Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File R. 22811, Charles Fierer, Va.
Page 1

SERVICE
Va.

Fierer, Charles.

Number
7322811

Name also appears as Fearer, Ferier, and Firer. Va. Half Pay.

n.a. Acc. no. 874
See 050065 Half Pay
Charles Fierer
Page 2

Pleas at the Courthouse of the County of Prince
William before the Court of the said County on the 4th day
of June, 1839
Be it remembered that heretofore, to wit, on the 1st day of
April, 1839. On the motion of Rowland Florance, a rede
was awarded him against Daniel Ratcliffe & William
F. Purcell, administrators de bonis non with the will
annexed of Charles Ferer decd which rule with the
return thereon, is in the words & figures following, to wit:
Prince William County Court, April 1st 1839 on the
petition of Rowland Florance setting forth that he is
bound in this Court as security of Daniel Ratcliffe and
William F. Purcell, for their due & faithful admin
istration of the estate of Charles Ferer decd & that
he concieves himself in danger of suffering thereby
& praying the court for relief. It is ordered that the said
Ratcliffe & Purcell be summoned to appear here on the
first day of the next Court to shew cause if any they can
why they should not be ruled to give the said Rowland
Florance Counter security"
Sheriff return-Executed 3d May, 1839
P.D. Lipscomb D. for Jno. Hutchison
And at a Court held for said County, May 6th 1839. The
above rule was returned executed & continued
And at this day, to wit: "In Prince William County Court
June 4th 1839. Came the parties aforesaid, & on hearing &
by consent of the Defendants, it is ordered that the
Page 3

powers of Daniel Ratcliffe & William F. Purcell administrators de bonis non with the will annexed of Charles Fierer decd. be revoked & annulled.
A Copy - teste. J. Williams. C.C.

State of Virginia
Prince William County, to wit.
I John Williams clerk of the County Court for the said County of Prince William in the state of Virginia, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true transcript of the record and proceedings in a certain rule for counter security, lately depending in the said County Court of Prince William between Rowland Florance Plaintiff and Daniel Ratcliffe & William F. Purcell admrs. de bonis non with the will annexed of Charles Fierer decd. Defendants, with all things touching the same, are fully & wholly as they now exist, among the records of my office.
In testimony whereof, I hereto set my hand & annex the seal of said Court this 4th. day April, 1850.
J. Williams CC
Page 4

Remarks by probably Caleb B Smith Secy of the Interior (in his hand writing) on Chas Fierer Case & a memo of allowing
Page 5

Two. (2) Warrants, No. 4.632 & 4.633, for 2,000 acres each were issued by the State of Virginia, Decr. 16, 1793, for the services of "Charles Firer", a "Captain for the War" in the State Line.
These Warrants were satisfied by the issue of Scrip under the Acts of July 13, 1832, and March 3d 1835.
Page 6

St Louis Mo. Aug. 13. 1850

Sir,
As one of the heirs of Charles Fearer decd late Captain in the Virginia Line, Revolutionary war, I hereby protest against the further prosecution of the Claim of said Fearer decd by - Cleary administrator of his estate, for Commutation pay &c, as Captain of Dragoons until the proper heirs shall have time to show good cause why said administrator's Authority should be revoked.
Very Respectfully
Your Obt Servt
Johann Henry Stiel
Page 7

Louis Schade
Atty. for heirs Chas. Fierer.
1. Jany 1867.
States the Office action upon, and the present statuses of the claim of the Heirs of Charles Fierer for Commutation of half pay, under Act of July 5, 1832, and asks that [illegible] be submitted to the Atty. General, respecting the legality and force of Mr Secretary Smith's decision in the case. 

Ansd.
March 13, 1867
J.M.C.
File

Ens,d Pen:
Page 8

Washington D.C. January 1, 1867.
Hon. O. H. Browning
Secretary of the Interior.
Sir
I most respectfully ask you to transmit this statement for a decision on certain points hereafter given to the Hon. Attorney General.
Among the Hessian troops that were sold to the English to be used against this country, was also an ensign, Charles Fierer, who arrived with his Regiment in 1776. On the 26th of December, of the same year, he was captured at Trenton and in the following year (1777), he entered our army, in which he served as Captain of Cavalry in the Virginia State Legion till the end of the War. In 1793 he received two land warrants (each of 2000 acres) "as allowed a Captain of the State Line for the war." He died at Dumfries, Va., Decbr. 9. 1794, appointed by will his sister Carolina Maria Fierer in Hanover his sole heiress. By special legislation of Congress he was entitled to half pay for life or commutation of five years full pay. Carolina Maria Fierer died Novbr 3, 1803, without ever receiving anything of the inheritance.
On the 26th - of November 1836, The Government paid to Dan. Ratcliff and Wm F. Purcell, administrators, the sum of $3466 3/100 as half pay from April 22, 1783 till the death of Fierer, Decbr 9, 1794. Of this the heirs of Fierer had no knowledge, nor have they ever received a cent of that money, though more, than thirty years have since passed
Page 9

Application having been made for commutation of five years full pay. Hon. Secretary Thompson decided March 30th. 1859 against the claim, on the ground that the case had been concluded by having accepted in 1836 half pay.
On the 22d of November 1861, Hon C. B. Smith, Secretary of the Interior, overruled the decision of Secretary Thompson and decided in favor of the claim. Under this decision a certificate was issued by the Pensioner Office for commutation and interest, March 27, 1862. 
On the 7th of April, 1862, a report was made on this case by Mr Atkinsons, then 3d Auditor, to the 2d. Comptroller.
On the 14th of October 1862, 2d. Comptroller, Mr. Cutts, suggested to the Secretary that payment be not made till satisfied of the heirship, and
On the 28th August 1863, D. Broadhead, 2d. Comptroller, rejected the claim, chiefly on the ground that the claim having once been rejected by Secretary Thompson could not be passed, two years later, by Secretary Smith.
The question, on which I ask a decision of the Attorney General, is simply, whether a Secretary of the Interior has a right to revoke a decision of his predecessors, as done in this case by Mr Secretary Smith?
I represent the heirs of Captain Fierer, who as shown by their affidavits on file in the 3d Auditor's Office, have never received a cent of the inheritance.
Page 10

Should the Attorney General decide against them, then there is no hope that they ever will receive anything at all. The action of fraudulent administrators, of whose very existence they had not even the slightest Knowledge at the time when the latter received the $3466 3/100, will deprive them of their just rights. Secretary Thompson actually conceded that the case could be concluded by irresponsible and fraudulent parties. But perhaps I do him injustice; for he was not aware at the time, when he made his decision, that the heirs had been swindled. Otherwise he would not have rejected the claim, and regarded the action of the administrators of 1836 as final. Certainly the right of election of half pay or commutation of five years full pay belongs to the heirs and not to any so-called administrators, who have administered without the knowledge and consent of the former. It will be a terrible blow and awful precedent against the widows and orphans of the late War, when the Government decides that they are helpless against fraudulent administrators or other parties who have swindled them without that they had any knowledge thereof. For that reason above Mr Secretary Smith's decision is correct.
I again ask for a decision of the Attorney General on the following points:
Does the decision of Secretary Smith suspend that of Secretary Thompson, and if so, is it binding upon the accounting office of the Treasury?
Page 11

Begging most respectfully that the honorable Secretary will have the kindness to forward this statement to the Attorney General, I remain,
most respectfully
Your
very obedient servant
Lewis Schade
Attorney for the heirs of Capt. Charles Fierer.

P.S. I may also add that the Secretary of the Interior is an officer of the Government as well as the Attorney General. And the latter has often [illegible] decisions of his predecessors. Or is for instance, the present Attorney General bound by the decision or opinion of his predecessor (Speed) or Military Commissions?
Page 12

August 31, 1939
BA-J/AWF
Charles Fierer
R. 22811

Mr. Ray Baker Harris
3625 R Street
Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir:

Reference is made to your letters in which you request information in regard to Charles Fierer, an officer in the Revolutionary War.

The data furnished herein were obtained from papers on file in claim for pension, R. 22811, based upon the military service of Charles Fierer, in the War of the Revolution. The name is shown, also, as Fearer, Ferier, Firer and Fuerer.

The date of birth of Charles Fierer and names of his parents are not given.

Charles Fierer an ensign in the Hessian troops arrived in this country in 1776, with Colonel Von Knyphausen's regiment and was captured in Trenton, December 26, 1776; he entered the American Army, sometime in 1777, was Captain of Cavalry in Nelson's Corps of the Virginia State Line. It was stated that he was injured by a fall from his horse in the line of duty, continued in the service until the close of the war, and returned to Dumfries, Prince William County, Virginia.

He was allowed by the State of Virginia two warrants, 4632 and 4633 for 2000 acres each, which were issued December 16, 1793, on account of his
Page 13

service as Captain for duration of the war in the Virginia State Line.

It was stated that Charles Fierer was denounced as a traitor by his native country.

He died in Dumfries, Virginia, December 9, 1794, leaving his sister, Caroline Maria Fierer in Hanover, Germany, his "sole heiress." She died November 3, 1803.

Daniel Ratcliffe and William F. Purcell, administrators of the estate of Captain Charles Fierer, were paid November 26, 1836 the Virginia Half Pay which was due under the Act of July 5, 1832.

For further information in regard to this officer, it is suggested that you apply to The Adjutant General, War Department, this city, and cite pension number O 50065, spelling of the name "Fiere."

In 1850, Johann Henry Stiel of St. Louis, Missouri, claimed to be one of the heirs of this officer, and in 1887, Reverend Ernst F. E. "Fuerer," Pastor of the German Reformed Congregation, Benton Town, Carver County, Minnesota, referred to him as his "granduncle", and that there were other relatives in the old country, one "Cousin Charles Fuerer, a judge".

Very truly yours

A. D. HILLER
Executive Assistant
to the Administrator
Page 14

1887 Sept 9. Revd E Furer, Stating amount due was as originally paid to his administrators in 1836 - Mr Schade has attempted to have the decision reversed rejecting an additional allowance & also to obtain legislation by Congress in favor of the heirs - not successful - The heirs remedy to get their share of a great paid is against the administrators. - Prior

Oct 5/06 Secy Interior for Va Std for Ancstr. Hungarie's Ambassador, nothing due heirs. Copy. WFC

1934 Oct 29. Copies mailed to Alice H. Lerch - AW
1939, Aug 31 - hist to Ray Baker Harris AWF

REJECTED
22.811
Charles Fierer
Capt Va State Troops
Died at Dumfries Va
Decr 9. 1794
Application of his Administrators adjudicated Nov 26 1836 & paid - A Subsequent application was rejected for an additional amount

Act July 5. 1832
Page 15

Rescind of the Commissioner of Pensions the following papers on the Fierer case, which were previously handed to him by one 
1. Report of Secretary of Int. Novbr 22. 1861
2. Letter from Commissioner Barrett to Reverdy Johnson March 18. 1862
3. Extract of Circular of Treasury Dept. July 28, 1832
4. Letter fr Commis. Edwards Novbr 25, 1836
5. Resolution of House of Reps. certified to by Mr Etheridge July 23, 1861

Washington April 2. 1872

L. Schader
by authority of House Committee on Rev. Claims.
Page 16

The United States
To the legal Representatives of Captain Firer Dr.
To 5 years full pay as captain of cavalry in Nelson Corps in the Revolution at $600 per Annum $3000 according to the acts of Congress
5 July 1832 Resolution of House in Feby 1833, March 3d 1835 & 12 August 1848 Assuming this description of cases and having paid the same except this & a few other remaining unpaid 
To Interest on the above sum to the 26th day of November 1836 from the 22d day of April 1783 the end of the war $9575
$12575
Then paid to his Administrators 3466
Balance due with Interest $91.09
According to the decision in the case of John M Gatt in 1849
Page 17

Chas Fierer
Pension Office
Nov. 30/61
Commissioner,
Propounds certain questions for Secy's opinion respecting this claim of the Rep's of Charles Fierer decd. to commutation -

Answered Dec 6" 1861
Page 18

Pension Office,
November 30, 1861.

Sir,
Your decision allowing the Charles Fierer claim, under the Act of July 5, 1832, was transmitted to this Office on the 23d inst., and my attention was at once given to the proper method of executing the order thus communicated. In determining the general principles governing the case, you give me no directions as to the person in whose name the certificate should be issued, and I beg leave, for reasons that will appear from a brief statement of the circumstances affecting the question, to ask more explicit instructions on this point. 
The adjudication of claims under the above named act, at first devolving upon the Treasury Department, was transferred to this Office, under the Act of March 3, 1835. The published rules governing this class of cases when adjusted by the accounting officers of the Treasury Department, were adopted by the Commissioner of Pensions, as set forth anew in his circular of June 2, 1835. Among these regulations were the following:
"3. If the officer be dead, that sufficient proof be required of the existence of heirs and of legal representatives
Page 19

really and lawfully entitled to receive the amount due. 
"4. Where there are no executors, but administrators, and there are heirs living, that the assent of those heirs be had to the payment of the money to the administrator, or Attorney at law, or in fact, who may present himself at the Department, or that satisfactory reasons be assigned why such assent be not produced.
"5. That administrators in all cases be required to satisfy the accounting, officers whether there be or be not heirs living; and, if there be any living, to state their names and residence; and, if there be no heirs, to state the deposition to be made of the amount of the claim."
No change appears to have been authoritatively made in these rules, up to the present time, with the exception that Secretary Cass, under an advisory opinion of the attorney General on the 5th of March, 1836, declared that "the rule which requires that the assent of the heirs be had to the payment of the money to the administrator or attorney at law, or in fact, is hereby rescinded." The modification alone, therefore, was deemed to be required in accordance with the opinions of Attorney General Butler, of March 4th, and October 24th, 1836. The rules above quoted, numbered 3 and 5, seem to me
Page 20

so eminently just, and so essential as safeguards to the interests alike of the government and of the rightful claimants, that I cannot waive their enforcement, without a positive order from the Department to that effect. As yet, however, these regulations have not been complied with, in the present instance.
It is so conceded by a former Attorney in the case, and I believe undisputed by any one of those successively engaged in prosecuting the claim, that it is the duty of the Commissioner of Pensions "to see that the bonds required by the Court granting administration were sufficient to cover the amount to be received." No evidence on this point has been furnished in behalf of any of the later claiming administrators.
I might have reasonably assumed your concurrence in my exacting compliance with the rules thus indicated, and should have done so, notifying the administrator of the additional evidence as required, had there not been serious grounds of doubt as to the proper person to be recognized as such. Three or four days after your decision was transmitted to me, a paper was filed in behalf of a new claimant to the administratorship, (bearing date, however, on the 14th inst.)
Page 21

in the person of West Scott. His alleged authority is derived from the Orphans' Court of Washington County, District of Columbia. All previous claiming administrators have presented their authority from the Court of Prince William County, Virginia, in which county Charles Fierer had his domicil, and before which court his will was proved and admitted to record, in November, 1794. Of the four executors named in his will, two only qualified, and they had both deceased prior to June 6, 1836, when Daniel Radcliffe and William F. Purcell were appointed by the same Court, administrators de bonis non, with the will annexed. As such they received the sum of $3,466 3/100, as the amount of half-pay then adjudged to be due the estate. The sole residuary legatee named in Fierer's will, and whose rightful property (if living) this allowance was, was the person designated by the testator as his "sister Caroline Maria Fierer at Hanover, in Germany." A claim for commutation was subsequently made, and Nicholas Clary was, on the 31st. of December, 1845, appointed administrator, by the same Court of Prince William County. John Williams, conjointly with Caroline Maria Fierer, petitioned the Court of Claims, in February, 1857, as "adminis-
Page 22

trator de bonis non, with the will annexed, of Charles Fierer," and a certificate of the Clerk of that Court, on file among the papers in this case, shows that their application, with such recognized authority, was still pending on the 5th of May, 1860. On the 17th of February, 1860, however, a memorial was addressed to the U. S. House of Representatives, signed "John Williams, administrator de bonis non, with the will annexed, of Charles Fierer, deceased, by William F. Purcell, late Attorney for the administrator of the only heir Caroline Maria Fierer, deceased, and part owner of the claim." Judge Purcell, in a letter to the present Commissioner, dated July 2, 1861, styles himself as "part owner" of the claim", and the Attorney for the legal representatives of Captain Charles Fierer."
While I find no conclusive evidence that the Administrative powers of John Williams are still in force, it does appear that he was recognized as a legal representative of Charles Fierer, at a very recent date, not only by the Court of Claims, but also by Judge Purcell, who presides over the Orphans' Court, from which West Scott claims to derive authority as an Administrator.
To entitle Mr. Scott to recognition as administrator in this case, in any event, it must be conceded that the Orphans' Court of Washington County, District of Columbia, has jurisdiction
Page 23

over the estate of a testate decedent, whose domicil was in Prince William County, Virginia. To establish this preposition, my attention has been called to an opinion of Attorney General Black, under date of October 15th, 1859. But on a careful examination of that opinion, in so far as it has any proper bearing on the present case, it seems rather to make against the claim of Scott, the later appointee. The opinion of Attorney General Butler, under date of April 18, 1836, appears to me of similar effect. Whatever the purport of those opinions, however, the law of Maryland, which determines the power and jurisdiction of the Orphans' Court in this city, has been definitely settled on this point: "The Orphans' Court of one County have no authority to grant letters of administration on the estate of a person, who resided and died in another County." (Raborg's Adm'r vs. Hammond's Adm'r, 2 H&G. 42.)
If, then, this be true as between the different counties of Maryland, is it not equally so as between a County of Maryland or of this District, and one of Virginia?
With this statement of the case, I would respectfully submit for your decision the following questions:
1. Shall the regulations numbered 3 and 5, in the circular from this office of June 2, 1835, as already quoted, be continued in force, in adjudicating cases under the Act of July 5, 1832?
Page 24

2. Should evidence be required that the "legal representative" has executed bonds sufficient to cover the amount to be received, in cases arising under this Act?
3. Has the Orphans' Court of Washington County, District of Columbia, competent jurisdiction over administration in the case of a testate decedent whose domicil was in another County and State?
4. Which, if any, of the claiming administrators shall be recognized as the legal representative of Charles Fierer?
I have the honor to be
Your Obedient Servant
Jos. H. Barrett,
Commissioner.

Hon. Caleb B. Smith,
Secretary of the Interior.
Page 25

Pension Office,
July 30, 1861.

Sir,
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a letter of S. A Peugh, Esq., addressed to yourself, and referred to this office, filed as an "appeal in the case of Charles Firer, Act July 5/32."
Inasmuch as this office has taken no action on the case since the rejection by my predecessor, whose decision was appealed from, and affirmed by the Secretary of the Interior on the 30th of March, 1859, I would respectfully suggest that the case now rests upon the action of the Department, and that, consequently, no appeal can be taken from this Office.
I have the honor to be,
Very respectfully,
Your Obdt. Servant,
Jos. H. Barrett
Commissioner.

Hon. Caleb B. Smith,
Secretary of the Interior.
Page 26

Washington city 17 Nov 70
Hon Sir
you will please cause a copy of the decision of the Hon. Caleb B Smith late Secretary of the Interior Department, in the Case of Captain Firer made in 1861, claiming commutation and have it enclosed to me at the earliest convenience
Very respectly
Your obt st
Wm F Purcell
Attorney at Law
Page 27

Washington City
Dec 15th 1870
Hon Sect. Interior
Sir
I some few days since a letter written by one Lewis Shade, a german of this City, in relation to the claim of Capt Chas. Firer, The half pay in said claim was paid to his representative, who now demands commutation pay, giving credit by what has been paid heretofore, this commutation was allowed by Sect Smith & is now pending in the Court of Claims & will doubtless be allowed. Shade falsely states in that letter, that Fierer representatives never paid over said money, but converted it to their own uses, Capt Thomas Carbury, who was Attorney in fact for the heir of said Firer received the money years since, said Carberry was one time Mayor of this City. This same Shade & a certain clerk in the Pension Office, knowing the favorable decision of Sect Smith, prepared certain papers, corresponding with the case & sent them to Germany, to get himself appointed an Agent in the
Page 28

care which papers he filed at the Treasury Department, but were not received as evidence, because The Government officers, were satisfied that they were falsely gotten up, at least so I have been informed. I now that his statements in that letter, are maliciously false & I hold myself responsible to prove that such is the case. I consider him unworthy of notice, except by criminal prosecution ~
Yours Very Respty
Wm. F. Purcell

P.S. I d not wish the case of Capt Thomas Ewell, on whose estate I am Administrator, taken up - until the Department produces the original papers in the case, which are alleged to have been lost or mislaid, in order that the heir may have a fair & final hearing ~
Wm. F. P ~

Wm F Purcell
relative to Chas Fierer
Page 29

Sir
My attention has again been called by Hon. Reverdy Johnson to the commutation claim recently allowed to the estate of Charles Fierer decd under the act of Congress of July 5, 1832
Two questions arise in find to the payment of the money
First, is the Administrator of Fierer's estate the "legal Representative" in contemplation of the act referred to?
This question was answered in the affirmative by Hon B. F. Butler Atty Gen. March 4, 1836 (See Opinion Atty Gen, Vol 3. page 43)
Second Is an Administrator appointed
Page 30

2
edly, the Orphans' Court of the District of Columbia entitled to receive the money, although an Administrator may have been previously appointed in Virginia or elsewhere? This question was answered in the affirmative by Hon J. Black late Atty. Gen. who held that a payment to either Admr would be good. Should an application be made for the money by an Administrator legally appointed in the District, and you have evidence to satisfy you that such Admin has given a bond with indisputable security, I think you should pay him the money
Comm of Pensions
Page 31

Copy
Pension Office letter
1872 to Chairman of Revy Pensions as to Claim of Chas Fierer
Page 32

(Copy)
Department of the Interior.
PENSION OFFICE.
Washington, D.C. Feby 7 1872

[note: In Geo. Brent application (rejected) 4th page question report (A) it appears Fierer did not serve to end of war - left Nov 1780 by permission of Gov. Jefferson as he was able to discharge his duty]

Sir
In answer to your enquires of 31st. ult. relative to the claim of Charles Fierer of Virginia, I have the honor to report that on the 26 November, 1836, there was allowed commutation under act July 5. 1832, the sum of $3,466.03 which, in conformity to the regulations originally prescribed by the Treasury Department, was paid to Daniel Ratcliff and William F. Purcell, Administrators, appointed by the court of Virginia, in which state he was domiciled, and died [crossed out: in 1794] - It is stated in the papers on file, by Mr. Purcell, Viz Dec 15. 1870, that the amount for this claim, was paid over, years ago, to Capt Thomas Carbury, Attorney in fact for the heirs ~
Subsequently, an application was made for an additional allowance, and rejected, . On an appeal, this decision was affirmed by Secretary J. Thompson, March 30. 1859, but March 27, 1862, Secretary C. B. Smith directed the payment of an additional allowance, which, when presented to the 2d Comptroller, was refused for the several reasons submitted in his
Page 33

letters of June 18, and Augt. 28. 1863 ~ This last allowance was made payable to Thomas Carbury, as Administrator. There have been appointed since the claim for additional allowance was presented, three, if not four sets of Administrators, in Virginia and in the District of Columbia ~
The objections to an allowance in addition to that already paid, on file in this office one of which probably discovered since the first allowance was made & paid together with the doubt suggested by the 2d Comptroller as to the jurisdiction of this office over the claim under the act of July 5, 1832 & the other reasons in above letter would require further legislation, in order to secure to the heirs, or to the administrator, the receipt of any moneys, or favorable action on a claim to be presented ~
Your letter is returned as requested ~
I am very respectfully
Your Obt Servt
Commissioner

Hon A. S. Wallace
Chairman, of Committee on Revolutionary Claims ~ House of Representatives
Page 34

Pension Office
November 25. 1836
I certify that from an examination of the claim of the legal representatives of the late Charles Fearer, or Fierer, decd. I am satisfied that he was a Captain of Cavalry in the service of the State of Virginia; that he served to the end of the revolutionary war, and that he died in November seventeen hundred and ninety four, in Prince William County, Virginia; that the case is embraced by the provisions of the act of July 5. 1832, entitled, "an act to provide for the legislating and paying certain claims of the State of Virginia;" that the claim should therefore be allowed at the rate of Three Hundred Dollars per annum, from the twenty second of April seventeen hundred and eighty three to the ninth of November seventeen hundred and ninety four, the date of the will of said Fearer, or Fierer; and that the amount should be paid to his administrators Daniel Ratcliffe and William F. Purcell, of said Prince William County, in Virginia.
Page 35

Brentsville, P.Wm.Co: Va.
April 5. 1850.

Dear Sir
Herewith enclosed I send you a copy of the record revoking the powers of Ratcliffe & Purcell former admtrs: of Charles Fierer decd. - When I was in Washington last month, you will remember that I filed with you a copy of the order of court granting admr: on the estate of said Chas. Fierer decd. to me - and now may I beg the favor of you to act on the claim before you for commutation pay due Capt: Charles Fierer decd. as soon as you possibly can - & apprise me of the result.
most respectfully
Your Obt: Servt:
J. Williams

J. L. Edwards Esq
Commr. of Pensions

P.S. Please have the goodness to send me, by mail, a short statement of the claim now before you, showing when it was filed, by whom filed, & the persons claiming it - I want to show the fact that the former admrs: (Ratcliffe & Purcell) were trying to obtain the commutation pay of Capt. Chas. Fierer decd. after their powers had been revoked.
J.W.
Page 36

In Prince William County Court, June 6" 1850
Wileman Thomas . . . Pltff
against } On Rules
John Williams . . . Deft
To revoke the powers of John Williams as administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of Charles Fierer deceased, This day came the parties by their attorneys & upon argument of counsel it is considered by the Court that the powers of said Williams as administrator as aforesaid be revoked and annuled. And thereupon the said Williams prayed an Appeal from the judgement aforesaid of this Court to the Circuit Supreme Court of Law & Chancery for this County; and having entered into bond with [illegible] his security in the penalty of $50, Conditioned as the law directs the appeal is allowed. A Copy Teste - J. Williams Clk

State of Virginia - Prince William County, to wit:
I John Williams Clerk of the County Court for the said County of Prince William, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that the foregoing copy is a true transcript from the records of said County Court.
In testimony whereof, I hereto set my hand & annex the seal of said County Court, this 10" day of June 1830 and in the 74" year of the Commonwealth
J. Williams Clk
Page 37

In Council
Friday July 20th 1781 ~

Complaint being made that Captain Fearer has long absented himself from the Corps of Cavalry to which he belongs, notwithstanding repeated orders for his return and that he has now with him three or more horses the property of the state and a Trooper as his Servant.
The Board advise that the Commissioner of war be directed to inform Major Nelson, or the Commanding Officer of the said Corps of Cavalry, that it is their decision that he order a Court of Enquiry, consisting of five members to sit, and after examining such evidences as appear, to report their opinion respecting his conduct the propriety or impropriety of suspending him; and to transmit the report to the war office for the further order of Government.

In Council 
Friday August 10th. 1781
Lieutenant Armistead of Major Nelson's Corps is promoted to a Captaincy to take rank from the day on which it shall be determined by a board of Officers that Captain Fear ought to have been superceded

Executive Department
Richmond Va. Feby 25. 1850.
I hereby certify the foregoing to be true copies form the Council Journal of dates above -
Wm H Richardson Cmr
Page 38

Chas Fierer
Copy of letter from House Comt on Revy Pensions
Page 39

A true Copy
J.W.B.

House of Representatives.
Committee Room.
Jany. 31. 1872.

Hon. C. Delano
Secr. of. Interior
Sir:
Will you please inform the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, what amount of money has been paid to the legal representatives or heirs of Capt. Charles Ferier as an officer in the Revolutionary war.
1. When and to whom paid, and in what capacity the parties received said payment or payments?
2. Is there any further legislation required to enable the heirs of same Capt. Ferier to obtain the amount of money recommended to be paid them by report and resolution of this House of July 23rd. 1861.?
3. Was the payment, heretofore made to admers, de bonis non of the Estate, made in conformity to the then existing regulations of the Treasury Department and the law under which the payment was made? And, if not, in what particular were such regulations and laws not observed? Your attention and early
Page 40

reply will greatly oblige.
Very Respectfully
Your Obt. Servant.
A. S. Wallace.
Char. Committee on Rev. Claims.

N.B. Please return the above, or a copy with your response.
A.S.W.
Page 41

Copy
answd Feby 7/72

House of Representatives
Committee Room.
Jany. 31. 1872.

Hon. C. Delano:
Secr. of Interior
Sir:
Will you please inform the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, what amount of money has been paid to the legal representatives or heirs of Capt. Charles Ferier as an officer in the Revolutionary war.
1. When and to whom paid, and in what capacity the parties received said payment or payments?
2. Is there any further legislation required to enable the heirs of same Capt. Ferier to obtain the amount of money recommended to be paid them by report and resolution of this House of July 23rd. 1861.?
3. Was the payment, heretofore made to admers, de bonis non of the Estate, made in conformity to the then existing regulations of the Treasury Department and the law under which the payment was made? And, if not, in what particular were such regulations and laws not observed? Your attention and early reply will greatly
Page 42

oblige,
Very Respectfully.
Your Obt. Servant.
A. S. Wallace.
Char, Committee on Revo. Claims.

N.B. Please return the above, or a Copy with your response,
A.S.W.
Page 43

In Prince William County Court, March 6th. 1850.
Administration de bonis non, with the Will annexed; of the estate of Charles Fierer, decd. is granted to John Williams who took the oath prescribed by law, & entered into, and acknowledged a bond with security according to law.
A Copy - teste: J. Williams C.C.

State of Virginia
Prince William County, to wit:
I John Williams, clerk of the County Court for the said County of Prince William in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true transcript from the records of the said Court.
In testimony whereof, I hereto set my hand & annex the seal of the said Court, this 11th. day of March, 1850.
J. Williams C.C.

Virginia, Prince William County, to wit:
I Charles Meng presiding magistrate, in & for the said County of Prince William in the state of Virginia, do certify, that John Williams, who hath given the preceding certificate, is Clerk of the County Court, for the said County of Prince William, & that his said attestation is in due form. Given under my hand this 12th day of March, 1850.
Charles Meng
Page 44

Washington 22 June 1850.

Sir,
I have received the enclosed certificate in the Case of Charles Fierer of Commutation with interest. I send it to you as I received it and beg leave to say that I am no longer the agent in the case.
Yours respectfully
Francis A. Dickins.

James L Edwards Esq
Com. of Pensions.
Page 45

Pension Office,
August 26. 1838.

Sir,
I have the honor herewith to communicate a letter of the Hon. George M. Bibb, asking an appeal from a recent decision of this office, in the case of Charles Firer, deceased.
The Administrators of said Firer were allowed, on the 25th November, 1836, half-pay under the 3d. Section of the Act of July 5, 1832, in virtue of his services in Nelson's Corps of Cavalry of the Virginia State Line in the revolutionary war. The present claim is for commutation of five years' full pay, with interest, in lieu of said half-pay, which this office has declined to entertain, on the authority of the decision of the Department in the case of Isaac Holmes, deceased. The papers in the latter case are now before you.
As the purpose of Mr. Bibb is simply to obtain a revision of a decision of the Department, through a reference to the Attorney General of a preliminary point of
Page 46

law, it has not been thought necessary to enter upon the general merits of the claim now presented.
It is deemed proper to add that the precise question upon which it is sought to obtain the opinion of the Attorney General, is now before the Court of Claims, at the instance of Mr. Purcell, as Administrator of Thomas Ewell, who is also one of the Administrators upon the estate of Firer. I enclose a printed statement of the former case, as prepared by Mr. McPherson, Deputy Solicitor, and copies of the papers upon which the heirs of Firer were allowed half=pay.
I am, sir, with great respect,
Your Obedient Servant,
Geo C Whiting
Commissioner.

Hon. Jacob Thompson,
Secretary of the Interior,
Page 47

law, it has not been thought necessary to enter upon the general merits of the claim now presented.
It is deemed proper to add that the precise question upon which it is sought to obtain the opinion of the Attorney General, is now before the Court of Claims, at the instance of Mr. Purcell, as Administrator of Thomas Ewell, who is also one of the Administrators upon the estate of Firer. I enclose a printed statement of the former case, as prepared by Mr. McPherson, Deputy Solicitor, and copies of the papers upon which the heirs of Firer were allowed half=pay.
I am, sir, with great respect,
Your Obedient Servant,
Geo C Whiting
Commissioner.

Hon. Jacob Thompson,
Secretary of the Interior,
Page 48

Chas Fierer
Copies of information in regard to his Services
Page 49

Captain Charles Fierer, came over to this country in 1776 as a Hessian Officer and was captured the same year (Decbr 26.) at Trenton. The following proof is on file in the Third Auditors Office.
Translation - "Electoral Ministry of War
"It is hereby certified that, according to the records of this Department, ensign Charles Fierer, of the Hessian Infant. Reg. von Knyphansen, marched with that Regiment to North-America, and that at Trenton he was taken prisoner of war, and has not come back from there."
"Cassel August 1. 1838.
(sign) by the Minister of War
vo Lussberg."

He entered our army in 1777. A captain of cavalry he was certainly before 1782, as he received pay as such previous to that time:
Proof (also on file):
(Copy) 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 Rev. War, as settled their accounts, and received certificates for the balance of their full pay, according to Act of Assembly, passed the November Session 1781, that a certificate issued on the 27th day of April 1785, in the name of Charles Fierer, as Captain of Cavalry for L286.15.4, which certificate appears to have been delivered to George Pickett, and was given for services prior to the 1st of January 1782.
Given under my hand at the Auditor's Office,
Richmond the 5th day of August 1836.
Jas. H. Heath. Aud.
Page 50

That he served till the end of the War appears from the following land warrants:
(Also on file)(Copy)
No 4632 & 4633} Charles Fierer is entitled to the proportion of land allowed a Captain of the State line for the War
Council Chamber Samuel Coleman
Decbr. 7. 1793.
Henry Lee
(Copy) A warrant No 4632 for 2000 acres issued to Charles Fierer, Capt. of the State line for the War the 16th day of Decbr. 1793.
A true copy.
Four days later, after the above two warrants were issued, to wit on the 11th day of Decbr 1793. an act passed the Virginia Legislature for the relief of Capt. Fierer, which cites that "the latter resigned a commissioner in the Hessian Army and accepted a command in the troops of the Commonwealth, sustained a personal injury by a fall from his horse in the exercise of his military duty, and has moreover incurred a denunciation of treason, and a confiscation of his estates in his native country. And Whereas it is just and reasonable to retribute such foreign officers, who by active exertions in the case of America have been injured: 
Be it therefore enacted that the Auditor issue certificates for the balance of pay and depreciation due him.
Still suffering from his injury, he died about a year afterwards, Decbr 9. 1794, at Dumfries.
Page 51

Dudley Diggs, a revolutionary officer and pensioner swears July 2, 1836 "That he was a lieutenant of the Virginia State line of the army of the Revolution, and that Chas Fierer was a captain of that corps, and faithfully served as such, to the close of the War, or throughout the whole war.
Vincent King says (Aug 1. 1849) that he knows that Fierer was a captain in the Virg. State line, and did not return home (Dumfries) until after the war in 1783. He lived within 1 1/2 mile of him after the War. Fierer was always considered and respected as an officer.
Mrs Jane Haney (June 9. 1836) swears: "I do know that Fierer was an officer in the Rev. Army. He entered the army at the commencement of the War, but in what grade I do not know. My cousin John Cornwell went under his command from Dumfries. I saw him, when he returned to Dumfries after the Rev. War as an officer, and believe he served through the war.
Fierer made a last will and testament before he died, appointing his sister Caroline Maria Fierer his sole legatee.
Novbr 26. 1836. a warrant for $3466.3. was issued and paid to Dan Ratcliff and W. F. Purcell for Fierers half pay. This was done without the Knowledge of the heirs (Caroline Maria Fierer being dead since 1803); nor have they ever received a cent of this money, as will be seen from affidavits on file.
Page 52

[note: Omit]
The Committee on Revolutionary Claims of the House of Representatives (U.S.) Febr. 2. 1855 and December 2. 1860 confirmed the claim by a majority vote of the house.

Chas Fierer
Copies of information in regard to his Services
Page 53

Hon: Reverdy Johnson
21 Dec. 1861

Argument in support of the legal Eighty West Scott to receive the Commutation pay decided to be due under the Act of July 5. 1832 to the estate of Charles Fierer, decd. in virtue of letters of Administration granted them by the Orphans' Court of the District of Columbia-

See Secretary's letter to the Commr of Pensions
Feb. 19th 1862.
Page 54

Washington D.C.
21st. Dec: 1861.

Sir,
In the case of the "commutation", claimed in behalf of the estate of Charles Fierer, under the Act of Congress of the 5th July 1832, I beg leave, on the part of West Scott, the Admr. appointed by the Orphans Court for this District, to submit the following assertations.
The claim has been allowed by the Secretary of the Interior, in whom the conclusive power is vested, and the two questions, which, as I learn from your decision, as communicated to me on the 11th instant, the decision presents, are:
1st. Is an Administrator or Executor, the representative of such a claim, and entitled to receive it, without the assent of the heirs? and,
2nd. Whether, as this case is presented, West Scott is such an Administrator?
1st. Soon after the Act, of 1832, was passed, rules were adopted by the proper Department,

[margin]
Held: That the administrator or Executor is entitled to receive the [illegible] without the assent of the heirs
2. That West Scott, the Administrator as a legal Adm'r and as an Administrator appointed in the D.C. is such an administrator.
Page 55

2

of the Government, applicable to the claims, it embraced, and, amongst them, even where there was an Administrator on the estate of the claimant, the assent of his heirs was rendered necessary, before payment could be made to the Administrator or Executor. The rule, even then, required the claim to be paid to the Administrator. It did not authorize its payment to the heirs, irrespective of the Admr, but directed it  to be made to the Admr., the heirs assenting. The rule, on its face, was so clearly wrong, that its adoption can hardly be accounted for. - When the claim was received under it, and it could only be so received, by the Administrator, the required asset of the heirs, as a preliminary to such receipt, in no particular; diminished the power of the Admr., over the fund, on his obligation in regard to it. In his hands, it was personal assets, and to be administered as all other personal assets. The heirs' title could only be realized, through the Admr. The assent to his receipt of the fund, gave
Page 56

3

them no other right to their share of the fund, than if assent had not been required. 
And, whilst the rule, for reasons already given, gave the heirs no additional claim or security, it proved in practice, almost, and in some cases, totally impracticable. The original claimants had, many, if not all of them, been long deceased, and their heirs, where there were any; were scattered over the entire country, and, in many instances, were in foreign countries. A compliance with the rule, therefore, was most injurious, and often impracticable. Nor, had the assent of heirs, ever been held necessary in Virginia. In every instance in which suits were instituted in the Courts of that State, to recover such claims, where the original claimant was deceased, it was in the names of Executors or Administrators, and no pretense was ever made, or even suggested, that the assent of heirs was at all necessary to perfect the title. They sued as Administrators and were paid, without regard at all to the
Page 57

4

heirs. But, whatever may be said of the rule itself, as it originally guided the government, it has long since been held illegal, by the authorized Law Officer of the govt., the Attorney General. His opinion upon the question was requested by the Secretary of War, with whose Department, these claims then were, on the 18th Feb'y 1836, and on the 4th of March following, it was given by Mr. Atty' Genl. Butler [See 3rd Vol: Opinions Attorney General, page 44]. The questions submitted were, 
1. "Is an executor or administrator the legal representative in the contemplation" of the Act of 1832?
His answer was, yes, such a construction of the words "legal representative", used in the Act, he said "is not only called for by the words," "but is agreeable to the Act of assembly of Virginia, referred to therein [that is, in the Act of Congress] under which the judgements assumed by the United States were obtained; the suits in which those judgements were recovered having
Page 58

5

"been prosecuted, in the case of deceased Officers, as I learn from the Virginia reports. and other authentic sources of information, in the names of their executors or administrators."
2. If an administrator &c, is the legal representative, "can the Executive, by regulation, require the assent of the heirs to the payment to him. [the Administrator &c] of the amount ascertained to be due"
This second question, he says, "must in my opinion, be answered in the negative," that is, the assent, in such a case, is not only not necessary, under the Act of Congress, but that the Executive has no authority, "by regulation", to require it. He further, adds, "the Act of Congress has not made the assent of the heirs, or next of kin, a condition precedent. The legal representative being once paid, and he is paid when the admr. or executor appears, and is "satisfactorily ascertained they are entitled under the positive provisions of
Page 59

6

"the law, to the moneys directed to be paid to them", not only without, but in despite of Executive regulation.
It is impossible to imagine an opinion more absolutely conflicting with any such rule, as you seem to consider as still in force. But, beside this obvious conflict, the universal practice, ever since that opinion was given, has been in accordance with the opinion  - No assent of heirs or next of kin, has since been required. The rule before applied, became at once, and properly, a dead letter, and the power to pass such a one, considered as finally denied.
The Second question presented by your decision, is, whether Scott the administrator, appointed in this District, is the legal representative within the meaning of the Act of Congress?
This, also, is, with all proper respect, as clearly with the claimant, Scott, as the other.
The grounds of your opposite view, are, I am told, these:
Page 60

7

1st. That there is an Administrator in Virginia, and,
2nd. That the Orphans' Court here, (- this District, not having been the domicil of the original claimant, at the time of his death-) had no authority to issue letters of Administration.
1st. No such admr. is claiming the fund, and if he was, could it, in the existing condition of the country, be paid to him? If there be one, he was appointed by a Virginia Court, resides in that State, and is responsible only under its laws, & of its Courts - To pay him the fund would be, we know, not to secure, but to sacrifice the interests of the parties interested in it, who are loyal citizens wherever they may reside. If, therefore, he was present, asserting his claim, and there was another Admr. also legally appointed, in whose hands the fund would be secure, and the rights of loyal citizens, in it, protected, there should be no doubt, if it could be done
Page 61

8

legally, and so as to protect the U.S. that the duty of the Government would be to pay it to the loyal Admr. for the benefit of loyal citizens. In the case, on which the opinion of Mr. Atty Genl. Black was given, heretofore submitted to the Comr. and now in his possession, he says, in plain terms, that where an Admr. is appointed elsewhere, and one appointed in this District, a payment to, and an acquittance by either would equally protect the government. But, in fact, there is no legal evidence that there is such an Admr. in Virginia, now existing. The only evidence, relied upon by you, is, that Judge Purcell, in 1860, in a memorial to Congress, in regard to the claim, stated that one John Williams was the Admr. This statement is no evidence whatever, against the Admr. Scott, Judge Purcell did not represent him. He relies upon the rights in and by virtue of his Administration here.
2nd. The denial or intimation (for
Page 62

9

I do not understand it as really maintained) of the authority of the Orphans Court, here, to have granted the letters. 
But whether, as a proposition or an intimation, it is wholly unfounded -
1st. In the first place, such a doctrine established here, would involve the U. States in heavy losses. Claims to an unlimited amount, under other laws, as well as under that of 5th. July, 1832, have been paid to Admrs., appointed by this Orphans Court. If these were made without law, a proper Admr. would require the Govt., in good faith, to repay them.
In the second place, it would be without a precedent, to reverse the settled practice of the government, never before questioned, and not now questioned, except by one of its own Officers.
In the third place, nothing is more true (I speak from long and familiar knowledge of the subject) than that under the Maryland Act of 1798,
Page 63

10

in force, as far as this question is concerned, in this District, the Orphans Court here has authority in such a case, to grant letters testamentary or of administration.
The Commissioner confounds two matters, wholly dissimilar; the authority under the act, where the deceased dies within the jurisdiction of the State, and where he dies elsewhere. In the first, the power is limited by the words of the act, to the Court of the domicil - in the last, it may be exercised where the assets are:- The rule is universally true, that in the absence of express legislation, a foreign Admr. (and such is one appointed in another state) has no authority to sue in the state where the assets may be: To get this power he, or some one else must obtain letters under the latter jurisidiction. The authority therefore, in such a case, is not only in the Court of the State, where they do lie, but no where else. But, even in the State itself, as was decided in the case of Hammond
Page 64

11

and Raborg, Q. Harris & Gill, 42, where letters of Admr. issued elsewhere than in the place of the domicil, their validity could not be questioned in a suit by such an Admr. against a debtor of the estate. The only way to make the objection was to apply to the Court issuing the letters, to revoke them, and, if not done, to appeal from the judgement denying the application. Until that was done the Court of Appeals of the State (the highest Court in the State) held the Administrator's power to be beyond objection. In this instance, however, the assets are here in the District, the domicil at the death of the original claimant, beyond this jurisdiction. - The power to issue letters here, therefore, is as clear as it is in Md. where the domicil of the deceased, at his death, is beyond the jurisdiction of that State.
This doctrine has never been called in question here, or in Md. before - See Edelin vs. Edelin C. Md. Rep: 288: Cassally
Page 65

12

vs: Myer, 4. Md. p. 1. Williams & Williams 5. Md. 467.
The letters, then, granted to Scott, were properly granted and invest him with full authority, and the right to receive the fund in question, and execute an acquittance to the U. States.
I am sure it was not the purpose of the Comr. to question the legality of the letters, by referring to an interest which the Judge granting them appears at one time to have had in the claim. If it was so, that is if he had an interest, other parties interested in it are not to be denied their right to obtain such letters, for their own benefit, or would the Judge have been justified, on the ground of his interest, in refusing to exert his jurisdiction. But, I am told, that the interest that he may have had in the claim, he had parted with before me granted the letters. However this may be, his power cannot, on such a ground, be assailed. The letters granted by
Page 66

13

him are legal and not to be questioned in a collateral way. That this is the rule is fully settled by the cases before cited in 2. Harris & Gill. Hammonds & Raborg. On the whole, then, and with all proper respect for the Commissioner, it is submitted as perfectly clear, on principle and authority, and uniform usage of the government, since 1836, that, the fund should be paid to Scott, as administrator.
very respectfully
Reverdy Johnson

Jos. H. Barrett Esq.
Commissioner of Pensions.
Page 67

Hon Wm J Otto
Sir
I wish to State two additional facts which I have just ascertained, which have a bearing upon the Fierer case now before you
First. He received in his life time two land warrants for 2000 acres each One of these has already been referred to in the papers I placed in your hands These warrants are now in the General Land Office & I have just seen them They were both given for services "for the war" & so state upon their faces
Second In the report of the 2nd Comptroller in August 1863 he states that Fierer was a member of Dabney's legion which legion was organized in 1782 (See his letter book No 25 p. 358) 
Peace was declared in April 1783. There is other proof on file to show that he received his back pay up to 1782 The fact stated by the 2nd Comptroller as just referred to does away with any inference that his services therein did with the end of the time for which he received back pay & in conformaty of his having served through the war
Very Respectfully
Chas Mason
Page 68

D.C.C.
3-871.
RECORD DIVISION.
Department of the Interior,
BUREAU OF PENSIONS. 
Briefed by: A.D.P.
Claim No.
Certificate No.
Claimant:
Soldier: Charles Fierer
Service:
Additional Service:
No ___ claim, State records _____, 190_
No claim, combination records 2/27, 1906
REMARKS:
Dabney's ligion, Va Line is a Revolutionary service.
J. B. Robinson
Act Chief Division

[stamp 1]
O. W. & N. RECORDS
OCT 3 1906

[stamp 2]
Finance Division, BUREAU OF PENSIONS
SEP 27 1906

[page 2 text]
3-815.
FINANCE DIV. J.C.A.
Department of the Interior,
BUREAU OF PENSIONS,
AUG 23 1906, 190_
Certificate No.
Charles Fierer,
Dabney's Legion, U.S.Cav.
Respectfully referred to Chief of Record Division
For Certificate Number
[signed] A. H. Thompson
Chief, Finance Division.
Page 69

Department of the Interior.
Received Nov. 18th 1870.
Dated Nov. 17th 1870.
From Wm. F. Purcell
Washn. D.C.

Subject.
Wants copy of Sect'y Smith's decision in Case of Capt. Fierer - Commutation of half-pay &c

Action.
For Robinson
Registered Pens. 409.
Filed
Page 70

3-1883.
Old War and Navy
Division.
Copy NFC

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BUREAU OF PENSIONS,
WASHINGTON, D. C., October 4, 1906.

The Honorable
The Secretary of the Interior.
Sir:
In compliance with your instructions of August 21, 1906, indorsed on a letter from the Acting Secretary of State, dated August 17, 1906, inclosing a copy of a note dated August 1, 1906, from the Austro Hungarian Ambassador, referring to an inquiry made by the heirs of one Charles Fierer, who "is supposed to have served during the Civil War, as Captain of U.S. Cavalry, in Dabney's State legion, on the "Virginia Line", I have the honor to state that the inquiry seems to relate to the case of Charles Fierer (File No. 22,811) who served as a captain of cavalry in the Virginia Line during the War of the Revolution, and who died in Prince William county, Virginia, in the Year 1794.
The files of this Bureau show that a claim for half pay under the Act of July 5, 1832, was allowed on account of the said Fierer's service and payment in full made to the administrators of his estate in the year 1836. Nothing has been allowed since that date, nor is there any existing law which would permit of a further allowance. 
Papers on file indicate that heirs in this country have made
Page 71

2 Fierer

several attempts to secure an appropriation from Congress in settlement of additional claims but that these attempts have been unsuccesful.
The correspondence covered by your indorsement is herewith returned.

Very respectfully,

Commissioner.
Page 72

Norwood. Minn. Aug 4. 1887.
Gen. Pension Agent.
Dear Sir!
Having been recomended to your Ore in regard to an old Pension case of our family, I hereby wish to beg you for a certain information on the following matter.
Our granduncle Charles Fr. Fierer, - as his name is spelled in his last papers and proceedings - instead of Fuerer, which has the same pronunciation in German, - served as Captain in the Revolutionary Army under General Washington till to its end, in some battle, as we hear he was wounded, but lived in a scarey state of health 11 years after it. 
The Government then presented to him in want of money a tract of 3000 acres land in Dumphrey Co, Va. but we indrew it, because he did not cultivate it
Page 73

He died, 11 years after the war, without any family, but in his will he did leave his money & all his claims to his relatives in the old country, of which our family did not hear a word, and hence I did not receive a penny - 
Our Congress in 1836, as you know, issued a decree, by which the Widows & Heirs of the Surviving Soldiers of Rev. War. were granted a half pay, pension which entitled them to the Sum of $3300, as his full pension was $600. As this grant was published then in the German papers, my father's other relatives received notice of it. But although they sent all the necessary papers & certifications and also empowered an Attorney of law for raising the money and sent to this Country in 1857. we did not get anything of our money. In 1865, Samuel L. Schade, now Exetor
Page 74

of Weekly Sentinel in Washington was authorized to work in this matter His efforts were resulted thus that the Committee on Claims passed a favorable report on the case April 3d. 1879. But Mr Schade filed the papers, because Mr Long (the first attorney we had) demanded half of their money too like him. So the heirs would not have got anything -
Now the whole matter is still on the same point, Mr Schade dont do anything, neither answered word. My Cousin Charles Fuerer, a judge, in the old Country inquired the German Ministerium of Exteriors at Berlin about this matter, but all in vain. Our Representatives of Legislatur could not do anything as they promised so I was directed by a famous person of Washington to your kind order to help us in this direction
Page 75

Please, Sir, answer me promptly if possible of 1, What is the reason, that our pension is not respected, as any other
2, what means & ways it takes to ligusdate the money -
3, now one could get at it without the meditation of lawers; whose support was quite in vain till now
Trusting in your Kindness and honesty, to support the right claims and the needy heirs 
I humbly & respectfully remain
Yours truly
Rev. Ernest F. E. Fuerer.
preacher of the German Reformed Congregation in Benton Town
Carson Co, Minn.
Please send me a plain answer to notify my relatives in this & the old country as soon as possible -
My address:
Rev. E. Fuerer,
Norwood, Minnesota
Carver Co
Page 76

Alice H. Lerch
Room 303,, 475-5" Ave-
New York Public Library
New York City.
wants photos of 14 pages from the Rev. War claim R 22811 of Charles Fierer Va. Troops - paid Oct. 24, 1924.
$2.10/100
Received by 
A. E. Wilson
REV. WAR SECTION

The papers copied were heading - In Council Friday July 20, 1781 -.- 1 page
" - Wash. D.C. Jan. 1, 1857 - Hon O. H Browning - 4
" - Captain Charles Fierer came over to US - 3
Washington City Dec 15, 1870. Hon Sect Int - 2
Pension Office Letter dated Feb. 7, 1782 - 21
to Hon A. S Wallace
*Letter dated Norwood Minn Aug 24, 1887 - 2 - opened flat
Total 14

[stamp]
FINANCE DIVISION BUREAU OF PENSIONS
OCT 24 1924
Page 77

M233
BUREAU OF PENSIONS
Finance Division
Oct 24, 1924
Chief Rev. Sect
Sir:
I have this day received from Alice H. Lerch 
cash No. ___
for $2.10, requesting copy as per letter herewith.

Copies mailed & Finance Div notif
AW.

Respectfully,
O. J. RANDALL
Chief Finance Div.
H.C.L.

Request for Photostating M 6
(To be prepared in duplicate) Ex. AW
OFFICE OF CHIEF CLERK
Job No. 1416 Date Oct 25 24
Subject: Chas. Fierer Rev. R. 22811
1 copies of 7 pieces consisting of 14 pages to be forwarded when completed to the REV. WAR SECTION Division.
Approved:
[signed] A E Wilson
Chief REV. WAR SECTION

Chief Clerk.
Page 78

3625 R STREET
WASHINGTON

April 29, 1939

Honorable Frank T. Hines,
Administrator of Veterans Affairs,
Veterans Administration,
Washington, D. C.

My dear General Hines:

In preparing an historical work for publication, I desire to ascertain what official records exist concerning the military service of an officer of the Revolutionary War - Major (?) Charles Fierer (variations: Fuhrer, Frior).

There is no information concerning his service in the office of the Adjutant General of the War Department.

The information which I have from other sources is briefly as follows: (1) That Ensign Charles Fierer enlisted with the Hessian Regiment von Knyphausen: (2) That he was captured at the battle of Trenton and was sent with other prisoners to Dumfries, Virginia; (3) That when the Hessian prisoners were exchanged in 1778, Fierer deserted in New York and appeared before General George Washington at White Plains volunteering to enlist in the American army; (4) That General Washington granted him a captaincy "in a new corps of German volunteers"; (5) That for reasons I have not discovered, this captaincy was later withdrawn; (6) That this officer submitted numerous petitions to the Continental Congress for relief; (7) that in a newspaper which Charles Fierer edited in Georgetown, Maryland, he was referred to as "Major" Fierer.

I have been informed that relations of this Revolutionary officer have filed claims for pension based on his service, which claims I believe have been denied. 

I am interested only in what your records may contain as to Charles Fierer's life and military service.

Very sincerely yours,
[signed] Ray Harris
Ray Baker Harris
Page 79

3625 R STREET
WASHINGTON

August 25, 1939

Honorable Frank T. Hines,
Administrator of Veterans Affairs,
Veterans Administration,
Washington, D. C.

My dear General Hines:
Attached is the carbon copy of an inquiry addressed to your office four months ago, in which information was requested as to the military service of Major (?) Charles Fierer (variations: Fuhrer, Frior) in the Revolutionary War.
The information is desired for historical purposes, and I was referred to your office by the Adjutant General of the War Department, there being no record in his office of this Revolutionary officer; but it is understood that his descendants had applied for pension based on his service, and that therefore data as to his military record and service could be supplied by your office.
I do not wish to appear impatient, as I realize the many burdens on your office; but I write again with the thought that my first request may have been lost.
Very sincerely yours,
[signed] Ray Harris
Ray Baker Harris

encl ck

[stamp]
RECEIVED AUG 28 1939 
MAIL SUB-DIV
Reader No. 6
VETS ADM
Page 80

April 29, 1939

Honorable Frank T. Hines,
Administrator of Veterans Affairs,
Veterans Administration,
Washington, D. C.

My dear General Hines:

In preparing an historical work for publication, I desire to ascertain what official records exist concerning the military service of an officer of the Revolutionary War - Major (?) Charles Fierer (variations: Fuhrer, Frior).

There is no information concerning his service in the office of the Adjutant General of the War Department.

The information which I have from other sources is briefly as follows: (1) That Ensign Charles Fierer enlisted with the Hessian Regiment von Knyphausen: (2) That he was captured at the battle of Trenton and was sent with other prisoners to Dumfries, Virginia; (3) That when the Hessian prisoners were exchanged in 1778, Fierer deserted in New York and appeared before General George Washington at White Plains volunteering to enlist in the American army; (4) That General Washington granted him a captaincy "in a new corps of German volunteers"; (5) That for reasons I have not discovered, this captaincy was later withdrawn; (6) That this officer submitted numerous petitions to the Continental Congress for relief; (7) that in a newspaper which Charles Fierer edited in Georgetown, Maryland, he was referred to as "Major" Fierer.

I have been informed that relations of this Revolutionary officer have filed claims for pension based on his service, which claims I believe have been denied.

I am interested only in what your records may contain as to Charles Fierer's life and military service.

Very sincerely yours,

Ray Baker Harris