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

a n. an in
dv'dual who will have to pay my proportion that JUS
hce ought 10 be done to them.
am, therefore, for affirming the Judgment.
JUDGE BROOKE'S OPINION.
Commonwealth AIDES. Liiiv's 4dt'or
Inc great dhculty in deciding these cases il TO keen
within the line OF judicial duty Ii we pass that line and
estimate the claims of the officers of the army of the
revolution by their peril and their blood enter field
whch ought TO be explored by the Legislature and not
by the courts The obligations of national gratitude ,r
services generally very great, and in particular nsan
ces almost without example, can only be weighed by
the representatives of the nation The claim therc,r h
lore us must be decided on the legal oblioa,ions Of H.
government as in other cases, not on the obpntons
oil national gratitude. This the first case in which
while the feelings of the court revoed against its din,
V-yet II was so firmly bound by that DUTY that il
was compelled to pronounce a decision which has
oeeh scandased as unteeling and unjust II is imnos
sble TO read the opinions delivered in the case of ,h
commonwealth VS. Roanc ct al, without sympatbisno
WIN the Judges who pronounced those opinions and
wei may IL ne iearedh the opinion be delivered
WIN MOI De better treated; however that may be- |
ought not TO turn TO the right the lett to endure
think it impossible the testimony before me ,o
come 10 The conclusion that Capt Lilly continued in SER
vice 10 inc eni oil the war, that is to the proclamation
OIL peace by the Governor of the State-I enreI, con
cur wlth Judge Green in the view he has ,aken f IL,
MS claim to land bounty for three years service ONLY
Dy Iap. Lilly himself, which he received negatives
e proposition tha he served the end of the war T.
would be impossible TO account for his cl,i,nng land
bounty Tor three years service only which did not
ehute him to haiipay for life; when if he had served
filed fn
Doth nor could he be entitled TO a land bounty for ,Ir
years service only and also claim for service during
e war upon any sound construction of the acts of the
Legislature on that subjectHe must be presumed n
nave understood his own claim, much better especially
"hen ms name Is found in list of Board of officer,
aPPocu " ascertain he claims OF otiers.-The testi-
mony OF Commodore Barron, also the most com,ot.nt
"i'nesS VINO knew him Intimately well and whe was
In the same service, negatives the propositon nv ro
ing hothnS that tends TO support 1.-THE declart ,;ons
oil the other witnesses that they understood and beic
% he epIn f fhnx
enued to great credit for their veracy are entitled o
iittle weight, when ii is considered that none of Them
profess TO have any precise knowledge of the facts
speak oi-beievng, them that it is proved by any
Oh the foregoing testimony that Capt Lilly served 10
me END oil the what is the evidsncc of that nrono
sltlon to he extracted from the Report of fine Roa c
ohcers lately found and brought into the world? That
Doard' IL appears was constituted for the purnose
VI "seertaihS VINO were entitled TO hall-pay under the
ensuing laws, Out VINO had forfeited their claim bv mis-
ohuuc' OF oter causes; all that be extracted from
inc report Is that Capt L. had forfeited his eystinc
nat this was the character of the boards clear
hiernoe from the circumstance that some ofthe Off
GERS oil the State troops reported to have LOST ir
cai though they had served the end of the war Ir
am correct in thsCapt LIS pretensons are not STRENGTH
ened by any thing in the report, and his claim must
sun rest ON the other evidence and on the provisions NJ
the Iaw-and putting il the most foyourabIe ,rounJ
ana considering him as supernumerary officer the en-
curry Is, whether 1t can be brought within the Act of
i9,and the subsequent Acts on that subiect-On f,i
construction OF that Act ITSELF it would be impossible TO
Dilng the officers of the Navy within its provisons
,ney are not in terms included in 1.-THE officers of the
'SVy were commissioned to command particular yes.
ses, ana hSugh there was an organized NAVY hoard
ana STALL yet no officer could be accurately said Ia he an
ohcer o the Navy of Virginia in the sense that would
ne applicable TO more permanent Navy such as that
oil ue United Sates-Iher service was more ranscent
and uctuating, than the service of the State troons
ana tha may account for their being named or In
GUIDED IN the Act OF l779bu think il is very clear
na' inc Legislature considered them as included bv
the Acts of November, 1881, and Nav I7s3-Tbe A.,
oil November, 1884, Sec. H. enacs thatftbe officers
and seamen of the Navy of this State as thew stand ar
ranged bya late regulation shall be entitled IN the saoe
advantages, the officers belonging to This State r.; E
iahd rvceagrecaby to their respective ranks betb
e advantages here mentioned included half-pay for
ne Is az least doubtful; but by the Act of May i7s3
tnls doubt was then removed 1t enacts and directs that
the Auditors shall yearly issue TO such of the If
me state line and Navy are by law entitled IN b,If |
pay '1Sr warrants Tor the same and make return
&C ms Act though il provides for such officers Of
the Navy as were entitled to hslf-pay does NOT sncci
~ VINO they were, nor directly affirm what they were
Dn leaves that be settled by the Auditor or the courts,
NO inference can he drawn from the circumstance hat
warrants 10 be issued and the return made n, e.
merit session OF the Legislature that supernumerarv Of
hcers who had not served to the end oil the war were
enuued 10 half pay-becausc halfpay was de 10 eon,e
VINO did serve to the end of the war; having been an
Pernuherares and again having returned to service
" 'e terms OF the act 1879; however that may be-
1t IS very clear that the Legislature meant to Ieave &
enquiry to the Auditors and the courts This il made more
I"hiIeSt by the doubt which appears 10 have existed I
the ume, whether the supernurnerary officers who had
never Oee required and never returned TO service were
ehuled 10 hall pay. On the llth of December foovv
ing we ind that the Attorney General gave TO the An
dors ms opinion that the Supernumerary officers were
ehutlcd TO iali-Pdyu consequence of which il can be
hardly doubted, the Legislature the END of the same
ohth december, 1888, prepared the resolution direct
ing ne AudltoTs to issue warrants for hal nav
70 tue officers OF the State lne-Why the officers of be
Navy were not included ia that resolutions il is dicuIt
70 dec!de-as they were not included i'm terms i'm tbc
ACT Of I79, probably for the reason before stated and
very doubuy provided for hafpay by the Act Of
Noyemoer 1881 and as by the Act of Nav 1883 thonpb
included IN terms their right to half pay not being az
hrmatlyely settled, but left to the Auditor TO be sscer
famed ny the pre- existing acts, by not including them
IN The resolution of the 22d of December l7Sg the
Legislature left it as an open question: whether thev
were or we're not entitled TO half-pay-and thus the mat
yer stood until the Act Of 1890, which though il profess
os 10 explain tho Act Of 1770 in relation 10 be officers
OF tne slate line, uses to them the same lanouaoe
IS found IN the latter Act, dsregardine entirely Inc
ohcers oil the Navy. Was this because 5y that time
loc glslaure had come 10 the conclusion that tougb
lhey mad been named in the Act of May 1888 which
mas been before remarked their claim was TO be
famed bythe Auditors the courts that in truth not he
ing provided for in the Act Of 1770 they had no cans
pr was because,as was the fact that more than one
'e'se at most was in service the end of the war and
perhdPsno' That one precisely at The proclamation Of
peace ny TIE Governor OF tn State However that n,sv
pc II is certainly remarkable circumstance that H.