Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-04-09


ancc, su6s fo,utdf performance not being enough.
he doctrine on this last point is ths-if A owes
$l0o and says 10 HIM, IL you win pay me 500 on or
before given day, | Will release you FROM the debt,
and pays him that day. $3.50 only, he can't claim
TO be released But suppose 3 had Dispensed with the
payment of the 81 tor his own convenience or obstrcs
the payment oil it, or refuses to- receive thar
the $50, although party is ready and offers pay the
whole?
But deny that half pay was grattify-The gov
ernment had failed 20 pay their officers according ORR
ginal stipulation The paper money had deprecated.
long before the act Of i779. TO such degree that did
not afford the officer the accessories of lite so far from
being compensation for toll and peril.-fhis is mat
ter OF history, and is also proved by the Legislation of
the country.-Somethng due in Justice on this
count, TO those who had thus sustained loss-Besdes
IT something is not due TO place them better foot
ing in future, the ret'rdn officer retire. and
ones can't he procured Amongst other things, therefore,
the offer of half-pay made--If mainly intended
rs all knew. tokecp the reerGn officer in the field.
The case, then, stands thusA contracts TO pay so
much per day to reap for him until the end of his har-
vest, and ii Is agreed not, that may quit when he
picaseS; but if he continues TO the end he is receive
So extra The evening of the last day arrives when A.
Tor his own convenience tells he will him from
reapng the last handful and binding up the last sheaf;
tbs Tor my interest, says he, that you should quit
my service. and depart from the field, and does
quit:-ilas he served to the end of The harvest within
the true meaning of the contract and he he not,
entitled TO the IS?
Such it seems TO me, is the true question between
the state and such of her officers especially the Navy,
and the corps York VINO served as long as the state
J
rerY time Of these Transactions this ultcrorseward, of
hdDpdy was recognized and acknowledged to be just
by the government well Legislative and executive
will hereafter be more fully seen
But has been said (and this court their decisions;
hereafter noticed, puts il that ground) that the
did not end until the proclamation peace and that this
alone was the end Of the meant by the act Of
1873.
Iii true, that between nations and according tho
laws oil nations, as understand ends different
times and places, according to notice, &C., after which,
acts oil war are criminal
Thus, presume, the signature of the preliminary
| articles at Paris, and when that was made known i'm
England and France (as ii must have been long before
1t was made known hcre) acts OF would have been
as criminal there, they would have been here,
alter the same event made known here.
All this is very we'll between the beigerents and
their respective subjects and citizens but am greatly
mistaken if it has any thing TO do with the true con-
structon of the between the and her cit-
zcns and the questions OF law arising under it, between
those parties.
Can it be supposed that the law intended reserve
TO the state the power, it believed, from
the course OF events that the substantially at
an end, nay, after it iu,oWn TO be So and within
few days before it is proclaimed to discharge the army,
! leave the officers without a command, and direct them
to retire from the field and then say to them you have
not served TO the end of the war!
Surely, this not The understanding of either par
ty To this conract-The fair. natural. equitable and e-
gal understanding OF tsto the end Of The unless
sooner discharged. not Tor your crime or
fault, but because it is interest discharge you
we wish TO save expcncc to the state being salts
ned that your services longer waned.-Of this
we are the proper Judges, you have nothing TODD with
IT, and can't resist it, without violation of law, discip-
line and good order.
This principle will be shewn hereafter TO be al the
foundation of the claims of the supcrnumerares under
the act OF 1779 at present am considering ii in rea
ton TO those and especially the Navy, whose services
were dispensed WITH as no longer wanted, and TO
eXpcnce 10 the State. =
But the officers of the Navy stand on a higher
groundit seems TO than this argument places them-
They had been put under the ordeal, sied and cleans
ed, before the act of 1881 above noticed and those who
remained purged from the chat, recognized,
as At mere by name, in the of 17Sl.-lt sup
posed That that arrangement was then eXtan but turn
ed out that had been lost or destroyed during the in
vasions of Arnold, Philips in 17Sl-whcn the Execu
tive, therefore, carry thNt act into effect
the State line in order to purge and purify also, this
loss was doubtless discovered and in order that there
should he proper list TO guide the Auditors in issuing
warrants TO the Navy also, ordered that the two
senior officers of the Navy should unite with the Field
Officer, in order TO make out these Iistshe officers of
the Navy did not attend, doubt under the idea that
the previous arrangement, expressly recognized in tho
act rendered it unnecessary and not knowing of the
loss OF that list.-Aferwards, however, in May 1884,
another Board was formed, consisting of two field Off
GERS, and of Commodore Barron s. Capt. Lilly, to per-
form this duty TO the Navy. The Executive surely
would not have appointed them, had there been doubt
as TO the justice of their claims halfpay 1t pro-
baby known that Lilly Of the original six Cap
tains who were fced in command by the Executive, on
the former occason.This board did go into an ORR
gnal scrutiny to the officers of the Navy, but report
list which they say, according to the best evidence
they could procure, is agreeable to the arrangement Of
the officers of the Navy next preceding the Fall Ses-
sion of Assembly i'm 1871, and that the officers named
in that list have always behaved themselves in such
manner 10 be justly entitled to all the emoluments
given by law TO the officers of the State Navy-exccpt
one officer OLieut Cray who. they say they inform
ed, has since wiz in 1883 misbehved &c Thus they
not on furnish the substance of the original arrange
ment, but shcw that subsequent misconduct except
as above, had occurred TO deprive the parties OF their
claim 10 half pay.It of course certified 10 the Au-
dors rs their guide in issuing certificates far halt
pdY there being doubt in the minds of the Ex-
ecutive, at That d0Y but that they entitled half
pay.
/ On this list is--James Barron, Commodore
Richard Barron, Captain, commissioned January 6,
| 171G.
! Thomas Lilly, Captain, commissioned January II,
. 1776-and others.
In all, only one Commodore, II Captains four Of whom
were then dead, and five Lcutenants of whom
| Hrayl was dead including, | presume, the Marines
| and all
But il am wong in supposing that Capt. Lilly had
served TO the end of the war; within the true meaning
OF the act OF 1770 and also wrong in the opinion that he
is 10 be considered entitled 10 half pay under the act of
ISL he being of those officers in the list arrange
ment lately made, and provided for as IL persoB0i
H. and by IN that act; then he must AT least be
supcrnufncraTy officer of the Navy and il the super
numoary officer Of the State line is entitled to halfpay,
he must he also.
II is alle'ged though, that this question is closed and
4 shut up by two decisions of this court, the very
point.
II will be rccollectcd in May 1873, the Legislature
directed the Auditors 20 issue warrants for haipay to
the officers, both Of the State line and on the Navy, and
make return to the next Legislature that funds may be