Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-01-18


the officers Of the Illinois regiment, nor of Crockett ne
rel imen OF the Navy expressly states that no
notice 10 taken Of the officers Of these regiments and Of
the Navy, because OF thsm had appeared bstrs
the Board The proceedings OF the suhssQusnt Boards
respecting these officers all found by Judge Ca.
bell the 3d Of October 1922 together with the ON.
cai returns Of several Of tue regiments and eorPs-by
connecting which original with the order Of the
Board requiring them, they were made, for the 6rst
time, authentic documents. But this Is not all-ths
Report says: "This Document ascer,aned the names
the office and all that aeroards REQUIRED as
the necessary proof Of Identity" This IT, indeed, con.
ceding great deal and II the Court Of Appesls will
think judgments in some will probably be Oh.
tsned, that could not be without the concession. A
repor, made in February and April 1882, admitted By
the Au 'or to be complete legal proof Of actual
vice. or OF continuing supernumerary until tho 22nd Of
Aprl, l7S3-one day short of which, pursuant 10 the
decisions OF the old and The present would be fatal
TO the claimant This 10 the by the Auditor
representing the Com s,on alth-aade notc IN order
to shoU that no peculiar avour is due to these con-
tracts.
VIA, have always thought aud uniformly stated TO the
claimants to hethe gre difficulty, when turned 70
the facts Of esch Aud in every case. is believed Of
special act OF Assembly giving his proof u
continuing until thu end Of the wsrhas been requrei IN
addition to that roll filed by Major Duyal hope the
want Of il will not be considered indispensable. II Il
shall be required, the parties in OF the must
out Of Court, as nothing butaccilen ehsnee--
mere chance, can save them.
was aware, that the claims would be resisted before
the Courts every ground and therefore apprehend
ed that strict legal proof would be required 10 most
OF my cases. will cay IT. by extraordinary diligence
aud fortunate concurrence OF circumstances, I an
prepared with that legal proof-iu others, have not,
aad never Ct % GET aoy, to strengthen the Report
Of the Board in 1882 II moreover not entirely Ger.
tain, that all are entitled to hafpay who r@pcrsd
by that Boa u, alth )ugh they may have been emitted
up to the time Of the Repot Yet the Auditor thinks.
all that was required sss he proof Of ideniy.
have already stated that the western regiments and
NAVY, were no, repre.en'ed before the Board, poyf
IF the proceedings Of which filed with the Conn
niittee by Major DuVai. will further add, 10 justi6.
cation OF the contracts that these objections have been
made TO the right oil these eorps demand the half pay
from VrgDia without reference 10 the question whs.
Their supsrnumeraries were entitled And In un.
derskipg the prosecution Of these cIaps these imps
dime nts and supsr added the difficulty ere
ated by the judgment OF the old Court against super.
numeraries. -
The Auditor thinks it incredible. that claimant, II
he had known his ancestors name was on that roll.
would make the enormous sacrifice Of l.3i or l-2 n.
mounting. he says, to or Sc 0o0 when 4 6tieth
part OF that sum would have equally effected the OBJ
jsc Why he supposes that any one until the late do.
cision OF the Court made would have attended q
all, to any claim, for the 6fieth part OF I2 or lSd
am at loss TO conf ecture.
Is there man who does not think 10 per cent M
high compensation noto, as he would have thought
three or four times that sum, when the Judgment Of
the highest Court Of the Land stood adverse and unim.
pesched! Yet no one thinks 10 per cent now too
murh.
But will state fact, incredible az il may SEEM 10
the Auditor: On the 23d day of Januarv 1880 n
laiman,-(hen in the City Of Richmond, having
Petition before the Legislature, for the combination Of
A Supernumerary Captain-his Representative siyinr
particular attention TO u for him, and he himself AZ.
lending from time to time 10 the Lobby and the Com
nittee ROOM for several dsys. with full knowledge of
III the faotso his csser-csms to my Office and o.
greed in case the Legislature, then in Session. should
not allow the claim, to give half of the amount
hat might be recove ed. if would Institute n suit. .
md attend TO it, or should in any manner therss
sr recover the claim. He, as Attorney for another
made similar contract; and Ihave brought both suits
He stated himself aud his friend be the sole repre-.
'enta,ives Of he respective ol:ims.
I xuiIt
name the person referred his name psr Sc win
atisy all who know him, that the contract was al the
lime OF making IT, judieious one on his part. He 10
not only gentleman Of INTEL gence, but remarkable
for his wi dom and discretion. in the of
nis private af,rs-acve. industrious and vigiIant he
had been the chssen Agent of Virginia. in the settle.
nent OF her claims upon he United States. mean
Mr. John Chew OF Frederick burg, the sole devisss Of
Mrs Kemp, who was devisee OF Capt. Peter Kemp
In personal interview, told him Capt Kemp's Dame
was on tn. Ro then filed with the Commtee Claim.:
but that there was no evidence touching the claim,
showing tina, Capt super nums rary, later than
the date OF The Board.-He agreed, ,ha,if I would
prosecute the claim, get the evidence &c at my own
expence aud trouble he would give third of what
might he rerovered-aDd If that contingent compep,a
..on shall become (Which is far from being certsn)
'raordnary, he will have no reason to blame him.
'e than il lie had sold (eveD for double the market
price, moety of Lottery ticket, which subse gu, NJ
y drew high prize.
will me ion another fact, to show the value which
the agents themselves placed these contracts prior
to the decision Of the Court of ApfeAl,. An Agent.
VIM cethtmf IN several cases-(ludgmentS
on hive OF which have been Obtained for a large A.
moanDwho had expended in the inve stiyatiop of tho
claims, about one halt Of what he proposed to receive
did Offer last winter after the Legislature refused 10
pay any OF the claims Considering n chance of sue
cess thereafter desperately for $500 TO transfer 10 me
all his interest in every claim, we, obig aiing himself
10 aid "a far as he could in the establishment OF Them
Had IL been sccsped, he would have been reimbursed
tor past actual eSpsDcss, and would have received a.
bout $3.50 for all his tronbeI declined the proposi-
ton, fortunately for bim.-Does not this fact alone
(Which will be atet q on oath before the Committee
II desired show that the contracts were viewed nv
the Agents, az oHfing mere chances-remote chances
NJ compensation and as equivalents not exceecins the
ordinary certain fees Few if any of the claimants
would have given any hing certain Several claims
were of red me, II would take less than one
hrd--'he owners considering that TOO much. Ids.
rlined, and Others have been engaged and judg ens
obtained for large sums. OF which even per GEN.
ever paid, viii be most ample remuperaioI-but
,ouc no, foresee this, and would take nothing les
hen ope-'hird per cent, the Auditor
kinks ore-fiiieb part ct that would equally have
,. cted the Object The truth H. the claims were con.
d,red almost b-oiutly tsperste and scarcely anv
II the parties would have been willing to incur any
,xpeDee whs,ever 10 the prosecution. The Lesisls.
urs had. however, been prevailed to ps.s some Of
hem-eviog eominu's'on in a sort Ct compremi.e-
Ind u the claims could have bee brousb forward Two
" three at each session, they would probably have
'een pat-Aod bus for this probability OF the l.. gle.
ature's doing someihne,I do rot believe any per,on
would have undertaken to prosecute the suits Tor one.
,at d. rot say this 10 d-prpcae the opposition of
my oBe-I mean 10 ask favour, and 20 far % INV
'wD interest IL concerned. would rather the LIE xsls-
ure ard the Courts should reject the claims tb 40 allow
hem II any impression in The latter case is to exist A.
tanst the fairness of my ccDduct-If the claims he
rejected. II will be conclusive. that the eoptiu rant