Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-01-28

could have determined who wa. entitled to iiafpsy for
life under the Act or f57S; the event on which alone
any officer could claim this compensation, via: the
end Of the wsr." had NOT then hsppsned The Act Of
November i1of ssens 70 have only two spc cc offsets:
Isf to obtain correct return OF All tn. officers Of the
State Line: 2J 10 ascertain how insny of tho ,upernu.
merary officers OF that line then unworthy Of re-.
cesiag the emoiumrDt provided Tor thr bv law II
is apparent that the unworthiue.. which in 1871
or 1852, would have induced forfeiture. OF hi. ordinary
ha'PAx as .npcrnumerary, would have deprived ia.
sane OH er OF his iaIfpay tor life. The
oil these boards. must be regarisd then az conclusive
sgatns the claims OF those officers who were di,crim
mated" AZ unworthy to receive h,lfpsy. while they
cannot establish the claims OF any ha!f.pay life
The boards Of February and April 1881 returned iiss
OF the ls and I'd State regiments: the Ia and al State
artillery reeinen the State garrison end Ions reg
ments, the State cavalry and the Illinois troop
drsgoon. The boards state IN, no return. could be
made Of the officers OF the Navy or Of colonel Crock
ss regiment, a. no one attended furni.h The necs.
sary informatin with regard TO them. On the 18th
December, 1885, after the close Of tn, war another
board Of State officers convened u order of the
Executive, on the special apple alton Of colonel Crock
EFT, Tor the purpose OF Equiring into the claims and
merits OF hi' regiment Your committee presume that
this board ordered under the authority of the Act
Of November. ISL. Although this board were espe-
cisy required by the order Of the Executive to inore
int the right Of the officers Of Crock~us 10
hsifp.y, and though tho had then they de-
clare that they think themselves qualified TO de.
'ermine what emolumebts the officers Of this vmen
are entitled TO by law" No retura was made of Crock
etrs regiment. that your committee are appri.ed Of
On the 18Th OF May, 1854, board Of Naval officer.
were convened by order OF the Executive. WIN ,e,ur,
ed list of the officers of the Navy of the ate: and
only Of those officers 10 reported rs being un-
worthy OF receiving the smoIumens provided by law
LUIS board say nothing in their r-port 10 the emol
ments to which they deemed the officer. entitled
Your committee perceive that in October $780, an Act
Of the Virginia Assembly was passed as folowc-
"Whereas doubts have arisen whether certa;, o;c.rs
hereinafter described have right TO the
oil half pay; for the removal Of such doubts. BE il en-
acted tia. the same compensation Of half pay should
De It.nded 10 ho'e officers of the State Line, who
continued in actual service to the end of the war; a..
was allowed TO the officers Of the Contin Line; and
aso 10 those who became super numerary, and bcing
afterwards required did again enter into actual service
and eoanue therein TO the end Of the war; any Act CT
Acts TO the contrary notw h-tanding 1t seems from
the general design and prsseoogy of this Act, that
doubts have been sn'ert,ined. whether the officers Of
the State Line were entitled to hapay under the Act
OF I1I9 The existence and prevalence Of such dou
confirmed by The fact that none Of those officer, OBJ
nH 'nsr haPay prior to the passage Of the Act Of
i'So. Ihe Act OF May l779, was generally regarded
as comprehendng only those officers Of the State Line
whs were commissioned in the bat'alons of the State
'ne date oil its passate. This construction and the
donat, whether even they were entitled TO hafpay
under the Act Of l779 seems to have induced the a.
dopoR OF the Act Of 1870. A were large proportion
Of the officers Of the Virginia Line entered the service
aer the passage OF the Act Of l779 they would have
been destitute Of all tho benefits provided by that Act
Tor tiosr then in service, hut for the Act of 1890
hi' construction OF the Act o: l779, also
plain the meaning and intention Of tho Act OF I7sI
heretofore alluded toy and the of the hoard
OF officers held under il.
IL appear to your COMMITTEES, that there {. no ambi
guilty IN the terms. or doubt the nention of the
Act OF $780, il was intended, as IL. language clearly
imports, 10 provide FIR officers who were not provide.
Tor before, or whose claims considered doubtful
our committee cannot question the right Of those OF.
hcers OF the State Line, who were commissioned In
May I1s TO the halfpsy for life, provided they are
SIoneh' within its terms. The Act Of 100, then must
nave osen designed TO provide for tho,e officers. who
were commissioned after May. ITO Officers, who
continued IN actual service until ,he end of the war;
have always been beid entitled to the haif-pay whe-
her hey claimed II under this Act of I779, or that Of
1870 The only question, which has arisen under the
provisions OF either Act IL that which involves the
right: Of 'upernumerAry officers to hslf.pay. Thi.
question Is not now agated TOR the first time II had
s origin rdateiy after The cIose Of the re youon
when the facts and the law all fresh in the reco
'eeuon Of those living agents. who claimed this emou
ment. was then determined by the judgm-n nj of the
supreme Judicial Tribunal of the Commonw ah; ssd
tue decision has been acqaisscsd in until those whom
."ot "'o . o. justice sr Of was due have
eu IN the mystery Of tradition. Your committee feel
their inability to overcome the difficulties with which
s CT mas been surrounded by the lapse of
~ nan century, though they sensible that II. i'm
partancs demands the most deliberate investigation
ihey regret however thar il should reman To be SUI.
peced at this late day. and by the remote
Of the illustnous officers OF our revolution that Viz;
nia has been for moment unmndful of the gratitude
or the justice, which due to the fathers of our
country. 80
Very soon after the passage Of the Act Of 1900 a
number OF the officers Of the State Line presented their
claims for half pay to the Auditor The were d,alIow
ed upon the ground that the claimants had not served
the lend OF the war;. An appeal was taken to the Dis
ric Court at Richmond, and the claims were bv that
Gour referred to the General Court for its decision
The General Court decided that the petitioners were
titled to half pay, because they had served i'm the end
oil the war An appeal was taken from this decision
TO the Court OF Appeals by the Attorney General ON be
nan oil the Commonwealth The petitioners claimed
under the Act oil 1870, as they were commissioned in
the spring OF 1884, some time after the passage of the
Act Of 1I79, aud were disbanded by the Executive ot
the State, in February 1888, after which tim. the U
were not required to enter the service again The
Court Of Appeals determined that thew were moi en,;
tied to hall pay, either under the Act of ITO or I79O
because they had not served to the end of the war In
deciding on the claims OF these petitioners the Court NJ
Appeals seem to have interpreted both the Acts of t77o
and l!9o as only emitting those officers 10 half
who should serve to the end of the war; or who heinz
suPernumcraries, should have again entered the
and continued therein to the close of the war Tbev
,eI determined that those officers only to he re-
garded asserving till the end Of the war who served
uii the 22nd OF April 1888, when the signing of tho
Prcnmnaries OF peace officially aDnounccJ ,nd
me troops OF the State disbandcd by the Executive
ne claims OF the petitioners dismissed ybon,
par or prejudice OF any future claim or fuller proof
constituting this reservation inmating that some hone
might be entertained Of more favorable result the
same officers again presented their claims for half psv
70 the AUDITOR and OH their being again dsaowed an
Peals were taken to the High Court of Chsncerv
was not alleged that any "furher proof could be ey
hibed In their behalf" The Chancellor after exnr..
sing some scrupes as to his Jurisdiction entertained
aowcd the petitions. upon the ground tn the ca,an
hah served ito the end Of the war" The Detionor.
were again taken TO the Court Of Appeals where tbs
decision OF the Chancellor reversed and the claims
again rejected.
Drinc ~ tn..,