Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File R. 74, for John Mc Nickle, Virginia
Page 1

(3-1776)
SERVICE Va Sea Service McNickle, John
NUMBER R.74
Va. Half-Pay
CONTENTS
See NA Acc No. 837- Virginia State Navy
John McNickle YS File
Va. Half Pay
Page 2

Statement of the Claim of the heirs of John McNickle a surgeon in the va navy in the revolutionary war - This is a claim for half pay under the act of congress of the 5th July 1832 -
The main question in this case, viz. Did Doct McNickle serve in the revolution in such a way as to entitled him to the provisions of the act of the 5th July 1832, is not now before the department - That question has undergone a rogid searching and has been decided favorably to the heirs _
The question now to be discussed is this; is the evidence of heir ship filed with the department, sufficient to authorized payment to be made?_ I maintain that it is not only sufficient, but that it is perfectly conclusive, and if [illegible] connection with the history of the case, establishes beyond the possiblity of doubt, that the persons claiming, are the true and only heirs of Dr McNickle_
1st. It has beenknown to many persons engaged in the prosecution of claims for land bounty against the state of Virginia, for at least years pst, that Dr. McNickle was entitled to a large amount of land bounty from that state _ In 1833 a list of officers entitled to lands was published to the world by order of the Va legislature _ on this list is the name of Dr. Jno McNicle, as on entitle_ Notwithstanding the general notoriety then giving of the instance of this claim, no person has ever yet come
Page 3

forward and claimed, or even pretended to claim to be the heirs or representative of Dr. McNickle save the present claimants _ Neither have the inductions & perservring researches of many active agents, been able to find any others _ Many of them have informed me that all the information that they cant get was that Dr. McNickle's relations resided in the state of New York that some time after the revolution, he went there & never returned _ This information I received between three & four years ago, from two old soldiers who had been personally acquainted with the Doctor _ I immediately wrote to Silas Wood esq commision merchant of New York & requested him to advertise for the heirs _ He did so in the newspapers of the City of New York & immediately Mrs. Bard, one of the claimants & a lady of high respectability came forward & stated herself & sisters & nephews & nieces to be the only heirs of Dr. McNickle I prosecuted their claim against virginia & recovered it & payment was made to the persons before names _ Previous to this they went before the Surrogates court in the City of N York & carried evidence which satisfied the court that Dr. Jno McNickle of the va navy had no sister and but one brother viz Neal McNickle & that they were the only decendants of sd Neal This is a true history of the case, which I state of my own knowledge_ There is another fact which it may not be improper to state about two years after I had found the heirs by advertising, another gentleman, not knowing that they had been found used the same means and he was thereby conducted to the same persons, as
Page 4

I was informed the simple fact that such notoriety has been givin to a valuable claim which wanted a claimant, & that no person has ever come forward after many years notice, to assert his right, is of itself a strong circumstance but if that part be considered in connection with the formal decision of a court, made after full investigation & examination of evidence, the conclusion is [illegible], that the present claimants are the only true heirs _ The evidence on which the court gave the certificate of heirship was the affidavits of John Canady & Charles Higdon of Virginia Michale Gaty, & an old lady (I think a Mrs. Berry) & others of New York _ The two first state that they knew Dr. McNickle well in va, and that he went some time after the war to New York where his relations resided _ Canady stated that he often heard him speak of his brother Neale _ Those in New York proved the connection between the Doct & Neal, and the heirs at law of the latter _ I have never known any other evidence of heirship than a court's certificate required in such cases, unless there was a controvercy as to heirship between different parties as to identify _
With all deference for the opinions of the department, I would beg leave to add a remark or two upon the department's construction of the act of the 5th July 1832 _
That act directs payments to be made to "the officer or his legal representative" of a deceased officer? To this question I have
Page 5

the answer of the  Treasury department itself _ In the case of Lt John Vaughn, the heirs at law made application for the ammount of half pay due, and they were informed that payment could not be made to any but the legal representative, and by "legal representative was meant executor or administrator" _ Thsi is the written decision in that case, & it appears to me to be sound _ If the provisions of the act of 1832 intended to [illegible] a bounty or gratuity, then there could be no doubt but the govenment would have a perfect right to direct payment to be made in any way & to whom it might think proper
But such is not the fact_ That act was intendid to direct the payment of a debt justly due for a valuable consideration _ I cannot [illegible] then upon what sound [illegible] the government can undertake to scrutinize heirship at all_ It appears to me that the only questions to be asked [illegible] Is the person demanding payment the legal representative of the officer? Has he taken letters of administration and given security to a sufficient amount? If payment be made to one thus qualified, the public treasury is properly secured even against fraud If there be any controversy about the heirship, the parties can have a fair & full investigation before the proper tribunal If by froud or mistake payment shall be made to wrong persons, then there is a responsible person between the public treasury & the right ones In the case of Dr. McNickle the adm has sworn security in an amount nearly four times as large as the amount claimed of the government
The foregoing is respectfully submitted by the attorney in fact for the heirs Robt Hord
Page 6

Certificate case of Jno McNickle decd act 5 July '32 Mar 7.1836
Recorded Vol 43 page 127
Page 7

Pension office March 7.1836
I certify that from an examination of the claim of the Heirs of the late Dr. John McNickle, decd I am satisfied that he was a Surgeon in the Virginia State Navy, and continued therein until the reduction of said Navy in 1781, and survived until the month of September eighteen hundred and seventeen; that he died without issue and in estate; that the case is embraced by the provision of the act of 5t July 1832; that the claim should there fore be allowed at the rate of one Hundred and Eighty Two Dollars and Fifty cents per annum from the twenty second of April Seventeen hundred and eighty three to the first of September eighteen hundred and seventeen; and that the amount should be paid to Robert Hord of Virginia attorney of William S. Scott, administrator of said McNickle decd.
Page 8

No. 74
3220
Heirs of John McNickle 
[illegible]
Va Navy
Revolution
Discharged. 18 .
PENSIONER:
Ctf. No.
NY Pay
Act fo July 5t 1832
502D
admitted
Received , 187 .
74
Page 9

Dr Jno McNickle decd. claim act 5 July 1832 Has been allowed _ other papers [illegible]
Page 10

Dec 26
Col J L Edwards Comissioner of Pensions Washington
Page 11

Washington 22 d Dec 1835
Dear Sir
I am compelled unexpectedly to leave here for va by the mornings boat_ I should have been glad to have heard your decision upon the case of Dr. Jno McNickle before I left; but I do not wish my anxiety to make you to take it up till you have more leisure than you have had for two weeks past _ When you shall have acted on it, please advise me theeof by letter directed to Port Royal Va _
I am very respectfully yours Robt Hord
Page 12

Col J L Edwards Commissioner of Pensions War Office
Page 13

In considering the claim of the heirs of the late Dr. Jno McNickle for half pay under the act of the 5th July 1832, I beg leave to ask the attention of the Commissioner to the following brief staement _ By the decision of the Court of appeals of Va, in the cases of Lilly & Markham, it is established, that if a naval officer was in actual service after that may  session of the va Legistature 1780, he was entitled to the provisions of the half pay act_ 
This decision was ratified by the 3d section of the act of Congress of the 5th July 1832, and the secretary of the treasury thereby directed to settle all unsatisfied claims for half pay in conformity to it_
The qustion now to be decided is; Do the services of Dr. Mcnickle bring this case within the decision of the Court of appearsl,?_ To determin this it is necessary to examine the evidence filed in the case_ The navy journals, according to the report of commissioner Smith, show Dr. McNickle to have been in service upwards of three years, and as late as december 1779_ The journals after this period were lost_
Page 14

the affidavits of John Canaday & Charles Hegdon both seamen in the va navy, & both certified to be credible, show that McNickle continued to act as surgeon on the Tempest till may or June 1781, at which time saw McNickle together with the whole of the crew of the Tempest was compeled to abandon her, she being blockaded by the enemy in the river Chichahomony _ If then the evidence of these witnesses is to be credited, it is conclusively shown that Dr. McNickle was in actual service 12 months longer that was recessary to bring his claim within the decision of the court of appeals, or the act fo the 5th July 1832 _ It may not be unimportant here to mention that fact that every officer of the Tempest or their heirs save Dr. McNickle & his mate, has prosecuted & established their claims for half pay, under the act of the 5th July 1832_
The accompanying evidence will show you that the fullest reliance may be placed on the testimony of Messrs Higdon & Canaday_
As it would be very expensive to satisfy the objections of the commission in relation to the heirship, I have to request, that he will first decide on the validity of the claim; and then, if his decision be favorable, steps will be taken to satisfy him as to
Page 15

the heirship - I am resply Robt Hord atty in fact for the Claimants _
Page 16

Rd 12 Dec 1855 answ same day
Colo J L Edwards Commissioner of Pensions
Page 17

Washington 11th Decr 1835
Col J L Edwards
Sir
Since the receit of your letter of the 25th ult. I have obtained the inclosed additional evidence in support of the claim of the heirs of Dr. McNickle for half pay under the act of the 5th July 1832, to which I now ask your attention In your letter above refered to, you say "The evidence in this case is defective" In the personal interview I had with your whilst this case was under consideration, the only objection you made to the evidence was, that it was not shown that Canady & Higdon (the two witnesses by whom the service of the officer was in part established,) where themselves in the va navy _ Presuming that this is the defect in the evidence to which you allude in the above extract from your letter; I have procured evidence from the records in Richmond to show that both of these men were seamen in the navy _ By the decision of the court of appeals of Va, as well as the established usage of the department, an officer who served till may 1780 is entitled to half pay_ It is proved beyond doubt that McNickle was in service in may 1781, one year over what is necessary_ 
I have procured also from the clerk of the superior court
Page 18

of law & Chancery for Henrico County, copies of the letter of the heirs of McNickle, requesting that court to grant adms on the estate, and of the evidence on which that court certified heirship _ I hope sir you will consider the case as now satisfactorily made out _ I send herewith also the asent of the heirs who live out ot he United States, for the adm to recover the money
I am resply you obt servt Robt Hord
P.S. I have to request Col Edwards to act on this case as early as may be convenient, & to inform me of the result by letter directed to the P.O. in this city _ R.H.
I promised you to get the report made by Govr. Tazewell last winter to the legislature, of the applicants for land bounty, with a statement showing which were allowed & which rejected_ on examination after my return hom, I could only find one, which was bound up in the journals of teh house of Delegates _ On a casual examination of that, I found that about 10 applications for land bounty had been rejected, when one was allowed _ 
Is not this fact alone sufficient to remove the erroneous impression of some, that the action of the Gov & council
Page 19

upon these claims, was extremely loose + liberal?
Is it not sufficient to entitle their decision to great weight? - I have written to Richmond for a copy for you, which I expect daily, + when it arrives I will send it to you -
                         R.H.