New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-08-03
KENTUCKY WAR Claims.


claim Of tho State Of Kentucky for reimbursement OF inc
sum Of s5a5q5s a. paid to the State militia for services
rendered during the years 1863, 1861 1865 ana 1866
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, wAsnINGToS, Aug. 2. l8Ii;
f claim WAS nc 10 indemnify the states
incurred by them In defense OF inc hen nSavng
FOR the execution Of this act prescribed series VI 'uo
| the second OF which is In these words; r. ., IRA,
have BEEN may e mustered and actually employed
e ssriee of The United states thai rmafsements will be made Or
carnations raised or attempted be raised bot not mustered ard re-
Ss s 10, I 1 o@ , :, ~ E
incurred organizing, e2Ppng nd I'M oVp o, ios,I an
sorty uSsss ue troops were se out and sues eIpUu Incurred
st the request under the authority Of tie President or SECRETARY
III not cOntcnded that the troop, for whom rein
birsement Is asked were ever mustered into tho Seco
Of the United States, nor Is II contended they were
called out at the request under the authority OK the
rne npoteS "a bar to the claim Fla however, sought
bring tho claim within the rule and in support Of this
Gen. sherman the communications OF Cen Vincent and
the approval Of the Secretary of War; The certificate OF
'0"' ''''-'''' - wAsn,Sgror, D c; jane g. 1871
Tor Governor @te Kentucky in Nashville and in
@ ysf hin f ga1 s,d P FSs:t % s a
& supply all Of which cane ,ae Ss s kG s sd
perfect willingness do and on the whole Gf Ines s M pro
@ ard was en- rag ss sod s' wahncs
G. did again Gov B%'te I'll the war was oTe'
militia the gropG;d but Do E.gaTi his efforts as n'd
''a the cause Of the Un'' states IN W = SHERMAN General
Con. Thomas Vincent, Assistant "a
the United states Army. in his communication dst cn
june 80 1871 after ennmGra@g SiOd That uO the
troops troops be" 5e recognized having been aet
ally employed IN tho service OF the G I'm tsa
Treasury Department in order that the claim may be
allowed under the act OF July 81 1891 TO indemny the
United States on the same day the recommendation OF
Cen Vncont ia approved, without comment, ny tno See
the order Of secretary Stanton Of July o. 1861
whereby he recognized certain troops Who naa po1n
I'm Is,
ever manifest difference between the TWO cases. lIo
Whose services Were he scrycs of the United States
by Gen Nelson, who was then an officer OF the 9nteo
States fSe Secretary Of War; Upon
well understood principle, War was OR 0G the
President TO recognize these troops shaving been called
into the service by proper authority although het
until after it was made The order Of Secretary Stanton
specific It met the points at issue ana place. r Se
troops called out by Gen. Nelson within the second run
of Secretary Chase before quoted IL Is rs ioGW' as,
appear. from the Official reports MorGsn George ThOma9
the h Of September 1851 the Home Guards a Den s %
Intel and he United states and were oa
Hsaps on 1po ssy and were
s bus the legal presumption Is under the ;pe
partent Is that rs Home Guard. %nsed we're
lawful authority slou such BY the accounting OBJ
of the Government EowIs NJ STANTON Secretary Of war
In the case under consideration the troops were not
called into service by authority q the President or OF
the of war or By any officer of the regular
the service of of Kentucky by State authority
officers appointed by the state and az ts az sb
command any officer Of the army Of the United ststes
In aDpears however to be true, as stated by Gov Dram
ette and by Lindsay the AdjutantGenera OF ken
tucly that during the period mentioned, the troops
ordad the orders of United states officers Gen. Lind
Say, in his affidavit Of July H. 1870 says inc
troops esp eeiSTpea With United States troops
Inv limit officers,
of the service for which reimbursement Is askeu was
The musorng Of the troops was by State authority
and at times from the 10th OK January 1862 10 INC
2Sd of October Of the same wear Adutant,Gen Lindsay
saws that they kept in the service until those dae
owing to the unsettled condition Oh tne country am te
and other outlaws that the service OF said troops was
0 beS e mustered out OF service as early
it was considered prudent to disband them
Tine HS5 by By S the ct app approved july IT, 1852 "a
SoJ entitled An Act to Allow and Pay to she state Of
in the Aiming and Paying Of Troops Employed in the
Of aa a baS act sne made cT
an allowance to the state Of Missouri for all of
by Sa Of s roops orsn4ed updd4 S
ordinsnces Of the Convention Of said State,
e d%ses 'ns saf
against the United states ana enforcing emf the Laws
entitled IAN TO reimburse the state Of Missouri for
PnS S f the res % a
s,ppressing the Rebellion" authorizes the Commission
ers sP by the State Of Missouri allowing only for dis
brsemens made and amounts assumed by the State
enrS D1a sa fGS no services by the GSyernor the re-
quest United satee department commander com
have been included The statute first referred to pro
ceeds the theory that ths state Troops employed
be paid the act OF July 1851 and the statute OF
April IT, 1885, Is equivalent 70 declaration tI , tne
at the request of the United States Department Com
ander could not be recognized under the act OF July
a.
The propriety aud legality of the rule made by seere
tary Chase has thus been recognized and Dy SUP
seanent legislation. Gen. Hewitt Agent for the State
OF Kentucky in his written argument hied IN the case
admits the secretary of the Treasury In recognizing
the claim must declare in effect that the second rule OF
Secretary Chase already quoted Is invalid oeins
rule, uses this language: A..
The Treasury Department could make no rule to Unit or restrict the
Conditions The adopted under be construed BY
In: sS ri. ''P essisiasi to the psyasS.
s the f .sPyiss the United is'
70. pCns q. the p.s the Or
horty Of the President secretary q War The Secretary
g admit In t% 4, q: u:
There are however two other sufficient answers the
Treasury would not be Justified setting aside rule Of
his predecessor unless the requiring are Inn
%ade Known to the COUNTRY before any considerable
expenses were incurred by the several states ana ,h
basis of tho claim under consideration The state OF
Kenqsy f in %SS Sa ptf s9s
be gOyeGRed in op s%ch sevces
of troops employed In suppreSslng the |
Innovation These Considerations taken in connection
with the fact aat S9ngTssi s act Of
the then established by Secretary Chase leave no
ground which this claim can be paid without the
II is also suggested the argument OF Gen. Hewitt
According Officer the Secretary the Treasury has
discretion in the matter and that II Is his DUTY 10 ssn