Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1850-05-17

be said then, that he actually served until ''e e' " ~
Now it is my opinion that the supernumerary who hed
isof in readiness rcener the service Is az hueh Tn
, IA communication who served lnil Tue emu " 'l
,, ,;or MAS not the opinion OF The court OF appeals n
, y and therefore, the decision III hhrRhanI case as
- communication, not pertinent 10 '' cisc, i"r ""'
H. ninn tlcn entertained in that court, Markham was
IN communication, however the law might be as
~ officers who served until the end oil inc war Hence
say the decision obter d'ctum' ana yo sir VINO are
more learned III the law liaN "'' "" '' 'e'S''" Nv
,oches 10 such decisions.
secondly But if the question was properly before the
cor The error the opinion Is most manifest To show
dis !, Is necessary now up the right 10 communication
nv State officers Of any Kind
I7eo .iesortd That the officers who shall continue in
vire 10 the end the shall be entitled 10 half pay d
rnu life from the time OF their reduction =
virginia. BY her of l79 gave hall pay 10 all officers who
should the end Of the war; Or becom snpernumera
y and bv her she declared that this prov
ion should apply and continental troops il Congress
did not make tantamount provision Tor them.
In Nav 1883 protesting lis willingness 80 compensate
those whose services sacrifices and siengs have so Just
tile TO the appreciation and rewards Of their country
Congress
Resolved That all officers then in service in the lines
the States under the command ." Washington should
have Communication Of five years l pay in lieu OF hall pay
, That the communications should extend 10 The corps
NOT belonging the lines oi particular States and who are
entitled 10 half pay lor life, as aforesaid
B That il shall extend 10 the officers Of the hospital de
par.ment and 10 retired hall pay officers; and
l. To all officers entitled 10 halt pay Tor lr not included
in the preceding resolution.
Nav 1880 Virginia by her act declared mat the same
compensation half paw which had been allowed officers
Of the continental line houd be extended using the very
language of the resolution Of Congress-, 10 the officers Of
The State lincand Cont of Appeals Of Virginia dec
ed in the very first which up after the war; and
always since that iime that officer who made oil
good half pay with service 10 the end Of the war
was entitled communication after the passage Of the act o
1890 See AIarkhams case in Leigh and Marsons case,
Leigh Well the question Is, how was THIS done a. the
act o 1890 speaks OF half pay only and has not the word
Communication in il! The is obvious, viz that half
were
one being substitute for the other and the only mode
Of establishing a claim TO commu,aon 10 prove claim
IA half paw with service the end Of the war, because
mutation independent right but consequential
one being given 10 the dt pay ocS in lieu OF ha pay
And a. this the right OF the continental officer hall
nav officer and then the compensation Of hdlf pay
which had been allowed the continental officer was allow
ed 10 the State officer by necessary consequence the STATE
officer entitled 10 this Communication, and accordingly
has always received II.
This was the 'princpie established by the Court Of APP
pea Virginia; and Congress seeing the manifest justice Of
it, approved and expressly adopted the Of 1872 1885
and 5i5 and YOU sir under the advice Of the Attorney Ge
neral in the Of Dr. John Mnson Gait which had the
honor 10 present YOU decided that half pay" the
generic embracing rolnmutaon and therefore con-
mutation might and should be- paid under The act o lo32
without any further appeal To Congress, and accordingly the
claim of DR.. Cais representative paid 10
How then is the officer oi the State navy excluded from
his communication! Because, is said by Judge Green in
Markham case fr officers ot The line mentioned IN the
net of 1880 and The word navy is there. Now, II
seems T., me that the falacy this reasoning is perfectly
clear First because have shown that the officers OF the
nv and The officers III the navy stand precisely upon The
SANE footing hall pay, and have exactly the same
rights and the act oi 49, and the subsequent acts
being, Judge Coatcr properly says, IN LILY ease WIN
ont dissent any Judge be construed il they were
one. Now, If these positions be true, viz:
l. That the officers 81 the army and navy stand upon the
footing n 10 halt pay; and
. That by virtue OF the provisions 10 halt pay The Of
fccrs the army entitled 10 communications how can II be
denied la the officers OF the navy
confess that the conclusion appears Ia be liresst
he that ii the officer line the army is entitled
communications thu officer o the navy is and that the de
cSon in Markhams direct authority upon the pfn-
cipc" involved in my favor Thus, Them the argument
runs The officers o III" navy entitled 10 halt pay be-
cause htv have been placed upon the same footing with
The officers ot the army The officers OF the amy
entitled communication because IL is but substitute
for pay and the consequence Of the right Ia hall
paw; therefore, the officers Of The navy who upon the same
Grounds entitled 10 half pay, entitled IL comnla-
ton Makhan then, is authority directly in favor
ms client under the act ol -S2 because II establishes
rather il rcaii- ihe pri'cie which entities the officer
ii the navy 10 communications and es in the application
it, aud the Of ~ adopts the principles al decision which
had established by the Court ri Appeals o Virginia.
t suppose the decision liakhams be out and
nH' against the naval officer wo.n ha warrant tne l'Iec-
his claim when The principle established by every
decision III the court and recognized by Con
s. in Inc Of - il III his favor! Congress did not
a.op The decision in any particular but the prnc-
p OF decision established by the Court Of Appeals Of Viz
no IN hall pav cases and The principles established BY that
court give the naval officer undou5cd right 10 comnu
aIioa Congress must be presumed 10 have This and
had motive in Directing BY the act Of 1897 pay
established The Court of Appeals al Virginia. and yet
more cmrla;icalv when il admitted The principle expressly
applied naval officers by providing for the payment 10
virginia Of judgments which had been rendered in favor
nj officers ii thu State This clear and distinct
admission that Congress was bound pay officers OF the
navy whatever they were entitled IN demand oi the
State government.
The error u he opinion in Markhams ease in his
pcct i remarkable, the nudge who pronounced II
was one ihe eminent that Virginia has produced ana
sneak ri him with yencalon; but the l. not The
less palpa and il is most remarkable heranse il in ii!
conflict with the principle established in The same east
~ which communication j. given 10 the officers OF the army
under the Of 90 because half pay was considered a. emf
braclng communication. IL is manifest TINT the Judge would
have had hesitation in giving the Communication Ia officers
nl the navy NJ well army if the of 90 had
toned officers Of the navy although the speaks only OF
irif nan But what matters il whether the officers OF the
navy are mentioned that not ii BY other acts they
entitled 10 hall pay and the title 10 halt pay gives the
right IL Communication!
Having demonstrated, respectfully submit have
he right the naval officers commuaion upon every
principle justice weas strict law proceed now Ia con-
slider only other question in the case to vii: the pow
the honorable secretary to order the payment Of the
Upon this point, the first and obvious remark to be
made i that if the claim be due upon the principles ~
decision settled by the Court o Appeals OF Virginia. there
no need Tor farther argument for that seies the quos
on but understand the doubt, for do not understand
that Is more than doubt arises from the use OF the
corps, proceed 10 examine the question more min
urcg.
The 1882 provides for the payment Of five classes Of
claims, viz
and remaining unsasttd.
= The State regiment commanded by Brent and Dabney,
judgments unsalisied.
3 The regiments OF Clarke and Crockett and Rogers
yalrv being the Illinois troops Judgments unsatis.ied
4 The artillery under Marshall and Nuiter, and the
State cavalry under Nelson, Judgments unsatIsticd
s. The officers Of the navy vi Virginia, judgments
tis;cd.
And then follows the last clause of the act which directs
the Secretary OF the Treasury settle thosc claims for hall
ay If the officers Of the aforesaid regiments and corps which
have not been paid or prosecuted 10 Judgment"
In this enumeration there is distinct admission Of the
rights the naval officers and of the obligation pay them
because Congress- by this act did intend
ncw liability, but discharge old In directing the
pavient OF all judgments which had been rendered in their
lyc against the State OF Virginia therefore, Congress ad
united the original liability OF the United States the naya
officers.
But the intended 10 Do than 10 provide for those
in which judgments Ind been rendered Il intended
rrosd for and direct the payment of all the claims for
which Virginia liable upon the principles Of the hall
pay already decided by the Supreme Court OF Appeals OF
Virginia. which have not been prosecuted 10 judgment
ana hence the last clause in the act before rcced Til
not denied by any one understand and it has been
Gently settled indeed, in Ewels case in Of Off
GERS The line Judgment necessary The evidence in
support Of the claim be otherwise satisfactory. But is
said that naval officers embraced by this unless
they have obtained judgments, because the Secretary
j. directed in express terms 10 pay those naval officers