the State of Virginia of the moneys she had paid to her officers on account of the half pay for life promised by her for their services in the Revolution The 2nd section provided for the payment, to Virginia, of the amount of the judgments which had been rendered against her on account of the promise contained in her act of assembly passed in May 1779, and in favor of the Officers or representatives of the Officers of certain Regiments therein named;
among them Col. Dabneys Regt
Page 146

in which Holmes served. and the 3d Section
provided for the adjustment and settlement
by the United States of the claims for half pay
of the Officers of those Regiments and corps
which had not been paid or prosecuted to
judgments against the State of Virginia but for which she would be bound on the principles of the half pay case which had already been decided in the Supreme Court of Appeals of said State.
Now it appears that the Representatives of Isaac Holmes, deceased, did appeal to the proper judicial tribunals of Virginia, as early as
1794, and obtained a judgment against her for and on account of his said services as Lieut.
and Paymaster in her 2nd State Regiment, and
hence in my opinion, the claim is not of the class provided for by the 3d Section of the Act of 1832, and it cannot be allowed,
I would most respectfully direct your attention to the accompanying statement, in the case of Mr Pritchette, whose reasoning and conclusions are, in my judgment, sound and
correct, and such as should control this
Page 147

and similar cases.
The fact also that the question involved in this case has been agitated in Congress, and a strong opinion expressed in one branch of it, adverse to the whole class of such cases, would induce me to withhold my sanction from any claim of the kind until the final action of Congress upon the principles involved
The claim is therefore rejected
I am Sir very respectfully,
Your obt. Servant,
R.  McClelland
Secretary

Commissioner of Pensions
Page 148

Feby 15 / 50

Isaac Holmes

12

Jno. M McCalla

d.
Page 149

Washington 14 Feby 1850
To the Commissioner of Pensions
Sir
I enclose for your action, a claim on behalf of the heirs of Isaac Holmes, a revolutionary officer, for commutation & interest, to which I respectfully ask as speedy attention as will suit your
convenience.
Respy
Your ob. st. [obedient servant]
Jno. M. McCalla
Page 150

Off: [illegible] Court of Claims
Washn [Washington DC] Jany 27, 1857

Sir,

Please inform me whether the Department admits the claims of Virginia officers under the act of July 5 1832 Sec 3- to receive commutation according to the Virginia Statute of December 1790. Such claims were admitted for a while in 1849-50, but I am under the impression the practice was stopped.
Such a claim is now pending in this Court, to be tried in a day or two, and I would be obliged for early information on this point.
Very Respectfully
Jno. D. McPherson

Geo. C. Whiting Esq
Commr Pensions
Page 151

Pension Office,
August 9. 1858.

Sir,

Agreeably to your request I herewith enclose the papers in the case of Isaac Holmes deceased, act July 5, 1832, except the brief and
argument of Mr Pritchett, which were transmitted with my report of March 31. 1858.
I also send a volume of Correspondence, &c. in relation to service in the Virginia State Line, entitled "Virginia Claims,
Very respectfully, &c,
Geo, C. Whiting
Commissioner

Charles H. Rhett, Esq.
Dept. Interior.
Page 152

$10,000
Saml L. Williams
admin D. H. N. of
Edwd. Worthington of Lincoln County, Ky

F. A. Tucker Lieut
L. F. J. Trabue Lieut
Letters March 5, 1850

paid admin on 6th [illegible] 1850 $7149, 50


$2,500
Saml. L. Williams
Admin of 
Wm. Slaughter of Mercer County, Ky

[illegible]
S. F. J. Trabue Lieut
Thos. Purcell Lieut
Letters March 12, 1850 

Paid admin. 4th Feby 18[illegible] $ 972,91 

True Copies,
Test: Ed. N. Roach R. [Registrar of] Wills
April 28, 1853
Page 153

There is a letter of John B. Holmes
to Mr Northup, dated Jany 23. 1851, on
file with the papers of John M McCalla
Admr D. B. N. of Isaac Holmes decd. Admr
granted. June 22 1851,
Ed. N. Roach Reg of Wills
Apr 28, 1863
Page 154

120

Richmond Va.
Jany 11 1890

Smith, Isaac H.

Inquires status of case of Lieut Isaac Holmes
Va State line Revolutionary War -
Bounty Land claim?

[illegible initials]
Department of the Interior
Jany 18. 1890
Respectfully referred to the Commissioner of Pensions
E. M. Dawson
Chief Clerk.
H. C. D.
Page 155

Virginia Branch
American Building and Loan Association of Minneapolis, Minn.

COL. J. A. PATTEE,
Cen'l. Agent for VA. & D. C.
1115  MAIN ST.
Richmond, Jany 15 1890

Hone.  Secty. of the Interior
Washington DC

Dear Sir

Will you be kind enough to inform me of the Status of Lieut. Isaac Holmes' Case?
He was in the revolutionary war in what was called the Va State Line. I do not know the officer to write to hence my inquiry of you knowing that in your office nothing can be misplaced so it cannot be found.
Most respectfully
Isaac H Smith
1115 Main St
Page 156

At a Court held for Nottoway County on the 4th of April 1793
Isaac Holmes former Clerk of this Court being dead, the court proceeded to the appointment of clerk in his room, and made choice of Peter
Randolph, Gent: whereupon the said Peter Randolph, took the oath for giving assurance of fidelity to the Commonwealth, and also the oath of office, and with Francis Muir and Samuel Pincham his securities as entered into and acknowledged a bond for the faithful execution of the said office according to law
A Copy from the Record
Teste
Frances Fitzgerald Clk
Page 157

OFFICIAL.
Department of the Interior,
PENSION OFFICE, March 22, 1851.
The following rules and regulations, approved by the Secretary of the Interior, will be  observed in the settlement of such of the Revolutionary half-pay claims of Virginia arising under the act of Congress of the 5th of July, 1832, as now remain unsettled:
1. Sufficient evidence must be exhibited as to the identity of the officer on the part of whom or of whose representatives, the claim is presented; and, if dead, of the time of his death.
2. If the officer be dead, sufficient proof shall be required of the existence of heirs, and of legal representatives lawfully entitled to receive the amount due. The names and residence of the heirs shall be stated.
3. Where claims are presented by executors, an authenticated copy of the will and probate must be produced.
4. Administration on the estate of a deceased officer shall be taken out in the county of the decedent's domicil [sic], or in the county where he died; and the proof of the fact of his domicil  [sic] or death having been in said county shall be exhibited. A full and regular certificate of administration is required; and in all cases the
penalty of the administration bond must be sufficient to cover the amount of half-pay claimed.
5. If, after the death of an officer, the heirs shall have removed from the county of his domicil [sic], administration may be granted in the county and State where the heirs reside.
6. No claim shall be settled in favor of an assignee of the claimant.
7. Where the payment is claimed by an attorney, the power of attorney must be subsequent to the passage of the law, and authorize such attorney to act under that law.
The claims of officers for commutation, or for commutation and interest, will not be examined or allowed without further legislation by Congress.
J. E. HEATH,
Commissioner of Pensions.
Page 158

Isaac Holmes
[illegible] Brief
Claim for Half Pay
Page 159

Isaac Holmes dec'd
Claim for Half Pay.

In 1791 Isaac Holmes filed his Petition in Chancery setting forth that he entered the service of Virginia in 1776, with the rank of Lieutenant, in the second State Regiment, under Col. Wm. Brent's command, and continued therein till he was captured by the British, in May, 1781.  In May, 1781, being then a Lieutenant and Paymaster and a prisoner, he was liberated on parol [sic]. While thus situated by an arrangement of his Regiment he became supernumeray [sic], but was never released from his parol [sic] till the general discharge of all prisoners at the end of the war.  He has been refused by the Auditor his commutation and therefore sues. (Ex A.)
Evidence.
1.  His written parole, dated at Brandon on board Selina, 25 May, 1781. (Nr 2 Ex A.)
In 1793 Vivion Brooking, Adms'r of Isaac Holmes decd. files his Petition; setting forth the same facts (Nr 1 Ex B.)
Evidence.
2.  William Campbell (in 1792) says that Isaac Holmes was Lieutenant, Pay Master & Clothier to the 2d Va. State Regiment, and continued in service to May, 1781, when (by information) he was taken prisoner by the British and remained on parol [sic] till the [illegible]
Page 160

treaty took place (Nr 2 Ex B.)
3. F Muir says that in May, 1781, Isaac Holmes, Lieutenant in Col. Dabney's Va. State Regiment, was taken prisoner in Petersburg by a party of British troops commanded by [marked out: Col.] Arnold. He, with others and Deponent, were put on a prison ship in James River.  They were all paroled. Often saw Holmes afterwards, but never understood he was exchanged.  Deponent never was. (Nr 3 Ex B.)
4. Col. Dabney says Isaac Holmes was a Lieutenant and Pay Master in the 2' Va. State Regiment, and became supernumerary by the arrangement made in 1781. Believes he was taken prisoner previous to that arrangement. (Nr 4 Ex B.)
5. Francis Muir was a Captain during the Revolution in one of the additional sixteen Battalions, commanded by Col. N. Gest. Knew Isaac Holmes dec'd intimately, when he was Lieutenant and Pay Master to Col. Dabney's Regiment.  He was captured in Petersburg by a party under Arnold, as was deponent, and were sent to a prison ship in the James River, from which they were paroled about the last of May, 1781. Deponent was not exchanged till peace was ratified, and always understood from Holmes that he was not. (Nr. 5 Ex B.)
6.  Decision of the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirming the decision of the District Court, whereby the Auditor of Va. was ordered to issue to the Adm'r of Isaac Holmes certificates for 5 years' full pay in com-
Page 161

[com]mutation for Half Pay during life, bearing interest from 22d Apl. 1783 (Ex. C.)
7.  Certificate of the Auditor of Va. that a settlement was made 14 May, 1783, with Isaac Holmes as Lieut. P. M. & Clothier, and evidence of the indebtedness of the State to him for £454. 14. 1. delivered to him (Ex. D.)
8.  Certificate of same, showing entries in Sept. 1781, recognizing Isaac Holmes as Lieut. Pay Master and Clothier.  (Ex. E.)  Also that he was taken prisoner by Arnold 10' May, 1781, and afterwards paroled. (Ib.)
9.  Of same to a warrant for one year's interest on a Certificate dated 14 May, 1783, in full of the balance of his pay as Lieut. Pay Master and Clothier in the State line, for £26.6.10. (Ex F.)
Page 162

Know all men by these Presents, That I Vivion Brooking Holmes of the county of Mason and State of Illinois do hereby constitute and appoint Henry Northup, of the city of Washington, my true and Lawful attorney, for me and in my name to prossecute [sic] my Claim (or cause the same to be done) to Half pay: or commutation and Interest due me in right of the service of my Late Father Isaac Holmes as a Lieutenant and paymaster of the Second Reogment [sic] of the Virginia State Line and army of the Revolution, and my said attorney is by these presents fully empowered to do and perform all things nessary [sic] to be done to a final adjustment of my claim before any or all the propper [sic] departments at Washington or other whaere [sic], and to take such other steps to secure such evidence for the same or any other matter pertaining to said claim as fully and complete as though I was personally pressent [sic] myself.
Witness my hand and seal twentyeth [sic] day of April AD Eighteen hundred and fifty.
Vivion Brooking Holmes {seal}
Signed in the Presence 
of
J. I. W. Hinchman

State of Illinois}
Adams County} Sct.
Be it remembered, that on this twentieth day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty - Vivion Brooking Holmes personally known to the undersigned Jas. C. Bernard Clerk of the county court in and for said county, to be the identical person who
Page 163

who executed and whose name is subscribed to the foregoing Power of Attorney as having executed the same, came before me and acknowledged the same to be his voluntary act and deed for the purposes therein expressed.
In Testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed the seal of said Court at my office, at Quincy, the day and year first above written.
Jas C. Bernard Clerk
[seal]


District of Columbia,
Washington County, to wit:
I certify that the aforegoing is a true copy from the original filed & entered in the office of the
Register of Wills, for Washington County aforesaid
Witness my hand and seal of Office this 22nd June, in the year 1850.
Ed. N. Roach Reg. of wills
Page 164

Isaac Holmes - case.
A Judgment was obtained by his admi'r in the supreme Court of Appeals of Va. in 1794, for the Commutation due him as Lieutenant and Paymaster.  It was paid for the service as Lieutenant, but was suspended by the Auditor of Va. "for the present," and has never been paid.
The question is, ought it now to be paid by the Department of the Interior, under the act of 6 July 1832, - the act of 3d March 1835 (Chap. 323, section 4) and the act creating the Department of the Interior.
Congress about the close of the Revolution, gave Commutation to the officers of the Continental line.  that is - commuted the uncertain Half-pay for life, to the certain uniform sum of ten years half-pay - the uncertain duration of half--pay, to the certain period of ten years.
Virginia gave no such promise of ten years half pay, during the period of the war, to her state line officers.  Consequently, their only claim was for half-pay during the respective lives of the officers.
The [they] denied that her Supernumerary officers, were entitled to any thing. Suits were brought against her, under a law peculiar to herself, authorising suits against her, in her own courts.
While these suits were pending, she enacted the law of 16 Dec'r 1790 which declared "That the same compensation of Half-pay should be extended to those officers of the state line, who continued in actual service to the end of the war, as was allowed to the officers of the Continental line."
The courts decided, that this extending of "the same Compensation of half-pay," as was given the officers of the Continental line, was a grant of Commutation to all who served to the end of the war as Commutation, was the compensation of Half-pay, [marked out: with] which the Continental line got, under the resolves of Congress.  And accordingly, the Commutation was allowed by the Courts, in all cases, thereafter, where the officers
Page 165

of the State line served to the end of the war - or were prisoners of war to that period, which was decided to be equivalent to actual service to the end of the War. Accordingly the commutation was allowed to Isaac Holmes, who was such a prisoner.
The County decided in 1793 & 4 the supernumeraries were not entitled to half pay.
But the claims were reconsidered and in April 1830 the Court of appeals reversed the former decisions, and awarded the Half pay to the supernumeraries in a great many cases.
In the mean time, the Legislation of Va had in numerous cases as mere acts of liberality paid a great many officers by special laws without the slightest idea of asking reimbursement  from the U. States
But when this heavy mass of adjudicated claims came against her in 1830 she appealed
to Congress for indemnity upon the ground, 
that if she had paid them prior to the assumption of the state debts incurred on
account of the war the indemnity would unhesitatingly have been obtained but as she thought they were not just, she had not imposed the burthen of the U.S. But now it seemed they were valid & she considered the U. S. should not let her suffer in consequence of her long resistance and defence [sic] against them
Congress concurred & passed the act of 5 July 1832 for her indemnity. In three sections:
The first. to refund to Va all the money she had actually paid to the officers, whether under Judgments or voluntarily
The second. to pay her the amount of certain specified Judgments then outstanding and unpaid 
The Third: all such cases, as were not included in the above two sections, but for which she was bound upon the principles already decided by her Court of appeals.
Thus showing the act was designed to afford complete indemnity
Page 166

The word "Commutation," does not appear in this act, all the cases are spoken of as "Half pay" cases. The first section refers to the aggregate of $139, 543.66 as for payments made by Va "on account of half-pay for life promised" her officers.
Yet the Report of the Committee, on which the act was founded, showed that much the larger portion of this very sum of $139,543.66 was for commutation.- thus showing conclusively the cases paid "on account of half pay for life" were considered by the act, as including the commutation, or ten years half pay! Indeed, pages 61 & 62 of report 191 1 Sep. 22 Cong show that 42 Officers & their representatives recd the above sum of $139543.66. and that all, except four of the cases were for Commutation.
Yet the first section of the act, directed the repayment to Va. of that sum & states it to be "on account of half pay for life promised" &c.
Isaac Holmes case is one of the 42, included in
that first section, having recd payment in part of his judgment for commutation altho' it is described as a payment "on account of half pay."
The second section of the act referred to certain Judgments then recently obtained,  which were unpaid by Va and amounted, according to the Auditor estimate, to the precise sum of $241,345- specified in that section
The 3rd Section required the Department to adjust & settle those claim for half-pay"" which have not been paid or prosecuted to Judgment against the State of Virginia and for which said
state would be bound on the principles of the Half pay cases already decided in the Supreme Court of appeals of said State."
Isaac Holmes case, is described in the first section as a Half pay case- Va. is bound to
pay it, according to the principles already decided by her courts - for he had a judment [sic] of her highest court which had been paid, in part only, & his case is therefore within the very words of the act.
Page 167

Doubts, however were suggested by the department subsequently, to the passage of the act of 5 July 1832, whether the 3rd section embraced all commutation cases, as well as other half pay cases and the Ho. of Reps. on the 7th Feb. 1833, by a very large majority passed a declaration resolution for the removal of those doubts, but in the press of other business, it was not acted on by the Senate - On the 3rd of March 1835, however, a law was passed, directing the War Department, and head of the Treasury, to pay "these Va. claims for Revolutionary services, and deficiency of Commutation". The very word "commutation" is used & by no possibility can be construed to mean any thing else, than these unpaid halfpay, and commutation cases!
Yet this act was overlooked - at least - the peculiar terms of it, and as the Treasury Department had declined to pay commutation cases the officers sued Virginia, & recovered judgements for about $80,000, which she paid. Under a special act of assembly, I was appointed a Commissioner to apply on her behalf to Congress for the return of this money, which she maintained ought to be paid by the Department under the act of 5 July 1832.
My memorial was presented and on 15 May 1844, the committee of ways & means unanimously concurred an opinion that the claims ought to have been paid under that act. 
No law was passed however till August 1848. The opponents then yielded - acknowledged in open Senate, that their minds had changed - that they were now satisfied, the act of 5 July "32 had assumed the payment of the Commutation, as well as the other half pay claims - the unanimous vote of the Senate was given in favor of the payment, as being due under the act of 5 July "32 - a report of the debate in the Senate was made to the House, I laid on the desk of every member (see copy marked A) the Bill passed, & the money was paid - The Attorney General regarded this, as a legislation interpretation of the act of 5 July 1832. and advised the payment of all such commutation cases thereafter. He subsequently went further, and advised
Page 168

on the principles "already decided" by her Supreme Court of appeals - using in this third section the very term "half-pay" cases, for the outstanding claims, which the first section had used when referring to 38 commutation cases -The cotemporaneous explanatory resolution of the House of Reps of 1833, by the same members, who had exacted the law of 5 July 1832 - the use of the very word "commutation" when referring in the act of 3 March 1835, to the different classes of claims intended to be paid by the War Department - and the act of August 1848 refunding to Va. the $80.000 she had recently paid in satisfaction of Commutation Judgments coupled with the avowed recantation of previous opinion; seemingly acquiesced in, on all sides, constitute a mass of irresistable facts, which seem to me to be perfectly conclusive, that the Commutation claims should be paid by the Department to the Army officers at least, with as little hesitation an any other half-pay cases.
 As for Isaac Holmes case - it is the strongest of all - an unpaid judgment against Va. - confessedly binding on her, (except  that the U. S. had afirmed the pay out which the state does not like to volunteer as it would again subject her to a renewed deniaud on Congress) a judgment never repudiated by Va, but "postponed for the present" as the auditor said in 1794 - for no reason that we can surmise - as the like judgments establishing the "Princeple" that the staff office, entitled the offices to its commutation had been settled & paid in numerous other cases. The act of 5 July "32 adopts those princeples (whether right or wrong) and directs the settlement of all half pay cases not paid, or prosecuted to judgment for which Va. would be bound, according to those principles.
Respectfully submitted by Thomas Green
Page 169

the payment of Commutation to the officers of the Navy. This was thought by many, to be beyond the principles recognized by the act of 5 July 1833. The House of Representative appointed a Committee, which reported against the action of Mr. Ewing, and he determined he would nay no commutation case - neither the unquestioned Army cases, nor the more doubtful Navy cases, until the report of the Committee should be reversed -
He soon left the Department & his successor, a Virginian felt an unwillingness to act on the subject, although it is believed, he never doubted for a moment, the right of the Army officers to receive the Commutation.
Prejudice against the officer at the Head of the Department may have had its influence, on the minds of some, but I am free to say, yet with great respect for the opinions of others, that I cannot account for other views, except upon the supposition of their overlooking important facts which belong to the case - The uniform decisions of the Courts of Va. that the Va. act of 16 Decr. 1790, gave Commutation to the state line officers, who served, to the end of the war, - the payment of 16 judgments, prior to 2 July 1796, for Commutation, and of 22 other Commutation cases by Va. subsequent to 1796 & prior to 1832, - the refunding to Va., by the 1st section of the act of 5th July 1832, of the money, she had paid in these 38 Commutation cases, which that same section describes as "half-pay" cases, - the evident intention of that act to reimburse and protect a. from the like claims, - the direction to pay all the other half-pay cases, for which she would be bound on
Page 170

Wm T Barret
Washington City
D C
Page 171

"To the Hon'ble the Judges of the district Court now sitting in Richmond the petition of Vivion Brooking adm'r of Isaac Holmes humbly sheweth,
That Isaac Holmes engag'd in the service during the late war between Great Britain & America & was in the second Virginia State Regiment as a lieutenant & paymaster in the year 1779. He continued in those offices in actual service until May 1781, when he was captur'd by the British enemy & remained a prisoner during the was. That having this fair claim to commutation in lieu of half pay for life, as the said Isaac Holmes departed this life sometime in the year 1780, Your Petitions well hop'd that certificate or warrants would be issued therefor but now so it is, may it please your Honors that the Auditor of Publick accounts has refused to issue either certificate or warrants therefor from which decision your petitioner prays an appeal to this Hon'ble Court & that the said judgment & decision may be reversed and your petitioner will ever pray &c."
(Endorsed) "I admit notice of the within Pet'n.
I. Pendleton "
Aud'r Office}
3. Sep. 1793}

Nr 2.
"Richmond 12th October 1792
This day William Campbell came before and made oath that Isaac Holmes was Lieut. paymaster & clothier to the 2d Virginia State Regiment and continued in service until May 1781 at which time (from Information) was taken prisoner by the British and remained on parole until the Definitive treaty took place.
A. W. Robert"

Nr 3
Dinwiddie County Sct
I do heeby certify that in the month of May One thousand seven hundred and Eighty one Isaac Holmes Lieutenant in the Virginia State Regiment Commanded by Col'o Dabney was taken a prisoner in Petersburg by a party of the British troop commanded by Arnold that he together with others and myself were put on board a prison ship in James River, that we were all paroled together from said Ship- that I had often seen him afterwards but never understood he was exchanged, that I myself never was exchanged, nor do I believe that he the said Holmes was every exchanged during
Page 172

during the war.
Given under my hand this 15th day of October Anno Domini 1792
F. Muir

Dinwiddie County Sc:
This day came Francis Muir before me one of the Justices of the Peace in and for the said County of Dinwiddie and made oath that the above certificate is just and true so far as he believes or knows.
Given under my hand this 15 day of October 1792
James Greenway

No 4
I do certify that Isaac Holmes was a Lieutenant & Paymaster to the 2d Virginia State Regimt. and became Supernumerary by the arrangement made in the year 1781. And, from information I believe he was taken prisoner in the year 1781. previous to said arrangement
Cha. Dabney
June 4th 1793

No 5
Dinwiddie County Sct
This day came before me William Watts one of the Justices of the Peace in and for the said County of Dinwiddie Francis Muir, and made oath on the Holy Evangelist of Almighty God, that he was a Captain during the late American War in one of the additional sixteen Battalions commanded by Col. Nathl. Gest That he was intimately acquainted with Isaac Holmes decd when he the said Holmes was a Lieutenant and Paymaster to the [illegible] State Virginia Regiment commanded as he now thinks, by Col. Dabney, that the said Isaac Holmes was captured in Petersburg, by a party of British troops under the command of Arnold, as was also this Deponent, that they were sent with the prisoners on board a prison ship lying in James River and were paroled about the last of May One thousand seven hundred and eighty one, That he this Deponent was never exchanged untill [sic] peace was ratified, and having frequent opportunities of seeing the said Holmes, always understood by him that he was not exchanged
nor does this Deponent believe he ever was exchanged or released from his parole but in consequence of the definitive treaty between Great Britain & American Given under my hand this 18th day of June, Anno Domini 1793
Wm Watts
Page 173

I Eustace Robinson Clerk of the Circuit Court of Law for the County of Henrico in the State of Virginia, and as such having in my custody the Records and papers of the former District Court holden in the City of Richmond & State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the preceeding [sic] are true copies of the Petition and all the papers filed therewith, in the case of Vivion Brooking admin. of Isaac Holmes decd against the Commonwealth of Virginia in which a Judgment was rendered in the said District Court
in favour of the said Administrator on the 12th day of September 1793
E. Robinson

before and
 to the 2d
1781 at which
and remained on
Page 174

Copy
Application or Consent
of
Henry Northup
for
Gen. McCalla to adm'rs
Filed June 22nd 1850

(5)
Page 175

I Henry Northup Agent for John B. Holmes and attorney in fact for Vivian B. Holmes the solo and only living children & heirs of Isaac Holmes Deceased late a Lieutenant Paymaster and Prisioner of the 2nd Virginia State Regiment in the war of the Revolution do hereby consent and ask that letters of administration de bonis non be granted to Gen. John McCalla by the Orphans court at this place on the estate of the said Isaac Holmes.
It is not known whether anything can be recovoured or not but if successful the sum to be received cannot be less than $2000 and if successful to the interest extent it may equal at most $9000.
For the heirs
Henry Northup
Washington City
22nd of June 1850.

Grant letters as prayed bond $10,000
Wm. F Purcell
22 June 1850.

District of Columbia,
Washington County, to wit.
I certify that the aforegoing is a true copy from the original files & entered in the office of the Register of Wills, for Washington County, aforesaid.
Witness, my hand and seal of office, this 22nd June, in the year 1850.
Ed. N. Roach Reg. Wills.
Page 176

Lieut Isaac Holmes dec
Revolu Claim
Brief

Referred to the Commissioner of Pensions for Report. without respect to the question respecting commutation which will not be acted upon by M Stuart GOW
Dept Int'r}
Oct 8.52}

C Rec'd: Oct. 6.1852
Page 177

Statement relative to the commutation claim
of paymaster Isaac Holmes
---
1 -  Congress gave commutation and intrust [sic] to all Staff officers of the continental line who acquired a right to commutation and intrust [sic] for their lineal rank; they drew  boath [sic]  commutation and intrust [sic] for boath [sic] lineal rank and for their pay in the staff.
In confirmation of this see the commutation paid Lts. Henry Boyer, Francis J & John J Brook all Lts. and staff officers of the Va line Capt Isaac B. Dunn, Capt and aid Pa Line, Lts. Heriom Ford of My Line, Lt. John Hartshand of Maryland Line, see the commutation paid there and it will be found they received Commutation and intrust[sic] for staff and lineal rank and all other staff officers in the continental army receive the same, for their staff or lineal rank to wit commutation and intrust [sic] in capacity
2  By referance [sic] to the decisions  of the Courts in Va as early 1791 & 2 and the practice in the auditors office  it will be found all officers of the land services were paid commutation and
intrust [sic] by decisions of the Courts and accessions of the Officers, having charge of this [illegible] commutation and intrust [sic] for the Staff as well as the lineal rank where the same was presented and claimed; and further as Va could not if she would have negotiated and exchange of prisoners the captivity and parole intitled to commutation and interest they being deemed in service to the end of the war;
See the case of Lt Church Hill Gibbs and
Page 178

Lt. Isaac Holmes boath [sic] cases true at that
early day; Holms [sic] claims and decision for commutation and intrest [sic] for lineal rank only; no action an decision or report on the claim for commutation and intrust [sic] for his services in the Staff.
By referance [sic] to the record for commutation and intrust [sic] of the US Continental line and also to Smiths reports and all the vouchers records and decessions [sic], by Va her courts  otherwise those statements will be found to be literally confirmed and up to the 5th July 1832 Va had audited and paid by decisions of her courts acts of her Legislature or otherwise $139000 now let us look at the act of Congress of that day to wit Section first provisions that the Secretary of the treasury shall repay to Va the money heretofore paid by her to wit $139,000; while the second section provides that the
Secutary [sic] of the Treasury Shall pay the judgement obtained against Va amounting to $241345; and remember that at the time of the passing of the act that no one of these judgments refered [sic] to in this section had bin [sic] confirmed they ward all then by appeals, carried up to and before the Courts of appeals of Va yet ward provided for by Congress whether rejected or otherwise by the supreme courts of appeals the trial to be there after decided.
Independant [sic] of the payments to be made under this second section of the act of Congress of the 5th July 1832 many cases have her since acceded by the courts in a boath [sic] Superior Court and Court of Appeals and in each and every case commutation and in trust [sic] have been allowed by the Courts of Va
and paid by that State and the same has bin [sic] repaid, Va by act of Congress of the [illegible] Chap 56 See the act approprating [sic] 181.273.17 for that purpose
Chap 56
Page 179

There is not neither case & instance be produced of the Officer of Va State line who has not received Commutation and intrust [sic] for boath [sic] his lineal and Staff pay who was in services to the end of the war prisoners all was being acceded in service to the end of the
war see the decisions of the Courts, of the second cases of Lts. Church Hill Gibbs, Isaac Holmes and Valentine T. Dalton all prisoners in captivity and each by judgment of the Court awarded commutation and intrust [sic] but Lt. Holmes being an officer in the Staff allso [sic] was entitle to commutation and Intrust [sic] for his service in the staff yet the Court did not adjudicate the commutation and intrust [sic] of this pay in the Staff; neather [sic] has the Court
in any of the Staff cases; See the judgments against Va in the cases of Capt Thomas Marshall, Gideon Johnson, Lts. Henry Vowles, & Wharton Quarles Each of these officers obtained half pay for judgments of the Courts of appeals of Va and were said under the appropriation of the second section of the act of Congress July 5 1832 and yet each of them have been paid at the Treasury department under the third section of that act - the half pay of their rank in the staff and farther, Lt. William Graves, and under the third section
of the act 5 July 1832 $11.18 half pay [illegible] in 1842 upon it being showed Lt. William Graves was & [sic] Officer in the Staff and was in service to the end of the war the claim was credited and paid commutation and intrust [sic] for his service to the end of the war as a Staff Officer, and paid compound intrust [sic] at that, See the statement payment maid [sic], 1849 Say in August or September but the case of paymaster Isaac Holmes is left as the sole and only case unpaid
Page 180

Again this case was filed in February 1850 for adjudication; it is a manner of law and decision of the Supreme Court of the U.S. that the next of Kin have the right to Admr before any other;
Vivian B. Holmes the son of the officer administered threw [sic] his attorney at this place on the Estate of said Isaac Holmes; whatever the present opinion or rule adopted and published some 15 or 18 months after this claim was filed for adjudication could have no possibly influence or bearing on this case, it cannot for one minute be argued that this rule or regulation was and "Expostacto" rule or regulation and run back time immmorial [sic], that regulation was most unquestionably in the prospective and applicable to any or all cases presented subsequent to the adoption of this rule or regulation; but it could by no means govern or regulate the practice or rule of action long practiced and universally acknowledge in the action on all cases previous to the adoption of this rule.
A year since the passage of the act of Congress of the 5th July 1832 whether legally or other wise administration has ever and at all times when application was made being granted at Washington those Va claims and an examination it will be found that there are probly [sic] not less than fifty or sixty cases
where administration was granted on such estates in Washington City and it is believed that some three or four cases were administered or in this City and paid after the papers and in the case of Isaac Holmes have been filed, and this case of Isaac Holmes Stands as the only solitary case of a staff officer of either of the U.S. continental line or Va State line who acquired a legal write [sic] to commutation and intrust [sic] for his lineal rank, and Staff Service
Page 181

that has not bin [sic] paid commutation and intrust [sic] for boath [sic] his lineal and staff rank.
It is challenged that records will show all such paid who became entitled said and accept the commutation of pay master to Lt.  Isaac Holmes.
By reference to the record in the proper offices in the treasury Department it will be found
that continental officers received commutation
and intrust [sic] for both their lineal and rank
in the staff.
And in the office in the pension office the second payment of commutation and intrust [sic], will be found to have been paid to all officers of the Va State line both for their lineal rank and pay in the staff and all except Paymaster I. Holmes.
The list thus paid from 1791 to 1850 paid by Va 10th of April 1791 Wyatt Coleman as lieutenant and adjutant commutation and intrust [sic] 
This commutation L714  and intrust [sic] L 329=16=3
May 13th 1791 Windsor Brown Capt & paymaster Commutation and intrust[sic] then commutation L1260 and intrust [sic] L581=1=4
May 25th 1791 James Harper as Lt and Quarter
Master commutation and intrust [sic] L 716
Commutation L 714 intrust [sic] L329=6=3
May 7th 1792. Churchill Gibbs per Judgment
of the Court of appeals as prisoner of war in
captivity commutation and intrust [sic] to wit
Commutation L480 and intrust [sic] L300=8=0
July 11th 1794 Lt Isaac Holmes for Judgment
of the Court of appeals as prisoner of war
Commutation L480 Intrust [sic] 397=18=0
The commutation and lineal rank a lone will be found thus for a Capt L720 with its intrust [sic] and for Lt. L480 with its intrust [sic].
Page 182

In November 1830 Judgement was obtained against the State of Va for half pay for some 34 Officers of the Va State Line for half pay for life
Of those 34 Officers in whos [sic] names judgment was obtained for half pay Capts Thomas Marshall and Gidian [Gideon] Johnson
and Lts. Henry Vowles & Wharton Quarles each were staff officers and although not named as staff officers in the judgments yet each of those four officers have been paid the half pay in the Staff and about the time or since the claim of Lt. Holms was filed thus it will be seen the payment at Holmes and those four last named officers were for commutation and intrust [sic] in one case and for the other half pay for life
There was nothing in the judgement refering [sic] to their services in the Staff yet these your have bin [sic] paid there [sic] half pay, about the time or since the claim was filed
Farther  after this claim was filed two if not more cases were filed and commutation and intrust [sic] paid an cases which in point of Law and fact now existed and can be shown to wit the claims of Capt Edwd. Worthington and Lt. William Spencer
Father sic] [illegible] George Walls and Sargeant Charles Green two of the thirty four payments obtained against Va 1830 and said judgments were provided for and paid under the Second Section of the act of Congress of 5 July 1832 yet boath [sic] of these cases have bin [sic] again paid commutation and intrust [sic] at the treasury Department the summer 1842 [1849 ?] deducting these from the sums previously paid again, Surgeon James M Gault obtained half pay
Page 183

under the third Section of the act 5 July 1832
at two different periods yet in 1845 or 46 the administrator let suit against Va and judgement was obtained for commutation and intrust [sic] and in 1849 this Commutation and intrust [sic] was paid at the treasury Department deducting the same heretofore paid. See the records and vouchers in these cases refered [sic] to.
While the claim of Pay Master Holmes filed in
February 1851 but not acted on when Mr
Ewing directed the suspending action on all commutation claims untill [sic] the resolution for investigation, into the fraudulent or erroneous payments of those Va claims was
disposed that resolution and be said to have
and a natural death with the [illegible] of that Session yet this claim of Paymaster Isaac  Holmes is left a standing monument of the sole and only claim of that class unpaid
Respy
Your obt st. [obedient servant]
Jno M McCalla
Page 184

Supplemental Brief
in the case of Lt Isaac Holmes PM & Clothier 2d Va State Regt

The claim for staff half-pay having been admitted, the only question to determine, is, at what rate should it be allowed.
Isaac Holmes was Lt & Paymaster of the 2d State regiment. The act of assembly, raising regiment (9 Hening page 192) authorises the appointment of a Paymaster to the regiment but does not fix the rate of compensation to be allowed; Nor is there any law to be found in Henings Statutes which determines the annual pay of regimental paymasters. Reference must be had therefore to other sources of information, - to the regulations of the Continental Congress, and to the early action of Virginia.
The act raising the 2d State regiment contains the following clause, viz
"That the officers and soldiers shall be entitled to the same pay and rations, be subject to the same laws, articles, and regulations, as are established by the general Congress for the government of the continental troops."
The first general arrangement of the continental army was made the 27 May 1778 (2 vol Journals Congress page 567.) By this arrangement the pay of a paymaster of infantry was fixed at $20 per month or $240 per year. This would make the half-pay $120.
In adjudicating, however, claims of this character under the act of 5 July 1832, the practice
Page 185

of the office has been to allow half-pay to a regimental paymaster at the rate of $180 per annum; and it was evidently based upon the early action of Virginia. In 1791 Windsor Brown, who was Captain & Paymaster of the 1st State regiment, obtained a judgment against the Commonwealth for commutation & interest both in his linear & staff capacity, and the amount of full pay allowed him as paymaster was $360 per annum, which would make the half-pay #180. This rate was adopted by the office in 1850 in settling the claim of Lt & PM Charles Russell - the first case presented under the act of 5 July 1832 - and has been followed in the cases of Robert Boush, Thomas Marshall & Wm. Armstead. I am not aware of any reason why the practice should be departed from in the present instance.
It has been intimated that Isaac Holmes should be allowed not only the half pay of a paymaster but also as a Clothier. Such a claim would be utterly without just foundation. The duties of a clothier were by law inseparably connected with the office of paymaster, and were attended with no additional compensation. One of the regulations of Congress (adopted by Virginia), is in the following words - viz: "That the paymaster of a regiment be chosen by the officers of the regiment, out of the Captains or Subalterns, and appointed by warrants as above; the officers are to risk their pay in his hands; the paymaster to have the charge of the clothing, and to distribute the same."
Page 186

Russell settled his depreciation account as "Paymaster & Clothier", but only $180 per annum was allowed him. No claim for an additional allowance as clothier was presented, either in this case, or in any other since adjudicated. Armistead was reported on the roll of Nelsons Corps of Cavalry as Paymaster & Clothier but the Atto in this case only claimed & received $180.
It is proper to state that Isaac Holmes received from the State of Virginia, shortly after the close of the war, one years half-pay as a Lieutenant in the line When he obtained a judgment against the State in 1794 for commutation & interest, this payment was not deducted, as should have been done. No doubt it was overlooked at the time. How far it is proper to make the deduction now, the commissioner can best determine. Many other officers received from Virginia, shortly after the war, one & two years half-pay, and in adjudicating their claims under the act of 5 July 1832, these early payments were invariably deducted.
R M Heath
En: Clerk

PS. Since the foregoing brief was prepared, Mr. Green one of the agents in the case, has directed attention to what he conceived to be an error in the concluding paragraph. He denies that it was the practice, in adjudicating claims under the act of 5 July 1832; to deduct the half-pay granted by Virginia shortly after the close of the revolutionary war.
Page 187

Supplemental Brief
in the case
of Lt. Isaac Holmes
Paymaster Va State Line

Act 5 July 1832

I find upon examination that literally speaking he is correct, but that there was no substantial error in the statement. In settling claims under the act of 1832, no actual deductions were made, but the half pay was made to commence from the time Virginia ceased to pay it.
For example - Col Geo Mater received one years half pay from Va from the 1st April 1782 to the 1st April 1783, and when his claim was settled under the act of 1832 the half pay was
made to commence from 1 April 1783, the time up to which Va had paid him. So also in the case of Capt Edd. Read, Capt John Williams & Lt Wm White the only three cases, besides that of Mater which I examined this morning
RMH

3 May 1853
Page 188

Fauquier W S.
Springs
Oct 6, 1853,
Thos Green to
Vivian B. Holmes,

States that he has filed
his argument in the
commutation question
as it bears in Isaac
Holmes

Respy Refd [referred] to be filed with the other
papers in the case.
Deps [illegible]
Oct 14 / 53
Geo C Whiting
Chief Clerk

Mr. V. B. Holmes
Washington
Page 189

Fauquier W. S. Spring
6 Oct. 1853

Mr. Vivian B. Holmes
Washington

D Sir

I do not see what good my presence, could do in your case at this time, and my remaining here a few days, is very important to me.
I have filed my argument on the commutation question as it bears on Isaac Holmes, your fathers, case I have referred to the records to show he could not be considered a supernumerary but only as a prisoner of war.
Against the absolutely conclusive evidence on this point if the Govt. has made up its mind, it
would not believe even if a dozen living brother officers were present & on oath stated that I. H. was not a supernumerary, but had, at one time, been so considered by mistake-
I have on the point raised that the 3d sect of the act 5th July '32 did not include Judgments-
referred to several cases to show a liberal construction had been given by every administration almost to this section-- & that, in getting at the true intent & meaning of the law, the whole scope of it the whole scope of it should be considered and not the more words
of the section and that case "not paid or prosecuted to Judgement meant the same as would the words "not included in the first or second section"
Much more might be said to enforce this view. other case might be cited But if the Secretary is so determined to decide the case that he will not allow time for its being presented in its strongest light by us, it is evidence that his mind is no longer open to conviction & we must resort to another tribunal and endeavor to show that he was mistaken
I am yr. Obt sevt
Thomas Green
Page 190

Affidavit of Harriet B. Smith of Brunswick Va
Brunswick County
State of Virginia
I do hereby certify that Harriet B. Smith, this day, personally
appeared before me, E. H. H. Black, a justice of the peace for the
County of Brunswick in the State of Virginia and made oath to the
by reputation
following facts, to wit: That she was well acquainted with Capt. I
Holmes of the County of Nottaway, Va. who was Clerk of said County
at the time of his death; that he left the following children, Frances Thacker
Margaret Brodnax, John Ballard, Vivian Brooking and Lucy, five in number
Frances Thacker married Robt. Nicholson of Petersburg Va. and without
any heir of her body & said Nicholson died also, leaving no child
Margaret Brodnax married Samuel Brodnax of Sussex County Va. both
of whom died, leaving three children, Gervis, Frances Holmes & Emily
Harriet Servis in did & she has reason to believe left no heir; Frances
Holmes married Alexr Robertson and and having three children, her
husband still surviving. Emily Harriet Married Jas. M. Lundie & after
his death, a Mr Lewis of Louisiana & after his death, she married another
Mr Lewis of Louisiana, she is still living
John Ballard Holmes removed to the Western part of Tennessee, many
years ago & is now living, she believes: Vivian Brooking Holmes removed
to some of the Southern or Western States many years and in
Lucy Holmes married Edward C. Smith of the County of Brunswick, Va
and died, leaving six children; to wit: Richard E. C. Smith, Philip Henry
Smith, Robert Holmes Smith, Mary Brodnax Smith, Frederick Smith &
Isaac H. Smith, Richd E.C. is now living in Clark County Alabama;
Philip Henry died, leaving no heir of his body, unmarried, but left a will, by
which Robt. H. Smith is his heir, Robt. He is now living in Bertie County
North Carolina, Mary Brodnax married Alexander Robertson of
Amelia County Va. & is still living, Frederick died some years past
in Petersburg Va. never having been married. Isaac H. is still living in
Petersburg Virginia
she the said Harriet was well acquainted with all the children of
Capt. Isaac Holmes of Nottaway, personally and always heard that the
said Capt. Isaac Holmes was in the Revolutionary war
To all the above the said H. B. Smith hath solemnly sworn before me.
Given under my hand & seal this 3 day of September 1850
Elijah H.H. Blick J.
by reputation " interlined before
to
Page 191

Copy of John B
Holmes letter of the
23rd of January 1850
Page 192

Tenn Jan 23 1850.

Mr. Northup
Sir, I received your letter dated the 29 of Nov 49 and have been considering on the subject, for I was conversing, on that business, when the letter was handed to me, and I was thinking of a gentleman that I would get to attend to it, when I went to Washington City, if it is common, to give, what you have proposed to undertake for I will give the one third, as I don't wish to lay myself liable to any difficulty, with the rest of the heirs of my Father, but I cannot agree to give, more than is customary, in such business as this now if one third is customary, I suppose I shall have to abide, by that custom, so you may procede with the business, I should have answered you before this but have been confined at home by bad rodes & high water, when you succede if you should, I will come in person or have an agent that will settle with you and pay you your fee, write me on the receipt of this, of this & let me know what you will do, I will administer, on my father estate here, and you say in your letter that you, will, bare all expense in every shape and if, nothing allowed, make no charge for my trouble, that you may be at. then procede with the business as spedily, as you, can and let me know the result of your procedeings and I will answer you, forth with
Yours respectfully
John B. Holmes

True copy.
Test: Ed. N. Roach Reg. Wills
April 29, 1853.
Page 193

Tenn Jany 23 1850

Mr Northup
Sir I received your letter dated the 29 of Nov 49 and have been considering on the subject,
for I was conversing, on that business, when the letter was handed to me, and I was thinking of a gentleman that I could get to attend to it, when he went to Washington City, if it is common, to give, what you have proposed to undertake for, I will give the one third, as I dont wish to lay myself, liable, to any difficulty, with the rest of the heirs of my Father, but I cannot agree to give, more than
is costomary [sic], in such business, as this now if one third is costomary [sic], I suppose I shall have to abide by that custom, so you may procede [sic] with the business, I should have answered you before this but have been, confined at home by bad rodes [sic] & high water, when you succeed if you should I will, come in person or, have, an agent that will settle with you and pay you your fee, write
me on the receipt of this, of this & let me know what you will  do, I will administer, on my Fathers estate here-- and as you say in your letter that you, will, have all expence [sic] in every shape and if, nothing allowed, make no charge for any trouble that you may be at- then proceed with the business as speedily, as you can and let me know the result of your procedings [sic] and I will answer you, forthwith
Yours Respectfully
John B Holmes

District of Columbia,
Washington County, to wit:
I certify that the aforegoing [sic] is a true copy
from
Page 194

from the original filed & entered in the Office of the Register of Wills, for Washington County, aforesaid.
Witness, my hand and seal
of Office, this 22nd June, in
the year 1850.
Ed. N. Roach Reg. wills
Page 195

(Copy)

In the matter of Isaac Holmes decd.
Claim for commutation & interest, due s Paymaster in 2d Reg't Va State Line under Act July 5, 1832.

The Petition of Isaac Holmes filed in 1791 in the District Court of Virginia, sets forth that he entered the Service of that State in 1776 with the rank of Lieutenant in the 2nd State Regiment, then commanded by Col. Wm. Brent and continued therein, until he was captured by the British in May 1781, that on the 25th of May 1781 being then a Lieutenant & Paymaster, he was liberated on parole; that while a prisoner on parole, by some arrangement; respecting his Regiment, he became supernumerary, but remained a prisoner on parole until the conclusion of the war, and of course in the service of his country until its close: and therefore, entitled to half pay, under the Act of Assembly of May 1779, or a commu-
1.
Page 196

-tation of 5 years full pay in lieu thereof; that this had been refused him, and therefore he appeals to the Court.

Early in the year 1793 (it is said March 20th 1793) the petitioner died, and on the 12th September 1793, "Vivian Brookling, administrator of Isaac Holmes, late a lieutenant and Paymaster  in the 2nd Virginia State Regiment" obtained a reversal of the decision of the Auditor of Public Accounts, upon the appeal as above set forth, in the above recited petition of Isaac Holmes, by the District Court of Va. to the effect "that the appellant is entitled to five years full pay for life," and that the Auditor of Public Accounts, issue to appellant certificates for the said five years full pay, bearing an interest, at the rate of  six per centum per annum, from the 22d day of April 1783, the day on which the troops raised for the late war, were discharged in this state."
2.
Page 197

From the above judgement, the Attorney
General on behalf of the Commonwealth,
prayed an appeal to the next Court of Appeals, which was allowed.
On the 24th of April 1794. the Court of Appeals at Richmond, affirmed the decision of the District Court as above recited, and ordered its Judgement to be certified to said District Court
On the 1st September, 1794, a copy of the judgement of the Court of Appeals, was produced, and read to the Court. to wit a District Court, held at the Capitol, in the City of Richmond,
On the 10th day of July 1794 in obedience to the said Judgement, Vivion Brooking. Admr of Isaac Holmes, received from the Auditor of the State of Virginia, Warrants and certificates for

3
Page 198

the sum of L 787.16.0  being the amount
of commutation of five years full pay, with interest thereon, of a Lieutenant the rank of Isaac Holmes in the line.
There is no evidence, that any further claim
was made in the Courts of Virginia, or to her accounting officers, by the heirs or representatives of Isaac Holmes, since the above Stated payment on the judgement, on the 10th of July 1794
On the 14th of February 1850, as appears from the letter of John McCalla, (dated June 24. 1851) he, as the Attorney for the Heirs of Isaac Holmes, filed in the Pension Office, their claim for the first time, for commutation and interest for the services of Isaac Holmes, as paymaster, under the act of July 5, 1832
The claim as presented, is for commutation and interest as a supernumerary, for staff lank, under a judgement of
4.
Page 199

the Supreme Court of Virginia, payment of which has been assumed, (as alleged under the provisions of the Act of Congress of July 5th 1832-
To a clear understanding of the question the several propositions, involved in this statement of the case, must be examined, Seriatim
1st- upon what grounds is commutation claimed under the act of July 5, 1832?
There can be no reasonable doubt, that Isaac Holmes was a Lieutenant and paymaster, in the Second Virginia State Regiment - that he became a supernumerary Lieutenant, by the reduction of the State Regiments of that State, under the Resolution of her assembly, of October 1780, which was carried into effect, February 5th 1781; and further, that he was taken prisoner, on the 10th of May 1781, and remained such
5.
Page 200

until the end of the War
The act of Assembly of Virginia of May 1779. [Hennings Stat. at large, pge 25] provides that "All general officers of the Army being citizens of this Commonwealth, and all field officers, Captains, and Subalterns, commanding or who shall command in the battalions of this Commonwealth in Continental establishment, or serving in the battallions [sic] raised for the immediate defense of this State, or for the defense of the United States"  &c. provided Congress do not make tantamount provision for them, who shall serve henceforward or from the time of their being commissioned, to the end of the War. And all such officers who have or shall become supernumerary, on the reduction of any of the said battalions and shall again enter into the said service if required so to do, in the same or any higher rank, and continue therein until
Page 201

the end of the war, shall be entitled to half pay during life, to commence from the determination of their command or service"
In October 1780. Virginia provided by Act of Assembly[ Henning Stat. at Large, Vol. 10 page 374] "that the officers of this State in Continental service, who shall continue therein to the end of the present War shall recieve [sic] half pay, during life, or until they shall be again called into Service."
The First Virginia Regiment, was by act of Assembly of 1777. transferred from the State to the Continental service and accepted by Congress-
The Second Regiment by a Resolve of May 24, 1780, was recommended to Congress, with the First for commissions in the Continental line, and on the 1st. December 1780, a Resolution was adopted, that the Commander in chief, General Washington be requested to settle the rank
7.
Page 202

of the officers of the lot and 2d Regiments
which had been attached to the Continental Army, and if entitled to Commissions, to
recommend them to Congress, for that purpose; and that the Governor transmit to
General George Washington this resolve
On the 1st of January 1781, the Assembly resolved, that the Governor and Council, be desired to discontinue for the present from actual service, such of the said officers, as were supernumerary to the men composing the several regiments or corps on State Establishment
Under an Act of Assembly of Virginia of November 1781, a return was made to her Executive, by a Board of Field Officers, as a guide to the Auditors, in issuing warrants to officers for half-pay; upon which return appears the name of "Isaac Holmes" "1st Lieut." "Supernumerary" "Amt of half pay" "L 48."
Accordingly on the 22d November 1783, Isaac Holmes, received one year's half pay as Lieutenant of Infantry in the State Line
8
Page 203

There is no evidence of any subsequent
payment to him, or to his representatives
until the Judgment of the Supreme Court
of Appeals was obtained by his Administrator, and this is explained by the fact, that on the 22d December 1783, all such payments were suspended, by a joint Resolution of the Assembly of Virginia which was revoked by the act of 1790
Hence it appears, that the Officers of the Second Regiment, were not received into, not commissioned in the Continental Army, though actually engaged in that service
Political justice must admit them to be so considered, but this case is a purely legal one, and Holmes cannot be considered as
an officer of the Continental Line.
9
Page 204

A question however, arose in the settlement
with supernumeraries, under the above recited act of 1779. and the Auditor refusing to allow half pay, or grant certificates in such claims
Suits were instituted under an Act of Virginia, of October 1778, allowing herself to be impleaded in her own Court and the refusal of the Auditor, sustained by the Supreme Court of Appeals "without prejudice on fuller proof"
As a consequence of these decisions, the
Commonwealth, not deeming herself bound
for these claims, omitted in the adjustment
of her accounts with the United States, under the act of Congress of August 5th 1790, to present them as an item to the commissioners appointed to settle the accounts between the United States, and the individual States"
Subsequently however, the decision of the
10
Page 205

Supreme Court of Appeals was reversed, and judgements obtained for claims of this character
On the 16th of December 1794. Virginia had passed an act, which declared; "That the same compensation of half pay should be extended to these officers of the State Line, who continued in actual service to the end of the
War, as was allowed to the Officers of the continental line-
Under this Act, it was, that her Court decided, that her officers were entitled to commutation, in lieu of half pay for life. The judgement, therefore, obtained by the Administrator of Holmes, was for commutation and interest under this interpretation of the Act of  1790,-- Holmes having been made prisoner while a supernumerary, and after the supernumerary act had gone into effect, being doubtless, justly deemed, constructively, "in actual service
to the end of the War"
11.
Page 206

If however, the principle stated in the
report of Mr. Underwood of Kentucky, made
to the H. R. U. S. [Vol 4. Report of Committees
1837 - 8] that, "Virginia had no right to enlarge her liabilities for revolutionary services, after the General Government had assumed the revolutionary debts of the several States, [which was done prior to the passage of the Virginia Act of 1790]" is sound, then claims for commutation against the United States, are barred by the restriction contained in the third section of the act of Congress.
of 1790, which says, "nor shall the claim of any citizen be admitted as a charge against the United States in the account of any State, unless the same was allowed by such state,
before the 24th day of September 1788"
It being declared, also, by the 1st. Section of the same act, that the determination of the majority of the Commissioners, created thereby, on all claims submitted to them, shall be final and conclusive"
12.
Page 207

2nd Is he entitled as a supernumerary for his staff rank?
Supernumeraries, subsequent to the passage of the Act of Virginia of 1790, by the decisions of her tribunals seem to have been put upon the same footing as those in service, as to half-pay. But there is no evidence, that any Officer, previous to the act of 1832, who was not in actual service at the time he became a supernumerary was recognized as entitled to half-pay or commutation, for his staff rank
The four cases, which the List of payments, made by the Auditors of Virginia, shews the Officers therein named, to have received commutation, previous to the act of 1832 for both linear and Staff rank, were cases of officers in actual service to the close of the War
These cases, therefore, cannot be claimed
as precedents, for the allowance of this claim; for where is the evidence
13
Page 208

that any officer, previous to the act of 1832, who was not in actual service, at the time he became a supernumerary, was recognized as entitled to half-pay or commutation for his staff rank?
The Resolution of the Assembly of Va of Oct 1780, went into effect in February 1781. and Holmes was taken prisoner the 10th. May 1781, so that he was taken prisoner while a supernumerary Lieutenant, and actually held
no staff rank; at the time of his capture, not being in service, and evidently only considered himself entitled to his linear rank, under his commission as Lieutenant, since he so  designated himself, in his parole, a copy of which is appended to his petition, nor is it
possible, that at the time of his capture, he could have been in actual service, or constructively so, as a supernumerary paymaster, for the reason that on the 22d
December, 1779, by a resolve of her General Assembly, Virginia dismissed such Staff Officers, as were not "immediately
14.
Page 209

necessary"-- on May the 1st. 1780 only
thirty one, rank and file of the Second State Regiment, remained for the War a year after which, to wit. on May 25. 1781. Holmes was taken prisoner, while a supernumerary Lieutenant only There being no precedents, of payments by Virginia, for constructive supernumerary staff rank, previous to the Act
of 1832, and no recognition of liability, by the United States on behalf of Virginia, for the payment of claims for such supernumerary rank, there seems to be no reason, why the precedent should now be established - Besides, Holmes Administrator, received his commutation as Lieutenant, and it does not appear that his heirs or representatives, during upwards of fifty years, after its receipt, ever asserted, that the judgement presented as the basis of this claim, was a judgement, for both
his linear and staff rank
15
Page 210

3
We come now, to the judgement of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, which is presented as the basis of this claim
What is this judgement as certified to the Auditor of Public Accounts of Virginia?
The case, is entitled " Vivion Brooking, administrator of Isaac  Holmes, late a Lieutenant and Paymaster in the Second  Virginia State Regiment
Appellee -  upon an appeal from a Judgment of the District Court, held at Richmond, the 12th day of September 1793, whereby, it was considered, that the Auditor of Public Accounts, should issue to the appellee, certificates, for five years full pay, in commutation for half pay during life, bearing an interest, at the rate of six per centum per annum from the twenty second day of April 1783, the day on which the troops raised for
the late war, were discharged in this State,
The Court &c. is of the opinion, that there
is no error in the said Judgment: Therefore
16.
Page 211

it is considered that the same be affirmed -
Which is ordered to be certified to the said District Court
pay of Lieut. of infy [infantry] pr month  L *

A copy Teste
I Brown C.C.A.

What was the interpretation by the auditor of this judgment? Commutation for half pay with interest, for the linear rank of Isaac Holmes, as Lieutenant, which was paid to his Administrator accordingly, receipted for by him, and acquiesced in, from that time, in  1794, until the presentation of this claim, in 1850
Reliance is had that the question was raised at the time, as to the requirements of the judgment, from an Endorsement made by the Auditor upon the transcript of the judgment on file in his office, in these words
The claim to Comm on the addl. pay as a paymaster is suspended for the present.
7.
Page 212

But there appears on the face of the transcript of the judgement itself, a memorandum, which is above the signature of the attesting Clerk of the Court of Appeals and as it stands, would appear, a part of the judgment of the Court, to wit, "pay of Lieut of infy. pr month L 8-
At any rate, there is nothing in the language of the judgment, making it obligatory on the Auditor to pay commutation for both ranks, or it would doubtless have been enforced, and if it was so considered, there is no apparent reason, why its payment was not enforced
Finally - Did the United States assume the payment of this claim, by the provisions of the Act of July 5 1832?
As above stated, the claims of supernumeraries were, for a time, successfully resisted in her courts, by Virginia, and at the time of her settlement with the United States, were
18.
Page 213

not considered by her, to be amongst her obligations, incurred during the War for the common defence [sic], and therefore were omitted in the estimate of her liabilities. The subsequent reversal of the judgments on which she had relied, threw upon her the payment of a large mass of claims of this
character, and on the 8th of April 1831 she passed an act, authorizing the Governor to appoint a Commissioner, in behalf of the Commonwealth, "to prepare the testimony and documents touching the claims of Virginia on the United States. on account of moneys paid, or for which Virginia may be liable to the Officers and soldiers of her State Line during the Revolution, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns", and "to attend
personally to the prosecution of such claim or claims under the direction of the Governor & c.
In pursuance of this Act. Thomas W. Gilmer, as appointed a Commis-
19.
Page 214

sioner on the part of the State of Virginia, to prosecute these claims against the United States, and in accordance with his duties, presented a Memorial to Congress to Rept. H.R. 1831. No. 191.
In this memorial, it is argued that these supernumerary claims, are debts "which were contracted by Virginia in prosecuting the war of the Revolution, and that as such, they would have been unquestionable charges against the United States, "on the former settlement of accounts, had they been paid or assumed by the State. ┃
That "with the exception of a few cases it is the principal only of these half pay claims, which you are asked to refund to Virginia, as no interest was allowed, "on the claims which had been adjudicated by the Courts-
The State of Virginia, never commuted the half pay of her officers, as was done by Congress, in regard to the half pay of the Continental Officers-
It was not competent for her to do
20.
Page 215

"so, without the consent of the contracting
parties; and the Officers of the State line never petitioned for commutation, as those of the continental line did. In some few cases, the commutation, has been voluntarily accepted by the officers of The Virginia State line, but the courts have uniformly rendered judgments for half-pay during the life of the Officer, when
it has been demanded"
The memorial concludes by asking that all sums of money which the State of Virginia has paid since the passage of the act of Congress of August 5, 1790 to officers of her State Line or of the Continental line, on account of her engagements during the Revolution, may be refunded to the Commonwealth: that all sums for which the Commonwealth may still be bound, on the same account, may be assumed or adequately provided for by the United States, so as to exempt Virginia from a responsibility which does not properly belong to her " &c.
21
Page 216

In a communication by the Commissioner
of the State of Virginia, addressed to the Chairman of the Select Committee of the House of Representatives to whom was referred his memorial, it is reiterated. The State of Virginia never commuted the half-pay claims  of her officers-
The Chairman of this select Committee, the Hon. Mr. Barbour of Virginia, in the Report to the House, recites the class of claims for which Virginia asks to be indemnified-- recapitulates
the action of that State recites the act of May 1779 - giving half-pay during life to certain supernumeraries states the liabilities incurred by Virginia under that Act, as decided by her highest tribunals-- and says if the remuneration now demanded in the half pay for life, be for common Service, rendered to all, it should be paid by joint contribution, or rather from the common treasury
22
Page 217

His Report thus concludes, "your committee
believe, that the United States should reimburse Virginia, whatever sum of money, the State may have paid to her officers of the regiments and corps herein mentioned provision should be made by law, to pay and acquit the judgements already rendered against Virginia in her courts, for and in behalf of the officers or their legal representatives, for
and on account of the half pay promised for life by that State in 1779. that in like cases, where no judgments have been obtained, nor suits instituted, that payments should be provided for by the United States and the full half pay, accruing, and hereafter payable,  should likewise be provided for by this Government
For the purpose of carrying out the views of the Committee, they report a Bill
This bill passed into the law of July 5th 1832,
23.
Page 218

Throughout the whole of these proceedings
on the part of Virginia -- the memorial of her Commissioner - his communication to the chairman of the Committee-- the report of the Committee who framed the Bill. and in the act itself there is not one syllable of a claim for indemnification, or for commutation, assisted to be binding on the United States, under the act of Assembly of Virginia of 1790. It is for half pay, under the act of 1779. throughout the act under which she had successfully resisted commutation, and triumphantly maintained that resistance until after the passage of her act of 1790, which placed a particular class
of her officers, on the same footing as those of the Continental line. A [illegible] avoidance, in the act itself, of such an assumption, is manifest, and in accordance with the declaration of Virginia herself, through her Commissioner, expressly denying that she had ever commuted her half-pay to her officers, and of course
24.
Page 219

excluding it, from her demands upon congress.
The argument, that Virginia did, previously allow commutation in several cases, and that the judgments in those cases were a part of the claim paid to her by the Act of 1832. does
not avail, as a recognition of Commutation claims against the United States, since she expressly excludes the principle in her request, confining it to her obligations under the act of 1779, and the act was framed accordingly.
Much less can it be claimed, as a recognition of this claim of Holmes; for Virginia, successfully resisted through all her courts, the allowance of commutation, where the claimant was not in actual service to the end of the War,
or not taken prisoner while in actual service.  His claim was probably allowed, in conformity with his petition, as a Lieutenant, constructively in active service, at the time of his capture
25.
Page 220

By what sophistry, can Holmes be reasoned into the position of constructive actual service as a Staff officer? The Assembly of  Virginia, by resolution of Decr 22d 1779, directed the dismissal of the several officers of the Staff department, as shall not appear to be  immediately necessary, in April and May 1780 about 280 of the remains of the Second State Regiment was discharged, and at that date, then remained for the war 31. all told-
How then, could Holmes have been in actual
service, as paymaster, on the 25th of May 1781, when taken prisoner; and if not in actual service, as such, at that period, where is the precedent in the decisions of Virginia, for his payment for commutation? And if Virginia is
not bound, how can the United States be, under the act of 1832 Here then, is a demand, not asked for, nor claimed by Virginia, at the passage of that act, and which if prosecuted
to judgment in her own Courts, as alleged,
26.
Page 221

has been paid, by the presumption of her Act of limitations, or if not paid, excluded by the terms of the act itself. If due therefore, it must be paid by Virginia, and not by the United States.
Besides, it has been decided by the Department that rank follows the Commission. The only commissioned rank which Holmes held, was that of Lieutenant; staff rank is incidental to actual service, and begins and ends with such service.
It is believed, that no precedent can be found, of the payment of a staff officer, not in actual service, at the time he became a supernumerary under the Resolves of the Assembly of Virginia, for his Staff rank.
Such appears to have been the view taken by the United States of the Act of 1832 as appears from the decisions of the Department acquiesced in by the Claimants and by the State of Virginia, and never disturbed, as a principle, until the year 1849
27.
Page 222

The provisions of the Act of 1832, are now to be considered, with reference to this Case,
It is provided in Section 1.
That the proper accounting officers of the Treasury, do liquidate and pay the accounts
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, against the United States for payments to the officers commanding in the Virginia line in the war of the Revolution, on account of the half pay for life promised the Officers aforesaid, by that Commonwealth, the sum of one hundred and thirty nine thousand, five hundred and forty three dollars and sixty six cents-
Section 2. That the Secretary of the Treasury, he and he is hereby required and directed, to pay to the State of Virginia, the amount of the judgments which have been rendered against the said State, for and on account of the promise, contained in an act passed by the General Assembly of the State of Virginia, in the month of May Anno Domini 1779, and in favor
28.
Page 223

f the officers or representatives of officers of the regiments and corps herein after recited, and not exceeding in the whole the sum of $241.345. to wit. First. To the Officers, or their legal representatives of the Regiment commanded by the late Colonel George Gibson &c.
Second - To the officers or their legal representatives of the Regiment denominated
the second State Regiment commanded at times, by Colonels Brent and Dabney the amount of the judgments which they have obtained, and which are now unsatisfied Isaac Holmes was in this Regiment, specifically provided for in class "Second" The amount of the judgments which the officers of this second Regiment had obtained, were included in the sum specifically appropriated for such purpose, and paid from the Treasury of the
United States to the State of Virginia The claim of Isaac Holmes, had been prosecuted to judgment, and the sum of L 787.16. admitted to have been paid,
29.
Page 224

in satisfaction of his judgment, and received by Virginia. It is assumed, that this judgement was only satisfied in part
If so, it is the fault of Virginia, who received $241.345, from the United States to pay this very class of judgments, which had been  obtained against her, and which remained unsatisfied. If due at all in Equity, it is due to the State of Virginia, by reason of her omission of it, in her estimate of the obligations for  which she claimed indemnity, and until so claimed by Virginia, it is no claim against the United States, it having been expressly provided for in the sum paid to Virginia, and as expressly excluded, as a claim against the United States, by the very terms of the act of 1832.
But it is urged, that the 3d Section of that act, provides for its payment by the United States, The judgment not having been fully paid, as one of those cases therein provided for, "for which said State (Virginia) would be bound on the principles of the half-pay cases, already decided
30.
Page 225

in the Supreme Court of Appeals of said
State
It would be a sufficient answer to say, that where a Statute makes a specific provision, for a claim, (or class of claims) it is thereby excluded from the operation of the general provisions of the Act But as Virginia, never commuted her Supernumerary half pay claims  always refused commutation upon them and
her Courts always sustained her in that refusal, under the act of 1779. and cases, within the principle of the half pay cases, are alone provided for by this 3d Section, the claim of Holmes, being for Commutation, cannot be within the purview of this section of the act
Neither can he claim half pay upon his judgment, that being for commutation, which is not recognized as an open claim against the United States in the behalf of Virginia, and he having made his election of commutation, in
lieu of half pay, is bound by his choice,
31.
Page 226

and cannot alter his claim to a claim for half pay, under that judgment,
Full Justice to the claimant demands a consideration of the arguments, of the ablest of his counsel, whose brief, embodies all the main arguments upon which he relies -
The first point made, is, that a Judgement was obtained by the Administrator of Holmes. in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, for commutation, and interest, due him, both as Lieutenant and Paymaster, that he was paid for his services as Lieutenant upon that judgment; but that payment was Suspended upon the additional pay as Paymaster, by the Auditor in 1794, "for the present" & which has never  been paid
The answer to this, is, that the presumption, to be drawn from the face of the judgment, the action of the Auditor and the acquiescence of the parties, for upwards
32.
Page 227

of half a century, is against the assumption that it is a judgment for commutation as well for Paymaster as Lieutenant; especially, as commutation for supernumerary service, has always been denied by Virginia, and by her Courts and it has been conclusively shown, that Holmes was not in actual service, as Paymaster when made prisoner, and therefore not constructively so, during his parle, to the end of the war
If he cannot recover his claim as against Virginia, how can it be claimed as against the United States? If Virginia, is not bound under the principles of her half pay cases - how is the
United States bound? If barred in Virginia, is it not equally barred as against the United States.
The judgment as understood by Virginia, was presented to the United States as paid,  admitted by the United States, and repaid to Virginia - Can the United
33
Page 228

States, go behind the report of the Commissioners, made to the Executive of Virginia in 1782, - the payment to Holmes for his rank, as set forth in that report the presentation of this very claim as paid by Virginia, and reclaimed as a portion of her claim against the United States in 1832. and subsequently paid to her and assume a gross injustice on the part of Virginia, which is to be redressed under this act?
It is further contended, that the act of 1790, which declared, "That the same compensation should be extended to those officers of the State Line, who continued in actual service to the end of the war, as was allowed to Officers
of the Continental line", was so construed by the Courts of Virginia, as to give commutation, inasmuch as commutation, was the compensation for half pay, which was allowed the continental line, under the Resolves of Congress - true, and on this
34,
Page 229

principle of actual service, by construction, Holmes obtained his judgment, and was paid thereon, as Lieutenant. The Courts never established by their decisions, the principle, that a supernumerary staff officer, not in actual service, when he became a supernumerary, was entitled to commutation. He was not in actual service when taken prisoner, and hence
could not have been constructively so by any decision relied on-
The precedents suggested, of the payments of half pay under the several decisions of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, in April 1830, are not applicable to a claim for commutation, which was never allowed, by any decision to supernumeraries-
The Argument drawn from the fact that a number of cases reported as paid by Virginia, and repaid to her under the act of 1832, were commutation cases-- though the words of the Act are for payments made by Virginia on account
35,
Page 230

of half pay for life, promised her officers and therefore, commutation and half pay for life, were intended by the framers of the act as convertible terms is not sound.
The reverse idea, is the natural conclusion - Virginia asked to be indemnified for what she had paid - she denied in her memorial ever having commuted the half pay of her officers, and the bill was evidently framed to correspond with this declared principle, upon which future claims against the United States under the act, were to be determined, to wit the principles of her act of 1779-
That she had been compelled to pay she stated, and for this she asked to be indemnified, whether paid by her on account of commutation or half pay but denied, that she had ever recognized Commutation as a principle insisted that such was not her contract, which contract, could not be varied from the half pay principle, without the consent of the contracting parties - a few had consented
36.
Page 231

and she had paid them-- for these, she asked to be repaid - but sedulously avoided committing herself, or the United States, to a recognition of the principle of commutation, and upon this mutual understanding of what was asked, and what was accorded the bill was passed, and became a law, recognizing the half pay principle, of 1779, alone
The decisions of the Courts of Virginia, under her act of 1779, can therefore, be quoted as precedents of the sense of her tribunals upon the question of commutation, subsequently to the past age of the act of 1790, her decisions are not precedents, or guides for interpretation
of the Acts of Congress of July 5, 1832, as that act, only recognizes the act of 1779 - and all the precedents of Virginia, are against commutation, under that Act, and even against
supernumerary half pay cases
37
Page 232

of the argument drawn from the "Isaac Holmes" case, being one of the 42 included in the 1st. Section of the act of 1832 as having received payment in part of his judgement for commutation, although it is described as payment on account of half pay &c. it is to be remarked, that the allegation, that it is a judgment reported by the Auditor, as a payment in part, is entire by without proof, as far as the list of the Auditor, presents this claim
If it is meant by the phase, used in Mr. Greens argument, "that it is described as a payment on account of half pay" that it is consequently, an admission by the Auditor, that it was not fully paid, the inference is entirely without foundation, The List, is of  payments made by the Auditor, in account of half pay, and included, those that were fully paid, without question, and therefore, the term if not applicable to all as evidence of part payment only, could not be applicable to Holmes
38.
Page 233

In regard to the argument that Isaac Holmes' case is described in the 1st. Section, as a half pay case, and therefore Virginia is bound to pay it, by her previous decisions, upon his judgment, only partially satisfied, the question arises, why was it not paid? and a further answer is, as before stated, that the 1st Section of the act of 1832, appropriates a specific sum, to liquidate this claim, among others, against
the United States by Virginia, and she was paid for this very claim; and if the argument is good, that the Holmes case was provided for in that section, his resort as against the United States is gone, by the very terms of the act, under which the claim is made.
The action of one branch of Congress in February 1833, relied on, as declaratory of the sense of Congress, of the meaning of the act of 1832, can be no sound and in the interpretation of a Statute, and therefore, is not necessary to be dwelt upon
39.
Page 234

The act of March 1835, which merely transfers the payment of the Virginia claims, from the Treasury, to the War Department is merely a directory act, addressed to those departments, and the use of the words "commutation" therein, proves nothing as to the meaning of the Act of 1832. it is not declaratory nor explanatory of its meaning, nor was it intended, to affect the subject matter of that act. No Argument is necessary to show this The transfer of duties, or payment of monies, from one Department to another, has no bearing upon the meaning of the act 
The argument drawn from the legislation of Congress in 1848, in the payment of certain
Commutation cases, cannot control the Express terms of the Act of 1832,
The general principle is adverse to the Argument-
New, and special legislation, admits the insufficiency of the general
44.
Page 235

law, the presumption therefore, is against the intention of Congress to interpret the act of 1832. The opinion of individual members, which induced their votes is not conclusive of the sense of congress - If Congress had so intended their action, would have been express
by declaratory of the meaning of the Act of 1832 as covering all like cases - The special act of relief to Virginia is not a general undertaking-
The very argument advanced, that the Attorney General of the United States, (by extending the principles of the act of 1832 as interpreted by the act of 1848. to many claims of Virginia,) brought about the interposition of Congress, (against the action of Mr. Ewing,) who reported adversely in the House of Representatives, to his decision, demonstrates, her little reliance is to be placed upon the principle of interpreting a general act by a subsequent
41.
Page 236

Brief
in the half-pay claim
of the representatives of
Lt & paymaster
Isaac Holmes

act 5 July 1832

JMH
Page 237

Brief
in the case of Lt. Isaac Holmes Va State line act 5 July 32
This is a claim presented by the legal representatives of Lt Isaac Holmes dec'd for the half-pay for life, or commutation and interest in lieu of half-pay, alleged to be due for the services of decedent as a paymaster and clothier in the 2d Va State regiment in the revolutionary war.  The claim for half-pay will be alone considered, as by an order of Secretary Ewing which was continued in force by Secretary Stuart, claims for commutation and interest were directed to be suspended -- and it is presumed therefore, that no action will be taken on this class of claims, until the order is rescinded by the Department.
The validity of the claim for half-pay was denied by Commissioner Edwards but admitted by the late Commissioner. It was not paid because of a vehement and protracted controversy among the claimants, there having been two administrations upon the estate.  Under these circumstances it may be proper to furnish a brief history of the case.
Isaac Holmes was a Lieutenant in the 2d Va State regiment commanded by Col Brent. He was reported by the Board of Officers which sat on Feb 1782 as a Supernumerary Officer and as entitled to half-pay. It would seem however as if he ought not to have been regarded as properly a supernumerary, for it is proved by the evidence on file that he was taken prisoner on the 10th of May 1781, was shortly afterwards paroled and was not exchanged until after the actual close of the war.  It is also shown that at the time of his capture he was paymaster of the 2d regiment.
Page 238

2
Shortly after the close of the war, Lt Holmes in common with many other State line officers applied for the half pay promised them by the act of the Va Legislature of May 1779. It appears from the records of that State, that on the 22 Novr 1783 he received a Wt [writ ?} on the treasury for one years half pay from the 1st of January 1782 to the 1st of Jan 7 1783 No subsequent payment seems to have been made to him as shortly afterwards all payments of this character were suspended by law. This suspension having been revoked by
an act passed in 1790, as to those only however who served to the end of the war, the administrator of Holmes instituted suit against
the Commonwealth and recovered a judgement in the highest Court in the State for commutation and interest. The judgment recites that Holmes was late a Lieutenant and
paymaster of the 2nd State regiment and directs the payment of commutation & interest but does not in terms direct that it shall be paid both in his linear and staff capacity. The Auditor in settling the account only paid the commutation and interest due for his services in the line, but for some reason which it is impossible now to ascertain with precision,
suspended the payment of the claim for staff
service (See papers A). There is no evidence that this claim was ever revived in the Courts or before the accounting officers of Virginia.
Within the last two or three years it has been brought before this office for adjudication under the act of 5 July 1832.
It is difficult to form a reliable conjecture at to
the reasons which influenced the Auditor in suspending the claim for staff service. I think it probable however