Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File R. 97, for Benjamin Strother, Virginia

SERVICE
NUMBER
Va Sea Service
Strother, Benjamin
R 97
Va. half pay
CONTENTS

18. Nov 1852 John Shutter
Nov: 20 th 1857
Re: to case of Edward Chamber- layne James
John Shutter Martinsburg Va. Health Eng if persons Washington. In pay case of
him

Martinsburg Nov: 18 th 1851
Dear Sir,
I have seen your letter to Mr Randolph, respecting the claim of Edward Chamberlayne who was a Midshipman in the state Navy of Virginia in the war of the Revolution, in which you say, "that the question as to the right of that class of officers under the act of the Legislature of '79 and the act of Congress of 5 th July '32 has been long since settled against the right and therefore it is hardly necessary now to reopen it."
And the letter of S. L. Edwards of 26 th June '50 in reference to the same claim stating, that the act of 5 th of July 1832 "allows half pay in no case where the person who performed the service was not a commissioned officer."
As it may save me and your department some trouble in a similar claim, if on a thorough investigation I may be induced to acquiesce in this decision and abandon the claim to which my attention has been recently drawn - May I get the favour of you to refer me to the decision against the right of this class of officers of the Virginia state line.
I have a little pamphlet "Pension laws now

in force &c compiled by the Comt. of pensions and published in 1849" - and the Virginia Statutes touching the case in question - in which I have as yet seen nothing to shake, but much to confirm me in the opinion, so far as I have gone in the examination, that the decision against the right of this class of claimants is founded in error.
The claim to which I refer is that of my father, Benjamin Strother, who served as a midshipman in the Virginia state line, VA for which his heirs were awarded some 18 or 20 years ago 2666 2 / 3 acres of land scrip.
In case the claim shall be exhibited, will any other evidence be wanting than proof of the time of his death - all other evidence being already on file in the prosecution of the claim for land bounty?
Very respectfully yours
John Strother
Jas E Heath esq
Comt. of Pensions War

Virginia. Jefferson County ss.
In the County Court.
March Term 1852.
It being proved to the satisfaction of the Court that Benjamin Strother late of this county, decd. died on or about the 1 st day of October 1807. that he was the same person who served as a midshipman in the Virginia State Navy in the Revolution War, and to whose children, to wit: Catherine Grace Margaret Moore, Mary T. Duffield & John Strother and the personal Representatives of a deceased daughter, Elizabeth Pendleton said bounty was awarded about the year, 1834, for the said Revolutionary: order that the same be certified.
a copy. Teste. T. H. Moore cl.
I certify that the above is a true copy from the Record of said Court.
Given under my hand & the Seal of said Court this 19 th day of March, 1852
T. H. Moore cl.

VERITAS. Jefferson County, ss.
In the County Court. March Term 1852. at a Court held for said County, on the 15 th day of March, A.D. 1852.
Upon the application of John Strother, a distributee, administration de bonis non of Benjamin Strother, de- ceased of this County, is granted to said John Strother, and thereupon he took the oath and gave bond in the penalty of Five Thousand Dollars, with sureties approved by the Court, and with condition prescribed by Law. It appearing that said distributee had not before refused administration, and the former administrator being present & assenting thereto.
a copy. Teste. J. Moore c.c.
I certify that the above is a true copy from the Record of said Court.
Given under my hand and the Seal of said Court. this 19 th day of March, 1852 J. Moore c.c.

October 19, 1932
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
BA-J/100F/eel Benjamin Strother-R.97
Mrs. Mary Latham Norton 127 B. Street, Bay Terrace Vallejo, California
Dear Madam:
Reference is made to your letter in which you request the record of Benjamin Strother, an officer in the Navy, War of the Revolution.
The data given herein were obtained from the papers on file in Revolutionary War claim, R.97, for Virginia Half Pay under the Act of July 5, 1832.
Benjamin Strother served as midshipman in the Virginia State Navy, War of the Revolution, no dates, officers' names nor details shown. He died October 10, 1807, in Jefferson County, Virginia. The date of his birth and names of his parents are not given.
Colonel John Strother, of Martinsburg, Berkeley County, Virginia, in 1851, made application for the Virginia Half Pay which might have been due on account of service of his father, Midshipman Benjamin Strother. The claim was not allowed as the service of midshipman was not provided for in the act under which he applied.
The names of other children are given as Catharine Crane, Margaret Moore, Mary S. Duffield and Elizabeth Pendleton.
About the year 1834, 3666-2/3 acres of bounty land was allowed by the state of Virginia on account of the service of Benjamin Strother in the Virginia State Navy. Elizabeth Pendleton was then deceased. The land was granted to the other children of the midshipman as named above and the "personal representative" of his deceased daughter, Elizabeth Pendleton, the name of the representative and the name of Benjamin Strother's wife are not given.
Very truly yours
A. D. HILLER Assistant to Administrator.

BERKELEY SPRINGS, VA
This watering place is situated two and a half miles from Sir John's—a point on the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road, 130 miles West of Baltimore, and 49 miles East of Cumberland. A good mountain road connects with this Depot, and, from the 15th of June to 1st October, five coaches are regularly run for the accommodation of visitors. Passengers from the West reach the Springs at 11 o'clock, A. M.—and from the East, at 4 P. M., every day.
"These waters have been longer and more favourably known, perhaps, than any in the country. Taken internally they are useful in a class of chronic and sub-acute disorders—derangement of the stomach, with impaired appetite and feeble digestion. In calculous diseases, irritation of the bladder, &c., their free use, internally and externally, is attended with great benefit. In rheumatism, a specific.
"Their delightful medium temperature—74°—in connexion with other properties, adapts them to a wider range of diseases and gives them a decided advantage over most other thermal waters.
"They have been found to be beneficial in the whole class of nervous disorders—especially in those peculiar to females—in uterine diseases; cases of relaxed habit and debility; certain forms of bronchial disease, and in local paralytic affections. Persons suffering from a residence in warm, low and damp climates, will generally find them a complete restorative—in cases of chronic diarrhoea," &c.
The character of the accommodation will compare favourably with that of any of the Northern watering places. The Hotel of the undersigned can accommodate about four hundred persons, and for comfort and convenience of arrangement, is surpassed by none in the Country. About one half the chambers are laid off in suites of two, three and four rooms, expressly for families—and the whole establishment furnished with best hair mattresses and linen sheeting.
The table, is supplied with the best that may be obtained in the Country markets; and from the Cities, where the matter will bear transportation—while the fine air and bath, so delightfully invigorating, make
" . . . . good digestion wait on appetite, And health on both."
JOHN STROTHER.
JUNE, 1851.
Connected with the Hotel is a fine band of Musicians; and the other amusements of Billiards; Nine Pins; Pistol Shooting, &c.
The ladies bathing establishment is being greatly enlarged. — by the addition of a pool — and rebuilt; making the accomodation more than double what it has heretofore been.

May 1. 52
Dear sir,
It has been my purpose to be in Washington this spring - but, as it is becoming more uncertain, I enclose the necessary proof, required by the regulations of your office, and a certificate of the granting to myself the administration on the estate of my father.
I should be greatly obliged to you if you would give me, in a few words, the reason for the rejection of the claims of this class of officers - that I may be able to form some judgment as to the propriety of pursuing the matter further or not.
Respectfully yours
John Strother
James E. Heath esq

Mr. Spothers argument about midshipman
Beny Spothers
midshipman qv
Beny Spothers

Benjamin Shother
Midshipman
Half pay case
act of 5 July 1832

No 97
1932-Oct 19-List. to Mrs Mary L. Boston - MMH/82
ACT OF FEBRUARY 14, 1871.
3309
Heirs of Benjamin Strother Mid
Va Star Revolution Discharged _____, 18 6009
N.Y. Pay — act '32
Received _____, 187
Attorney.
97

MARY LATHAM NORTON
127 B STREET, BAY TERRACE VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
GENEALOGIST PEDIGREES TRACED
HERALDIC ARTIST COATS OF ARMS EMBLAZONED
27th Sept. 1932.
The Commissioner of Pensions Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir:
Have you a Pension record naming the family of the following Officer in the Navy in the American Revolution:
BENJAMIN STROTHER of Virginia b. about 1730, died about 1807
married Kitty Price
children so far as known were:
1. a daughter married Benjamin Pendleton 2. a daughter married J. M. Crane 3. a daughter married Gato Moore 4. a daughter married (1) Richard Duffield (2) Col. John Strother her cousin Officer of the 32d Va. Cavalry 5. John Elliott
and perhaps others.
Please let me have this record as soon as possible if you can find it, desired for application for the Daughters of the American Revolution. Thanking you, I am
Respectfully
(Mrs.) Mary Latham Norton

Acts referred to by Col. Snatner
Vol 10 page 20
do do 467
do do 50
Vol 11 do 85
do do 162
do do 265
do do 556
Pens Laws p 82
The acts above referred to, have no connection with the acts of May 1779 & May 1780 —

Shother Martinshung →

Martinsburg Jan 9. 1852
My dear sir,
I received through Mr Faulkner the printed regulations of your Department as to the proofs necessary in my case now before you — which I will forward in the course of a week or ten days.
Meantime I should like to be put in possession of your views of the matter, promised in your note of 29 th ult to Mr Faulkner, which he has also sent me.
This I want particularly, that I may lay the whole matter before Thomas Griggs esq, [who is the personal representative of my father] and obtain his opinion.
You know him, if not personally, by reputation; as being one of the oldest and ablest lawyers in the Valley — and one no less sound in heart than in head
Respectfully yours John Strother.
James E. Heath esq

Letter to Faulkner to be copied.

Pension Office 8 Jan y 1852
Dear Sir
In reference to the case of Benjamin Stother involving the right of Midshipmen to half pay under the act of 5 July 1832, - it has occurred to me that as the question will have to be decided by the Secretary of the Interior upon a regular appeal - it will be better that the case of Midshipman Stother should be first presented & supported by the regular proofs before the action of this office should be had. I make this suggestion because it has never been usual nor is it indeed practicable I believe to obtain the opinion of the Department except upon a case which has passed through the regular forms of preparation and duly formed matured for decision. Anticipating your concurrence, I send you a copy of the printed rules governing the settlement of half pay which you can transmit to Mr Stother of Martinsburg.
Very truly & respectfully
Yours
J. E. Heath Clerk
Hon Charles J. Faulkner H of Rep.

House of Representatives Washington Dec 15/857
James E. Heath Esq. Comm ee of Pensions Sir
At the request of Col John Shafter of Berkeley County, I herewith submit for your consideration, an ar- gument prepared by him in support of the claim of Mrs. H. M. M. in the V. P. H. Q. to half pay. If as he intimates you have difficulty on the question, or have overruled the preamble for which he contends, would it not be advisable to send the papers to the Secretary of the Interior for his decision.
I am very truly
Yours
O. J. Fawcett

9 Jan 1852
John Strother

Marlinton Jan 9. 1852
Dear sir,
I replied to Mr Heath last monday, stating that I had made the examination re-quired by him, and had found no trace of any such marriage.
I have mislaid his letter, and have preserved no memo of the matter: but my impression is, that the parties to the marriage sought for by him, were Joseph Davis and Sarah Cochran — not Rachael — as stated in your letter: — and that I did find some evidence of a marriage of Joseph Davis & Rachael  somebody in October 1793; which I mention in my reply to Mr Heath
As it would cost me some trouble, of not an agreeable sort, again to overhaul these dusty old papers; and as I think it prob-able that Mr Heath is now in possession of my letter; I will wait until I hear fur-ther from you.
I am not, but have been the clerk, would & now have free access to the records of the court Respectfully yours
John Strother.
Hon G. H. Busby

Report in reference to Warrant Officer
Act J. H. J. July 3

Pension Office
Dec 27 th
As to whether Warrant Officers are entitled to Half Pay under the Act of 4 th July 1832.
Under the most liberal construction that can be given to that Act it can only be urged that Congress assumed the obligations incurred by Virginia in her promises to the Army & Navy in May 1779 & May 1780. {See Rev Statutes Vol 10. pgs 25 & 298} By the express language of both of those Acts it will be seen that provision was only made for Commissioned Officers , with some few exceptions which are expressly designated. The Act of May 1779 provides for all general officers of the army; all field officers, Captains & Subalterns and all Chaplains, Surgeons, & Surgeons-

Mates & c who shall receive hereinafter or from the time of their being Com- missioned &c - The Act of May 1780 (Navy) provides "That the said Captains together with the Subalterns & all other "Commissioned Officers in the service "of the Navy, the Master, Surgeon & Surgeons "Mates shall be entitled &c &c If it was intended to embrace all officers, why were Master , Surgeons & Surgeons Mates ex- pressly mentioned? - Although they would be included in the general term "Officers" they had no Commissions & could not have been allowed, had not this ex- press provision been made for them - The subsequent Acts passed by the Pa Assembly in 1781-2-&3 (referred to by Col Brother in his argument,) do not extend the limitations herein imposed by these Acts, nor do they appear to have any bearing upon them - So far as can be ascertained, the practice of the Pension office has been uniform in rejecting the claims of Warrant Officers to Navy Pay ,

The opinion of Mr Butler on p 54 of Pension Laws, has no bearing upon the question neither has it formed the basis for the action of the office" - Reference has been made to the correspondence & requirements of the office, and  there since these Half Pay Claims have been adjudicated here, it is found that the office has always held that the applicant must have been a Commissioned Officer , to entitle him to the benefits of said act - This construction has been sustained by the opinions of Successive Attorneys General and  decisions of Secretaries - Mr Secretary Wilkins in 1844 (P & p 127) held that the half pay depends on the rank & that rank on the commission - In the adjustment of these claims he says, we are to be guided by the actual Commissioned rank of the Officer & by the previous decisions of the Department -

Midshipman Benjamin Strother of Virginia Navy.

Martinsburg Dec 15 th 1857
Dear sir,
I send a brief argument of the case of my father, with extracts from laws that do, and reference to other matters that do not belong to it — that may aid in the consideration of the question, now narrowed down to the extent to be given to the meaning of the term Officers in the several laws on the subject.
Mr Randolph suggests that it had better at once be brought before Mr Secretary Stewart: The Commis. sioner of Pensions seeming averse to open up a question already decided.
Mr Randolph has written to my relative Mr Strother on the subject of other and similar claims now pending, and being prosecuted by Mr Randolph — and it wd be well to submit to him mine also, as, being identical they must stand or fall together.
The heirs of my father recovered 2066 2 / 3 acres of land about 17 years ago — we were not aware that he was also entitled to half pay until now.
Please procure action on the matter, now lying in a nut shell, as soon as may be — and suggest anything that may be necessary on our part.
Yours
John Strother.
Hon. C. J. Faulkner.

Midshipman Benjamin Strother.
It appears, from all the acts on the subject, that Virginia has made the army and navy equally the objects of her bounty; and that the only question to be settled in the case of the application for half pay, under the act of Congress of 5 th July 1832, by the representative of Midshipman Benjamin Strother , is
Did the state of Virginia promise half pay for life to the warrant officers of her navy?
That she did seems perfectly clear.
In every act, having reference to the subject of bounty and half pay , we find but two classes recognized in the navy, to wit - Officers : and seamen and marines.
No distinction is taken in any of these acts between commissioned and warrant Officers - Their whole tenor being - That Officers of the navy shall have the same bounty in lands and half pay, as officers of equal rank in the army : and the state of Virginia in settling the relative rank, placed the warrant officers of the Navy on a footing with subalterns in the army.
The act of Oct '79 Hen stat Vol 10-160 , gives to sailors 200 acres of land as bounty, [at this period Virginia had no marines in her Navy] and to "every officer of the Navy the same quantity of land as an officer of equal rank in the army"
In the adjustment of bounty under this act, Midshipmen were awarded the land bounty promised to subalterns

of the army, to wit: 2666 2 / 3 acres; with the other warrant officers of the Navy - thus fixing the meaning of the term Officer , under this act.
This would seem decisive of the question, as it respects the half pay: for to adopt the argument of Mr Badger, in a parallel case, "No reason can be conceived, no rule of interpretation can be found, by which the term Officer shall, in the one case, include a warrant officer, and exclude him in the other."
The act quoted by Attorney General Butler, in his opinion Feb. 9. 1826, [see Comp. of Pa. Laws pa 54] which has furnished the authority for resisting this class of claims, has no bearing whatever against them. Nor does his decision touch the question. That submitted to him was: "Whether any Officers in the Land or Naval service, not citizens of Virginia , were entitled to half pay under the laws of that state: and he decides, very properly, that they [the officers of the Navy, and certain classes of the army] were entitled to half pay, without reference to citizenship ." That the section quoted by him, in deciding this question as to Citizenship in connection with the Navy, had no reference to the half pay bounty to the Navy, is manifest from the journals of the house, which exhibit the fact that a provision expressly giving half pay to the Navy , reported as part of the same bill, was stricken out, and the bill passed without such provision. [see Ken Vol 10 - 296 and journals of house]

It is evident that Virginia, at this time , had not intended to give the half pay bounty to the Navy - the prize money, [which is given wholly by Act of Oct '80] being, doubtless, regarded as a full equivalent. It is not, then, until Nov '81 that we find the idea distinctly manifested - and by the acts of May '82, Oct '82, and May '83, fully carried out - of giving half pay to all her officers: Navy and Army - State and Continental .
The conclusion seems not to be resisted:
1st. That the act of May '80, and the opinion of attorney Genl. Butler of Feb 9. 1836, which have been made the basis for excluding warrant officers from the half pay bounty - have no application to the case:
2nd. That Virginia, in giving to Midshipman the same land bounty that she has given to subalterns in the army, has settled the question frank; and the meaning of the term Officers , in the several acts placing the Navy and army on the same footing, as respects half pay: and, therefore, these acts must include warrant , as well as commissioned officers: [ Quare . Has the term Officers , ever ever been, or is it used in any other sense?]
3rd. That the heirs of Mid: Benjamin Strother, of Va. Navy, having been awarded Land bounty under the act aforesaid as "subaltern in the army", his personal representative may now recover, without other or further proof of service, the half-pay of a midshipman for 24 years

and months - to wit: from the termination of the war of the Revolution to the time of the death of said Strother, which occurred October 1807.

Half pay to Virginia Navy.
The act of May '79 - Hennings Statutes Vol 10 - 25 gives, "All general officers of the army being citizens of the com- monwealth, and all field officers, captains and subalterns, commanding, or who shall command in the Battalions of this Commonwealth on Continental establishment, or serving in the Battalions raised for the immediate defence of this state, or for the defence of the United states: and all chaplains be - half pay during life, "to commence from the determina- tion of their command or service".
The act of Nov. '81 - Hen. Vol 10 - 467 says, "That the officers and seamen of the Navy of this state, as they stand arranged by a late regulation, shall be entitled to the same advantages as the officers belonging to this state in the land service, agreeable to their respective ranks."
The act of May '82 - Hen Vol 11 - 85 says, "That the navy officers sailors and marines of this state, shall, in all respects, have the same claims, and be sub- ject to the same restrictions and regulations in all matters coming within the purview of this act, as are allowed to the officers and soldiers in the land service of the same."
The act of Oct. '82 Hen Vol 11 - 162 . says, "That all officers, seamen and marines, or their represent- atives, shall be entitled to the same bounty in lands and other emoluments as the officers & soldiers of the Virginia."

Half pay to Virginia Navy line on continental establishment."
The act of May '83 Hen Vol 11 - 265 says, "That the auditors shall, yearly, issue to such of the officers of the state line and navy as are by law entitled to half pay, their warrants for the same."
Title "Half pay & commutation" Hen Vol 11 - 556 . says, "For the laws respecting half pay to officers in the state line and navy , see November 1781, ch. 19 Vol 10 - 467. May '82 ch. 47 sec. 13, ante pa. 85. Oct '82 ch. 35 44 ante pa. 162 170. May 1783, ch. 22, ante pa 265. Oct 1790, ch. 21."
Act of Congress 5 th July 1832 see Comp of Pen laws pa 12
See Atty General Butler's opinion in case of Bang White April 5 1836 [Comp of Pen laws pa 82]
See journals of Cong Nov '75 Rules for reg. Navy
The term inferior officer does not include any commissioned, or warrant officer, except the second master, surgeons mate, cook, armorer, gunsmith, master at arms and sail maker."

Rank of warrant officers of Navy, 1 sess. 28 th Cong. Report 457. May 1844.
Page 143.
"Fortunately for the warrant officers of the navy, Congress did, on the 13 th Nov. 1776 [see your Vol 1 - 549.] adjust the relative rank between the army and Navy; and the legislature of Virginia must be presumed, in the absence of any express indication, to have had in its eye, this adjustment of the question by Congress. Taking this as granted, we see the captain of a ship of 20 guns, ranking as Lieut. Col - of 10 guns, as a Major, a Lieut in the Navy, as a Captain on land. The specification descends no lower, but it is obvious that the warrant officers must have ranked with the subalterns on land; or there would have been no rank in the Navy below that of Captain on land, which would have been absurd. To avoid such a conclusion, the only way is to give the midshipman, and other warrant officers, the rank of subalterns. That has been done by Virginia. Congress considers the warrant officers as officers of the American Navy . They are expressly so stiled, and the pay of each graduated according to the relative rank among themselves. Warrant Officers are designated as officers of the American Navy . The warrant officer is the only correlative in rank, to the subaltern on land."