Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File R. 14649, Samuel B Green, Va.
Page 1

Va.   Green, Samuel B      R14649
Va Half Pay
N.A. Acc No 874
See 050078 Half Pay
Samuel "Ball" Green
Page 2

This is to Certify, That it appears from a List in this Office of such Officers and Soldiers of the Virginia State Line, during the Revolutionary War, 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, that a Certificate issued on 12th day of February 1784, in the name of Samuel B Green, as (unintelligible) of Infantry - for $15y. 15. Lo, which Certificate appears to have been delivered to - (unintelligible) Coleman and was given for services prior to the 1st January 1782. 

{No Seal of Office.}

Given under my hand at the Auditor's Office, Richmond, this 23rd day of February 1844.

Jas E Heath AUDITOR.
Page 3

Statement in Peter Moore,
Case deposited on the 8th of Septr 1844
Washn Sept 4/44
H Northup-
Peter Moore's Claim
N85. Rec Sept 5/44
Pension Office
Peter Moore decd.
5 July 32
Page 4

Washington City 4th of September 1844
Honorable Sir
Permit me to call your attention to a claim which has now been long before your department and which was reported evidently by you on the 15th of June last. Stating Objections to wit a want of a commission. And further the decision of your Predecessors which decision you could not name without new evidence. On this report or injunction I asked a Reconsideration & re-transmission of the papers. Believing that the facts in this case had been overlooked together with the Practice of the departments in paying these Half pay claims of Crocketts Regiment. and further if you were not satisfied of the legality and justness of our claim I asked an appeal to the Attorney general the law officers of the U.S. on questions of law As the grounds taken in that Appeal with the legal right were stated fully and at large in that communication I will not recapture the same. That communication being on file with the papers
But sir as you in your rejection of this claim on the 15th of June last stated amongst other objections that you could not reverse the decisions of your predecessors without some new evidence, I surely thought that we had furnished abundance of new evidence in the statement accompanying said claim - And although I would not be obtrusive or [illegible] yet I must be permitted to again refer you to this case and in which I will point out both precedents and new evidence To wit in my last asking an appeal I then showed precedent to wit that the judgements against the State of Virginia subsequent to the passage of the Act of 5th of July 1832 in the cases of surgeon John Affidavits and of Capt John Coxes heirs have both been audited and paid the one by the Secretary Poinsett and the other by your immediate predecessor [illegible] and by the sanction advice or reasons used than of the Commissioner of Pensions. Herein is precedent, yet payment refused the Judgement of Va in favor of Peter Moore, such sir is precedent and practice in this case and surely that rule which paid the judgements of Appleth act and Cox should have paid the Judgement in Moores case. Although in point of magnitude as to sum involved it was nothing compared with these two, the principle involved was the same they were all Judgements against the State of Virginia obtained subsequent to the passage of the act of 5th of July 1832 Here this difference in favor of Moore. To wit that he is borne on the Rolls of Col Crockett's Regt. and reported as entitled to a Captaincy by a board of Officers convened for the special purpose of Reporting on the officers of this Regt. while in the cases of the Judgements in Applethwait & Cox heirs within of their names are to be found of record on any rolls either at Richmond Virginia or at this place. Again is on the subject of Precedent I have to call your attention to the Roll of Col Crockett and your report of the 15th of June last, In your report you state that you must be grounded by Col Crocketts Roll ad not by the Report of this board of officers (or a [illegible]) I have to ask of you sir to look at that Roll and the Action of not only your predecessors but of yourself, when I surely think you will at once see theJustice of our Claim with the [illegible]
Page 5

hardness of this case and that by this new evidence of Precedent presented that you will order its allowance -
Sir by Reference to Col Crocketts Roll you will see that Peter Moore, Hugh McGavvock, Thomas F Watts, Henry Dearing, Reul Bullock and Samuel B Green are all on this roll retired as Ensigns draw for practice Rice Bullock Peter Moore and Hugh McGavvock three of those Ensigns were paid by your predecessor not as Ensigns as first said Roll but as Lieutenants as per report of the Board of Officers in the case of McGavvock & Bullock and not as Ensigns per Crocketts Roll And still further you on the 2nd of August last audited and paid the Claim of Hugh McGavvock as Lieutenant and not as Ensign thus in this case recognizing the report of this Board of Officers. This is precedent of your own. Then surely the same Rule or precedent extended by your honor in Hugh McGavvocks case should be extended to all those similarly reported. There is no possible rule that would make his case an exception - But sir In Peter Moores case I go still further and show on the face of the papers [illegible] in the payment of this case. and that the payment made him at the Treasury was in conformity to no rule but in violation of them all - To wit on Crocketts Roll he is returned as Ensign on the Roll as report of the Board of Officers he being the Eldest Ensign has given through promotion to the youngest Captain and is thus returned. Yet sir he has neither been paid at the Treasury as Ensign or as Captain but as Lieutenant a Rank not given him in either Roll or report.
Thus sir you have this evidence all of Record with a Judgement of the Court of Virginia against the Commonwealth in his presence for the pay of Capt and your own precedent in Paying Hugh McGavvock on 2nd August last agreeably to the rank thus reported by the Board of Officers - Further sir you will see that this Board of Officers Report Ensign Samuel B. Green as Lieutenant in Place of Lt Moore promoted, and sir you will find with the papers filed with you in the case of Green the Certificate of the Auditor of Virginia showing the settlement of the account of Green & paying him as Lt. this is further evidence in Moores case, Green could not have been promoted and paid as, Lt, unless Moores promotion to a Captaincy had taken place.
Such sir is the new evidence which is adduced in support of Moores Claim together with the precedent of Mr Poinsett & Porter paying the Judge corrects precisely similar to Moores except they were much [illegible] Moores and unsustained by my record evidence of service, and of your own allowance of McGavvocks agreeably to the report of the Board of Officers. For the services paid those several officers with this Rank I refer you to the Payments made by the Secretary of the Treasury on 20 Sept & October 18th where it will be seen the rank in which they were paid - The Roll of Col Crocket and the Report of this Board of Officers is either with you or is in the office of the Commissioner of Pensions
This claim, has now laid long the heirs is here on expenses and
Page 6

And has been for the last eight or nine months waiting to know his fate. I pray you sir befriend this man by a reexamination of his Claim. And if your decision should be adverse that the Papers be referred to the Attorney General on Points of law to wit. Whether the possession or now possession of a Commission is of any consequence, And lastly as this is a Virginia Claim and as the United States by Act of 5th July 1832 was made the agent to pay those Claims, but agreeable to the principles of the [illegible] of "the Supreme Court of Appeals of Va" Whether in the auditing and setting those claims. The rules actions and decisions of Virginia should not govern in the Auditing and adjusting of those Claims - There have already been two appeals to the Attorney general relative to the Auditing of these claims when a contrary practice had been pursued for about six years when the Attorney general at once decided in both cases against the department and for the Principle claimed by us
This claim has laid before you for six or 7 months and is of importance to the Claimant that his fate may taken answered I trust that it will not occupy but a very little time say half an hour to examine it. Will you sir dispose of it tomorrow or next day and truly oblige sir
Yours Respectfully
Henrey Northup
Agent for the party

P.S. I believe the claims of Capt Isaac Browning and of Lt Saml B. Green are all in the same file with those of Capt Peter Moore But as the Record evidence is on file with them to wit a Certificate from the Auditor of State of Virginia the proper officers and department showing that those officers were the one a Capt & the other Lieutenant and settled with and paid as such. A Report which cannot be disputed but must be admitted. unless all such right and precedents are discarded and disregarded I will not advert those claims at this time believing that they will as a matter of course be directed to be audited and paid, I can have no possible wish to be troublesome but sir Claims so well established and self evident as these one cannot be abandoned untill all and every resource and argument has passed
H, N,
Page 7

Washn. Oct. 11/44
H. Northup
Ashs decision on claims of heirs of Capt O. Moore & Lt. S. B. Green.
Inc. Argument of Wm. S. Moore.
N93. dec Oct 11/44
Pension Office
Case
Page 8

Washington City 11th of October 1844
Honorable Sir
The Claim of Capt Peter Moore and Isaac Browning and Lt Samuel, B, Green has long been before you on an appeal for a review and reversal of your decision or a Deferment to the Attorney general on questions of law raised by you in your rejection of the 15th of June last. It is now well nigh [illegible] since these papers have been before you. And upwards of three months since your had promised me to take up and reexamine those cases. At a more recent date I called to see you again when I was told to call when Mr Edwards had returned
Before he returned you had kept bad thus those cases measurable in themselves but of vital importance to the heirs have been a long time waiting your reexamination-
As Mr Edwards has now returned and your leave also I have to ask that you will befriend me and the parties by causing a reexamination of those papers as early as practicable - I also hand you a Communication or Agreement from Mr Moore relation to the claim which he represents
I remain sir yours Respectfully
Thomas Northup
Page 9

Samuel B. Green dec
Difference between half pay of Lieutenant & Ensign. Allowed Nov 27. 1850
Page 10

Pension Office
November 27 1850
I certify that I have examined the claim of the administrator of Samuel B. Green, deceased, who was a Lieutenant in the regiment of Virginia State Troops commanded by Col. Crockett.  This claim for half pay under the act of July 5, 1832 was allowed for service as an Ensign, where as it should have been allowed for service as a Lieutenant, as it appears from the Report of the Board of Officers that sat at Richmond in April 1782 that he was entitled to promotion from the 2nd of September 1781.  The administrator is therefore in my opinion entitled to the difference between the half-pay of a Lieutenant and that of an Ensign Viz forty dollars per annum from the first of March seventeen hundred and eighty two, to the twenty-ninth of July eighteen hundred and fifteen, being the same period for which the original claim was allowed.  William J. Stone, junior Esq of Washington City, is the administrator.  
Commissioner of Pensions
Approved
Secretary of the Interior
commutation V 1/2 pay book
Page 11

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 Peter Moore late of the state of Kentucky 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 Peter Moore deceased, is hereby granted and committed unto William S. Moore of the State of Kentucky
WITNESS, Nathl. H. Causin, esquire, Judge of the Orphan's Court of Washington county aforesaid, this 17th day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 44 and of the Independence of the United States the 69th
Teste.
Ed. N. Roach
Register of Wills.
Page 12

I, DO SWEAR, that I will well and truly administer the goods, chattels, and personal estate of Peter Moore 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.
Wm S Moore
Sworn before,
Ed. N. Roach [illegible]
Page 13

(Copy)
The United States, Dr.
To Samuel B. Green, deceased,
Lieutenant in Crockett's regiment
of Virginia State Troops.
For the difference between the Half pay as Ensign heretofore paid to him as per Report No. 63710, and the half pay now decided to be due him as a Lieutenant, being $40. per Annum, from March 1. 1782 to July 29. 1815 - 33 years 150 days. $1336.44
Allowed under decision of the Secretary of the Interior, dated November 27. 1850.
Act to provide for liquidating & paying certain claims of the State of Virginia, approved July 5, 1832.
Dollars 1,336.44
Treasury Department
Third Auditor's Office
November 29. 1850
Stated by,
J. B. Kirkpatrick
Treasury Department
2d. Comptroller's Office
Nov. 29. 1850.
Exd. 
Th J. Cathcart.
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy from the records on file in this Office. Treas'y Dept. 3d. Audrs Office, Aug. 17. 1852.
Jno. S. Gallaher
Aud
Page 14

No. 14649
Samuel B. Green
Lieut
Va repy
Revolution
REJECTED
4042
H'f. Pay - Oct. '32
Page 15

Sir My agent has asked a reconsideration of your decision of the 15th of June, last, in the case of Peter Moore & Samuel B Green
The grounds taken appear to me so untenable, as to leave the impression of haste, or reliance on previous and Subordinate decisions without reexamination of the principles which govern the case
That the "Commission" is indispensable" as proof of rank being gratuitons and not sustained by the nature of the cases, the practice of Virginia which governs those cases, or that of the United States.
And even unwarranted by your own decision, in a case exactly analogous! As Shall presently appear
If precedents bind you, as you intimate those of the United States, Virginia of your own department and of yourself, ought to out weigh the suspension of Mr McLane and lead to a different decision
In American State Papers Vol 1st Pa 30 for the Report of Secretary Knox
"The reasons given in the case of Col Bond &C" (why they) were not provided for by Massachusetts, are obscure and unsatisfactory
"The one it being from the evidence, because the Col's commission was not produced &c"
But whatever were the reasons of which prevented the petitioners receiving a compensation from the State, the subscrible is of opinion that the widows of Col Bond &c are entitled to the benefits of the Resolve of Congress of the 24th of August
"But if any doubt should be entertained on that Subject the act of Congress passed the 11th of August 1790 in favour of Francis Elenor Laurens the orphan daughter of the late John Laurens, who was killed while in the service of the United States, would seem to dissipate them, for the circumstances of
Page 16

that case differs in no essential particular from the cases herein reported belonging to the State of South Carolina."
"And the case of Sarah the widow of the late Major General Sterling provided for by the said act, is similarly circumstanced to the claim of the widow of Col Bond &c"
Hundreds of cases in point might be cited from the Books but this so early as 1790 which includes the constitution of the United States, Col Bond's widow's case passing June 30 1834 is deemed sufficient, with the following
Secretary J C Calhoun settles it beyond a doubt by a rule see his letter to the Hon A H Jackson of the United States Senate of the 20th of January 1824
"That the evidence of a Major General on even a field officer is sufficient proof for paying his heirs, and in the case of ML James Congress so considered it & passed an act to pay M J James.
The cases of Cox and Applewhait are exactly in point, where without commission or any other evidence than a Judgement of Virginia the Claims were paid by your department
That of Hugh McGavock by yourself require no commission and mainly decided on McGavock's oath. Hence you have not only precedent but the Rule that the evidence of a field officer is Sufficient in these cases
Am unable to perceive anything in the decision of Mr McLane which warrants the construction that "Commissions are indispensable" it does not say so, and nothing equivalent
He says "In Peter Moore, case the regulations have not been complied with in the following particulars.
Page 17

Regulation 4th evidence of the assent of the heirs to the payment of the claim by the United States, to Mr. Faulkner has not been produced and no reason assigned for the production of Such assent
Under Regulation 5th evidence who were the Heirs on the 6th of July 1832, not where they resided
Under the 6th Regulation no cause assigned for not producing the evidence required
There is not word about commission's "being necessary", or indispensable The suspension is for a different cause, very different indeed having no relation to Commissions
He repeats "This case is suspended for the present on the grounds of the non Compliance of the 4th 5th & 6th regulations and to produce further evidence of the rank of Mr Moore"
Not to produce the commission of Peter Moore, in speaking of other evidence of rank, and not saying commission the inference is, it was not "indispensable" or even necessary it was only one of many kinds of proof of rank & not deemed essential, if other kinds of proof were furnished, by the Secretary
Before basting this Suspension, it may not be improper to notice an argument & inference at least singular and believed revising the ordinary rules, of Construction in legal fartance
"Among the many of the Lieutenants that of Peter Moore appears as having been commissioned on the 8th of Nov 1780 &c" It appears that in the year 1784, a Land warrant was issued to Peter Moore for his services as a Lieutenant during the war and though his heirs received in January 1832 additional Land for his Services as a Captain, it is not probable that he would in 1784 have accepted the Small bounty if he was entitled to the larger &c"
Both decisions as to land were the offspring of evidence, and the last decision at Law, is considered the one that binds and Lo Courts rule
Page 18

The legal inference is, the last decision is the correct decision. When the Circumstances of the case, are received, the imimportance of the lands at the time only of nominal value, often sold for a few Cents an acre; a Soldier's entering the army as a private the Carelessness of Such men about papers, and their ignorance of their importance the difficulty of procuring testimony, from the death and dispersion of soldiers; and the common Lieut inference during Peter Moore succeeded then only in proving his rank as Lieutenant; and after his death the lost documents of Virginia were found and his Heirs succeeded in proving he was a Captain
If the action of Virginia was evidence Peter Moore was Lieutenant, if it proved anything it proved him a Captain also
The last decision with additional proof gave him additional land & Confirmed the rank always claimed by him
By the logic of the suspension, had the case been revised, and by mistake the the [illegible] had allowed him the land of a Captain; but finding its [illegible], it was decided to deduct from his land to reduce it to the portion of a Lieutenant, the first decision must have governed the Secretary and he would have decided him a Captain
Why this unnatural inference, the opposite of those of Courts of the United States & those of legal minds, making the revised decision operate and the final one imperative, we need not pause to enquire! This case it will be seen is governed by the last decision by the law of the United States
Page 19

The Law of the 6th of July 1832 is imperative on the office of the United States, & binds the United States for what was Virginia was bound on the principles of the half pay cases already decided in the Courts of Virginia
He is bound by Virginia's liberal principles, already established, as they iffect the children of these old officers of Virginia the rule is given him for his government
The Contracts were Virginia State contracts with the officers, which Virginia Courts construed by a number of cases of this kind; the United States knew her liberal construction of these contracts, and contracted for the same liberality to be extended to those who had not settled their claims, by this law of the 5th of July 1832 agreeing to pay hundreds of Thousands of dollars for claims thus adjudicated
The United States takes the place of Virginia to pay the residue of those claims, with the same liberality of Virginia, no more evidence or of a higher character is to be required, the only difference to the Claimant is he comes to Washington instead of Richmond and receives without a suit or after a suit the same he would have received in Richmond
Virginia had no power to alter her contracts of by transferring the payment to Washington to vary them or require more or different proof from those already become Settled by her Courts or tribunals
Any change that would make the proof difficult or more difficult which [illegible] more delay, or [illegible] would be to infer the contract which was and is, inviolable by the Constitution of the United States
Page 20

The United States in the Shoes of Virginia as to the Contracts, what Virginia could not or the United States could not the prohibition is the same
Had not the United States expressly agreed to be bound for what Virginia was bound on principles already Settled by Virginia had not all the liberality of Virginia been endorsed, the Lex Loce would have decided the construction the same, Virginia construction must obtain
Another important feature of this law is that by the State of Virginia's voluntary submission of these controversies to a tribunal to decide she virtually contracts to abide the decision and this implied contract is equally inviolable as any other Contract constitutionally
In regard to contracts I give the Language of Judge Story "A voluntary submission of a controversy to a court and Jury is an implied contract to abide the decision
It matters not whether the tribunal Selection by the United States, be a court and Jury, or an Individual the effect is the same
In the case of Stockton & Co the tribunal Selected was the Solicitor V Maxey and the decision was inforced by mandamy of the Supreme Court of the United States
In vain Mr. Kendall claimed exemption by virtue of office, and some noting of latent Sovreignty the unanimous decision of Supreme Court was against such nonsense. The United States had by its implied contracts in referring the controversy to a tribunal, contracted to abide the decision and it was neforced
The State of Virginia made this contract, to abide the decision, when she selected a tribunal and
Page 21

Submitted, these cases to its decision
The United States made the same contract by adopting the principles of Virginia tribunal construction &c by this law taking the place of Virginia in the contracts with her officers,
This is important because in this case the tribunal of Virginia, has decided that Peter Moore was a captain and entitled to the pay of a Captain
That decision is imperative on the United States obligatory final and conclusive [illegible]
That Judgement is by these contracts final and if so facts proves itself
See decision of Supreme Court 11 Peters Pa H
"Every mater adjudicated becomes a part of the record; which thereforth proves its self "without difference to the evidence upon which it has been adjudged"
It is the exclusive province of the Jury (court or tribunal if no Jury) to decide what facts are proved by Compelant evidence
The facts in this case decided by competant evidence, were Peter Moore was a Captain, and as such a Captain's pay was due his heirs.
As no law can be retroactive, or infair the obligation of contracts this decision must be final and bind Virginia, and if Virginia the United States. If so the act of the officer of the United States is Simply ministereal as to payment on proof of right to receive the half pay
Nothing is clearer than that the United States is bound, for what Virginia is bound, on principles always established by the United States by this law of the 5th of July 1832 see the Law
See 3 That the Secretary may be, and he is hereby directed and required to adjust to and settle those claims for half pay of the officers of the aforesaid regiments
Page 22

and corps, which have not been paid or prosecuted to Judgements against the State of Virginia, and for which the said State would be bound, on the principles of the half pay cases already decided in the Supreme Court of appeals of said State &c"
Every part of this law binds the United States if any part is obligatory
Clinched[?] by the implied contracts of Virginia and the United States for Virginia and the inviolability of Contracts by the Constitution, and the sacredness of the decision, leaves no doubt of conclusiveness and obligation.
Who then will have the hardihood to say that the intention was, or power to send the officer with a decision obtained in Virginia back because an officer of the United States deemed it too "liberal too much" on equitable "principles" for another, which might call forth some other objection & be again sent back, forever travling in a circle of litigation, without end;  or till hampered and ruined he abandoning his rights in despair!
The competancy and sufficiency of the evidence is for the court to decide and having decided Peter Moore a Captain and entitled to the half pay of a Captain, they are not open questions till Judgements cease to be sacred, and an amendment of the Constitution, makes contracts no longer inviolable, and retroactive laws or decisions valid.
The word "Entitled" occasioned much trouble; to force it (after the decision of a Court, declaring a person entitled to the half pay and rank of a Captain) to mean & be synonymous with Claim Entittled after examining a claim and hereing evidence, is not simply a claim but is
Page 23

a decision forms the evidence of a right adjudicated decided and settled.
If the evidence had not be sufficient to establish the right, it would have been he was not entitled to the thing claimed
The claim might be still a claim, but entitled the Claimant to nothing being unfounded
To be entitled under the circumstances of this case, is to have a legal title, a right to the rank and half pay of a Captain and not to have a claim to it
The Claim by Judicial decision has become a debt of record, a Judgement of a tribunal selected by & assented to, by the parties contracting "to abide the decision: and its character of claim in the sense, in which you use it is changed to a right ascertained & defined.
But I must believe the multiciplicity of avocations pressing on you, in the new position you occupy necessarily has left this case to subordinates, as a minor transaction without examining , its points with the law and circumstances of the case, their erroneous conclusions have been hastily adopted.
Allow me to hope for an early reexamination of the case, when I doubt not you will come to the decision to do what duty Judtice & the law requires in regard to this debt.
Wm. S Moore
Sept 30th 1844

Hon Wm Wilkins
Secretary at War
Page 24

Allow
Page 25

Claim the heirs of Lt Saml. B. Greene
The evidence of the administration &c is not necessary in adjudicating the right of the claimants to this increased half pay
If the claim is admitted the necessary certificate of administration &c will as a matter of course be furnished before the money can be [illegible]
Page 26

Auditors Certificate
for Lt Green
Page 27

This is to Certify, That it appears from a List in this Office of such Officers and Soldiers of the Virginia State Line, during the Revolutionary War, 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, that a Certificate issued on the 12th day of February 1784, in the name of Samuel B. Green as Lieut. of Infantry for £157.15.4, which Certificate appears to have been delivered to Lieut. Coleman and was given for services prior to the 1st January 1782.
Given at my hand at the Auditor's Office, Richmond, this 5th day of July 1844
Jas E Heath, Auditor.
No Seal of Office.
Page 28

Wash. July 2/44
Henry Northrup
Presents case of claim
of heirs of Saml. B. Green
N 77 Rec July 5/44
Pension Office

Saml B. Green
Peter Moore
5 July 32

Honorable William Wilkins  Secretary of War
Personal
Page 29

                  Washington City 2nd of July 1844
To the Honorable Secretary of War
            Honorable Sir
                   Being in the first instance the agent in the case
of the heirs of Lt[.] Samuel B. Green in whose case on argument was
prepared by me and the whole confided to the Honbl. Richard Roach[name underlined]
for said City sake[all underlined]. And subsequently to the adjournment of Congress
have been the agent in Capt. Peter Alloouch Case[name underlined] And having been
furnished by the commisioner of Pensions with a copy of your
decisions of the 15th of June last relative to those two cases[underlined]

           I am constrained [to?] ask a reexamination[underlined] of that decision[underlined]
and on appeal to the Attorney General the Law officer[title underlined] of the Hal[?]
On points of Law [last 3 words underlined].

I surely sir believe that in passing on these cases[2 words underlined] you have
Overlooked, certain facts[2 words underlined] some of which you were probably not
apprised of at the time of this deeding[2 words underlined]. You say (thus) " against
" their claims there have been decisions made by my predecessors in
" office. By these decisions I am bound[3 words underlined] I can discover no new evi- [underlined]
"=dence to change in any essential way the Character of the two Cases[?] "

Such sir is the quotation, I will here sir beg leave to call your atten[-]
=tion to prevents[illegible] which surely cubly be bably or ballance the
decisions of which you speak. To wit. Lietenants McGavnoch &
Chis Bullaik were paid in September or October 1812 by me McLane
Secretary of the Treasury as officers of the rank reported by the board
of Officers of both of April 1782 and not[underlined] as reported in Col Cracketts[underlined]
shall, here is prescident the first[3 words underlined] to which fact the Secretary is re[-]
spectfully referred[.]

This being past justice in two cases[2 words underlined] and Virginia the duly proper tri[-]┃
bunal to adjudicate[last 3 words underlined]. The troops being raised by and at all times[2 words underlined]
under heaven[?] Contract and Jurisdiction has through her courts
decided in two of these cases[4 words underlined] to wit Lt Thomas Waller and Capt
Peter Moare. And the said section of the Act of Congress of the 5th
of July 1832, expressly provides that the Secretary of the Treasury
" shall credit and pay the half[-]pay claims[3 words underlined] of those who have not
" possented[?] to Judgement and which the State would be bound upon
" the principles of the divisions of the Supreme Court of Appeals
" of Va." Such is the provision of this section and surely it can not 
be disputed for one minute that the State of Virginia is bound
in these cases agreeable to ^these^ decisions--

But again sir[,] if I will here quote precedent direct by your prede
=upon[underlined] of two cases in point.[4 words underlined]  To wit. Judgement was rendered
by the Courts in Virginia against the Commonweath of Va in
favour of the heirs ^jungxxx[illegible]^ of John Applethwait[name underlined] and this Judgement
was paid by your predecessor Joel R Poinsett[name underlined]  And again more 
recently a judgement obtained against the Commonwealth
of Virginia in favor of the heirs of Capt John Cox for about
$1200 and your immediate under for parted paid it at the
suggestion of the Commissioner of Pensions.[Title underlined] These six years
have the lists of a predecessor in the Treasury Department in
the Cases of McGauvach and Ballock and of your two immediate[underline]
[...]
Page 30

predisposition to wit Mr. Pawcett and Mr. Parkins Then surely with such fraudlents the judgement of Moore based upon record and Documentary evidence of the strongest Character and this of Moores being less in amount than a Quarter of the Judgement in Coxes case is intitled to the same favourable and impartial decision of of Applethwaits & Coxs cases - Or can it will it be said that the decisions of the tribunals of Virginia which gave a judgement of about $2700 in favour of Moore - and subsequently in favour of Applethwait for between there and four thousand dollars and that still more recently when the same tribunal has given a Judgement against the Commonwealth in the Case of Capt. Coxes to wit for about $12000 That those two Judgements have been sustained and paid by your immediate predecessors while the other Moores yet remain unenacted on and unpaid or if Cited on (by yours if only) Subsequent to those other Musicians (their objection is here made with the express qualification that if the case has ever been before a secretary since the rendering of the Judgement I do not know of it)
Then I have stated four several cases as precedents whereas there has never at any time been any decision or application made in Greenes case untill the present. Said erroneously paid as Ensign instead of Lt in Septr 1833 - In Greens there has been none and in Moores if there has been a decision advserse should it for one minute outweigh four several other cases. And those by the decisions of three several officers to wit two by Mr. McTare one by Mr. Pauisett and one by Mr. Porter, surely it should not. Nothing extra is asked by these foundations of Moore and Greene but the same that has been awarded to others - Again in the case of Green we have precident, within the present year by the present Commissioner of Pensions. tow it in January last the Commissioner Audited and paid the Claim of Hugh McGauvach as Lieutenant from the 1st of January 1782 to the 3rd of September 1783. Here is precident and Greens and McGouvacks are precisely alike. On Crockett's [illegible] both are Ensigns And on the report of the board of Officers both are Lieutenants - And the Commissioner of Pensions in January last paid McGrovucks as Lieutenant but now refuses to pay Green in Any other Capaciity than as Ensign so much for Precedent in this case.
There are Questions of fact to be [illegible] out by the records in the Pension Office and I must believe when the papers were before you or your division that you were not apprised that your two predecessors to wit Pawkitt & Porter had both directed paid and which were paid, the judgements of the Courts of Va. against the Commonwealth the one for $3077 and the latter (Coxes) for about $12000) Then surely the same rule and Precedent should direct the payment of Moores Judgement - And also the same decision applied by the Commissioner in Paying Hugh McGauvack from 1st Jany 1782 to 3rd of Sept 1853 should be applied to Samuel B Green both standing precisely alike on either to wit Crockett's that of the Board of Officers
As before said these prerequisitions of fact for the consideration of the Honorable Secretary which applies to me must oblige unless, all precedent is set aside in these cases further it is now evidence not being
Page 31

before you when you decided on the 15th June last at least it was not adverted to me by the Regiment in Greens case and I presume was not in Moores Case they being facts not known by the Honorable Mr. Davis
I therefore sir Pray you to reexamine those cases upon the new evidence to be found in the office of the Commissioner of Pensions
Should you be adverse to a reexamination of the Cases I must ask an appeal to the Attorney general on questions of Law. to wit The Honorable Secretary states "I have no doubt that Mr. Moore was entitled to be promoted to a Captaincy and Mr. Green to a Lieutenantcy" Then if intitled to this they were intitled to the pay of such rank and if thus entitled it became a vested right in them and is a fair question for the decision of the Attorney general - Again there is much stress put upon the word Commissioner, it is the sum of all requested. This involves a direct question of law and the conclusion of the Honorable Secretary is in strict opposition to all known law and practice A Commissioner is an appendage but by no means an indispensable, further by reference to the Act of 20 of 1779 pensioning half pay for life the word Commissioner is not there.
Officers often are without Commissions. It is believed surgeons surgeon mates & Chaplains in Va. never had commissions - But I will state a case more to the point. To wit the 26th & 27th Regiments in the late war assigned to be raised in Ohio. The Platoon officers were appointed by the Cols last of March & for part of April 1813 And at a call session of Congress their appointments were commissioned by the Senate, And a register was published in which all officers of the two Regts took rank from 21st of May 1843 - I had the honor to be the eldest Captain in the 27th Regt. In 
1814. The 26th & 27th Regts. were consolidated into one and numbered
And on the tenth of Novr 1816 after a service of about 20 months I resigned at Buffalo in the State of New York. during the whole of this period of near 20 months, and in active service and in a state of war and on the service and in the rough Country where likely to be Captained by the many. no platoon Officers had a commission and I know not if the field officers had. I understood that the Officers were Commissioned in Jany 1815 the name [illegible] 
So much for the Commission of which the honorable secretary considers it as an indispensable. This is again a question of law for the attorney general to decide to wit the existence or non existence of a Commission as to its being essential
Again the Application of the 3rd Section of the list of Congress of the 5th July 1832 directing the secretary of the Treasury to audit &c, is a legitimate question for the attorney general to decide Now for on the tactitude this section is intended to extend in Auditing and paying these Va Half pay Claims as applied to the decisions of the Courts of Va.
In conclusion sir I would [illegible] that I believe this new evidence referred to by me to wit the payment by years preceding of Applewaits and Coxes cases and by the [illegible] in Jany last of McGauvacks case will be deemed sufficient precedent for the allowing and adjusting the payment of Capt Moores & Lt Greens cases without any further appeal
Could you honor examine these cases on to me as next day I twould be confirming a particular favour as the [illegible]
Page 32

peace and needy and these cases have already been a very long long time before the Honorable the Secretary of War
I remain sir yours Respectfully
Henry Northup
Honbl. Wm. Wilkins
Secretary of War

[illegible]/44.
Henry Northup
Presents case of claim
of heirs of Lt. Saml B Green
Act July 5/44
Pension Office
Saml B. Green
Peter Moore
5 July 32

Secretary of War
Present