63d Congress, ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, j Report
M Session. \ 1 No. 97.
PAYMENT OF CLAIMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FINDINGS OF THE
COURT OF CLAIMS, REPORTED UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER
ACTS, AND SECTION NO. 151 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.
Decembeb 3, 1913. — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and
ordered to be printed.
Mr. Gregg, from the Committee on War Claims, submitted the
following
REPORT.
[To accompany H. R. 884G.]
The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred the bill
(H. R. 8846) making appropriation for payment of certain claims
in accordance with the findings of the Court of Claims, reported
under the provisions of the acts approved March 3, 1883, and March
3, 1887, commonly known, respectively, as the Bowman Act and the
Tucker Act, and also under the provisions of section No. 151 of the
act approved March 3, 1911, commonly known as the Judicial Code,
submit the following report:
The committee recommend the passage of the bill, with certain
amendments stated in detail at the end of the report, which amend-
ments are for the purpose of adding a few claims to those included
in the bill as introduced.
This bill, as indicated by its title, has for its purpose the making
of the appropriation necessary to pay various claims which have
been referred to the Court of Claims by various preceding Con-
gresses, under the provisions of the Bowman and Tucker Acts, and
also under section 151 of the Judicial Code. All the claims included
in this bill have been tried by the Coiu't of Claims and have been re-
ported back to Congress by the court for final action.
The various acts under which these claims have been judicially
tried are hereinafter set forth.
Owing to the fact that the last act making appropriation for pay-
ment of claims of the classes included in this bill was that approved
February 24, 1905 (33 Stats., 743), the present bill represents the
accumulation of claims reported by the Court of Claims under these
acts for over eight years.
a-'^Do2-S'
2 CLAIMS U^^DEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
The amount carried by this bill is $1,729,012.11, and the number
of claims inchided is 1,158.
As has been previously stated by this committee, proper legisla-
tive regard for the decisions and findings of the Court of Claims
would obviously result in appropriations being made for payment of
the just claims reported by the court at every session of Congress; but
that has not been done, and the result of congressional inaction is
that the present Congress is confronted by a large number of ad-
judicated claims, some of which have been awaiting appropriation
for eight and nine years, owing to the fact that even the appro-
priation act of February 24, 1905, was not brought down to date, but
left pending a number of claims previously reported by the Court of
Claims.
All the claims included in this present bill have been previously
passed by the House, save 67 claims, all of which, save 15, were tried
by the court at a recent date and too late for consideration in con-
nection with the various bills of similar character which have from
time to time passed one or the other of the two Houses of Congress.
The greater number of these claims covered by the present bill have
previously passed both Houses several times, but in bills which
failed to become laws.
H. E. 15372, Sixtieth Congress, passed the House, was amended in
the Senate, and failed to become a laAv. In the Sixty-first Congress
S. 7971 was passed by the Senate, covering many of these claims, but
failed to pass the House, which passed instead H. E. 32767, cover-
ing only war claims, and which bill failed to pass the Senate, al-
though the two bills were almost identical so far as concerned war
claims. In the Sixty-second Congress H. E. 19115 was passed by the
House, and as passed contained all the claims embraced in the present
bill save the small number mentioned, which w^ere not before the
House in time for inclusion in that bill. That bill, H. E. 19115, was
passed by the Senate, but with numerous amendments, and the con-
ferees were unable to agree upon any final report.
It is thus seen that in each of the three preceding Congresses a bill
for payment of war claims alloAved by the Court of Claims has passed
each House of Congress, but the two Houses never agreed on any one
bill. The present bill is presented in the hope that it may meet favor-
able consideration and become a law,
PREVIOUS APPROPKIATIONS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER
ACTS.
The first general appropriation for payment of findings of the
Court of Claims under these acts Avas nuide in the Fifty-first Con-
gress. Prior to that time various individual appropriations had been
made for payment of Bowman Act findings, aggregating $128,158.73.
The total of appropriations heretofore made to pay claims allowed
under these acts is as follows :
Prior to Fifty-first Congress $128,138.73
Fifty-first Congress (act Mar. 3, 1891; 26 Stat, 1445) 573,763.30
Fifty-fifth Congress (act Mar. 3, 1899; 30 Stat., 1161) 1,722,655.79
Fifty-seventli Congress (act May 27. 1902; 32 Stat, 207) 444. 503. 10
Fifty-eiglith Congress (act Feb. 24, 1906; 33 Stat, 743) 1,197,272.60
Sixtietti Congress (individual act) 3,390.00
Total 4, 069, 723. 52
oociivrNrs o^^'is^
DEC 1?.9^3
R^CHV^^
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 3
CLASSES OF CLAIMS.
The claims covered by this bill may be divided, generally, into three
different classes, as follows:
1. Claims of volunteer officers of the Union Army during the
Civil War for the difference between the pay they actually received
and that which they would have received had they been mustered into
the service in the rank of the position which they really filled; also
included are claims of Union soldiers or officers of various kinds,
each depending upon special circumstances, and several claims arising
from service during the War with Spain. The total carried for these
former officers and soldiers is $51,240.49 in 163 claims.
2. Claims of churches, Masonic and Odd Fellows lodges, schools,
hospitals, and a few county or municipal corporations not at seat of
war for use and occupation of their premises, with incidental dam-
ages thereto, and also, in several instances, for buildings torn down
and used for military j)urposes, such as construction of quarters, etc.
There are 370 claims of this general class, aggregating $486,403.29.
3. Claims of individuals for Army stores or supplies found by the
Court of Claims to have been taken under proper authority for Army
use, and including some claims for rent of buildings used for military
purposes fit Federal Army posts during the Civil War. There are
625 of these claims, aggregating $1,191,368.33.
Attention is called to the fact that no claims for propertj'^ burned
or destroyed are included in this bill, and claims of this class were
not considered, and such claims are not to be prejudiced because of
their not being included herein. They will be taken up for consider-
ation hereafter.
ANALYSIS OF BILL BY CLASSES OF CLAIMS AND BY STATES.
In the preparation of this bill every claim has been scrutinized;
and if included in the bill, it received that favorable consideration
solely because the facts reported by the Court of Claims showed it
to be a claim possessing merit.
Naturally, however, the greater number of the claims of Federal
officers come from Northern States, which furnished the majority of
the Union troops. Naturally, also, the greater number of the other
claimants are from Southern States, where the operations of the
Union Army were principally conducted during the Avar.
It is deemed proper, however, to inform the House just how the
proposed appropriation will be distributed, both as to classes of
claims and according to the States, and following is a tabulated
statement conveying this information.
As explanatory of the table which follows, it is proper to state that
it is prepared, as is the bill, from the findings of the Court of Claims.
Many of the claims are represented by administrators or executors,
and "of course it is impossible for the committee to know how widely
the sums appropriated may be ultimately distributed among heirs
or next of kin, who are doubtless more scattered than the findings
of the Court of Claims would show.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC.
States.
Officers and
soldiers.
Churches, lodges,
colleges, hospi-
tals, counties,
etc.i
Individual claims,
stores and sup-
plies, etc.
Total amount and
number of claims
for each State.
Num-
ber.
Amount.
Num-
ber.
Amount.
Num-
ber.
Amount.
Num-
ber.
Amount.
1 . Alabama
18
9
$.34,374.00
10,515.00
41
36
1
1
849, 289. 66
60, 213. 67
480.00
675.00
59
45
6
5
3
6
5
44
20
20
13
11
112
67
3
47
5
13
4
63
70
1
2
1
1
5
4
11
26
1
9
2
1
13
1
13
1
200
3
1
172
1
65
3
$83 663 66
2. Arkansas
70,728.67
2. 322. 69
3. California
5
4
3
3
1
$1,842.69
925. 62
412. 19
636.22
106. 21
4. Colorado
1 600 62
5. Connecticut
412. 19
6. District of (Jolumbia..
3
3
31
4
1
6,015.66
7,710.00
30,508.00
7,082.00
1,200.00
6,651.22
1
13
1,170.00
10,305.00
S, 986. 21
40 813 00
9. Illinois
16
19
13
8
16
4, 647. 90
4, 827. 80
3,569.54
1,463.61
4.131.15
11,729.90
10. Indiana
6, 027. 80
11. Iowa
3,569.54
3,097.61
12. Kansas
3
52
65
1,634.66
53,498.00
269, 683. 82
44
2
33.675.00
21,700.00
91,304.15
14. Louisiana
291 38:^ 82
15. Maine. . ..v
3
1,074.26
1,074.26
16. Maryland
15
7, 028. 33
32
1
1
1
58
33.io9. ig
5, 538. 00
3,040.00
200. 00
110,574.90
62.760.00
40, 137. 52
17. Massachusetts
4
12
3
2,328.72
2, 542. 83
556. 10
7,866.72
5 582.83
19. Minnesota
756. 10
20. Mississippi
5
19
5,323.66
39,389.75
115 897 90
21. Missouri
22. Montana
8
1
2
1
1
4, 173. 54
53.23
554.07
40.33
.20.39
100,323.29
53. 2S
23. Nebraska
554.07
24. New Hampshire
40.3a
25. New Jersev
20.39
26. Nevada
5
3
1
16
9,706.00
5,505.00
9, 562. 34
17,367.00
9,706.00
6 137.18
27. New Mexico
1
10
632. IS
3, 390. 92
28. New York
12 953.26
29. North Carolina
10
10,986.00
28 353.00
30. North Dakota
i
8
2
1
6
1
260.35
3,120.21
626. 48
417.31
1,388.81
701.26
260.35
31. Ohio
1
175.00
3, 295. 21
32. Oklahoma
626. 41*
33. Oregon
417.31
34. Permsvlvania
35. Rhode' Island
4
660.00
3
3,471.00
5,519.81
701.28
36. South Carolina
9
17,773.33
4
19,160.00
36 933 33
37. South Dakota
1
2
391.31
226.59
391.31
38. Tennessee
60
138,976.88
iss
3
290,696.50
3,190.00
429,899.97
3 190 00
39. Texas
40. Vermont
1
2
1
124.06
5,277.64
115.41
124.05
41. Virginia
123
118,401.00
47
111,038.75
234,717.39
115.41
42. Washington
43. West Virginia
37
35,951.00
28
18,460.50
.54,411.50
661.56
44. Wisconsin
3
661.56
Total
163
51,240.49
370
486, 403. 29
625
1,191,368.33
1,158
1,729,012.11
• While generally classed as church claims, this class includes several claims of counties and municipal
organizations not at seat of war.
MANNER IN WHICH CLAIMS WERE REFERRED TO THE COURT OF
CLAIMS.
While a brief history of the legislation pertinent to the subject
of these claims will be given later in this report, a few words as to
the manner in which these claims were sent to the court may not be
improjDer.
By the Bowman Act, approved March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 485), it
was provided that any committee of either House of Congress having
pending before it any claim which is not barred from consideratioii
by any law of the United States might refer such claim to the Court
of Claims for judicial ascertainment of all material facts.
It would appear that the Committee on War Claims is the com-
mittee which has most availed itself of this means of learning the
facts of clairns. All of the findings which have been considered in
connection with this bill in claims sent to the court under the Bow-
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 5
man Act show the reference to have been made by this committee.
None of the Bowman Act references covering any of these claims
now considered was made by any other committee.
The very fact that the Court of Claims has tried a claim under the
Bowman Act shows, in law. that the claim was not barred, either by
failure to duly present it or by the inherent nature of the claim itself.
In its practical application to war claims it means, generally speak-
ing, that the claim in question was previously presented to some
officer or tribunal having jurisdiction to entertain it; otherwise, under
the terms of the act, the court would itself have no jurisdiction to
entertain it.
Many of the claims involved were referred to the Court of Claims
under the provisions of section 14 of the act of March 3. 1887 (24
Stat., 505), commonly called the Tucker Act.
In every such claim a bill for the relief of the claimant has been
introduced in one of the Houses of Congress. Such bill has been
■considered by the appropriate committee, and as the result of that
consideration a formal resolution has been adopted by the House
wherein the bill was pending referring the pending bill to the court
ior proceedings similar to those directed by the Bowman Act.
The jurisdiction of the Court of Claims under the Tucker Act
was much broader than under the Bowman Act. as under the Tucker
Act any bill providing for payment of a claim, except a pension,
njight be referred to the court. The Tucker Act therefore operated
to open the door of that court to many claims of which no jurisdiction
could be taken by the court under the Bowman Act. such, for in-
stance, as claims for rent of real estate at seat of war; for supplies
taken from possession of the heirs of an undivided estate, even
though there was an administrator Avhose loyalty could not be estab-
lished ; and claims of classes which might have been previously pi'p-
sented to the Southern Claims Commission or Quartermaster Gen-
eral or Commissary General, and which had become barred for
failure to so present them. The wide distinction between the juris-
diction of the court under these tAvo acts is treated and very lucidly
explained in the case of Dowdy. 26 Court of Claims, 220. decided
shortly after proceedings were begun before the court under the
Tucker Act. It is true that in case of Brandon, administrator, 46
Court of Claims, 559, the court declined to take jurisdiction under
a Tucker Act reference of a claim which might have been presented
under the abandoned and captured property act, the claim being for
cotton alleged to have been seized and sold and proceeds covered
into the Treasury. That decision was by a divided court, however
(see dissenting opinion of Justice Howry, 47 C. Cls.. 403), and it is
noted that the reason for the conclusion there announced seems to be
largely that there is danger of " conflicting claims " to the same
cotton or proceeds, which could not be adjusted under a reference of
only one of such possible claims, and of the enactment of section 162
of the Judicial Code, opening the court to such claims only where
the seizure occurred after June 1. 1865, which is held by the court to
negative the idea that Congress intended claims arising prior to that
date might be adjudicated or considered.
By the act entitled "An act to codify, revise, and amend the laws
relating to the judiciary," approved March 3, 1911, and commonly
6 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC.
called the Judicial Code, the BoAvman and Tucker Acts were re-
pealed, and section 151 of that code was substituted for the previous
acts; that section 151 of the code is practically a reenactment of
section 14 of the Tucker Act, above mentioned, Avith the amendment
made thereto by act of June 25, 1910.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
The reference of a claim or bill to the Court of Claims under the
Bowman or Tucker Acts, or under section 151 of the Judicial Code,
means merely that the claimant has conferred upon him the privilege
of presenting his claim to the court for a judicial determination of
the facts.
A sworn petition must be filed, under the rules of that court. Some
claims, like those of former officers of the Union Army, above men-
tioned, may doubtless be established in a large measure by record
evidence, and without the production of parol evidence to any great
extent.
In the ordinary war claim, however, for Army stores or supplies,,
or arising from occupation of real estate, witnesses are examined, as
in chancery practice. Depositions are taken in behalf of claimant,
and his witnesses are subjected to cross-examination by counsel rep-
resenting the Government, detailed in most instances from the De-
partment of Justice. Lawyers in the service of the Department of
Justice also make independent investigations of claims, and if any
facts are found unfavorable to the claim witnesses are called for the
(lovernment and are examined in the same manner as witnesses for
claimants.
After the taking of testimony briefs are prepared by counsel for
claimant and also by counsel for the United States. Many cases
are argued orally before the court. An active defense is made in
every case by counsel representing the Government, so that the proof
of a claim in the Court of Claims is no merely formal matter. Every
case has been actually tried, and all proper defenses have l:)een made
by Government counsel employed for that particular purpose, under
the direction of an Assistant Attorney General.
The findings of fact made by the Court of Claims, and which have
been considered in connection with every claim included in this bill,
represent the result reached by the court after the trial of each case.
The standing expression used by the Court of Claims introductory of
its findings of fact is as follows :
iippenred for the claimant, and the Attorney (rpneral. hy "Sir.
. liis assistant and nnder his direr-tion. aijpearod for tlie defense
and ))rotection of the interests of the United States.
Th(> conrt. upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and ar^nnients
of cotnisc'l on l)oth sides, makes the following findings of fact.
By act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat., 837), it was provided that in
cases tried under said section 14 of the Tucker Act the court should
accompany its findings of fact with —
such conclnslons as shall he snfiiclent to inform Congress of the nature and
character of the demand, either as a claim, legal or equitable, or as a gratuity,.
against the TTnited States and tlie amount, if any, legally or equitably due from
the TTnited States to the claimant.
CLAIMS UNDEK THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 7
In cases tried since June 25, 1910, under the Tucker Act, or under
section 151 of the Judicial Code, the court has added its conchision
to its findings in each case. One of these conchisions in a claim for
taking; of Army supplies is here quoted from a finding or report on
one of the claims covered by the bill, as follows :
CONCLUSION. •
Upon the foregoing fiudiugs of fact the court concludes that the claim herein
is an equitable one in the sense that the United States received the benefit of
the supplies for which claim is made.
The decision of the Court of Claims in case of Smith v. United
States (19 C. Cls., 691) throws considerable light on the procedure
of the court under the acts mentioned. The following is quoted from
that case:
This case was ti'ansmitted to this court by the Committee on War Claims ot
the House of Representatives under the Bowman Act (22 Stat. L., 485), and
with the letter of transmission were sent a number of ex parte affidavits filed
before that committee in support of claimant's demand.
The claimant moves that those affidavits be printed and used in evidence at
the trial of the case. This motion can not be allowed.
The first paragraph of the report of the Committee on Claims of the House
of Representatives in favor of the Bowman bill is as follows:
" The only question presented to this committee for their consideration by
the above-named bill is whether Congress and its committees and the exe<nitive
departments shall have the privilege or right, if they deem it advisable, to have
the facts in any case before them properly investigated by a tribunal which can
ascertain those facts in a legal manner, in the same mode adopted by the courts
which have jurisdiction of similar causes, and with the safeguard to the Govern-
ment of the power of cross-examination of witnesses, all of which is impossible
to be accomplished by Congress, its committees, or the executive departments."
We refer to this language, not as furnishing any rule to us for the interpre-
tation of the Bowman Act, but simply as showing the intent of the House of
Representatives, and presumably of both Houses of Congress, in passing that
act, to have the facts of any case ascertained " in a legal manner, in the same
mode adopted by the courts which have jurisdiction of similar causes and with
the safeguard to the Government of the power of cross-examination of wit-
nesses."
That act authorized this court to adopt rules directly ai)plicable to depart-
mental and congressional cases, and we have adopted two such rules, framed in
the spirit of the language of that report.
The first of those rules is sec-tion 1 of Article XXII. as follows:
" Section 1. Cases involving controverted questions of fact or law in any
claim or matter transmitted to the court under the provisions of section 2 of
the act of March 3, 18S3, entitled 'An act to afford assistance and relief to
Congress and the executive departments in the investigation of claims and
demands against the Government,' shall be proceeded with in like manner
and subject to the same rules, so far as applicable, as other cases in the
court under its general jurisdiction, except as herein provided."
The second rule is in the second sentence of section 7 of the same article,
the whole of which section is as follows:
" Sec. 7. Within two months after the mailing of such notices, or within
such further time as the court may allow, any person directly interested in
the case may appear as a party therein by filing his petition, under oath,
setting forth' concisely and specifically his claim and interest. Thereafter the
case shall be proceeded with, in like manner and subject to the same rules,
so far as applicable, as other cases in the court under its general jurisdiction."
These two rules place departmental and congressional cases, as to the matter
of evidence, on the same footing as any other case against the United States
brought in this court, and thereby bring them under the operation of section
3083 of the Revised Statutes, which reads thus:
" In taking testimony to be used in support of any claim, opportunity shall
be given to the United States to file interrogatories, or by attorney to examine
8 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC.
witnesses, under such rejiulatious as said court shall prescribe; and like
opportunity shall be afforded the claimant, in cases where testimony is taken
on behalf of the United States, under like regulations."
The same rule was later stated bv the Court of Claims in Carroll
r. United States (20 C. Cls., 431),' as follows:
But the court is of the opinion that the purpose of the Bo\Yman Act was not
to dispense with legal evidence, but to acquire it ; and that when a claim is
transmitted by a committee of Congress under the act the purpose is to secure
the judicial ascertainment of facts by judicial means, namely, by that which
the law defines to be competent evidence.
In brief, it may be stated that every ca.se tried by the court under
the acts mentioned pursues about the same course as does an ordinary
case in courts of civil jurisdiction, save that here the court, consisting
of five judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate, act as a jury, and determine the facts. All testimon}^ is taken
under cross-examination. It often happens that owing to the fact
that witnesses are widely scattered, testimony is taken on one case in
."several diiferent places or States, the attendance of counsel both for
the United States and for the claimant being a necessary incident to
the taking of depositions.
The interests of the Government are further safeguarded by the
fact that no counsel for the Government is permitted to admit any
material fact against the interest of the Government; every material
fact upon which a claimant relies must be proven.
One fact the committee desires to emphasize, and that is, that this
bill does not include by any means all of the claims which have been
tried by the Court of Claims under the Bowman and Tucker Acts.
Many such claims, in fact, the great majority of them, have been
made the subject of adverse findings which have caused them to be
eliminated from consideration in connection Avith the preparation
of this bill.
The reports of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the
defense of cases in the Court of Claims show that since the enact-
ment of the BoAvman Act on March 3, 1883, and of the Tucker Act
on March 3, 1887, practically two claims out of every three that
have l)een referred to that court under these acts have been either
dismissed or made the subject of adverse findings, and it further
appears that even Avhen allowances have been made by the Coui-t
of Claims the claims have been so scaled down or reduced by the
court that the total of favorable findings during the long period
mentioned, of about 28 years, have been only about 8 ])er cent of the
total amounts claimed in all the cases referred.
It is thought by your committee that even this small percentage
includes some claims wherein findings have been nuide favorable on
property, but adverse on loyalty, and which under existing practice
will therefore not be paid.
The facts above mentioned Avas set forth in House Eeport No. 288,
Sixty-second Congress, second session, upon the bill (H. R. 10115)
which passed the House in that Congress, and it Avas then stated by
the conunittee:
In the natui'al cuuise of events the j)roportion or percentage of favorable
findings in war claims must be less in the cases still pending than in those
already tried, owing to lapse of time and the ini])ossil)ility of adducing the
amount and character of proof demanded by the Court of Claims.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 9
The records of your coiiiinittee also show a decided diiiiiiuitiou in the nviruber
of new claims presented for reference to the Court of Claims, such as leads
to the belief that practically all war claims which furnish any reasonable
probability of collection have been presented, and are now pending either before
Congress, awaiting reference to the Court of Claims, or before the court,
awaiting trial.
The correctness of the statement quoted is shown by the fact that
since H. R. 19115 Avas introduced in the Sixty-second Congress,
January 13, 1912, proposing appropriation for payment of the allowed
war claims, there have been certified to Congress by the Court of
Claims only 55 claims which have been favorably considered by the
committee in preparing the present bill. That number of claims has
been added to the claims covered by H. R. 19115, Sixty-second Con-
gress, with a few previously inadvertently overlooked.
In connection with the bill now presented, all claims reported as
late as the end of the Sixty-second Congress have been considered.
This means, therefore, that from about January 1. 1912, to March
3, 1913, only 55 claims were reported by the court of such a charac-
ter as to entitle them to be favorably considered for inclusion in the
present bill.
Some claims have been considered by the committee which have
been omitted from this bill, as they Avere omitted from the similar
bill in the Sixty-second Congress. This failure to include these other
claims in such a bill as this one does not necessarily mean that they
may not be favorably reported, either in individual bills or in bills
providing payment for a number of similar claims.
In view of the interest of over a thousand claimants in the passage
of the bill now under consideration, however, it has been deemed by
the committee to be unwise to include any claims which might
occasion serious question or possible controversy.
The committee below sets forth a general statement as to claims
of the different classes covered by the bill. Following these general
discussions of the claims by classes will be found the Bowman and
Tucker Acts and section 151 of the Judicial Code for convenient
reference, and following those acts will be found a detailed statement
of the material facts of each claim embraced in the bill.
CLAIMS OF OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS OF THE UNION ARMY.
It would appear to have been a general rule of the War Department,
doubtless proper in its ordinary application, to deny to an officer of
the volunteer forces pay of any rank in which he had not been
formally mustered. In short, the muster rolls were made the sole
criterion by which to determine whether or not the officer was en-
titled to the pay and allowances of a certain rank ; if the rolls showed
him to have been mustered in as of a certain rank, he was held en-
titled to that pay and those allowances appurtenant to that rank;
otherwise not.
It was found, however, that often this rule worked a great hard-
ship, in that officers were duly commissioned by the governors of
their States and that they actually performed the duties and func-
tions of the rank to which they had been commissioned, notwithstand-
ing the fact that they had not been mustered in as of that rank.
10 CLAIMS UNDEK THE BOWMAX AXD TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
In recognition of this hardship. Congress passed the joint resolu-
tion which was approved July 26, 1866 (14 Stat. L., p. 368), reading
as follows:
.TOIXT KKSOLUTION For the relief of certain officers of the Army.
Be it resolved hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled. That in every case in which a com-
missioned officer actuallv entered on duty as such commissioned otticer, but by
reason of being: killed in battle, capture by the enemy, or other cause beyond his
control, and without fault or neglect of his own. was not mustered within a period
of not less than thirty days, the Pay Department shall allow to such officer full pay
and emoluments of his rank from the date on which such officer actually entered
on such duty as aforesaid, deducting from the amount paid in accordance with
this resolution all pay actually received by such officer for such period.
Sec. 2. And he it further resolved. That the heirs or legal representatives of
any officer whose muster into service has been or shall be amended hereby shall
be entitled to receive the arrears of pay due such officer or the pension provided
by law for the grade into which such officer is mustered under the provisions
of the first section of this resolution.
Approved, July 26, 1866.
Later legislation upon this subject is that of the act approved
February 24, 1897 (29 Stat. L.. p. 593), reading as follows:
AX ACT To provide for the relief of certain officers and enlisted men of the volunteer
forces.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled. That any person who was duly appointed or
commissioned to be an officer of the volunteer service during the War of the
Rebellion, and who was subject to the mustering regulations at the time ap-
plied to uienihers of the volunteer service shall be held and considered to have
been mustered into the service of the TTnited States in the grade named in his
appointment or commission from the date from which he was to take rank under
and by the terms of his said appointment or commission, whether the same was
tictually received by him or not. and shall be entitled to pay, emoluments, and
pension as if actually musteretl at that date: Provided. That at the date from
which he was to take rank by the terms of his said appointment or commission
there was a vacancy to which he could be so appointed or commissioned, and his
command had either been recruited to the minimum number required by law and
the regulations of the War Department, or had been assigned to duty in the
field, and that he was actually performing the duties of the grade to which he
was so appointed or commissioned ; or if not so performing such duties, then he
shall be held and considered to have been mustered into service and to be en-
titled to the benefits of such muster from such time after the date of ranlv
given in his commission as he may have actually entered uiwn such duties:
Provided further. That any person lield as a prisoner of war. or who may have
been absent by reason of wounds, or in hospital by reason of disability received
in the service in the line of duty, at the date of issue of his appointment or com-
mission, if a vacancy existed for him in the grade to which so appointed or
commissioned, shall be entitled to all the benefits to which he would have been
entitled under this act if he had been actually performing the duties of the
grjide to which he was appointed or commissioned at said date: Provided fur-
ther. That this act shall be construed to apply only in those cases where the
connnission bears date prior to June twentieth, eighteen hundretl and sixty-
three, or after that date when the commands of the persons appointed or com-
missioned were not below tlie minimum number required by then existing laws
and regulations: And provided further. That the pay and allowances actually
received for the period covered by the recognition extended under this act shall
be deducted from the sums otherwise to be paid thereunder.
Sec. 2. That the heirs or legal representatives of any person whose muster
into service shall be recognized and established under tlie terms of this act
shall be entitled to receive the arrears of pay and emoluments due, and the
pension, if any. authorized by law. for the grade to which recognition shall be
so extended.
CLAIMS TJNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 11
Sec. 3. That the pay and allowances of any rank or grade paid to and re-
ceived by any military or naval officer in good faith for services actually per-
formed by such officer in such rank or grade during the War of the Rebellion,
other than as directed in the fourth proviso of the first section of this act,
shall not be charged to or recovered back from such officer because of any defect
in the title of such officer to the office, rank, or grade in which such services
were so actually performed.
Sec. 4. That all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this
act be, and the same are hereby, repealed.
The case of Henry v. United States (6 C. Cls., 162) was a case
involving the joint resolution of 1866, and the court said :
When one is comniissioued as second lieutenant in a Volunteer regimeut by the
governor of the State whence the regiment came and is assigned to duty by the
colonel commanding in a company of which he has been first sergeant and, after
applying for muster in and being refu.sed, continues to incur all the responsi-
bilities and perform all the duties of a commissioned officer, commanding the
company in battle, and being the only officer attached to it, he is entitled to be
paid as such, notwithstanding that at the time he was assigned to duty it had
fallen below the minimum number entitling it to a second lieutenant.
In that case the court also used the following language :
The court is not unmindful of the learned argument addressed to it by the
Assistant Attorney General, but it is also remembered that this suit affects not
the claimant alone, but a class of citizens who deserve well of their country and
who their country desires should receive the full measure of legal justice to
which they may be entitled. For them there is no appeal to the Supreme Court ;
for the defendants there is. If this suit be decided adversely to the claimant by
this court, the decision will be final against all of these soldiers. They are men
who I'ose from the ranks by hard fighting and good conduct, earning their com-
missions before they got them and working for them after they came; and it
seems a strange anomaly that six years after the war ended such men should
be driven to seek the fruits of their promotion in a court of justice.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States the decision
of the Court of Claims was affirmed in favor of the claimant. (See
U. S. V. Henry, 17 Wall., 405.)
The Comptroller of the Treasury rendered a decision on the income
tax erroneously deducted from pay of officers, to wit :
Where a right to pay and allowances accrued prior to August 1. 1870, the in-
come tax authorized by laws enacted prior to that date is a proper stoppage
against such pay and allowances, but where the right to collect pay and allow-
ances for services rendered prior to August 1, 1870, did not exist until created
by a law enacted after July 31, 1870, no part of the pay and allowances is tax-
able. (Decisions of the Comptroller of the Treasury, vol. 13. p. 387. Dec. 7,
1906; see also 39 C. Cls. R., case of Wellington Barry.)
The latest legislation upon the subject of these claims of officers of
the Union Army is found in the act of April 19, 1910 (36 Stat., 312-
324), making appropriation for maintenance of the Military
Academy, the paragraph in question reading as follows :
Hereafter in administering the act of Congress approved February twenty-
fourth, eighteen hundred and ninety-seven, entitled "An act to provide .for the
relief of certain officers and enlisted men of the Volunteer forces," the decision
of the War Department as to the right of any person to be held and considered
to have been mustered into the service of the United States under the provisions
of said act shall be conclusive, and no claims shall be allowed or considered
under said act after the first of January, nineteen hundred and eleven.
That enactment was followed by the decision of the Court of
Claims in case of Frances Acker, widow of John W. Acker, v. United
States (46 C. Cls., 63). In its decision in that case the court held
that the statute above quoted absolutely prohibited the court from
12 CLAIMS UNDEB THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
going back of the report of the "War Department to the effect that
an officer was mustered in on a certain date. The court held, in
effect, that it mattered not what parol evidence might show as to
performance of the duties of a certain rank: that if the record showed
the claimant was not mustered in as of a certain rank, that was
conclusive.
It will be observed that the act of April 19, 1910, provides that
" hereafter." in administering the law of 1897 in these cases, the
decision of the War Department shall be final or conclusive.
There is nothing in the act of April 19. 1910. or in the nature of
these claims, which would seem to require that act to be given a
I'etroactive construction either by the court or by Congi-ess.
On the contrary, the word " hereafter "' would indicate the inten-
tion of Congress to make the act of 1910 prospective in its operation
rather than retroactive.
In view of the decision of the court in the Acker case, it appears
impossible for any claimant whose claim was tried after April 19,
1910, to secure even as much as a report of proven facts at the hands
of the court. Hence, no more claims of this class can be considered
by the court or reported to Congress.
Every one of the rhdms of th,\s class carried hi/ the present bill was
sent to the court, iras tned, and was made the subject of findings of
fact prior to April 19, 1910.
It is the view of the committee, as well as that of the Court of
Claims, stated in its decision in the Henry case (above quoted), that
these claimants are a class of citizens who deserve well of their
country ; they are mostly men who rose from the ranks to hold com-
missions; in many instances they earned their commissions before
they received them, and worked for them after they were received.
As a rule, the only reason for failure to muster in these officers as
of the rank for which they claim pay was the fact that their organiza-
tions had not sufficient men to bring them up to a certain standard
of size. In some instances this was caused by casualties in battle.
In any event, the services were actually rendered by these officers.
When rendered, the United States secured the benefit of those
services, and in the absence of any express statutory prohibition it is
believed that those services should, in fairness, be paid for.
Payment of the claims of this class included in this bill will nec-
essarily conclude consideration of tliis class of claims, as no other
claimants can be heard in the Court of Claims, in view of the pro-
visions of the act of April 19, 1910, as construed by the court in
the Acker case.
SPECIAL CLAIMS ARISING FROM ARMY SERVICE IN TIME OF WAR.
The- committee has included a few claims, aggregating only a
small amount, arising from military service in time of war, not of
the general class above considered. Several of them arose as an
incident to the War with vSpain. As they are treated as separate
claims they have been treated individually in the detailed report on
individual claims, following the general statement of the contents
of the bill.
In the tabulated analysis of the bill by classes of claims these
claims have been included as a matter of convenient tabulation, with
the claims of officers for difference in pay, just above considered.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 13
CLAIMS OF CHURCHES, MASONIC AND ODD FELLOWS' LODGES,
SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, HOSPITALS, AND MUNICIPAL CORPORA-
TIONS NOT AT SEAT OF WAR.
There are 370 of claims of this general class, aggregating $486,-
403.29. The greater number of them is for use and occupation of
buildings, by proper military authority, for Army purposes, usually
for hospital purposes, and sometimes as barracks or quarters.
"With the exception of «ome three or four, these claims were sent
to the court under the terms of the Tucker Act.
In case of a claim for use and occupation of buildings the amount
reported by the court usually includes not only rental value daring
the period of occupancy by the troops but also damages incident to
the occupancy in excess of ordinary wear and tear, evidently on the
reasonable theory that the Army should either leave the building in
as good condition as when possession was taken or else recompense
the church or owner for special damages done the building.
A number of these claims arose from the tearing down of build-
ings in order to secure materials to be used for military purposes,
such as construction of winter quarters, barracks, bunks, or bridges.
In these cases the rule has been to report the value of the building
as it stood before the demolition.
In this regard the practice in claims of religious, educational, and
eleemos.ynary institutions is different from that in the claims of
individuals. If the house belonging to an individual be torn down
and the materials converted to proper military use, the Court of
Claims would require that it be shown how many feet of lumber or
how man}' thousand bricks were secured from the building, and it
would then make an allowance for so many thousand feet of second-
hand lumber or for so man}^ thousand second-hand bricks. Under
this rule, it might well happen that for a building worth $5,000
when torn down the allowance made by the court would be only a
few hundred dollars.
This rule (and the distinction between claims of these institutions
and those of private persons) is stated by the Court of Claims in its
decision in case of the Presbyterian Church at Murfreesboro (33
C. Cls., 339). The opinion in that case reads as follows:
The invariable rule which has governed the court iu this class of cases — that
is, of cases for war damages — is this:
The court allows only for property taken to be used and only for the value
to the Government of the thing taken. That is to say, the court has never allowed
for property taken to be destroyed or for the damages which the owner suf-
fered by reason of the taking. Where houses were torn down and trees felled
for military reasons nothing has been allowed. Where fruit trees and shade
trees and fences were taken for fuel the owner has been allowed only for so
much cordwood. Where a building was torn down and the material used the
allowance has been for so much old brick and second-hand lumber. Where a
blooded stallion was taken for Army use the allowance has been simply for a
Cavalry horse. Where an imported cow was killed and eaten by the troops
the allowance has been only for so much beef. Where the property taken was
of a kind which could not properly be regarded as quartermaster or commissary
stores or as hospital supplies, or engineers' material, the taking has been
regarded as due to the depredations of individuals, and nothing has been
allowed. In a word, the general principle which governs the court is that
the amounts allowed are to be only to the extent of the benefit which the
Government received by the taking, not for the injury which the owner suffei-ed.
The present case, in finding the value of the building, may seem a departure
from the rule which has hitherto governed the court — the first and only excep-
tion out of the hundreds of cases of war claims which have been tried and dis-
14 CLAIMS TJNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC.
posed of in the course of the last 15 years. The reason for this departure from
a well-settled rule is this:
The proceeding in cases coming into this court under the Bowman Act is not
to obtain a judgment fixing with finality the legal rights and liabilities of the
parties, but simply a proceeding to procure for Congress such facts as will be
availal>le and useful when tbe question of legislative relief shall come before the
two Houses.
In cases of religious and charitable institutions and institutions of learning
Congress have in repeated instances laid down a different rule than that here-
inbefore adverte<l to as the rule of this court for what may be termed the
measure of damages. In other words, whenever Congress have given relief for
the destruction of such a building, the legislative rule in repeated instances has
invariably been to allow the value of the building as a building. The case be-
fore us is a case of that description. The court accordingly finds the value of
the building as it stood when the military authorities took possession of it.
Whether the owners are entitled or not entitled to that or to any relief is not
a question before the court. It rests entirely within the legislative discretion.
Even the more liberal of the rtiles mentioned by the Court of
Claims in the aboA-e-qiioted opinion, however, fail to give to this
class of claimants as great a measure of relief as was accorded by
Congress to the Eoman Catholic Church in the Philippine Islands.
A reference to the action taken on the claim of that church would
seem appropriate at this point. That claim was considered by a
board of Army officers. Its findings and recommendation will be
found on page 48 of House Report No. 696, Sixtieth Congress, first
session, and the concluding portion thereof is as follows :
Under the provisions of the orders convening this board we have the honor to
reconnnend that Congress be asked to appropriate the sum of .$363,030.19, United
States currency, for the payment of rentals of and damages to church property,
Philippine.
If Congress should, in its liberality, desire to compensate the church for the
spoliation and carrying away of sacred ornaments, images, vestments, etc., we
recommend that the stim of $40,000 be paid, as, in the opinion of the board, this
sum would be fully ample.
Congress did see fit to appropriate not only for the items of rentala
and damages, but also for the depredations obviously committed
wrongfully by individuals, and Congress did pay both the items
above mentioned by act of March 26, 1908 (35 Stat. L., Part II, p.
1227), in the total sum of $403,030.19.
It will be noted that the single appropriation so made nearly equals
the entire amount carried by this bill for payment of claims of this
class, for churches of nearly every denomination, and including also
Masonic and Odd Fellows' lodges, colleges, etc., and none of the
claims included in this bill are for depreciations or wanton destruc-
tion. Several such claims have been reported by the Court of
Claims, but in the preparation of this bill they have been omitted
in order to obviate any possible controversy as to the propriety of
their pajnnent. although your committee can perceive no difference,
in principle, between them and the claim of the Roman Catholic
Church in the Philippines.
Claims involving the destruction of buildings included in this bill
are those in which the destruction was really an incident to the use
or occupation of the building, as, for instance, a case where a college
building was used for hospital purposes and was accidentally burned
while being so used and occupied, apparently during process of fumi-.
gation of the building.
The omission from this bill of church and lodge claims for mere
destruction of buildings is not to be construed as an adverse report
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 15
on those claims. It is with a view to the preparation and report of a
bill covering various claims of that general class — what may be prop-
erly termed claims for destruction of church, lodge, and school build-
ings— to the end that the question of their payment may be squareh'
presented to the House, without in any way embarrassing the pas-
sage of this present bill. In short, as above indicated, this bill cover-
ing ordinary war claims has been carefully prepared, with the express
object of eliminating any claim concerning payment of which there
might be any serious- difference of opinion.
LOYALTY IN CHURCH AND LODGE CLAIMS.
In claims of this general class arising in seceding States the organi-
zation which makes the claim is required to prove that, as a church
or as a lodge, it rendered no aid to the Confederate cause. If such
proof is made, then it follows that the church or the lodge, consid-
ered merely as an organization, should be held loyal.
In some few cases this j^roof has not been made, and the court has
reported adversely on the matter of loyalty. Such claims have been
omitted from the bill which is the subject of this report.
It is needless to say that this proof on loyalty in church and lodge
claims does not go nearly as far as it is required to go in claims of
individuals, who must prove not only that they gave no voluntary
aid to the Confederacy, but must also prove that they in fact adhered
to the cause of the Federal Government throughout the war. A
great many claims of individuals have been dismissed or rejected
by the Court of Claims because of failure of the claimants to make
the showing demanded on this point, while it can usually be made in
claims of churches, lodges, and similar organizations.
ORDINARY INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS FOR STORES AND SUPPLIES.
Claims of this class are shown by the petitions forming a part of
the statements of each case as certified by the Court of Claims to
usualW embrace such items as horses, mules, cattle, hogs, corn, meat,
fodder, fencing used and considered as cordwood, and, in some in-
stances, use and occupation of real estate at regular military posts,
sometimes for considerable periods.
In this class of cases, covered by this bill, the Court of Claims has
found the person from whom the property was taken in each case to
have been continuously loyal throughout the Civil War, and that
the property was taken by proper authority, for use of the Army, or,
jn claims for rent, that the reasonable rental value of premises occu-
pied during the period of occupancy, with the damages incident to
the occupation, amounts to a certain sum.
As set forth in the decision of the Court of Claims in the case of
Presbyterian Church at Murfreesboro, no allowance is made for
depredations, such as the taking of poultry, money, jewelry, etc.
The jurisdiction of the Southern Claims Commission, to which
more extended reference will be hereinafter made, was a narrow one
as prescribed by statute and was rendered still more so by the rulings
of the commission.
That commission had no jurisdiction of a claim for rent; it held
that a corporation was not a citizen and therefore that it could not
prosecute a claim before the commission.
16
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Claims of those who during the war were aliens could not be pre-
sented to that commission, as it had authority to inquire into the
claims of only persons who were citizens of insurrectionary States,
and who Avere found loyal.
It was held by that commission that a claim presented by one who
had passed through bankruptcy must be rejected.
On the subject of loyalty, it held that not only must loyalty be
proven of the person from whom the property was taken, but, in
event of his death, of every distributee or heir or creditor.
Of course, the Court of Claims, in proceeding under the Bowman
and Tucker Acts, has acted with a Imowledge of law, and it may be
said that in all these cases the court has passed upon two questions,
as follows:
First. Was the person from whom the jiroperty wns taken, i. e.. the owner of
the property, loyal to the United States Government throughout the Civil War?
Second. Was the property for which claim is made appropriated, by proper
authority, to the use of the Army, and what was its value to the Government?
In the cases embraced in this bill the first question has been
answered 'in the affirmative by the Court of Claims, and it has further
found the property to have been taken by proper authority for use
of the Army, and has reported its value to the Government, according
to the then current prices being paid by the Quartermaster and Com-
missary Departments of the Government.
Inasmuch as proof of continuous loyalty to the United States
Government throughout the war is required in these cases, surprise
has been expressed at times that any considerable number of claim-
ants have been able to establish their loyalty in the Court of Claims.
Relative to this matter, the committee includes in this report a
table, compiled by the War Department from the official records,,
showing the number of troops furnished to the Union Army during
the war by the different States, as follows :
Table shoicing the quotas required from, and the credits allowed for men
furnished by, the several States and Territories during the Civil War.
[War Department, The Military Secretary's Office, May 15, 1905.}
States and Territories.
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Coimecticut
Dakota
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Quotas
required.
13, 935
13,973
244, 496
199, 788
79,521
Credits allowed for men furnished (enlistments and reen-
listments).!
White
troops.
Colored
troops.
2,576
8,289
15, 725
4,903
51,937
206
11,236
11,912
1,290
255,057
193, 748
75, 797
1,764
954
3,269
1,811
1,537
440
Indians.
Total
Array.
Sailors
and
marines.
2,576
8,289
15, 725
4,903
53, 701
206
12,190
15, 181
1,290
256, 868
195,285
76, 237
2,163
94
1,353
2,224
1,078
5
Total
Army,
Navy,
and
Marine
Corps.
Credits
for men
who paid
commu-
tation.
2,576
8,289
15,725
4,903
55,864
206
12,284
16,534
1,290
259,092
196,363
76, 242
338
55
784
67
1 The numbers under this heading, which apprepate 2,778,304, are the numbers of credits for enlistment-
and roenlistments and do not represent individuals. Some men enlisted two or more tiines, but the nums
ber of reenlLstments has never been ofTicially determined. It has been estimated by this office, however,
from the best data now obtamable, that the whole number of individuals in service in the Union Army
and Navy during the Civil War was 2,213,365.
CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC,
17
Tiihic sJioiriiif/ IJir (jiKitdx rtiiuiicil from. (Uid tJic crrditx alloin d fur men
fiiniishciJ hji. tJic xi rcnil stutcs iiihI Territories durin(/ the Ciril ]Viir — Con.
Statesand Territories. r^"°j:^d.
Kansas I 12,931
Kentucky ■ 100. 7S2
Louisiana I
Maine 73,587
Maryland 70, 965
Massachusetts 139.095
Michigan | 95.007
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire.
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina. . ,
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont ,
Washington
West Vii-ginia
Wisconsin
Indian nations . . ,
Colored troops ' . ,
26,320
122, 496
35, 897
92, 820
507, 1-18
1,560
306, 322
Credits allowed for men furnished (enlistments and reen-
listments).
White
troops.
Colored
troops.
Indians
Total
Army.
3S5, 369
IS, 898
1,560
34,463
109,080
18,069
51,743
5,224
64,973
33,995
122, 781
85, 479
23,913
545
100,616
3, 1.57
1,080
32,930
67, 500
6, .561
404, 805
3, 1.50
304,814
1,810
315,017
19,521
31,092
1,965
32, 549
964
31,872
91,029
Total ]2, 763, 670 2, 489. 836
2,080
23, 703
20,149
75, 446
5,224
65,077
42,713
104
8 718
3!966 \.\\\....: 126,747
1,387 ! 86,866
104 i 24,017
8,'.344' .......... 108,960
3,1.57
1,080
33,055
, 68,685
6,561
4,125 408,930
] 3,1.56
5,092 1 309,900
, ' 1,810
8,612 1 323,629
Sailors
and
marines.
314
5,030
3,925
19, 983
498
3
151
125
1,185
1,8.37
196
165
3,530
21,3.58
31,092
1,965
32, 669
964
32,068
91, 194
3,530
882
8,129
39,920
3,274
14, 307
1,878
619
199,337 199,337
178,975 3,530 2,672,341 105,963 2,778,304
Total
Army,
Navy,
and
Marine
Corps.
20, 149
75, 760
5, 224
70, 107
46, 638
146, 730
87,364
24,020
545
109,111
3, 1.57
1,080
33,937
76,814
6,561
448,850
3,156
313, 180
1,810
337,936
23, 236
31,092
1,965
33, 288
964
32,068
91,327
3,530
199,337
Credit
for men
who paid
commu-
tation.
2
3,265
2,007
3,678
5,318
2,008
1,032
692
4,196
18, 197
"6," 479
28, 171
463
1,974
5,097
86,724
1 Colored troops not speJ?ificallv credited to anv State. Thev were recruited as follows: In Alabama, 4,969;
Arkansas, 5,526; Colorado, 95; Florida, 1,044; Georgia, 3,486; Louisiana, 24,052; Mississippi, 17,869; North
Carolina, 5,035; South Carolina, 5,462; Tennessee, 20,133; Texas, 47; Virginia, 5,723; at large, 5,896.
It will be noted that seceding States of the Confederacy furnished
the following numbers of ivhlte troo^Ds who served in Federal mili-
tary organizations raised in those States:
Aliibama 2, 576
Arkansas 8, 289
Florida 1,290
Louisiana 5. 224
Mississippi 545
North Carolina 3, 156
Tennessee 31, 092
Texas 1. 965
West A'irginia 31, 872
Total 86. 009
When the official records show that seceding States gave 86,009
white soldiers to the Federal Army, it would seem plain that there
must have been manv thousand loyal people in the Southern States.
The Court of Claims, in case of Neal v. United States (21 C. Cls.,
240), commented upon this condition of affairs in the State of Ten-
nessee. The following is quoted from that decision as showing the
19855— H. Eept. 97, 63-2 2
18 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC.
relatively large (jiiota contribiiled by one of the seceding States to
the Federal service :
Before the military fK'C-ui)jiti<)n of the State was complete a great iinmber of
refugees passed over into Kentucky and enlisted in Union regiments forming
there. This uumh<>r the adjutant general of Tennessee, in his report for 18fi6,
computes to be about 7,U00. Within the State there were raised and organized
32 regiments of Cavalry and Infantry and 5 batteries of Light Artillery, con-
taining, according to the rolls of the War Department, 31,092 white troops.
We may therefore conclude that the number of white troojis furnished by the
State of Tennessee was. in round numbers, not far from 38,000.
But the magnitude of this contribution to tlie volunteer forces of the United
States will be best appreciated by comparison :
Tennessee contributed more white troops thjin either New Hampshire
(33,937), West Virginia (32.0G8i. or Vermont (33,288) : nearly twice as many as
either Kansas (20.149), Rhode Island (23.230), or Minnesota (24,020); rnore
than twice as many as either California (15,725) or the District of Columbia
(16,534) ; about three times as many as Delaware (12,284). * * *
These historical facts of record are here set forth in the belief that
they will be of interest to those who must express themeselves upon
the merits of this bill. They simply go to show that, in fact, there
was a very large loyal element in the Southern States, and when the
Court of Claims has decided upon the legal evidence submitted, that
a claimant has shown that he belonged to this large number of south-
ern people who adhered to the Union, it would seem obvious that
there is nothing inherently improbable about such being a fact.
The Court of Claims is charged with a solemn duty, that of de-
termining the facts for the information of Congress, and when it
has f(nnid the facts, that should eifectually settle them, especially as
that court has never yet been charged with entertaining any bias
against the Government.
LACHES.
At various times criticism has been made of claims of this general
class on the supposed ground that the claimants had been guilty of
inexcusable delay or laches in not following up the remedies given
them by statute.
As to claims tried by the court under the Bowman Act no such
question can be raised with the slightest semblance of reason, for the
fact that the court has tried a case under the Bowman Act shows on
its face that the claim was not barred for previous failure to present
it. Claims barred by any law of the United States did not come
within the jurisdiction of the court under the Bowman Act. Cer-
tainly the reasonable and legal presumption is that when the court
has tried a case under the terms of an act giving a very limited juris-
diction the facts of that ca.se were such as to bring tlie claim within
that limited jurisdiction. Any different presumption would be a
presumption that the Court of Claims either was ignorant of the
law under which it acted or willfully disregarded tlie statute. As-
suredly neither of these presumptions can be properly followed.
In claims tried under the BoAvman Act, it follow's. therefore, that
if the claimant ever had any remedy whatsoever he followed that
remedy within proper time, and that."notwith.standing this, his claim
was rejected: that it has since been judicially tried, and that suffi-
cient evidence has been produced in the Court of Claims to legally
establish the facts reported by the court.
CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 19
For the reasons stated ai\Y discussion of supposed laches in regard
to war claims must refer to what are commonly called Tucker Act
flaims or to claims tried under the provisions of section 151 of the
Judicial Code, which went into effect January 1, 1912.
In considering this question of laches it will be necessarj^ to trace,
as briefly as possible, the legislation affecting war claims.
At the beginning of the war the Court of Claims was open to
filing of suits by any citizen whose property had been taken for pub-
lic use. It was organized bv act of February 24, 1855 (10 Stats.,
612), and was reorganized by act of March 3.' 1863 (12 Stats., 765).
Under the act of ]NIarch 3, 1863. it was required that claimants show
loyalty, but with that condition citizens might file suits to recover
compensation for property taken.
The case of Grant v. United States (1 C. Cls., 41) was a/ claim
arising from the Civil War. It appeared that United States mili-
tary forces, under proper orders, burned various military supplies
and a flour mill owned by an Army contractor in order to prevent
the supplies and mill from falling into the hands of Confederates.
On the case so presented the court held the destruction of the
property to constitute in law a ""taking" for public use, and Grant
was given judgment for $41,530 as the value of his property de-
stroyed.
In the light of subsequent events it would appear that Congress
became apprehensive as to the number and amount of claims which
would probably be filed in the Court of Claims, and, for the pur-
pose of taking away from citizens their then existing legal right to
bring suit for compensation for property taken, the act of July 4,
1864 (13 Stats., 381). was enacted, which expressly deprived the
court of all jurisdiction over such claims.
Section 1 of that act provides:
That the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims shall not extend to or include
any claim against the United States growing out of the destruction or appropria-
tion of. or damage to, property by the Army or Navy, or any part of the Army
or Navy, engaged in the suppression of the rebellion, from the commencement
to the close thereof.
That statute was construed by the court in case of Corbett (1 C.
Cls., 139), and it was there held that said act must cause the dismissal
of every pending claim then already before the court of the class
mentioned.
These facts are important as showing the deliberate intent of Con-
gress (doubtless as a measure of pulilic policy at the time) to take
away, even from loyal citizens, their legal right to go into the Court
of Claims. That act left them with no legal right or remedy. It
prohibited the court from hearing any such claim.
It is true that this same act gave a very limited remedy by con-
ferring upon the Quartermaster General and the Commissary General
jurisdiction to entertain the claims of loyal ciiizens of States not in
rebellion for supplies taken for Army use.
As that act stood, a man living in Tennessee, serving in the Union
Army, whose propertj^ was taken for Army use, could make no claim
for payment, because no door was open to him.
By Joint resolution of June 18, 1866 (14 Stats., 360), this act of
July 4, 1864, was made applicable to the counties of Berkeley and
Jefferson, in West Virginia : and by joint resolution of July 28, 1866
20 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
(14 Stats., 370), it was extended to apply to loyal citizens of
Tennessee.
So far as concerned claims for commissar}^ supplies, the act of
July 4, 1864, had a very limited operation owing to the fact that no
claims were paid by the Commissar}' General unless accompanied by
official receipts for the property, or unless the property was found to
liave been accounted for on the returns of some commissary officer.
As such receipts Avere seldom given and as such property was seldom
placed upon the property returns, but few claims were allowed by
the Commissary General.
As to claims for quartermaster stores, the act did afford some
relief. The Quartermaster General appointed agents to investigate
claims and these officers made personal investigations and took
sworn statements of witnesses both for and against the claim, and a
considerable number of such claims were paid in some amount.
These examinations were largely ex parte in their nature, however,
and therefore the result was unsatisfactory, as might be expected.
By act of June 15, 1880 (21 Stat. L., 58G), however, it was provided
that thereafter notice of the investigation should be given the claim-
ant, who was accorded the privilege of cross-examining witnesses
for the Government. This act, while correct in principle, was passed
after the greater number of claims before the Quartermaster General
had been disposed of. The right to present claims before the
Quartermaster General terminated January 1, 1880.
As will be noted, no claimants in seceding States (save the State of
Tennessee and two counties of West Virginia) were given any rights
to present claims by said act of 1864. The first opportunity given
ihem of making known their claims was conferred by the act of
Marcli 3, 1871 (16 Stat. L., 524), which provided for tlie establish-
ment of what is commonly loiown as the " Southern Claims Com-
mission."
This commission consisted of three commissioners appointed by
the President. It formulated rules for the transaction of business
before it, and one of the first rules announced was to the effect that
in every claim for $3,000 or upward all witnesses must be brought
to Washing-ton City to testify in person before the commission, testi-
mony in smaller claims to be taken before subordinate officers of the
commission, known as special commissioners, who acted both as
commissioners in taking the testimony and also as cross-examining
-tfficers.
This rule as to the submission of testimony is set forth in the first
report of the commission, made to the Speaker of the House on De-
cember 11, 1871. Obviously, compliance with such a rule Avas im-
possible to many claimants, owing to the great expense necessarily
incident to bringing numerous witnesses to Washington, paying their
transportation and hotel bills, etc.
Later the rule was amended by the commission so as to apply only
in claims for $5,000 or more. The hardship of even the amended rule
was evidently recognized by Congress, and by act of May 11, 1872
(17 Stat. L., 97), it was provided that testimony must be submitted
before the commissioners in person only in claims of $10,000 or more.
It would seem from an examination of the index of claims filed
before that commission that many claimants were unable to comply
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 21
even with this requirement, as many cLaims for more than $10,000
were reported as barred for nonprosecution.
While it would appear that in providing- for the establishing of
this commission Congress intended that claimants should be given
opportunity to secure a fair hearing of their claims, the reports made
by the commission show that proceedings before the commission were
characterized by anything but fairness.
Special agents were appointed hj the commission, who made inves-
tigation of claims after the claimants had adduced their evidence.
This investigation was purely ex parte and secret. The reports of
the commission show that even when a claimant desired to be present,
either in person or by his counsel, at the examination of witnesses
called by the special agent for the Government, this privilege Avas
denied. In many instances claims are shown to have been rejected
solely upon ex parte affidavits thus taken by special agents, and in
some instances statements were submitted in opposition to the claim,
which statements were not even verified.
It is small wonder that people in general had but slight confidence
in the good faith and fair intention of a tribunal which adopted such
star-chamber methods of procedure.
Finally, only 10 months after the enactment of the statute which
permitted the taking of testimony locallv in claims for less than
$10,000, Congress enacted the act approved"March 3, 1873 (IT Stat.L.,
577) , which provided :
Tliat tlie commissioners of cl.-iims sliall not receive any petitiim for the allow-
ance of any claim or claims nnless snch petition shall be presenteil to and filed
with them on or before the third day of March, eighteen hnndred and seventy-
three.
Froui the very terms of the statute, taken in connection with the
date of its approval, it will be seen that it went into effect on the very
day it was approved. In other words, the right of citizens to file
their claims before that commission was abrogated without a day's
notice.
Careful examination of the act establishing the claims commission
shows that it contained no provision limiting the time within which
claims might be filed before the commission, and no time limit for
presentation of claims to the commission was ever fixed until the
/passage of the act of March 3, 1873, which cut off the right to file
such claims.
In referring to this legislation the Committee on War Claims in
the Sixtieth Congress stated, in House Eeport No. 543, Sixtieth Con-
gress, first session (certain typographical errors being corrected) :
As it is apparent that the (Tovernment. in terminating withont warning the
right to file claims before said commission, acted withont a proi)er and fair
regard for the rights of citizens, who had no reason to snpjtose that the time
for filing their claims was to be thus abrnptly terminated, it wonld seem to
follow that the faihire of claimants to file their claims before said commission
should not be deemed an evidence of negligence or laches on their part, but
such claimants should rather be regarded as the victims of misfortune in that
their right to iiresent their claims to said commission was terminated without
warning to them.
With the view exjjressed in that report the present committee fully
concur. In connection with this phase of the subject also the follow-
22 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
ing thought is suggested in Senate Document No. 580, Sixtieth Con-
gress,, second session, being a memorandum on the subject of claims :
From the legislative history of the United States it iimst be apparent that its
policy as to the payment of claims originating during the Civil War has been
to distribute the amounts over a great number of years. However harsh this
rule has been, however unjust to many worthy claimants who have been com-
pelled to wait indefinitelj- for relief, the original legislation which deprived them
of an established legal remedy was justified by the pressing necessities of the
times, since which time Congress has from time to time enacted legislation
under which various classes of claimants were successively given a hearing and
a more or less tardy settlement made on the findings of various governmental
tribunals.
Section 14 of the Tucker Act, under which many chiims have been
referred by resohition to the Court of Claims, requires that court to —
report to such House the facts in the case and the amount, where the same can
be liquidated, including any facts bearing upon the question where there has
been delay or laches in presenting such claim or api)lying for such grant, gift,
or bounty, and any facts bearing upon the question whether the I)ar of any
statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the
claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy.
Careful scrutiny of this provision would indicate that Congress
wished to be apprised Avhether there was any excuse offered for fail-
ure to resort '' to any established legal remedy."' It woiild seem only
reasonable that unless there had been souie established '' legal rem-
edy " to which a claimant might have resorted, he coidd not in
reason be held guilty of laches in presenting his claim.
It is certainly a .serious question whether or not it could be said
that the right to file a claim before the Southern Claims Commission
could be termed a " legal remedy,"' as that phrase is used in English
or American jurisprudence. As above pointed out, that commission
was a tribunal Avhich denied to claimants the right of being present
at the taking of testimony in behalf of the Government, which denied
the right of cross-examination to claimants, and wliich often based
its adverse decisions u])on ex parte affidavits secured by its agents
and upon equally ex parte reports of those agents.
It is the o])ini()n of the committee that the provision of the Tucker
Act above quoted was intended to apply to cases where the claimants
at one time had a full, adequate, and complete remedy at law, but
failed to re.sort to that remedy, and that the doctrine of laches has no
proper or reasonable application to claims of the class covered by
this bill. Acting upon this theory, the committee has included in this
bill claims concerning which the Court of Claims has found that no
reason appeared for nonpresentation to the Southern Claims Com-
mission. The claims have been found to be meritorious, and that is
deemed a sufficient reason for their payment.
LACHES AS APPLIED TO CLAIMS OP CHURCHES, ETC.
As to the claims of churches, lodges, colleges, and corporations,
or qua.si corporations, the Southern Claims Commission held that
it had no jurisdiction of such claims. The jurisdiction of the com-
mission was restricted to the claims of loyal citizens of insurrec-
tionary States, and it was held by the commi.ssion that such insti-
tutions or associations did not fall wnthin the definition of the word
" citizens."
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAK AXD TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 23
In the report of the commission in case of the Indiana Methodist
Church, of Portsmouth, Va.. on page 381 of the consolidated reports
for the years 1871, 1872. 1873. and 1874 it was stated by the com-
mission :
Tliis claim is for and ou behalf of a corporation. After full consideration and
consultation we have heretofore decided that a corporation has no standing
before this -commission. It can not prove "loyalty" and is not a "citizen."
The claim is therefore disallowed.
On pages 534-535 of said reports is found the decision of the com-
mission in case of the Calhoun Presbyterian Church, of Charleston,
Tenn., as follows :
We have no jurisdiction over claims of such associations, and therefore, must
reject the claim.
From the foregoing it is therefore apparent that ev^n the doubt-
ful and questionable privilege of presenting a claim before the South-
ern Claims Commission was denied to claimants of this class, under
an obviously unsound view of the law. notwithstanding which the
Court of Claims has reported that no reason appears why the claims
of churches, etc.. were not presented at an earlier date.
The theory on which your committee has proceeded is that if a
claim is just it should be paid. If it was susceptible of collection
years ago and was not then collected, then the claimant has lost
the use of his money just that long, and the Government has had
the benefit of the delay to the extent of the use of the amount due.
The position of this committee with relation to this matter of laches,
so far as concerns war claims, is the same as that held by preceding
committees in the Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses,
and it was most emphatically indorsed by the House on March 2,
1911. when the House had under consideration the bill codifying the
laws relating to the judiciary. Eeference is made to the Congres-
sional Record of March 2. 1911. pages 4134 and 4135.
As reported to tlie House by the conferee'^, that bill contained a
j^rovision which, in effect, made a favorable finding by the Court of
Claims on the matter of laches jurisdictional in every claim referred
under the provisions of section 151 of that codification, which section
replaces the fourteenth section of the Tucker Act.
When this matter was brought before the House, the conference
report had been already adopted by the Senate: but. as was stated on
the floor by the chairman of the committee and also by another mem-
ber of the conunittee having charge of that bill, it was evident that
the enactment of such a provision wf)uld practically nullify the effect
of section 14 of the Tucker Act and of the substituted section 151 of
the codification, and so clear was the demand for the elimination of
that provision that the two Houses of Congress agreed to an extraor-
dinary manner of elimination by the adoption of a concurrent reso-
lution to that effect, directing that the provision be stricken from the
bill before final enrollment.
That action, taken by both Houses, would seem susceptible of no
construction other than that of an express approval of what has been
said by this committee, to the effect that when a claim has been found
by the Court of Claims to possess merit, and it is a case of a class in
which no real, complete, adequate, and legal remedy had been afforded.
24 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
then no laches is imputable, but the claim should be paid regardless of
delay in its presentation.
With relation to this matter of delay or laches, it is further the view
of 3'our committee that if a line is to be drawn against any claims by
reason of delay in their presentation, and the drawing of which line
would preclude their payment, then, as a matter of plain justice to the
claimants, it should be drawn when the claim is presented to Congress,
so that the claimant in such case could be apprised at the outset that
his claim is not such a one as will receive favorable consideration.
When the claim has been entertained by Congress, however, and
has been referred to the Court of Claims; when the claimant has
secured services of counsel ; has adduced his evidence in support of his
claim, and has brought his case to trial before the Court of Claims;
and Avhen that court has actually heard the arguments and has tried
the case, and has reported that the claimant remained loyal through-
out the Civil War, and that property of a certain value was taken
from him for the use of the United States Army or Government, on
which report it is evident that the claim is of a general class which has
been heretofore paid by Congress, as constituting at least an equitable
demand upon the United States; when all these steps have been
taken, it is the judgment of your committee that it is then too late to
hold the claimant precluded by the delay which may have occurred in
the presentation of his claim.
In brief, after having been informed by the findings of fact made
by the Court of Claims that the claim is a just one, Congress can not
in fairness refuse to render effective the rej^ort of the Court of Claims,
but should appropriate for payment of the claim.
STATUTES UNDER WHICH THE CLAIMS INCLUDED IN THE BILL
HAVE BEEN TRIED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
THE BOWMAN ACT,
\2-2 Stat. L., p. 485.]
AN ACT To afford assistance and rolief to Consri-ess and the exi-oulivp dPi)artinpnts in the
investigation of elaims and demands against tli<' (lovernment.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assemhled. That whenever a ohiim or matter is
pendiiis before any committee of the Senate or House of Representatives, or
before either House of Congress, which involves tlie investigation and determina-
tiou of facts, the committee or House may cause the same, with the vouchers,
papers, proofs, and documents pertaining thei'cto, to be transmitted to the
Court of Claims of tlie United States, and the same sliall tliere be proceede<l in
under such rules as the court may adopt. When the facts shall have been
found, tlie court shall not enter judgment thereon, but shall report the same
to the conunittee or to the House by which the case was transmitted for its
consideration.
Sec. 2. That when a claim or matter is pending in any of the executive depart-
ments which may involve controverted questions of fact or law, the head of
such department may transmit the same, with tlie vouchers, papers, proofs, and
documents pertaining tliereto, to said court, and the same shall be there pro-
ceeded in under such rules as the court may adopt. When tlie facts and con-
clusions of law shall have been found, the court shall not enter judgment
thereon, but shall report its findings and opinions to the department by which
it was transmitted for its guidance and action.
Sec. .3. The .jurisdiction of said court shall not extend to or include any claim
against the Unite<l States growing out of the destruction or damage to property
by the Army or Navy during the War for the Suppression of the Rebellion, or
for the use and occupation of real estate by any part of the military or naval
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 2i)
forces of the United States in the operation of said forces tlnring the said war
at the seat of war; nor shall the said court have jurisdiction of any claim
against the United States which is now barred by virtue of the provisions of
any law of the United States.
Sec. 4. In any case of a claim for supplies or stores taken by or furnished to
any part of military or naval forces of the United States for their use during
the late War for the Suppression of the Rebellion, the petition shall aver that
the person who furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom such supplies
or stores were taken, did not give any aid or comfort to said rebellion, but was
throughout that war loyal to the Government of United States, and the fact
of such loj^alty shall be a jurisdictional fact ; and unless the said court shall, on a
preliminary inquiry, find that the person who furnished such supplies or stores,
or from whom the same were taken as aforesaid, was loyal to the Government
of the United States throughout said war, the court shall not have jurisdiction
of such cause, and the same shall, without further proceedings, be dismissed.
Sec. 5. That the Attorney General, or his assistants, under his direction, shall
appear for the defense and i)rotectiou of the interests of the United States in all
cases which may be transmitted to the Court of Claims under this act. with the
same power to interpose counterclaims, offsets, defenses for fraud practiced or
attempted to be practiced by claimants, and other defenses, in like manner as
he is now required to defend the United States in said court.
Sec. 6. That in the trial of such cases no person shall be excluded as a witness
because he or she is a party to or interested in the same.
Sec 7. That reports of the Court of Claims to Congress under this act. if not
finally acted upon during the session at which they are reported, shall be con-
tinued from session to session and from Congress to Congress until the same
shall be finally acted upon.
Approved, March 3, 1SS3.
the tucker act.
1:24 Stnt. L.. p. 50",.]
AN ACT To provide fur tlii> brinciii!;- of siiils M^iaiiist tbo (Jovcrninont of tho United
States.
(This is an act providing for the prosecution of general jurisdiction cases,
except section 14, which relates to congressional cases, and is as follows:)
Sec. 14. That whenever any bill, except for a pension, shall be pending in
either House of Congress providing for the payment of a claim against the
United States, legal or equitable, or for a grant, gift, or bounty to any person,
the House in which such bill is pending may refer the same to the Court of
Claims, who shall proceed with the same in accordance with the provisions of
the act approved March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, entitled "An
act to afford assistance and relief to Congress and the executive departments in
the investigation of claims and demands against the Government," and report
to such House the facts in the case and the amount, where the same can be
liquidated, including any facts bearing upon the question whether there has
been delay or laches in pi-esenting such claim or applying for such grant, gift,
or bounty, and any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any
statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the
claimant for not having resorted to any estal)lished legal remedy.
Approved. March 3, 1887.
ACT OF JUNE 2.j. 1010.
[:^G Stats.. 8^,7.]
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled. That section fourteen of the act of March
third, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, entitled "An act to provide for the
bringing of suits against the Government of the United States," be, and the
same is hereby, amended by adding at the end thereof the words " together
with such conclusions as shall be sutficient to inform Congress of the nature
and character of the demand, either as a claim, legal or equitable, or as a
gratuity, against the United States." so that when amended it shall read as
follows :
" Sec. 14. That whenever any bill, except for a pension, shall be pending in
either House of Congress providing for the payment of a claim against the
United States, legal or equitable, or for a grant, gift, or bounty to any person,
26 CLAIMS UXDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
the House iu which such bill is pendiug may refer the same to the Court of
riaims. who shall proceed with the pame in accordance with the provisions of
the act approved March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, entitled 'An
act to afford assistance and relief to Congress and the executive departments in
the investigation of claims and demands against the Government.' and report
to such House the facts iu the case and the amount, where the same can be
liquidated, including any facts bearing upon the question whether there has
been delay or laches in presenting such claim, or applying for such grant, gift,
or bounty, and any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any
statute of limitation should be removed, or which shall be claimed to excuse
the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy, together
with such conclusions as shall be suthcient to inform Congress of the nature
and character of the demand, either as a claim, legal or equitable, or as a
gratuity, against the United States and the amount, if any, legally or equitably-
due from the United States to the claimant.
It will be noted that the following section of the Judicial Code is
practically identical with the above-quoted section 14 of the Tncker
Act, as amended June '25. 1910, with an added proviso.
SECTION ir.l OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.
1:^.(5 Stats., li:!S.]
Sec. ir>l. Whenever any bill, except for a pension, is pending in either House
of Congress providing for the payment of a claim against the United States,
legal or equitable, or for a grant, gift, or bounty to any person, the House iu
which such bill is i)ending may. for the investigation and determination of facts,
refer the same to the Court of Claims, wbicli shall proceed with tlie same in
accordance with such rules as it may adopt and report to such House the facts
in the case and the amount, where the same can be liquidated, including any
facts bearing ui)on the question whether there lias been delay or laches in pre-
senting such claim or applying for such grant, gift, or bounty, and any facts
bearing u])on the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should
be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having
resorted to any establishetl legal remedy, together with .such conclusions as
shall b(> sutficient to inform Congress of the nature and character of the demand,
either as a claim, legal or equitable, or as a gratuity against the United States,
and th(> amount, if any, legally or equitably due from the United States to the
claimant: Proridrd. hoivcrcr. That if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the
court upon the facts established that, undei- existing laws or the provisions of
this chapter, the subject niatter of the bill is such that it has jurisdiction to
render judgment or decree thereon, it shall proceed to do so, giving to either
party such further opportunity for hearing as in its judgment justice shall
require, and it shall report its proceetliugs therein to the House of Congress by
which the same was referred to said court.
REPEAL OF BOWMAN ACT.
Section 207 of the Judicial Code {'MS Stats.. 11()8) expressly repeals
various statutes, and includes the Bowman Act in its repealing pro-
visions, as follows:
Sec. 297. The following sections of the Kevised Statutes and acts and parts
of acts are hereby repealed :
!je * * * * =i' *
An act to afford assistance and relief to Congress and the executive depart-
ments in the investigation of claims and demands against the Government,
approved March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-three.
DETAILED REPORT SHOWING NATURE OF EVERY CLAIM, AR-
RANGED BY STATES.
Note. — The States are arranged alphabetically, beginning with Alabama.
Claims of each State are arranged alphabetically; where original claimant is de-
ceased, the claim is arranged alphabetically according to name of decedent, and
not according to name of representative or heirs.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 27
In this memoramla names of decedents are given first, followed by names of
representatives.
Tlie findings of the Conrt of Claims are printed in the Senate or House docu-
ments indicated. Descriptions of documents are abbreviatetl, e. g., " S. D.
215-62-2 " signifies Senate document No. 215, Sixty-second Congress, second
session.
After the statement of material facts of each claim (other than claims of
Union ofiicers for difference in pay), it is stated whether the claim has pre-
viously passed either or both Houses of Congress. With relation to such state-
ment any claim passed by either House in the Sixtieth Congress was passed in
H. R. 15372, Sixtieth Congress. Claims passed by the Senate in the Sixty-first
Congress were included in S. 7971, Sixty-first Congress. Claims i)assed by the
House in the Sixty-first Congress were included in H. R. 32767, Sixty-first Con-
gress. Claims passed by either House in the Sixty-second Congress were In-
cluded in H. R. 19115. Sixtj-second Congress, either as passed by the House or
as amended by the Senate.
The report upon each claim has purposely been made as concise as the facts
permit.
ALABAMA,
Houston L. Bell. (S. D. 215-62-2.) Tucker Act. Referred to
court March 3, 1909. Court finds claimant was loyal tliroughout war
because of tender years ; that suj^plies were taken from liim, for Army
use, reasonably worth $810. Claim first presented to Fiftieth Con-
gress but not sent to court until Sixtieth Congress, some 20 years
later. Findings on loyalty and property satisfactory.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Solomon L. Casey. (jSfarv F. Casev Tucker, sole heir.) (H. D.
364-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31. 190(>. The find-
ings show supplies Avere taken for Army use from a mother. Rebecca
Davis Casey, and two daughters, Mary F. Casey Tucker and Eliza-
beth Jane Casey. Reading the findings in connection Avith the peti-
tion, it is evident that the husband and father. Solomon L. Casey,
died before the supplies were taken, and at a time when title stood
in his widow and children. The widow was found not loyal, but the
two children were found loyal by reason of their tender years dur-
ing war. It is found by the court that supplies were taken from
this Avidow and her two children, Avorth $1,130. One-third belonged
to the mother and one-third to each child. Reading the entire state-
ment of case with the findings, it is clear that the daughter Elizabeth
Jane Casey died, leaving the other sister, Mary F. Casey Tucker, as
her sole heir. The committee has eliminated the share of the mother,
and proposes to pay the surviving child, Mary F. Casey Tucker, two-
thirds of the value of the supplies taken for Army use, one-third in
her OAvn right, and one-third as heir of her sister, or a total of $753.34,
which is obA'iously due.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
J. H. Carter. (H. D. 381-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
March 31, 1908. Claim prosecuted before Southern Claims Com-
mission as mentioned in the statement of case. Claim is on page 45
of printed index of such claims. Claimant found loyal and court
finds supplies Avorth $1,230 were taken for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Daniel Carroll. (H. D. 813-60-1.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court
February 12, 1907. Prosecuted before Southern Claims Commission
28 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC.
and found on page 44 of index of such claims. Claimant found loyal
and it is found that supplies worth $150 were taken for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Leroy Campbell. (T. F. Vann, administrator.) (H. D. 699-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Claim sent to court Februaiy 26, 1889. Claim prose-
cuted before Southern Claims Commission and is found on page 42
of index of such claims. Claimant found loyal, and it is found that
supplies worth $475 were taken for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congi-esses.
Bethel G. Chandler. (John A. Chandler, administrator.)
(S. D. 617-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court by Senate resolution
March 2, 1907. That court reports that the decedent was loyal, and
that supplies worth $743 were taken from him for Army use. Claim
Was before Fifty-fifth, Fifty-seventh, and Fifty-eighth Congresses
without action. Findings satisfactory on loyalty and property.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
David Crow. (Douglas Taylor, administrator.) (H. D. 436-
62-2.) Bowman Act. Claim sent to court January 15, 1906. Was
prosecuted before Southern Claims Commission, appearing on page
60 of index of such claims. The court reports that Davis was loyal,
and that supplies worth $120 were taken from him for Army use.
It is further reported that DaA^is was a slave till freed during war and
became the owner of this insignificant amount of property after be-
coming free. Findings entirely satisfactory.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Henry Davis. (H. D. 680-60-1.) Bowman Act. Claim sent
to court February 26. 1895. Was prosecuted before Southern Claims
Commission, appearing on page 64 of index of such- claims. Court
reports claimant loyal and that supplies worth $135 were taken from
him for Army use. Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed
House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Caswell V>. Di:ni!icK. (David C. Acutf, administrator.) (S. D.
434-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court reports decedent loyal and that supplies worth
$1,675 Avere taken from him for Army use. Claim apparently pend-
ing in Fifty-sixth, Fifty-seventh, and Fifty-eighth Congresses with-
out action. Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Findings satisfactory on lo3''alty and property.
Jauies Watkins Fennell. (Belle F. Neill. administratrix.) (S.
D. 355-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 21, 1902, by Senate
resolution.
The facts are rather complicated, as to matter of title, and require
a full statement in order to explain the unusual phraseology of this
item of the bill.
One item of claim is for cotton, not included in the proposed ap-
propriation. This omission of the item is without prejudice to that
item of clainL The committee deem it inadvisable to consider such
items at present, hoAvever.
Full understandings of the findings of the court require very
critical studv and considerable arithmetical calculation.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 29
Supplies were taken from a widow and 10 children of James Wat-
kins Fennell, then deceased. The widow and G of the children are
found loyal; 4 children found not loyal.
The widow owned an undivided one-third or ten-thirtieths interest
in the supplies and each child owned an undivided two-thirtieths
interest.
Following is a list of the owners, with action of the court noted as
to loyalty :
Matilda M. Feuiiell, widow Loyal.
Charity E. Henry Not loyad.
.Tames Williams Fennell Not loyal.
Tsham Watkins Fennell Not loyal.
Catherine M. Esslinger Loyal.
Mary Jane Graham Loyal.
John H. Fennell Not loyal.
Frank D. Fennell Loyal.
Belle F. Neil Loyal.
Caius G. Fennell Loyal.
Mattie M. Fennell Loyal.
Of course, the individual shares of the four disloyal heirs, in their
own right, must be eliminated from present consideration.
This fact was recognized by the court, as it made its findings on
property cover only the interests of the widow and six loyal children,
in the sum of $1,330. The finding does not read as clearly as might
be desired, but careful examination shoAvs that is what the court did.
The widow has since died, and her 10 children became her heirs.
Hence each child took in a representative capacity one-tenth of teU'
thirtieths, or one-thirtieth of the total value of the supplies taken.
In order to distribute the widow's share properly it becomes neces-
sary to solve a problem to determine the total value f>f supplies
taken.
The sum of $1,330 allowed by the court covered the widow's ten-
thirtieths, and the twelve-thirtieths of the six loyal children, or a
total of twenty-two thirtieths. Hence, one-thirtieth is one twenty-
second of $1,330. or $60,455, and thirty-thirtieths would be 30 times
$60,455, or $1,813.50.
Each disloyal heir, simply as heir of his mother, would take the
sum of $60.45.
Each loyal heir would take in his own right two-thirtieths, or
$120.91, and in his representative capacity, as heir of his mother, the
further sum of $60.45, or a total of $18i.36.
Unless distribution is directed in such manner as will cause each
loyal child to take $181.36, and each disloyal heir to take only
$60.45, the local probate court would naturally distribute the sum
appropriated in equal shares, which would not be consistent with
the general intent of Congress in these claims.
With these facts in mind it is proposed to distribute the total sum
of $1,330, appropriated, as follows:
1. Catherine M. Esslinger $181. 36
2. Mary Jane Graham 181.36
3. Frank D. Fennell 181.36
4. Belle F. Neil 181.36
5. Caius G. Fennell 181.36
6. Mattie M. Fennell 181.36
7. Charity E. Henry 60.46
8. James William Fennell 60.46
9. Isham Watkins Fennell 60.46
10. John H. Fennell 60.46
30 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
(P'ractions of a cent are added to the four smaller sums named.)
This claim ])assed the Senate in the Sixtieth and Sixty-first Con-
gresses and passed the House in the Sixty-first and Sixty-second
Congi-esses.
EiciiARD Garner. (H. D. 934-GO-l.) Bowman Act. Claim sent
to court May 19, 1906. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies
worth $42.'> were taken for Army use. Claim was prosecuted before
Southern Claims Commission, appearing on page 88 of index of
such claims.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Peter H. Gold. (David Z. Gold, administrator.) (S. D. 615-
61-2.) Tucker Act. Claim sent to court ]VIarch 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Claimant is found loyal, and court finds that supplies
worth $735 were taken for Army use. Claim w^as pending in Fifty-
seventh and Fifty-eighth Congresses without action. This claim
passed the House in the Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
William Cochrane. (Louisa Cochrane Gordon, daughter and
heir.) (S. D. 67-56-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court July 17, 1897,
by Senate resolution. This case is someAvhat unusual. From the
findings of the court it appears that William Cochrane died before
the war. leaving a widow and four children as his heirs. Prior to
the taking of any supplies the interest of one daughter. Sophia, and
of the AvidoAv had been set over to them. That left the remainder
of the estate vested in three children, Hardin P. Cochrane, Louisa
Cochrane, and William G. Cochrane. The two sons, Hardin P.
Cochrane and William G. Cochrane, have been in effect found not
loyal by the court.
It is true that as to the girl. Louisa Cochrane (now Mrs. Gordon),
the court did not make an explicit finding of loyalty, but apparently
deemed that point disposed of by finding that she was a small girl
only 14 years old at beginning of the war. The committee took that
view of the case in the Sixty-second Congress, and the present ccun-
mittee accepts the view as reasonable.
From this young girl and her two brothers supplies were taken, as
found by the court, worth $5,365 for Army use. She had one-third
interest therein, amounting to $1,788, Avhicii is all that it is proposed
to pay.
The claim, in this sum, passed the House in Sixty-second Congress.
Sainiuel L. Gilbert. (W. H. Gilbert, administrator.) (S. D.
248-62-2.) Tucker Act. Claim sent to court March 2. 1907, by
Senate resolution. The findings are explicit in showing claimant to
have been loyal and that supplies worth $237 w-ere taken from liim for
Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Green Guest. (J. H. E. Guest, administrator.) (S. D. 597-61-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. The
court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $610 were taken
from him for Army use. Claim does not appear on index of claims
presented to Southern Claims Commission, but the court reports that
an attorney who practiced before that commission has testified that
the claim was placed in his hands about 1870 and that testimony was
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 31
taken before a special commissioner, from which it may be reasonably
assumed that the papers pertaining to the claim wei-e lost by that
commission.
This claim passed the House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Con-
gresses.
William T. Hamner. (H. D. 405-59-2.) Bowman Act. Claim
sent to court August 6, 1888. The court finds the claimant to have
been loyal and that supplies worth $805 Avere taken from him for
Army use. This claim was prosecuted before the Southern Claims
Commission, appearing on page 101 of index of such claims.
This claim passed the Senate in the Sixtieth Congress and passed
the House in the Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
David B. Johnson. (C. J. McKee, administrator.) (H. D. 428-
59-2.) Bowman Act. Claim sent to court February 21, 1889. The
court reports that claimant was lo3^al and that his property was
taken under proper military orders, and that it was worth $3,900.
The findings show the claim to be just; but in view of the statement
of the court that it did not appear just what was done with the
property after seizure, the committee has examined the files of the
case from the Court of Claims and finds an official receipt for the sup-
plies on file. The claim was prosecuted before the Southern Claims
Commission, as reported by the court.
This claim passed the House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Con-
gresses.
John T. Jones. (Nannie H. Jones et al., heirs.) (S. D. 136-
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court by Senate resolution January 14,
1905. It appears from the findings that John T. Jones died before
the property in question was taken, leaving various heirs surviving
him. Three of these heirs, Fannie J. Hereford (nee Jones), Nannie
H. Jones, and Mary E. Hereford (nee Jones), are found loyal be-
cause of their tender years during the war.
The court has expressly found the value of the interests of these
loyal children in the supplies taken for Army use, fixing it at $1,200,
and has further found the respective interests of the heirs of these
three original owners so found loyal. The appropriation proposed
follows the findings of the court in matter of distribution. It was
once objected in another body that the loyalty of John T. Jones was
not found by the court, but as he was dead when the property was
taken for use of the Army, that is wholly immaterial.
This claim passed the Senate in the Sixtieth and Sixty-first Con-
gresses, and passed the House in the Sixty-first and Sixty-second
Congresses.
Meredith King. (J. P. McClendon, administrator.) (H. D. 380-
59-2.) Bowman Act. Claim sent to court January 15, 1901. The
court finds claimant to have been loyal, and that Army supplies
worth $700 were taken from him by proper authority. Claim was
prosecuted before Southern Claims Commission, appearing on page
135 of index of such claims.
This claim passed the Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed
the House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
32 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
John :\I. Lawson. (Mary E. Haygood. heir.) (H. D. 205-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Claim sent to court March 27. 1000. Findings show
loyalty of claimant and that supplies Avorth $920 were taken for
Army use. The claim was prosecuted before the Soutliern Claims
Commission, but was rejected then because claimant had taken bene-
fit of bankruptcy law. Many claims were rejected by that commis-
sion on the same groun(J, which is utterly untenable.
The effect of bankruptcy of a claimant was considered by the
Court of Claims in case of Campbell. 28 Court of Claims Eeport,
512. The syllabus of that decision is as follows :
Claims for property seized by the Army in tlu^ seceded States dniiui; the Civil
War do not pass in banlcniptcy, and ma.y be prosecuted by the original claimant.
The various acts appropriating for })ayment of such claims have
contained a proviso to the effect :
That in all cases where the original claimants were adjudicated bankrupts
payments shall be made to the next of kin instead of to the assignees in
bankruptcy.
This claim passed the Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed the
House in the Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
Daxifx Lyons. (Mollie I). Wilson et al.. heirs.) (H. D. 1343-
61-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 12. 1908. Court finds
claimant loyal and that Army supplies worth $010 were taken.
Claim Avas presented to Southern Claims Commission. It passed
the House in Sixty-second Congress.
John W. McDaniel. (John C. McDaniel, administrator.) (H. D.
206-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court December 15. 1890. Find-
ings show claimant loyal and that supplies worth $790 Avere taken
for Army use. Claim presented to Southern Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
John Mantel. (S. D. 185-58-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution. Findings show claimant was
loyal and that Army supplies Avorth $567 Avere taken for Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first Congress, and passed House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Francis C. Martin. (Lewid F. Martin, administrator.) (H. D.
550-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court July 10, 1888. Findings
shoAv loyalty and taking of supplies for Army use Avorth $925. Claim
rejected by Southern Claims Commission because of bankruptcy of
claimant.
Pa&sed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixtieth,
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
Glorvinia Mason and John O. Mason. (J. G. Mason, administra-
tor.) (H. D. 500-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 23,
1889. Findings show the tAvo decedents mentioned were loyal. Their
coowner, Robert B. Mason, Avas found not loyal, and claim Avas dis-
missed as to his interest in claim. The court explicitly reports that
$3,990 represents only the interests of the tAvo loyal OAvners in the
supplies taken for Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixtieth,
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congi-esses.
CLAIMS UNDEB THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 33
Marcus M. Massengale. (James M. Massengale, administrator.)
( S. D. 183-61-2. ) Tucker Act. Sent to court first under Bowman Act
March 2, 1891, claim having- been presented to Southern Claims Com-
mission. It appearing that testimony had not been submitted to that
commission, claim was later sent to court under Tucker Act on June
30, 1908, by Senate resolution. Findings show claimant loyal and
that supplies worth $615 were taken for xA.rmy use.
Passed Senate in Sixt3-first Congress, and passed House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Thomas J. Mitchell. (J. W. Mitchell, administrator.) (H. D.
33-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 26, 1889. Findings
show claimant loyal and that supplies worth $299 were taken for
Army use. Claim prosecuted before Southern Claims Commission,
appearing on page 166 of index of such claims.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixtieth,
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
Margaret J. Parks. (S. D. 13-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
April 13, 1900, by Senate resolution. Findings show claimant's loy-
alty and taking of supplies for Army use worth $1,068.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixty-
second Congress.
Jacob A. Paulk. (S. D. 568-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and
that supplies worth $310 were taken for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixtj^-second Congresses.
Jonathan Paulk. (Jacob A. Paulk, administrator.) (S. D.
568-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth
$1,080 were taken from him for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Augustus N. Perkins. (Louisa Perkins, administratrix.) (S. D,
224-58-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 7, 1901, by Sen-
ate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth
$1,605 were taken for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Absalom T. Phillips. (J. W. Phillips, administrator.) (H. D.
54-61-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 15, 1906. Court
finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $202 were taken for
Army use. Claim was prosecuted before Southern Claims Commis-
sion, as mentioned in statement of case, and appears on page 186 of
index of such claims.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
George Orville Rac^land. (Edward M. Ragland et al.) (S. D.
299-61-2.) Tucker Act. The heirs of George Orville Ragland are
Edward M. Ragland, Mrs. Ursula Ragland Erskine, and Edward M.
Ragland, as administrator of John D. Ragland. Sent to court March
2, 1907. by Senate resolution. Supplies were taken from three chil-
dren of George O. Ragland, then deceased. The court finds these
three children to have been loyal on account of their tender years
19855— H. Kept. 97, C3-2 3
34 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC.
during war, and that supplies worth $5,510 were taken from them foj
Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixtj-^-second Congresses.
John P. Eoberson. (J. B. Roberson, administrator.) (H. D.
308-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 18. 1903, by House
resohition. The court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth
$1,230 Avere taken for xVrmy use.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixtieth,
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
Oscar A. Rolfe. (Charles O. Rolfe, administrator.) (H. D. 228-
59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court April 20, 1888. Court finds
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $2,980 were taken from him
for Army use. Was prosecuted before Southern Claims Commission,
appearing on page 202 of index of such claims.
Passed House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
Samuel F. Ryan. (S. D. 103-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution. \\Tiile the findings are in great
detail, the essential facts are that Samuel F. Ryan was 8 years old
when certain Arm}' supplies were taken, and is found loyal because
of tender years; and that he Avas the equitable owner of five-sixths
interest in the supplies taken; that his said five-sixths interest was
Avorth $2,712. Ryan's father presented the claim in first place to
Southern Claims Commission in his own name, but it was rejected.
The sum alloAved by the court covers only the interest of this claim-
ant in the property taken.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first Congresses, and passed
House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
James M. Thomason. (H. D. 849-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent
to court August 6, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that sup-
plies worth $G85 Avere taken for Army use. Claim prosecuted be-
fore Southern Claims Commission, appearing on page 233 of index
of such claims.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixtieth,
Sixty-first, and Sixty-Second Congresses.
Daniel Thompson. (Shelby Grisham, administrator.) (H. D.
794-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 14, 1902. Court finds
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $240 were taken for Army
use. Claim prosecuted before Southern Claims Commission, appear-
ing on page 234 of index of such claims.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Moses K. Wheat. (Cecilia R. A. Wheat, executrix.) (H. D.
537-60-1.) Bowman Act Sent to court April 20, 1888. Court
finds claimant loyal and that supplies A\'orth $4,890 were taken for
Army use. Claim prosecuted before Southern Claims Commission,
appearing on page 250 of index of such claims.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixtieth,
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
Thomas Williams. (Richard Garner, administrator.) (H. D.
1200-60-2.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court May 19, 1906. Court
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 35
finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $295 were taken for
Arni}^ use. Claim presented to Southern Claims Commission, ap-
pearing on page 254: of index of such claims.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Athens, Ala. (S. D. 92-
61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds claimant loyal and that its house of worship was
used and occupied by United States forces, under proper authority,
and that reasonable value of such use and occupation, with incidental
damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, amount to $1,440.
Claim first presented to Quartermaster General in 1865.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first Congress, and passed House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Cumberland Presbyi^erian Church, Bellefonte, Ala. (S. D.
256-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate
resolution. Court findings show claimant's church was torn down
by military forces, under proper authority, and materials used for
military purposes, and that the value of property taken was $750;
also that claimant, as a church, remained loyal.
Passed both Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Bellefonte, Ala. (S. D.
269-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate
resolution. Court finds that claimant, as an organization, remained
loyal, and that United States forces, by proper authority, tore down
its church and used same to build quarters; that the building was
reasonably worth $380.
Passed both Senate and House in Six'ty-Second Congress.
Masonic lodoe, Bexar, Ala. (S. D. 695-60-2.) Tucker Act.
Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal. On property the findings are that the lodge owned
a two-story frame building worth $600, and that:
In the spring of 1863 said building, with contents, while in the occupation
of the United States military forces, was destroyed by fire, the evidence failing
to disclose whether the fire was accidental or otherwise.
The question of whether the lodge should be paid for its building
under the circumstances found is deemed one not entirely free of
doubt. However, it would appear unreasonable to demand proof
of the claimant as to precisely the manner in which the fire started,
when it is found that the building was at the time in possession of
the troops. Under such conditions neither members nor officers of
the lodge would have been permitted to remain in the building for
the purpose of watching the troops. All that the lodge could
prove, in the very nature of things, are the facts found by the court.
While it is true that a lessee of a building is not responsible for
loss of the building by fire, if he exercises reasonable care, it would
seem that where the Government seizes possession of a building,
it is under at least a moral duty to return the building in as good
condition as it was in when seized. It is upon that theory that the
committee has included numerous claims of churches and other
organizations, as well as some of individuals, covering rental value
of buildings, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear.
36 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKEE ACTS^, ETC.
In view of the reported facts, it is deemed but just and fair that
this Masonic lodrre be paid the $600 representing the vahie of its
building:, which Avas evidently burned as the direct result of its being
occupied by the troops.
Passed Senate in Sixty-second Congress.
Decatur Lodge, Xo. 52, I. (). O. F., Decatur. Ala. (S. D.
020-r)0-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court January 23. H)0i2. by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant, as an organization, was loyal; and
that its brick lodge building was torn down by United States forces
and materials used for militarv purposes; that value of building vras
$6,000.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
First Baptist Chi-rch. Decati^r. Ala. (S. D. 227-(U-2.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court June 18, 190G, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal; and that United States forces tore down its church
for militarv purposes; that the building was worth $2,200.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Decatur, Ala. (S. D.
307-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate
resolution. Con.rt fimls claimant loyal: and that Ignited States forces,
by proper authority, tore down its buildings, worth $1,850.
Passed both Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress.
Presbyterian Church. Decatur, Ala. (S. D. 142-60-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court June T, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal, as an organization; that United States forces, under
pro]jer authority, tore down its building and used materials for
making quarters: that building was reasonably worth $3,000.
Passed both Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress.
Missionary Baptist Church, Graa^lly Springs, Ala. (S. D.
80-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904. Court finds
claimant loyal; and that United States forces, under proper au-
thority, tore down its building and used same in building winter
quarters; that building was worth $725.
Passed both Senate "and House in Sixty-second Congress.
Cumberland Presbyterian Church (Colored), Hi^ntsville,
Ala. (S. D. 284-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904,
by Senate resolution. The court finds that claimant was loyal and
that United States forces, by proper authority, tore down its church
and used materials for making quarters: that the building Avas worth
$220; also that the claim was filed with Quartermaster General in
1866 and dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Passed both Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress.
jMethodist Episcopal Chi^rch South, Huntsville, Ala. (S. D.
131-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; that United States troops
occupied the church building and that "during such occupation the
building was, by some means not explained to the court, set on fire
and was consumed, and therebv became a total loss." Building
worth $7,500.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AXD TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 37
This claim in its material features is practically identical Avith the
claim of the Masonic Lodge of Bexar. Ala., above considered. As
stated in considering that claim it would seem the moral duty of the
Government when it occupies such buildings to surrender them in as
good condition as they were in when possession was taken, or to
recompense the oAvners for losses arising from failure to do so.
For this reason this claim is here included.
Passed Senate in Sixty-second Congress.
Missionary Baptist Church. Huntsville. Ala,, successor to
Primitive Baptist Church. (S. D. 23(3-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent
to court March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution. Court finds that the
Primitive Baptist Church of Huntsville was loyal: that the Mis-
sionary Baptist Church is successor to the original church; that
United States forces took possession of the church and used and occu-
pied it ; that reasonable worth of such use and occupation, with inci-
dental damages other than ordinary wear and tear, amount to $1,760.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first Congresses and passed
House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
PRi:MiTr\^E Baptist Chttrch (Colored). Huntsville, Ala. (S. D.
79-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904. by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that United States forces
tore down its church and used the materials, the building being worth
$909.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first Congress and passed House in Sixty-
second Congress.
Oak Grove Methodist Church South, Jackson County, Ala.
(S. D. 213-G1-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that United States
forces, under proper authority, tore down its church and used mate-
rials for building bridges; that the reasonable value of the building
was $550.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first Congress and passed House in Sixty-
second Congress.
Cumberland Presbyterian Church. Larkinsville. Ala. (S. D.
355-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; also that United States
forces, by jDroper authority, used the church as a stable and later
tore the church down and used materials in erection of cjuarters ; that
reasonable value of occupation and of the building was $525.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first Congress and passed House in Sixty-
second Congress.
Medical College or Alaba:ma. jNIobile. (S. D. 341-61-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 13, 1908, by Senate resolution.
The court finds claimant, as an institution, remained loyal; that
after the close of the war the Government took possession of premises
of claimant and used and occupied same about a year and 10 months ;
that the reasonable rental was $3,300 and the incidental damage, in
excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $900. making a total of $4,200.
Passed the House for $4,200 in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Con-
gresses and passed Senate to extent of $3,300 in Sixty-second Con-
gress.
38 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAK AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Bolivar Lodge. Xo. 127. F. A. A. M.. Stevenson, Ala. (S. D.
112-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal, and that United States mili-
tary forces tore down the building- of the lodge and used materials,
the building being of reasonable value of $1,150.
Pased Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first Congresses, and passed
House in Sixty-first and Sixt3'-second Congresses.
Missionary Baptist Church of Waterloo, Ala. (S. D. 40-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court by Senate resolution April 27. 1904.
Court finds claimant loyal, and that United States military forces,
under proper authoritv. removed its building and used materials
for Army use, the building being Avorth $615.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first Congresses, and passed
House in Sixty-second Congress.
ARKANSAS.
Eliza Ann Ashcraft. (X. B. Ashcraft, administrator.) (H. D.
541-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court January 17, 1910, by House
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal : Army supplies taken worth
$400. Court accompanies findings Avith the " conclusion " required
by act of June 25. 1910 (36 Stat.. 837). that "the claim herein is an
equitable one in the sense that the United States received the benefit
of the supplies for Avhich claim is made." Claim certified too late for
inclusion in any former bills.
John W. Bean. (H. D. 3r> 1-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
October 31. 1904. Court finds claimant loyal, and supplies AVorth
$290 taken for Army use. Presented to Southern Claims Commis-
sion, and appears on page 20 of index of such claims.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixtieth,
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
Joseph Bean.' (Joseph X. Bean, administrator.) (H. D.
488-60-1.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court ^farch 2, 1891. Court finds
claimant loyal, and that supplies Avorth $648 Avere taken for Army
use. Presented to Southern Claims Commission, appearing on page
20 of index of such claims.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-
first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
Chester Bethel. (H. D. 706-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
by House resolution ]March 7. 1908. Court finds claimant loyal, and
that supplies worth $300 Avere taken for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
John Breaver. (Sarah BrcAver. AvidoAv and sole heir.) (H. D.
307-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court July 10, 1888. Court finds
claimant loyal, and that supplies worth $232 were taken for Army
use; also that Sarah BreAver is widoAV and sole heir. Was presented
to Southern Claims Commission, appearing on page 32 of index
thereof.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixtieth,
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 39
James E. Caldavell. (11. D. .-)16-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court March 7, 1908, by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ;
supplies worth $385 taken for Army use. The conclusion of the
court is that the claim is an equitable one. Claim certified too late
for inclusion in former bills.
Isaac S. Conner. (T. F. Conner, administrator.) (H. D. 448-
Cr2-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court July 10, 1886. Court finds
claimant loyal, and that supplies worth $575 were taken for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Asa Crow. (William E. Floyd, administrator.) S.D. (54:2-00-2.)
Tucker Act. Claim first sent to court by House under Bowman Act
April 22. 1890, in name of Mary Crow, widow of Asa Crow, who also
presented claim to Southern Claims Commission in her own name-
Was later sent to court by Senate resolution March 2, 1903, evidently
to confer jurisdiction to consider claim in name of Asa Crow. Court
finds claimant loyal, and that supplies worth $715 were taken for
Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first Congress, and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
John X. Curtis. (Isaiah L. Blair, administrator.) (H. D. 231-
61-2.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court March 27. 1890. Court finds
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $1,720 were taken from him
by proper authority. Claim is stated to have been filed before South-
ern Claims Commission, and nmst have been so filed in order to be
tried imder Bowman Act.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Curtis & Austin. (Claim of former firm, now represented by
Isaiah L. Blair, administrator of John N. Curtis, and by Mary J.
Louden, daughter and heir of Thomas Austin.) (H. D. 245-61-2.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court July 17. 1890. Court finds both mem-
bers of firm were loyal and that su]:)plies worth $775 were taken by
proper authority.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Sa^fuel B. Derreberry. (J. M. Derreberrv. administrator.) (H.
D. 50^59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court July 10, 1888. Court
finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $715 were taken for
Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House Sixtieth,
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
Laura J. Dills. (J. W. Wallace, executor.) (S. D. 329-61-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3. 1905, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal, because of her tender years during war.
It is stated in petition that she was only 16 when war ended. It is
forther found that supplies were taken from this girl and her co-
owners bv proper authoritA^ and that her interest in same was Avorth
$2,945.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
EDituND F. Duke. (J. H. Duke, administrator.) (H. D. 512-
60-1.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court March 13. 1894. Court finds
40 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, EIC.
claimant loyal and supplies worth $3,705 taiven from him by proper
authority.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and passed House in Sixtieth. Sixty-
first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
AViLLiAM H. Engles. (H. D. TOl -oO-l.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court February 2, 1897. Court finds claimant loyal and that sup-
plies worth $1,510 were taken for Arnw use.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Isaac T. Eppler. (Sam Edmondson. administrator.) (H. D.
352-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 4, 1902. Court finds
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $2,205 were taken for Army
use.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
TiTADDEUs N. Ferrell. (Mattie U. Bovkin. Thaddeus C. Ferrell,
and Lulu D. Meriwether, heirs.) (S. D. 344-61-2.) Tucker Act.
Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds, in
effect, that the three claimants named were of tender years during
war and therefore were loyal; that supplies worth $5,119 were taken
from them for Arnw use; that claim was not presented to Southern
Claims Commission because claimants Avere all minors during exist-
ence of the commission.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Samuee H. Fitzhugh. (Samuel E. Fitzhugh. administrator.)
(H. D. 797-GO-l.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 20. 1887.
Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $772 were taken
for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
John G. Freeman. (Mrs. A. M. McFarlane. administratrix.)
(S. D. 216-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 21, 1911,
by Senate resolution. Claim for part of property presented to
Southern Claims Commission; claim first sent to court under Bow-
man Act. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $2,991
were taken for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
John Gibson. (John H. Brvson, administrator.) (H. D. 366-
62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 10, 1909. Presented to
Southern Claims Commission. Court finds claimant loyal and that
supplies worth $1,060 Avere taken for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Joel Harrell. (Dan Thomason. administrator.) (H. D. 795-
60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 9, 1907. Court finds
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $1,190 were taken for Army
use.
Passed House in Sixtj'-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Martha Harrison and Oliver P. Lister. (William A. Bethel,
administrator of Martlia Harrison.) ( H. D. 723-59-1.) Bowman
Act. Sent to court February 16. 1892. Found page 104 of index of
CLAIMS UlSTDEE THE BOWMAN" AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 41
claims presented to Southern Claims Commission. Court finds claim-
ants loyal and that supplies worth $399 were taken for Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Richard Higgixs. (Joel G. Higgins, administrator.) S. D. 1G4-
56-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court by Senate resolution July 17,
1897. Material facts found by court are as follows :
Richard Higgins died in 1862 and before taking of property in
question. He left a widow. Elizabeth Higgins, and three small
children surviving him. who became owners of the property. These
three small children were Joel G. Higgins. Brand Higgins. and An-
nie G. Higgins. The children are found loyal. The widow is not
found lojT^al.
The court finds that supplies worth $11,954 were taken from the
four owners for Army use. The share owned by Mrs. Higgins can
not be paid for, she being found not loyal. The other three-fourths
interests, amounting to $8,965, should be paid for, however.
After close of war the daughter. Annie G. Higgins. died, and
under Arkansas law her mother became her heir. Hence Mrs. Higgins
should receive, in her representative capacity, the share of her daugh-
ter. In order that proper distribution of the proposed appropriation
may be made, the committee suggests that the appropriation run as
follows :
To Joel G. Higi^ins. admiuisti'iitor of estate of Richard Higgins. deceased.
$8,9G5, to be distributed as follows: In equal parts to Mrs. Elizabeth Higgins
(as heir of Annie G. Higgins. deceased), to Joel G. Higgins. and to Brand
Higgins, in full payment for stores and supplies.
The proposed appropriation covers only the part of the claim al-
lowed for Army stores and supplies, the committee not having in-
cluded the item of cotton, amounting to $5,494.40. This action is,
of course, without prejudice to further consideration of the cotton
item.
Passed the House in Sixty-second Congress.
Ira M. Lamb and Richard D. Lamb. (Richard D. Lamb, ad-
ministrator.) (H. D. 844-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
June 5, 1890. Appears on page 138 of index of Southern Claims
Commission. Court finds Ira M. Lamb, jr., and Richard D. Lamb
loyal, account tender years, during war ; that their mother and co-
owner was not loyal ; that supplies worth $3,250 were taken from the
mother and two sons for Army use; and allows two-thirds that sum,
or $2,166.67, on shares of the two sons. Appropriation should be
made to Richard D. Lamb, in his own right, and also to him as ad-
ministrator of his brother, Ira M. Lamb, jr., and the language of
appropriation is suggested as follows :
To liichard D. Lamb, in his own right, and to Richard D. Lamb, as admin-
istrator of estate of Ira M. Lamb, jr., in equal shares. $2,166.07. as heirs of
Ira M. Lamb, deceased, late of Phillips County.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Mary Lefevre. (LTnion Trust Co.. administrator.) (H. D. 350-
59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 4. 1904. Appears page
142 of index of claims before Southern Claims Commission. Court
42 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
finds claimant lo5^al and that supplies worth $5,842 were taken for
Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John B. Luttrell. (H. D. 353-59-1.) Bowman Act. • Sent to
court January 14, 1902. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies
worth $480 were taken for Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Ben Mahuren. (S. D. 566-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
May 22, 1908, b}'' Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and
that supplies worth $550 taken for Army use. Claimant first tried
to present claim in 1870.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Eleanor Maxwell. (H. D. 1316-60-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court April 27, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies
worth $3,064 taken for Army use. Appears page 161 of index of
claims before Southern Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixt3^-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Henry B. Mullins (E. M. Carl-Lee, administrator) and Sue F.
Carl-Lee and Nancy L. Frazier. (S. D. 545-61-2.) Tucker Act.
Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. It appears that
Alfred Mullins died in 1860, leaving several heirs, including Henry
B. Mullins, Sue F. Carl-Lee, and Nancy L. Frazier, all then of ten-
der years. The three children mentioned are found loyal, and it is
also found that supplies Avere taken from them and their coowners
for Army use, and that their share in said supplies were worth
$1,995. From the statement of case it appears that two of the chil-
dren mentioned were minors during period (Mar. 3, 1871-Mar. 3,
1873) during which claim might have been presented to Southern
Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Benjamin Pigman. (Jonathan Pigman, executor.) (S. D. 350-
59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 19, 1902, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $1,570
taken for Army use.
Burns Polk. Sr. (Maria Polk Johnston, James Polk, and Burns
Polk, jr., heirs') (H. D. 713-59-2.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court
April 23, 1890. Court finds claimant loyal, it appearing that he was
a slave till freed ; that supplies worth $300 were taken for Army use.
Claim appears page 189 of index of claims filed with claims commis-
sion.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixtj^-second Congresses.
Manurvia J. Spake (formerly Ross). (H. D. 354-59-1.) Bow-
man Act. Sent to court March 4, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal
and that supplies worth $780 taken for Army use. Appears page
220 index of claims filed with claims commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixtv- second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 43
William B. Rutherford.- (H. D. 349-59-1.) Bowman Act.
Sent to court March 4, 1904. Court finds claimant loj-al and tliat
supplies worth $890 taken for Army use. Appears page 205 of index
of claims filed with Claims Commission.
Pa.ssed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
William T. Stone. (John T. Sifford, executor.) (H. D. 364-
59-1.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court February 27. 1887. Court
finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $2,640 were taken for
Army use. Appears page 226 of index of claims filed with Claims
Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Sarah Winter. (S. D. 199-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
June 27, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and
that supplies worth $1,380 were taken by proper authority.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress and House in Sixty-second
Congress.
Mary E. Wycough. (Lillie L. Penrod, sole heir.) (S. D. 220-
61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1909. by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds claimant loyal and that her interest in supplies
taken from her and her coowners for Armj'' use amounts to $700;
that claim was filed with Claims Commission; that Lillie L. Penrod
is sole heir.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Joseph C. Zillah. (John Zillah and Mary T. Goss, sole heirs.)
(H. D. 695-60-1). Bowman Act. Sent to 'court April 10. 1906.
Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $240 were taken
for Army use; also that John Zillah and Mary T. Goss are sole heirs.
Appears page 262 of index of claims filed with Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Christian Church, near old Austin, Lonoke County, Ark.
(S. D. 354-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907. Court
finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces, by proper authority,
tore down church building and used materials in constructing quar-
ters for troops ; that value of property was $550.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Clarksville, Ark. (S. D.
16-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1905, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces took
possession of two churches and used them as commissary storehouses;
that on approach of Confederate forces the United States forces
burned the buildings to prevent the supplies therein from being cap-
tured by Confederates ; that the rental of the buildings during period
of occupancy was worth $400; that the value of buildings destroyed
was $4,000.
In preparation of this bill, the committee has eliminated items of
pure destruction and for that reason includes only the $400 item of
44 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS; ETC.
rent, and in order that the other item of the claim may not be preju-
diced from further consideration, suggests appropriation as follows :
To the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Clarksville, in
full compensation for rent of buildings during Civil War. $400.
As to this portion of claim, it passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-
first Congresses and House in Sixty-second Congress. It passed
Senate in Sixty-second Congress as toother part, i. e., $4,000, but not
as to rent item.
Baptist Church of Dardaxelle, Ark. (S. D. 280-00-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 12, 1908, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; and that troops, by proper authority,
tore down most of church, so that remainder fell doAvn; that mate-
rials were used for military purposes : that building and furnishings
were worth $1,190.
Passed Senate in Sixty-jfirst and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
First Baptist Church, of Helena, Ark. ( S. D. 129-59-2. ) Tucker
Act. Sent to court April 27, 1905. Court finds claimant loyal and
that from about July 12, 1862, till about July 1. 1865, United States
forces used and occupied church building for military purposes; that
reasonable rental value of the premises and incidental damages
amount to $1,790.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixtj^-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Old School Presbyterian Church, or Helena, Ark. ( S. D. 229-
59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27. 1904, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces, by
proper authority, used and occupied building for 18 months; that
rental value during that period, with amount necessary to repair
building, is $1,900."
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Pleasant Hill Baptist Church, Lonoke County, Ark. (H. D.
237-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court January 17, 1910, by House
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal, and that United States forces,
by proper authority, tore down church building and used the mate-
rials for barracks ; that the building was worth $525.
Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress.
Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Mount Comfort, Ark. (S.
D. 253-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court first under Bowman Act
March 2, 1891 ; later sent under Tucker Act, by Senate resolution,
March 3, 1903. Court finds claimant loyal ; that buildings of claim-
ant, worth $900, were torn down by military forces, under proper
authority, and materials used for making quarters.
Passed both Senate and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Con-
gresses.
First Baptist Church, Pine Bluff, Ark. (S. D. 42-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces, by proper au-
thority, used and occupied the church, and that the reasonable rental
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 45
value during: that period of use and amount necessary to restore
buildino- aggregate $1,960.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Pine Bluff, Akk. (H. D.,
782-()0-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906. by House
resohition. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces, by
proper authority, used and occupied church building as storehouse
for supplies and incidentally damaged same; that the reasonable
rental, with damages in excess of wear and tear, amount to $1,300.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
CALIFORNIA.
Joseph M. Clark. (H. D. 241-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $184.12.
Passed House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
WiLFORD CuBBAGE. (H. D. 394-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $137.42.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Eichard N. Doyle. (H. D. 272-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $397.97.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Andrew J. Guilford. (H. D. 117-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $547.25.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
David H. Hilderbrand. (H. D. 841-59-1.) Bowman Act. Claim
first sent to court December 22, 1884, under Bowman Act; claimant
found loyal under that reference in 1885; findings were made on
property in 1886, which findings were not sufficiently explicit to se-
cure favorable action upon claim. January 23, 1906, claim again re-
ferred to court under Bowman Act. The later findings are explicit
in stating that supplies were taken for use of Army by proper au-
thority of the value of $480. These later findings show^ everything
required as a condition to payment. Claim was presented to Southern
Claims Commission, appearing on page 111 of index of such claims.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Julia H. Castle. (Daughter of John H. Howe.) (H. D. 258-
60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $575.93.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
COLORADO.
Lewis B. Brasher. (H. D. 1491-60-2.) Bowman Act. Sent court
February 11, 1908. The facts of this claim, as reported by the court,
are peculiar. In October, 1864, claimant was designated by the
colonel of the Fifty- fourth Kentucky Mounted 'Infantry as acting
46 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
regimental quartermaster, and later as acting assistant brigade
quartermaster. He filled these positions, performing the duties of
the positions from October 19, 1864, till January 31, 1SG5.
The court reports that the colonel who designated claimant to per-
form the duties of these positions was without authority, either from
the United States Government or from the State of Kentucky, to
make an}^ such appointment. Claimant was never mustered into the
military service during this period.
Had he been duly commissioned and mustered in the positions
mentioned he would have drawn $372.83.
The conditions reported evidently arose from the calling into serv-
ice ^'olunteer troops, officers of whom acted without a knowledge of
military laws or procedure. It seems to be a fact that claimant per-
formed the duties mentioned, and it would follow that the United
States received the benefits thereof. While it is well settled, as a
principle of commercial law, that one who volunteers his services to
anotlier, without request, can recover nothing therefor, yet in this
case it would seem that claimant served under what may be termed
color of title to the positions the duties of which he performed.
Under all these facts it is believed right that the sum mentioned be
paid this claimant.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Jesse W. Coleman. (H. D. 302-59-1). Tucker Act. Sent to court
February 27, 1901, by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal.
As to the matter of property the findings may be properly criticized
as not sufficiently explicit. However, they must be read in connec-
tion with the allegations of the petition, and when so read it appears
with reasonable certainty that Army supplies Avere taken from this
man which were reasonably worth $675. The claim as presented in-
cluc'ed other items which were in effect disallowed b}^ the court. It
is believed that the findings, fairly construed, show this man to be
entitled to $675.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixty-sec-
ond Congress.
Jajmes W. Hanna. (H. D. 585-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $148.34.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
William B. Palmer. (H. D. 264-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $360.65.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
George T. Shackelford. (H. D. 266-60-1.) Bowman Act.
Officer's claim for difference in pay, $43.80.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
CONNECTICUT.
James F. Brown. (H. D. 255-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $262.98.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 47
James E. Hubbell. (E. "W. and K. H. Hubbell, executors.)
(H. D. 243-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in
pay, $109.27.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Charles H. Simmons. (H. D. 4G4-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $39.94.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
DISTRICT or COLUMBIA.
Harrison L. Deam. (H. D. 252-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $115.74.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, and House in Sixtieth, Sixtj'^-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John T. Deweese. (Ella L. Deweese, widow.) (H. D. 290-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $155.09.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixtj^-second Congresses.
Thomas Fahey. (H. D. 325-62-2.) Tucker Act. Claim first
sent to court June 21, 1910, by Senate resolution; later sent to court
February 3, 1911, by House resolution, and tried under later reference.
Court finds claimant loyal and further finds that he was owner of
a leasehold on premises situated near end of Long Bridge, on Vir-
ginia side of Potomac River; that United States forces by proper
authoritjT^ used and occupied the premises and later tore down the
buildings and used the materials therein; that the reasonable rental
value together with value of improvements torn down amount to
$1,840. The claimant alleges that he placed the improvements upon
the land. The court expressly reports that as early as 1865 claim was
presented to Quartermaster General for rent and value of buildings,
which claim was rejected for want of jurisdiction; that a claim was
later presented to the Southern Claims Commission for value of
lumber taken from buildings, but that claim was rejected for lack
of jurisdiction.
This claim was tried by the court subsequent to the approval of
the act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stats., 837), and therefore the findings
are accompanied by the following :
CONCLUSION.
TTpon the foregoing findings of fact the conrt conchides th;it the claim herein
is an equitable one in the sense that the United States received tlie benefit of
the use of the property and buildings for which claim is made.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Gottlieb C. Grammer. (Heber L. Thornton and Grayson L.
Thornton, trustees.) (S. D. 303-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
May 26, 1900, by Senate resolution. It appears that Gottlieb C.
Grammer died in the District of Columbia in 1858; that trustees
were apjpointed to execute certain trusts erected by his will; that
they were in possession of the Grammer farm, situate in the Dis-
48 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
trict, in 1862; that in that year United States military forces cut
from the farm timber worth $2,340.
The trustees in possession of the premises at that time were
Christopher Grammer and William B. Todd, who are found by the
court to have been loyal. It appears that effort Avas made during
the war by the trustees to secure consideration of the claim, but
without results.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Benjamin F. Hasson. (H. D. 302-GO-l.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $365.39.
Elizabeth Thomas. (S. D. 53-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
June 27, 11)02, by Senate resolution. Court finds Elizabeth Thomas,
a resident of the District of Columbia, was loyal. It appears that
the claimant with her brother, George Proctor, and her sister, Sarah
Catherine Diggs, owned a small farm near Brightwood, D. C; that
United States troops occupied the land and tore down various build-
ings thereon; also that they cut down an orchard and greatly dam-
aged the premises. The court expressly refuses to make any allow-
ance for destruction or damages arising from military necessity, but
restricts its allowance to a reasonable rental value of the land and
for the personal property taken for use of the Army during the
occupancy, allowing $1,835 therefor. It appears that the claimant
can scarcely read and can not Avrite; that she put the claim in the
hands of a Federal captain, who stated he would look after it, but
thereafter died; that the papers were in his hands and claimant
could not secure them.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
rLOEIDA.
IsADOEE VON Balsan. (Robcrt von Balsan. et al.) (S. D. 622-
60-2.) Tucker Act. Claim first sent to court February 10, 1886,
under Bowman Act, but then disallowed because of lack of certain
proofs ; later sent to court June 30, 1902, by Senate resolution under
Tucker Act in the name of estate of Henry von Balsan; tried as
Case Xo. 10929, Congressional, and adversely decided on grounds
that it did not appear that Henry von Balsan was owner of property
in question. Was again referred to court June 27, 1906, by Senate
i-esolution in name of present claimants.
The court finds that Robert von Balsan, Rinaldo von Balsan, Isa-
dore von Balsan, and their mother, Caroline von Balsan, were loyal;
that military forces by proper authority took from them for use of
Army supplies worth $1,280. Court further reports presentation of
claim to Southern Claims Commission in 1872 in name of Henry von
Balsan. The findings of the court make it plain that the claim is just
and that previous rejection was because claim had been presented in
the wrong name. lit is a matter of fair inference that Henry von
Balsan, in whose name claim was first presented, was the husband of
Caroline von Balsan and the father of the other claimants.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 49
Joseph D. Hazzard. (H. D. 277-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $106.21.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Manette Marsons. (Telesfor D. Quigles, administrator.) (H. D.
38-58-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 21, 1899, by House
resolution. Court finds that Manette Marsons was loyal and that
military forces took supplies from her for use of Army reasonably
worth $4,300.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congi'ess and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-
first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
Eliza Ann Turner, Richard H. Turner, in his own right, and
AS Administrator or Eliza Turner. (S. D. 254— 60-1.) Court finds
that Eliza Turner, the decedent, and Richard H. Turner and Eliza
Ann Turner were loyal ; that supplies worth $2,130 were taken from
them for Army use by proper authority. No allowance is made for
anything but Army supplies.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congi-esses.
First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Fla. (S. D. 236-62-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; also that United States military forces
used and occupied church premises for hospital and camping pur-
poses and damaged same; that reasonable value of use and occupa-
tion, together with damages in excess of ordinary Avear and tear,
amount to $1,170. Being a recent finding, the court reports its con-
clusion that the claim is an equitable one in the sense that the United
States received the benefit of the use of the property for which claim
is made.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
GEORGIA.
July A>^derson. (July Anderson, jr., administrator.) (H. D.
700-60-1.) Bowman Act.^ Sent to court June 10, 1906. Court finds
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $280 were taken by proper
authority for Army use. This claim was before Southern Claims Com-
mission, appearing on page 11 of index of such claims, though by
clerical error it is indexed under the name of Judy Anderson.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Reddick Aycock. (G. W. Aycock, administrator.) (H. D. 501-
59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court June 27, 1888. Court finds
claimant loyal and that supplies Avorth $515 were taken for Army
use. Claim appears on page 14 of index of claims filed with Claims
Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Caldwell C. Baggs, William A. Baggs, and Mary A. Baggs
Latham. (S. D. 242-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3,
1909, by Senate resolution. This claim is for the undivided interest
of three young children in property taken after the death of their
19855— H. Rept. 97, 63-2 4
50 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAIS; AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
father. From the statement of case it appears that the eldest of
these three children was born in 1850, another in 1856. and another
in 1864. No claim is made and no allowance made for the interests
of their coheirs or coowners. The court finds that these three claim-
ants were loyal because of their tender years and that supplies were
taken in which the interest of each of them amounted to $220. or, in
all, $660 for the three claimants. It is also reported that their
mother, Mrs. Mary E. Baggs, made claim to the Southern Claims
Commission in her own name, but the claim was then rejected ; also
that the claim was first sent to court under Bowman Act on May 19,
1906, in name of Mrs. Baggs, mother of present claimants. The
court accompanies its finding with a favorable conclusion that the
claim is an equitable one.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Larkin Clark. (James F. Hicks, administrator.) (H. D. 691-
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906. by House reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal and that Army supplies worth
$165 were taken by proper authority; also that claim was presented
to Claims Commission in 1871 and disallowed for want of sufficient
proof.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
William Course y. (Mrs. M. E. Arrowood, administratrix.)
(H. D. 38-61-1.) Bowman Act. Court finds that decedent, Wil-
liam Coursey, who owned the property when it was taken, was loyal ;
that claims were previously presented by two individual heirs of
William Coursey, each claiming one-half; that one heir, Lloyd
Coursey, was found loyal and was paid $617 on his share of the
claim; that the other heir, Daniel Coursey, could not establish his
own loyalty, although the loyalty of his decedent was proven and
conceded. The present claim is presented by the administratrix of the
original decedent to recover the other half of the claim, i. e., $617.
As said William Coursey, the owner of the property at the time of
taking, has been adjudged loyal, both by the Claims Commission and
by the Court of Claims, it is obvious that the remaining $617 should
be paid to his administratrix. Save under a mistaken construction
of law by the Claims Commission, the Government has not required
proof of loyalty of beneficiaries of an estate where it appears that
the decedent who owned the property at the time of taking was loyal.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
George Crrel. (H. D. 387-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
July 10, 1888. Court finds" claimant loyal and that supplies worth
$865 were taken for Army use by proper authority. It appears that
the claim was presented to Southern Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Levi Crow. (Fannie Crow, administratrix.) (H. D. 200-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court March 4, 1904. Court finds claimant
loyal and that supplies worth $710 were taken for Army use. Claim
appears on page 60 of index of claims filed with Claims Commis-
sion.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 51
Berryman S. Dempsey. (Daniel M. Dempsey, administrator.)
(H. D. 894-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 28, 1896.
Court j&nds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $857 were taken
for Army use. Claim appears on page 66 of Claims Commission
index.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
W. S. Fears. (N. C. Fears, administrator.) (H. D. 668-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906, by House resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal and that Army supplies worth $1,765 were
taken by proper authority.
The item of cotton which was burned is ignored, and appropria-
tion recommended only for $1,765 to cover Army supplies.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
David Floyd. (Miles L. Floyd, administrator.) (H. D. 530-61-2.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court March 29, 1906. Court finds claimant
loyal and that supplies worth $310 were taken for Army use. Claim
filed with Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Plymouth Frazier, Jr. (H. D. 748-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent
to court June 16, 1906. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies
worth $122 were taken for Army use. Claim appears on page 85
of Claims Commission index.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Albert Godbee. (H. B. Godbee, son and heir.) (H. D. 696-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth
$430 were taken for Army use. Claim presented to Claims Commis-
sion.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Robert H. Green. (A. G. McDonald, administrator.) (H. D.
846-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 6, 1898. Court
finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $595 were taken for
Army use. Claim appears on page 96 of index of claims filed with
Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Abraham Greeson. (H. D. 440-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court March 30, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies
worth $405 were taken for Army use. Claim appears on page 96 of
index of claims filed with Claims Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Archibald P. Griggs. (Archibald A. Griggs, administrator.)
(S. D. 237-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1905, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies
worth $760 were taken for Army use. Court further reports that
the decedent was an invalid during time allowed for presenting
claims to Claims Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses.
52 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Sarah Hays. (J. M. Ballew, administrator.) (H. D. 362-62-2.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 31, 1906. Court finds claimant
loyal and that supplies worth $330 taken for Army use. Claim found
page 107 index of claims filed Avith Claims Commission. .
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress,
Enoch Humphreys. (Mary E. Humphreys, executrix.) (H. D.
619-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906. Court finds
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $370 taken for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Samuel Hunt. (Dennis H. Hunt, administrator.) (H. D. 447-
62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court April 24. 1896. Court finds
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $508 taken for Army use.
Claim presented in name of Sarah A. Hunt, Avidow of Samuel Hunt,
to Claims Commission, as appears from published reports of that
commission.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Patrick Jennings. (J. W. Jennings, administrator.) (H. 480-
61-2.) BoAA^man Act. Sent to court January 30, 1906. Court finds
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $190 taken for Army use.
Claims pi-esented to Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
SiBiNi Jones. (H. D. 208-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
March 31, 1906. by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal
and that supplies Avorth $215 were taken from her for Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Catharine Kelton. (H. D. 430-59-2.) BoAvman Act. Sent to
court March 6. 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies
worth $500 taken for Army use. Claim found on page 133, index
of Southern Claims Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Solomon Landis. (Mary A. Landis, administratrix.) (S. D.
662-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that militaiT forces tore
down several buildings and used materials thereof and took other
Army supplies, all worth $1,100.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Elijah Pinson. (Joe M. Moon, administrator.) (H. D. 199-
58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 29, 1897. Court finds
claimant loyal and that supplies AA'orth $705 taken for Army use.
Claim found page 188, index of Claims Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
SixtA'-second Congresses.
William H. Rice. (Julia A. Cruselle, administratrix.) (H. D.
536-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 11, 1906. Court
finds claimant loyal, and that supplies worth $8,190 were taken for
Army use. Claim found on page 197, index of Claims Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UKDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC, 53
Jacob B. Russell. (S.Inman, administrator.) (H.D. 203-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court May 19, 1906. Court finds claimant
loyal and that supplies worth $3,210 were taken for Army use.
Claim filed with Southern Claims Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Melvin J. Smith. (Matildia J. Smith, widow.) (H. D. 234^58-3.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court March 11, 1890. Court finds claimant
loyal, and that supplies worth $295 were taken for Army use. Claim
found on page 218, index of Southern Claims Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
William L. Strain. (H. D. 715-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court January 15, 1906. Apparently through error in printing the
findings the name of the administrator is not shown. It is evident
the case was represented in the court by an administrator. By mak-
ing appropriation to the estate this difficulty may be met however.
Court finds decedent loyal. Supplies worth $724 were taken for
Army use. Claim filed with Claims Commission. Findings certified
too late for previous consideration.
Aaron Turner. (B. J. Cowart, administrator.) (S. D. 347-61-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution.
Court finds Turner loyal, and that supplies worth $415 were taken
from him for Army use; also that claim was presented to Southern
Claims Commission, but became barred there.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
MiLLiNGTON Waldrop. (W. C. Waldrop, administrator.) (H. D.
570-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906, by House
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $641
were taken for Army use ; that decedent presented a claim in 1867.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Carl Weiland. (Otto Seller, administrator.) (S. D. 106-61-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1909, b}- Senate resolution.
Court finds that decedent, Weiland, was a neutral foreigner during
war; that United States forces took supplies worth $3,022 from him
for Army use ; that claim was presented by decedent to Southern
Claims Commission, but was rejected by that commission; than on
January 2. 1907, claim was referred to court by Committee on War
Claims under Bowman Act, but as loyalty was jurisdictional under
that act, and as claimant's decedent was a neutral foreigner, his
petition was dismissed under that reference.
Assuredly, under every principle of international law and of fair-
ness as well, the only proof as to conduct which could be demanded
of an alien resident Avithin the Confederacy during the war is that
he remained neutral. He owed no allegiance either to the United
States or to the Confedarcy. In short, in case of an alien, proof
of neutrality necessarily takes the place of proof of loyalty which
might be demanded of a citizen.
Passed the Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and
Sixty-second Congresses.
54 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Mary A. Gammon, O. B, Whatley, and D. A. Whitehead.
(Sole surviving heirs of AVilson O. B. Whatle3% deceased.) (H. D.
273-63-1.) Judicial Code of March 3, 1911. Referred to court by
House resolution June 22, 1912. The court makes a favorable find-
ing as to the loyalty of the original owner of the property, Wilson
O. B. Whatley, and his widow and children who survived him at
the time of his death. It is also found that property worth $1,019
was taken from them by proper authority for the use of the Army.
While the findings of the court are not clear as to who should be
regarded as the present claimants, an examination of the court record
in the case confirms the correctness of the title as given in the court's
statement of the case and shows that the appropriation should read
to Mary A. Gammon, O. B. Whatley, and D. A. Whitehead, as sole
surviving heirs of Wilson O. B. Whatley.
The conclusion of the court is that the claim is an equitable one.
The claim was certified too late for inclusion in prior bills.
Church or Christ, Acworth, Ga., successor to Christian
Church. (S. D. 407-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13,
1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal as a church
body ; that United States forces, by proper authority, took possession
of the church building, destroyed samp, and used part of the material
in construction of quarters ; that building was reasonably worth $400.
It is believed that the facts mentioned are such as should cause pay-
ment of the claim, the materials, at least in part, having been put to
proper military use.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses
Masonic Hall Trustees, Atlanta, Ga. (S. D. 723-60-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal as an organization; that military forces,
by proper authority, occupied the premises from November 1, 1865,
to and including February 28, 1866, and also during March, 1866;
that reasonable rental, including wear and tear, was $475 ; that claim
W'as presented to the Quartermaster General in 1867 and rejected
for lack of jurisdiction; that it was rejected by Treasury Depart-
ment for lack of jurisdiction in 1872; that it v^as later presented to
the Forty-fifth Congress. It is set forth in the statement of case
that vouchers were given for $475, amount allowed by the court.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
St. Phillip's Episcopal Church, Atlanta, Ga. (Albion W.
Knight et al.) (S. D. 186-58-2.) Tucker Act. The findings are
entitled Albion W. Knight et al.. they being the officers of claim-
ant church at time the case was tried. Sent to court March 2, 1891,
by Committee on War Claims, evidently under Bowman Act, but
dismissed, apparently for lack of jurisdiction; was again referred
to the court March 3, 1903. by Senate resolution under Tucker Act.
Court found claimant loyal and made an allowance or finding for
two separate items, one for buildings torn down and from which ma-
terials were taken for Army use in the sum of $3,760, the other item
being for damages to the house of worship incident to use and oc-
cupation, amounting to $800.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 55
The first-mentioned item was paid in the claims appropriation act
of February 24, 1905. Apparently by inadvertence the second item of
$800 was omitted from that act.
This $800 item stands exactly on the same footing as other claims
arising from use and occupation of church premises, and no reason
appears why it should not be paid.
This item of $800 was passed by the Senate in the Sixtieth and
Sixty-first Congresses and by the House in the Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Catholic Church, Dalton, Ga. (S. F. 188-62-2.) Tucker Act.
Sent court June 22, 1910, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal. United States troops occupied this church as a smallpox
hospital and then burned it. Building worth $3,600. This claim is
like that of Fletcher Chapel, of King George County, Va., considered
among the Virginia claims. The only difference is that in the claim
of Fletcher Chapel the court explicitly reports that the building
was burned after being occupied as a smallpox hospital for the pur-
pose of preventing spread of the contagion.
In the case under consideration it is a matter of necessary and
fair inference that the building was burned to avoid spread of con-
tagion as a sanitary measure for protection of the Army. If such
claims be considered from the standpoint of dollars and cents, then it
can be reasonably said that the Army benefited from this destruction,
as it naturally prevented illness and death of troops from a dreaded
disease.
The very use of a church building as a smallpox hospital would
of itself practically destroy the usefulness of the building forever
after as a place of worship. No matter how well it might be fumi-
gated or disinfected people would fear to enter the building.
Under the conditions reported by the court, it is very plain that
the destruction of this building was the direct and natural result of
its use by the Army, just as much so as though the troops had phys-
ically torn down the building to use the lumber contained in it.
Under such circumstances it is believed by the committee that this
claim is to be logically distinguished from claims arising from the
destruction of church buildings as acts of warfare or by depredation.
As stated by the Court of Claims in case of Grant (i Ct. Cls., 41),
quoting from the syllabus:
The taking of private property for use or for destruction, when the public
exigency demands it, by a military officer commanding any part of the public
forces, is an exercise of the right of eminent domain.
Thei'e is no discrimination to be made between property taken to be used and
property taken to be destroyed.
In the Grant case a flour mill was destroyed with its contents by
United States troops to prevent the mill and supplies from falling
into the hands of Confederates. It is true that case was tried by the
court under its jurisdiction existing early in the war to render judg-
ment in such claims, but the principle remains the same.
For reasons stated, this claim is included in this present bill.
Passed Senate in Sixty-second Congress.
First Presbyterian Church, Dalton, Ga. (S. D. 526-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 12, 1903, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal and that United States military forces.
56 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
by proper authority, tore down the church building and used ma-
terial in erection of barracks; that building was worth $900.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Jerusalem Evangelical Lutheran Church, Ebenezer, Ga.
(S. D. 319-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that United States
forces occupied premises by proper authority; that use and occupa-
tion, together with incidental damages, amounts to $225.
Passed the Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
TiMBERRrooE Presbyterian Church. Henry County, Ga. (H. D.
640-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent court February 18, 1910, by House
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troojis by authority tore
down church building and used materials in building shelters for
troops; materials worth $500. Conclu.sion of court is the claim is
equitable. Claim certified too late for previous consideration.
First Baptist Church, La Fayette, Ga. (S. D. 355-62-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent court February 21. 1911, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; troops used church building for military
purposes; rental value, including damages incident to this use, was
$300. Court concludes claim is equitable. Findings certified too late
for consideration in connection with previous bills.
African Methodist Episcopal Church, Marietta. Ga (S. D.
305-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904. by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that United States forces
by proper authority occupied the church building; that reasonable
rental, together with repairs occasioned bv occupation, amounts
to $425.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church, Powder Springs, Ga. (S. D.
228-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13. 1900, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal as an organization: that United
States forces by proper authority tore down church building and
used material in constructing quarters: that building was reasonably
worth $800.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Missionary Baptist Church, Powder Springs, Ga. (S. D.
292-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that United States forces
by proper authority tore down church l)inlding and used materials
in constructing quarters; that building was reasonably worth $()50.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Ringgold. Ga. (S. D.
506-61-2.) Tucker Act. Referred to court June 13, 1906, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loval and that United States forces
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 57
by proper authority tore down church building and used the mate-
rials ; that building was worth $750.
Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress.
Pleasant Grove Baptist Church, Ringgold, Ga, (S. D. 46-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal and that military forces by proper author-
ity tore down church building worth $400 and used the material;
that claim was presented to Claims Commission and disallowed for
lack of jurisdiction.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
ILLINOIS.
Martha J. Bowen. (Widow of Edwin A. Bowen. ) (H. D.
579-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay,
$221.80.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Andrew L. Carter. (H. D. 362-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $48.16.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Bennett Depenbrook. (H. D. 396-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pa}', $952.19.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Thomas O. Eddins. (H. D. 274-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $227.90.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Benjamin F. Ely. (Mary J. Ely, widow.) (H. D. 593-59-2.)
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $259.68.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
James P. Files. (James P. Files and Alice White, sole heirs.)
(H. D. 518-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in
pay, $80.01.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Benjamin S. Ford. (H. D. 222-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $330.43.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Thomas Foster. (S. D. 412-01-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
April 28, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal,
he having been a resident of Illinois during war. Material facts
found by court on property are as follows :
Thomas Foster was coowner with Elbridge Leonidas Smith in a
leasehold estate on land near Chicago; premises were fitted up with
58 CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
extensive buildings and fences for purpose of being used as a horse
fair; September 26, 18G2, United States forces, under proper au-
thority, took possession of premises as camp grounds and barracks,
and used same until November 24, 1862. November 20, 1862, several
of the buildings were destroyed by fire, the cause being unknown,
which caused abandonment of the premises by the troops. The court
finds that the use and occupation of the premises and of materials
in the buildings and fences were worth $2,800, after excluding value
of materials saved by the owners. The court further finds that the
claimant, Foster, is entitled to one-half of sum mentioned, or $1,400.
It is further reported that claim was duly presented to the Quarter-
master General, who took no action because there was no appropria-
tion out of which to pay the claim, and he was without jurisdiction
to settle it.
These remarks will also cover the claim of E. Leonidas Smith,
hereinafter mentioned.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
William T. Glenn. (H. D. 298-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $334.75.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
William Hanna. (H. D. 257-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $395.57.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Theodore S. Loveland. (Annie Mahar, remarried, widow.)
(H. D. 393-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in
pay, $590.39.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Orkin L. Mann. (H. D. 578-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim
for difference in paj^, $283.35,
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John E. Mullaly. (H. D. 300-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $99.30.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Fannie Pemberton. (H. D. 209-58-3). Tucker Act. Sent to
court Februarj^ 20, 1902, by House resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal; she apparently lived in Illinois during war. Court further
finds that United States forces by proper authority took possession
of claimant's boat at Golconda, 111., and used same for transporting
troops and supplies and never returned same; that the boat was
reasonably worth $4,000.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
William A. Schmitt. (Nannie L. Schmitt, widow.) (H. D.
296-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay,
$129.25.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEK ACTS, ETC. 59
Pleasant S. Scott. (Mary L. Scott, widow.) (H. D. 677-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $67.70.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
E. Leonidas Smith. (Augusta A. Smith, executrix.) (S. D.
618-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 28, 1904, by Senate
resolution.
This is the companion case of Thomas Foster, above mentioned, and
for reasons set forth in connection with the Foster case it is plain
that this claimant is entitled to receive $1,400 for use and occupation
of premises near Chicago, 111., and damages incident to that occupa-
tion.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
John H. Stibbs. (H. D. 267-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $216.18.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
William Stubbs. (Carrie M. Persons, executrix.) (H. D. 265-
60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $411.17.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John J. Vincent. (H. D. 512-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court April 1, 1902, by House resolution. Court finds that claimant
was loyal and that supplies worth $282 were taken by proper author-
ity for Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
INDIANA.
Lewis J. Blair. (H. D. 243-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim
for difference in pay, $434.14.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Thomas M. Browne. (Sarah E. Smith and George W. Browne,
sole heirs.) (H. D. 283-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for
difference in pay, $202.84.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Samuel E. Calvert. (S. D. 528-61-2.) Tucker Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $274.92.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
William G. Dudley. (H. D. 256-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $381.87.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
EussELL P. Finney. (H. D. 570-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $153.95.
Passed House in Sixtv-first and Sixtv-second Congresses.
60 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
John W. Fot.and. (H. D. 289-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay. $477.04.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Andrew G. Gorrell. (H. D. 110-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $264.71.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Silas Grimes. (H. D. 275-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim
for difference in pay, $288.37.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John W. Headington. (H. D. 259-60-1.) Bowman Act. Offi-
cer's claim for difference in pay, $194.19.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second CongTesses.
NiMROD Headington. (S. D. 530-61-2.) Tucker Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $276.45.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Hiram Hines. (H. D. 286-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim
for difference in pay, $309.45.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Josiah Jennison. (Jeanette J. Guard, administratrix.) (S. D.
217-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 21. 1910. by Senate
resolution. Court finds that Jennison was loyal and that United
States forces took from him in Dearborn Count3\ Ind., for use of
the Army supplies worth $1,210. Court further reports that claim
was presented to Congress in 1889, and subsequently presented in
Fifty-ninth, Sixtieth, and Sixty-first Congresses.
Court appends its conclusion to the effect that the claim is an
equitable one.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Joseph P. Leslie. (Kate Morehead, Clara M, Girard, and Flor-
ence E. Cochran, heirs.) (H. D. 248-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pny, $55.43.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John D. Longfelloav. (H. D. 629-60-1.) Bowman Act. Offi-
cer's claim for difference in pay, $98.51.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Cyrus J. McCole. (H. D. 26.3-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officers
claim for difference in pay. $330.44.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Leonard H. ^NIahan. ( H. D. 262-60-1.) Bowman Act. Of-
ficer's claim for difference in pay. $119.11.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 61
Ernest C. North. (H. D. 220-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $90.90.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Robert W. Pemberton. (H. D. 111-59-1.) Bowman Act. Of-
ficer's claim for difference in pay, $473.02,
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John W. Sale. (H. D. 268-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $299.62.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Joseph D. Wyatt. (H. D. 223-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officers
claim for difference in pay, $102,81.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
IOWA.
Hiram Atkinson. (H. D. 293-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $64,59.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixtj'^-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Charles C. Baumann. (H. D. 775-61-2.) Bowman Act. Of-
ficer's claim for difference in pay, $238.16.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Xewell B. Dana. (Annis M. Dana, widow.) (H. D. 242^60-1.)
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $242.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Henry Green. (H. D. 297-60-1.) Officer's claim for difference
in pay, $83.81.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Paris P. Henderson. (H. D. 679-60-1.) Bowman Act. Of-
ficer's claim for difference in pay, $392.09.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Michael Houps. (Johannah H. Houps, widow.) (H. D.
287-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay,^
$442.74.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John Paih. Jones. (Nancy J. Gilleland, widow, remarried.)
(H. D. 294-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in
pay, $173.13.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
62 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Hamilton L, Karr. (H. D, 630-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $66.54.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Basil D. Mowery. (H. D. 592-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $461.22.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
James A. Poor. (D. W. Poor, heir.) (H. D. 158-59-2.) Bow-
man Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $138.83.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
August Schlapp. (H. D. 118-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $399.36.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
George A. Smith. (H. D. 757-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent court
January 8, 1907. This is rather an application for a bountj^ than a
claim, strictly speaking. The facts, in brief, are as follows :
The claimant was a brigade surgeon, with rank of major, during
the War with Spain. He contracted typhoid fever at Chickamauga
and went to his home in Iowa on 30 days' sick leave. He was granted
this leave on September 16, 1898. On September 20, 1898, while he
was sick and on leave the War Department issued an order discharg-
ing him, to take effect September 30, 1898, for the reason that his
services were no longer required. This order did not reach claimant
until October 1, 1898, the day after it went into effect.
By reason of his illness contracted at Chickamauga he was unable
to resume his practice of medicine until after December 1, 1898. He
asks that he be paid two months' pay, at $208.33 per month, his pay
while in the service. It is understood that the general practice of the
War Department is not to discharge men from the service during
illness contracted in line of duty. Having been granted 30 days'
leave on September 16, 1898, he had a right to expect that he would
receive it and that he would not be discharged meanwhile. Appar-
ently for that reason he failed to advise the War Department of his
condition in time to prevent the discharge from taking effect, al-
though his leave had only half expired.
Had he served beyond the limits of the United States he would
have been entitled, by law, to receive two months' extra pay, but it is
not shown that he did serve outside the United States.
The claim was favorably reported in the Sixty-second Congress
and passed the House in H. R. 19115 in that Congress. In view of
this previous action the committee is inclined to give this volunteer
officer the benefit of any doubt entertained as to propriety of pay-
ment, thus following the action of the House already taken in the
matter, and therefore recommends appropriation of two months' pay,
amounting to $416.66.
Abram Treadwell. (H. D. 469-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $450.40.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 63
KANSAS.
James P. Barnett. (H. D. 587-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $97,71.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Henry Bennett. (Samuel A. Shelton, administrator.) (H. D.
875-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 1, 1888. Court finds
claimant loyal and reports that troops under command of Col. Jen-
nison, Fifteenth Kansas Volunteers, took from decedent, in Allen
County, Kans., supplies reasonably worth $845. It is true, the find-
ing states, that the authority for the taking is not shown, but the very
nature of the supplies taken would indicate that the taking was not
for the indiWdual benefit of soldiers, being timber, lumber, one horse,
one calf, and hogs. It is believed that this claim should be con-
sidered one of taking for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Frank Crathorne. (H. D. 586-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $201.17.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Charles H. Haynes. (Jane H. Haynes, widow.) (H. D. 676-
60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $100.70.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Eli E. Helmick. (H. D. 85-63-1.) Section 151, Judicial Code.
Sent to court August 24, 1912, by House resolution. This claim is for
loss of a horse by a mounted officer during battle of Santiago, during
the Spanish-American War of 1898, the horse being killed during the
battle. The value of the horse is reported to be $125. The court
further finds that the claim was submitted with proofs to the ac-
counting officers and was by them rejected on the theory that there
was no liability on part of the Government; that the Court of Claims
has decided in case of Hardie (39 Ct. Cls., 250), and in case of
Cox (41 Ct. Cls., 86) that a horse so lost should be paid for by the
Government, those cases being brought under the general juris-
diction of the court; that this claim was filed in the court under the
general jurisdiction, but that it was filed five days after the six-year
statute of limitation had run against it under the general jurisdic-
tion; that it was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction; that
thereafter it was referred to the court by resolution of the House of
Representatives.
The conclusion of the court is, in effect, that the claim was a legal
one, and that judgment would have been rendered on the law and
facts had suit been originally brought five days earlier.
It is further stated by the court that the original suit was brought
Avithin six years after claimant's return from Cuba.
In view of the facts found and of the conclusion of the court
there can be no room for question as to the equitable nature of the
claim, to say the least, and it is therefore included in the bill.
Claim tried too late for inclusion in prior bills.
64 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Alfred W. Kent. (S. D. 455-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
March 28. 1900, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal
and that United States forces took from him in Johnson County,
Kans.. for use of Army, certain horses and used two teams for 22
days, the reasonable value of 4 horses taken and of use of two teams
for period mentioned being $664.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Fenelon B. Mathews. (Mary A. Mathews, widow.) (H. D.
104-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay,
$550.52.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Edmund Metz. (Florence M. Metz, widow.) (H. D. 261-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $113.23.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Martin V. B. Sheafor. (H. D. 295-60-1.) Bowman Act. Of-
ficer's claim for difference in pay, $152.76.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congi-es^ses.
WiLLL\M H. Sparrow. (H. D. 588-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $165.26.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Jacob Samuel Weaver. (H. D. 113-59-1.) Bowman Act.
Officer's claim for difference in pay, $82.26.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
KENTUCKY.
John W. Al\t]S. (S. D. 670-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
March 3, 1909, by Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal;
that troops occupied claimant's farm greater portion of war for
military purposes; rental value, with damages incident to this use,
was $2,500; also that Army supplies worth $2,750 were taken for
Army use, making a total of $5,250. Claim was presented to
Quartermaster General, but rejected because there was no appropria-
tion for its payment. Claim was apparently presented to Forty-
ninth, Fiftieth, and succeeding Congresses and was previously re-
ferred under Bowman Act. Court concludes that claim is equitable.
Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill.
Samson M. Archer. (Mary E. Martin, widow, remarried.)
(H. D. 462-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in
pay, $115.70.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Thomas N. Arnold. (Thomas N. Arnold, jr., administrator.)
(S. D. 262-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Sen-
ate resolution. Court finds that claimant was loyal and that United
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 65
States forces, by proper authority, occupied certain real estate in
Kentucky belonging to claimant and took from him certain supplies;
that the reasonable rental value of the real estate occupied, with
damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, and the value of the
supplies taken amount to $5,015.
The findings are accompanied by the conclusion of the court that
the claim is an equitable one.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
William A. Attersall. (H. D. 461-59-2.) Bowman Act.
Officer's claim for difference in pay, $30.74.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Th.omas K. Ball. (Marv B. Mitchel, administratrix.) (S. D.
420-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 21. 1911, by Sen-
ate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; troops, by proper au-
thority, occupied a stable belonging to decedent and also took
certain supj)lies; rental value during period of occupation, together
with value of supplies, was $610. Claim presented to Quartermaster
General in 18TT; referred to court first time under Bowman Act and
later under Tucker Act. Court reports claim is equitable.
Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill.
KiNCHEN Bell. (A. W. Richards, administrator.) (H. D. 108-
68-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 20, 1903, by House
resolution. Court finds that claimant was loyal and that supplies
worth $1,420 were taken for Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Andrew S. Bloom. (Margaret A, Bloom, widow.) (H. D.
675-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officers claim for difference in pa}',
$789.20.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
William H. Boswell. (H. D. 232-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent
to court February 14, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that
United States forces, by proper authority, occupied certain premises
owned by him, and that reasonable rental was $540.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congi-esses.
Henry P. Bottom. (R. B. Bottom, executor.) (H. D. 837-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 19, 1899. Court finds claimant
loyal and reports that Union troops, when encamped upon claimant's
premises several days, took and used various supplies, including corn
and fencing, all of the value of $1,715. The findings also recite va-
rious acts of damage, for which no allowance is made.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Valentine S. Brewer. (H. D. 116-59-1.) Bowman Act. Of-
ficer's claim for difference in pay, $469.90.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congi'esses.
19855— H. Kept. 97, 63-2 5
66 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Patrick Henry Bridgewater. (H. D. 568-61-2.) Bowman Act.
Sent to court May 19, 1906. Court jfincls claimant loj'al and that sup-
plies worth $220 were taken from him for Army use. Claim pre-
sented in proper time to Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Coleman T. Brown. (H. D. 861-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court February 14, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that sup-
plies worth $1,620 were taken from him for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Stephen E. Brown. (H. D. 569-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court July 10, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies
worth $490 were taken from him for Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Clement Calhoun. (J. Patrick McGee, administrator.) (S. D.
56-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court first on March 4, 1887, under
Bowman Act, by Committee on War Claims; claimant found loyal
vmder that reference in 1888. April 25, 1900, claim sent to court by
Senate resolution, under Tucker Act, although it would appear that
case might have been tried under Bowman Act, the claim having been
presented to Quartermaster General. Court finds claimant loyal
and that supplies worth $320 were taken from him for Armj^ use.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Mary E. Cammack. (Charles P. Cammack et al., heirs.) (S. D.
310-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 21, 1910, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $525
were taken from her for Army use. From the title adopted by the
court it would seem that Charles P. Cammack, Lillie V. Oldham,
Mary B. Harbin, and Frances H. Glover are the heirs of decedent,
to whom appropriation should be made. Findings are accompanied
by conclusion of the court that the claim is equitable.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
W. G. Chesher. (B. H. Chesher, administrator.) (S. D. 246-
62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $320 were
taken for Army use. Conclusion of court is the claim is equitable.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Henry Cohen. (Sallie M. Cohen, administratrix.) (S. D. 222-
62-2.) Tucker Act. Claim first sent to court under Bowman Act,
March 8, 1898; later sent by Senate resolution May 22, 1908, under
Tucker Act. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth
$856 were taken from him for Army use. Claim for part of prop-
erty in question was presented to Quartermaster General. The
Tucker Act reference was evidently secured to give court jurisdiction
[)f that part of claim not previously presented. Court states claim
is equitable.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Thomas P. Coldwell. (H. D. 109-59-1.) Bowman Act. Of-
ficer's claim for difference in pay, $89.83.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 67
Harmon Conley. (Millard J. Conley, heir.) (H. D. 942-G1-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906, by House resolution.
.Court finds the claimant loyal. The findings on property show that
Conley Avas owner of a raft of logs lying in Paint Creek, Ky. ; that
this raft was impressed by United States forces as a means of trans-
portation of soldiers to Catlettsburg, Ky. ; that while so in use the
raft ran onto a shoal and broke up, which caused abandonment of
the expedition. The court says it does not appear what finally be-
came of the logs; nor is the value of the raft of logs" for the purpose
for which they were seized shown." The court finds, however, that
the raft and lines binding the logs together were reasonably worth
$1,200.
On these findings the committee believes a complete case calling for
payment has been made out by claimant. His raft was evidently
seized for use as a flatboat. While being so used, evidently by
proper military authority, the raft was broken up, Natui-ally the
logs would float down stream and be lost. Had the troops seized a
flatboat and had such boat been destroyed by accident while in
possession of the Army, and as the direct result of its seizure and use,
there would be no question as to the liability of the Government,
and the committee can see no reason why the same reasoning should
not apply in this case. The property was taken in a loyal State,
from a loyal citizen. Claim was presented to Quartermaster General
in proper time. While sent to court under Tucker Act, it might
properly have been referred under Bowman Act.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Thomas D. Denny. (U. S. Denny, heir.) (H. D. 503-59-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court March 2, 1891. Court finds claimant
loyal and that supplies worth $102 taken for Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Nathaniel B. Dobbs. (Sarah Ann Dobbs, widow.) (H. D.
107-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay,
$152.25.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Woodford Dunn. (William Dunn, administrator.) (H. D.
850-60-1.) Bowman Act. Court finds claimant loyal and that sup-
plies worth $910 were taken for Army use. Having been tried under
Bowman Act, and being for commissary supplies, claim must have
been duly presented to Commissary General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Emma F. E verm an. (H. D. 238-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court February 18, 1910, by House resolution. Court finds that
claimant was loyal and that supplies worth $425 were taken for
Army use. Court accompanies its finding by the conclusion that the
claim is equitable in sense that Government received benefit of the
property taken.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Oliver Frazer. (Bessie Frazer, Nannie Frazer, and Kate Frazer
Kedd, heirs.) (S. D. 511-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court Feb-
68 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
ruary 21, 1911, by Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal;
Army supplies worth $240 taken ; presented to Quartermaster General
in 1867. Court concludes claim is equitable.
Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill.
T. S. Grider. (Hattie Grider, administratrix.) S. D. 510-61-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 27, 1910, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal ; also that United States forces by proper
authority occupied claimant's dwelling near Bowling Green, Ky.,
for hospital purposes and took Army supplies from him by proper
authority; that the rental value of premises occupied and value of
supplies taken aggregate $1,795.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixtj^-second Congresses.
James M.Hall. (H. D. 388-60-1.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court
January 27, 1903. Court finds claimant to have been loyal. On
property it is reported that during the war claimant and one Bur-
roughs were the owners of certain liquors at Mount Sterling, Ky. ;
that in early part of 1865 ITnited States military forces confiscated
the liquors on the grounds that the owners were selling same to en-
listed men in violation of the orders of the commandant of that place;
that the liquors were taken away in Avagons by said military forces,
but what disposition was finally made of them does not appear; that
the reasonable value of the property so taken was $1,500, of which
claimant was the owner of one-half, worth $750.
It is to be noted that this transaction took place in the State of
Kentucky, which never seceded and whose citizens were therefore
entitled to all the constitutional protection of life, liberty, and prop-
erty. It would seem obvious that the confiscation of this property
was an arbitrary military act. and the seizure can not therefore be
said in any sense of the term to have occasioned a divesting of the
owners' title by " due process of law."
It does not even appear from the findings that any hearing was
had, assuming that the militarv authorities had legal powder to con-
fiscate private property of a citizen. For these reasons the committee
has included this claim in the bill in the sum of $750, representing the
share of the present claimant in the value of the property.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Starkey Hall. (J. A. Hall, administrator.) (H. D. 364-62-2.)
BoAvmnn Act. Sent to court March 8, 1888. Court finds claimant
loyal and that supplies worth $380 were taken for Army use. Claim
having been tried under Bowman Act must have been presented to
the Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Robert Hardwick. (H. D. 378-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court January 9, 1907. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies
worth $980 taken for Army use. Claim evidently presented to Quar-
termaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Thomas Heyser. (Foster T. Hevser, Charles F. Hevser. and
George Heyser, executors.) (H. D. 907-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 69
to court March 31, 1906, by House resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal and that supplies worth $1,015 taken for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Tpiomas E. Hill. (H. D. 200-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
January 8, 1902. by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal
and that supplies worth $495 taken for Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-sec-
ond Congresses.
John G. Holloway. (E. S. Hollowav and ^V. S. HoUowav, ex-
ecutors.) (S. D. 469-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April,
1904, b}^ Senate resolution. The findings in this case would indicate
that John G. Holloway was a resident of the State of Ohio during
the war. In the statement of the case it is recited that he has here-
tofore been found loyal by the court under a Bowman Act reference
of the claim, and this statement, coming from the court, may doubt-
less be considered as authentic. The material facts seem to be substan-
tially these: Premises in Ohio, containing over 400 acres, were leased
by decedent to State of Ohio in 1861 as a military camp ground. The
lease provided for a certain rental for one year and a reasonable
rental should premises be occupied longer.
In 1862 the United States took possession of premises under terms
of said lease and occupied the same imtil 1866, paying proper rental
therefor.
It is expressly found by the court that the premises were damaged
in sum of $802.75 prior to December 29, 1863, as per award made by
agreed referees. Court further finds additional damage in smn of
$1,299.25, making a total damage of $2,102. There seems to be no
question as to the facts, and upon those facts there would seem to
be no question that the Government owes this man's estate the sum
of $2,102. It is plain that the claim has been pending many years,
arose in the loyal State of Ohio, and has been established by legal
proof.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixt^^-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
WiLLL\M B. Kelly. (H. D. 1243-61-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court April 19, 1898. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies
worth $50 Avere taken for Army use. Having been tried under Bow-
man Act, claim must have been previously presented to Quartermaster
General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Harmet N. Lair. (H, D. 788-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
March 6, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth
$350 were taken for Army use. Having been tried luider Bowman
Act, claim must have been previously presented to Quartermaster
General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Alfred Leathers. (Eliza Leathers, administratrix.) (S. D. 555-
60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $825 were
taken for Army use, exclusive of any unauthorized depredations.
Passed House in Sixtv-second Congress.
70 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC.
Jane T. Lee. (Lucy C. Lee, administratrix.) S. D. 178-59-2.)
Tucker Act, Referred to court b}' Senate resolution March 18, 1903.
Court finds that chiimant's decedent was loyal and that property be-
long-ing to her was by proper authority taken and used for Army pur-
jDOses. and that $915 would be proper compensation for said use and
taking.
The court also reports that the parties in interest placed this claim
in the hands of their Member of Congress about 1895.
The claim seems entitled to favorable consideration.
Thomas K. Letcher. (Mary H. Letcher, administratrix.) (H. D.
1309-61-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 2(). 1910. Court
finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $120 Avere taken for
Army use. Having been tried under Bowman Act, claim must have
been presented to Quartermaster General. In fact, this claim appears
on index of claims presented to that officer, the index being in the
possession of the Committee on War Claims.
Passed House in Sixtj^-second Congress.
Joseph E. Lindsey (surviving partner of John Lindsey & Son).
(S. D. 213-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 21, 1910, by
Senate resolution. Court finds that Joseph E. Lindsey and his
deceased partner, John Lindsey, Avere loyal ; that United States forces
by proper authority used certain premises belonging to the firm
in Montgomery County, Ky., for military purposes and damaged the
same; that said forces also took certain lumber described in the
petition; that reasonable rental value of premises, together with
damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, and value of lumber
so taken, aggregate $1,080. Court accompanies its finding with
conclusion that claim is an equitable one in that the Government
received the benefit of the property for which claim is made.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Robert McClelland, (Catherine McClelland, administratrix.)
(S. D. 496-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1909, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies
worth $910 were taken for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Alexander Magruder. (Elizabeth Magruder, heir.) (H. D.
106-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay,
$220.56.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Daniel Mans. (H. D. 201-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
March 18, 1903, by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal
and that two horses, worth $250, were taken for Army use by proper
authority.
Passed House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
Catherine Morin. (George Leonard, administrator.) (H, D,
761_60-1,) Tucker Act, Sent to court February 15, 1899, by House
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth
$1,105 were taken for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 71
John H. Marshall. (S. D. TO-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court May 6, 1904, by Senate resolution.
The facts reported by the court may be briefly stated as follows :
On June 6, 1864, this claimant, being a citizen of Pendleton
County, Ky., was drafted into the United States military service;
in order to secure exemption from actual military service he paid
to the Government the sum of $300, under the terms of the act of
February 24, 1864. (13 Stat., 6.)
At the date of this draft and of this payment Pendleton County
had already furnished to the United States military service more
than its quota of soldiers. This fact evidentlj'' developed by a re-
distribution of credits among this county and other counties made
after the dates mentioned. In short, while the fact actually existed
at these dates, it was then unknown.
Marshall applied for repayment of this $300 and the claim was
rejected by The Adjutant General June 1, 1869, because the fact^
mentioned were not known when the payment was made. July 30,
18T9, the department declined to reopen the case, because The Adju-
tant General did not feel that he had the power to reconsider the
decision of a predecessor. However, he advised the Secretary of
War that the draft in question was illegally made, and suggested
that the claim be refered to Congress with a favorable recommen-
dation.
The next action was the sending of a letter to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, by the Secretary of War, which letter is
quoted in the findings of the Court of Claims, and reads as follows :
War Department, Deccmhcr 2, 1S79.
The Secretary of War has the honor to transmit to the House of Representa-
tives papers relating to the claim of John H. Marshall, of Pendleton County, Ky.,
to be paid the amount of $300 paid by him to the United States in June, 18G4, by
way of commutation money as a drafted man.
The claim is recommended to the favorable consideration of Congress.
Geo. W. McCrary.
Secretary of War.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The only congressional action which followed was the reference
of the claim to the Court of Claims for findings of fact, first under
the Bowman Act, which reference was dismissed for lack of juris-
diction; and later under the Tucker Act, as above mentioned.
This case was tried by the Court of Claims in 1904, and as the law
then stood the sole function of the court was to report the material
facts. By the subsequent acts of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat., 837), it
was made the further duty of the court to accompany its findings of
fact in Tucker Act claims, with a conclusion as to whether the claim
was legal or equitable. On the present findings Congress must de-
termine for itself the question of whether the claim is legal or equi-
table, without the benefit of the court's conclusion, however.
The court has said, in effect, that Pendleton County was not subject
to this draft when it was made, and the Adjutant General has stated
that this draft was illegal, and the Secretary of War has recom-
mended the claim to the favorable consideration of Congress.
In view of all these reported facts, the committee recommends pay-
ment, and in so doing follows the action of the House, which passed
this claim in H. R. 19115, Sixty-second Congress. This claim was
also passed by the Senate in the Sixtieth Congress.
72 CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Samuel P. Martin. (H. D. 384-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court January 18, 1903, by House resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal. Facts on property are as follows:
Claimant apparently ferried United States troops across Kentuck}'
Eiver at various times, for which service he claimed $1,100. It also
appears that the United States forces took from claimant certain
ferryboats and barges and used same for fuel. AYhile the ultimate
finding of the court is not as explicit as might be desired, it may be
reasonably construed as meaning that the value of ferriage services,
together with value of the boats taken from claimant, aggregate $330.
Claim was presented to the Quartermaster General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Hubbard K. Milavard. (Kate "W. IVIilward. widow.) (H. D.
103-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for diiference in pay,
$545.10.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Rudolph MiNTON. (S. D. 141-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
June 27, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and
that supplies worth $310 were taken for Army use. Claim presented
to Congress as early as Fifty-third Congress. In the Fifty-fourth
Congress the House Committee on "War Claims reported the claim
favorably for reference to the Court of Claims.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Robert L. Moore. (H. D. 379-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court March 31, 1908. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies
worth $213 were taken for Army use. Claim was presented to Com-
missary General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixtj^-second Congrssses.
ZACHARL4H A. Morgan. (Ella J. Vermillion, heir.) (H. D.
157-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay,
$52.60.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Jesse S. Munday. (Miriam F. ^lunday, widow.) (H. D. 301-
60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $501.86.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Ion B. Nall. (H. D. 114-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim
for difference in pay, $46.40.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
AVilliam a. Xally. (Hannah Xallv, executrix.) (S. D. 260-
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1903, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $2,013 were
taken for Armj- use; that claim was presented to the Quartermaster
General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UXDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. , 73
Mingo Peters. (S. D. 325-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
May 22. 1908. by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that
he was a slave during war, but was allowed by his master to own
some property; Army supplies taken from him worth $110. Court
reports claim is equitable.
Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill.
Samuel H. Pipes. (S. D. 401-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
June 27, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and
that supplies worth $1,210 were taken by proper authority: that
claim was presented to Quartermaster General and later to Congress.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
William L. Poyxter. (Fannie C. Povnter. administratrix.)
(H. D. 386-61-2.) Bowman Act. Court finds claimant loyal and
that supplies worth $G10 were taken for Arm}' use ; claim was pre-
sented to the Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
John Riley. (Elias J. Riley, administrator.) (H. D. 478-62-2.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court March 3, 1908. Court finds claimant
loyal; Army supplies worth $210 taken. Having been tried under
Bowman Act. claim must have been previously presented to Com-
missary General.
Tried too late for inclusion in previous bill.
Belle M. RoBARDs. (S. D. 511-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
Aj^ril 26, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and
that supplies worth $425 were taken by proper authority ; that claim
was first presented in 1891.
Passed House in Sixtj^-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
John W. Robbins. (H. D. 463-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay. $263.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixtj'-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Richard M. Robinson. (Margaret P. Robinson, widow.) (S. D.
120-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $227
were furnished to United States Army.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
T. P. Salter. (H. D. 259-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
February 20, 1903, by House resolution. Court finds that claimant
was loyal and that supplies worth $350 were taken for Ami}' use.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
David B. Sanders. (C. H. Webb. jr.. administrator.) (H. D.
1371-60-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court December 19. 1907. Court
finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $1,975 were taken for
Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Jesse C. Speak. (Mary Speak, widow.) (H. D. 465-59-2.) Bow-
man Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $36.60.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth and Sixty-first
Congi'esses.
74 CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC.
Andrew eT. Tranghber. (H. D. 1226-60-2.) Bowman Act. Sent
to court May 7, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies
worth $760 Avere taken by proper authority. Having been tried
under Bowman Act, claim must have been presented to Quarter-
master General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. •
John L. Walker. (R. A. AValker. executor.) (H. D. 960-61-2.)
BoAvman Act. Sent to court September 7. 1888. Court finds claim-
ant loyal and that supplies worth $324 were taken for Army use.
Having ben tried under BoAvman Act. claim must have been pre-
sented to the Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Benjamin R. Waller. (H. D. 459-59-2.) Bowman Act. Of-
ficer's claim for dilference in pay, $524.77.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses,
Elijah Warren. (H. D. 681-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court Fel)ruary 14, 1888. Court finds. claimant loyal and that sup-
plies worth $175 were taken for Army use. Being Bowman Act case,
must haA'e been presented to Quartermaster General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-sec-
ond Congresses.
John E. Wells. (H. D. 468-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay. $256.24.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses,
Eleanor G. Whitney. (S. D. 331-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court March 3, 1909. by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal. The claim, as per court findings, consists of tAvo items. The
first is the rental value of real estate occupied by military forces for
military purposes. The court finds that this rental A^ilue. together
with incidental damages, amounts to $2,503. The court further finds
that supplies were taken for ArmA^ use worth $3,963, the total amount
alloAved being $6,466.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Joseph Wilson. (John M. Wilson, administrator.) (S, D,
258-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904. by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth
$2,300 Avere taken for Army use; first presented to Fifty-seA^enth
Congress.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
WiLLiAAi J. WoRTHiNGTON. (H. D. 470-59-2.) BoAvmau Act.
Officer's claim for difference in pay, $36.40.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses,
Baptist Church, Boavltng Green. Ky. (S. D. 281-61-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 13. 1908. by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal. It further appears that the church build-
ing Avas occupied by Federal forces for about 12 months and that
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AKD TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 75
reasonable rental value for that period is $650. Xo allowance is made
for damages, as it was not proven satisfactorily how much damage
was actually inflicted during Federal occupation.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Christ Protestant Episcopal Church, Boavlixg Greex, Ky.
(S. D. 435-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 13,' 1908,
by Senate resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal; that United States military forces
occupied the church building a year for hospital purposes; that the
church was paid the sum of $484 in full for the use and occupation
and the damages incident to the use; but that, evidently after use for
hospital purposes, the building Avas torn down, and the materials
taken from the building (evidently bricks or stone) were used
in making camp chimneys and other structures for military uses;
that the reasonable value of these materials so taken and used, ex-
cluding the items of claim previously paid, was the sum of $300,
which is the sum now proposed to be paid.
It is plain that this sum of $300 is entirely distinct from the item
for which payment was previously made.
It would seem that the claim was inadvertently omitted from prior
bills.
First Presbyterian Church, Boavling Green, Ky, (S. D.
99-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loA'al; that United States forces
occupied the church building as a hospital and damaged same; that
reasonable rental, together with damage in excess of ordinary wear
and tear, was $1,125.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first, and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South. Bowling Green. Ky.
(S. D. 193-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States
forces used church building for hospital purposes; that reasonable
rental value, with damages in excess of ordinarv w^ear and tear, was
$730.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first, and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Baptist Church, Brandenburg, Ky. (S. D. 380-60-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal, and that United States forces occupied church build-
ing for military purposes ; that reasonable rental value, including
damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $180.
Passed Senate in Sixt^-first, and House in Sixtj'-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Harrison Masonic Lodge, No 122, Brandenburg, Ky. (S. D.
383-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal, and that its lodge building
was occupied by United States forces for military purposes: that
rental value, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and
tear, was $125.
Passed Senate in Sixtj^-first, and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
76 CLAIMS UXDER THE BOWMAN" AXD TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, or Brandenburg, Ivy.
(S. D. 34G-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907. by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal, and that United States
forces occupied church buildino; for military purposes; that reason-
able rental value, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear
and tear, is $125.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first, and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, or Bryantsville. Ky.
(S. D., 140-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 6, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that United States forces
occupied church building for hospital about six months; that reason-
able rental value, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear
and tear, was $410.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Baptist Church or Crab Orchard, Ivy. (S. D., 223-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal and that United States forces occupied
church building from about Xovember. 1861, until fall of 1864 ; that
reasonable rental value, including repairs necessary to restore build-
ing to former condition, was $1,050.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
St. Andrews Lodge, No. 18. Free and Accepted Masons, Cynthi-
ana, Ky. (H. D., 624-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February
20, 1903, by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that
United States forces occupied lodge building for military purposes;
that reasonable rental value during occupancy, including cost of re-
pairs necessary to restore building to former condition, was $600.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Christian Church oe Danvillle, Ky. (S. D., 36-59-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904. by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal and that United States forces occupied its church
building for hospital purposes; that reasonable rental value, includ-
ing repairs necessary to restore building, was $725.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixtv-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
First Baptist Church of Danville. Ky. (S. D., 253-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal and that United States forces occupied its
church building as a hospital : that rental value, including damages
in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $700.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
First Presbyterian Church or Danville, Ky. (S. D., 345-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal and that United States forces occupied
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 77
church building as hospital ; that rental value, together with damages
in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $610.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Danville, Ky. (S. D,,
9^60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 190T, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that United States forces
occupied buildings and grounds of claimant for military purposes;
that rental value, together with damage in excess of ordinary wear
and tear, was $520.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Presbyterian Theological Se:minary of Kentucky. (S. D.
98-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal: that United States forces occu-
pied buildings and grounds of claimant for military purposes; that
reasonable rental value was $1,150, no damages being shown.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Baptist Chx'rch of Flemingsburg, Ky. (J. Harrison Planck
and P. S. Dudley, trustees.) (H. D. 35-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent
to court February 20, 1903, by House resolution. Court finds claim-
ant loyal: that United States forces occupied church building and
grounds for military purposes: that rental value with incidental
damages was $775, Court further reports that claim was presented
to the Quartermaster General in 1876: that claim remained in that
office for 10 years, papers having been mislaid; that it was then
sent to Auditor, Avhere it stayed until 1893.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Glasgow Graded Co:hmon Schools. (S. D. 559-60-2.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court
finds that claimant is successor in interest to Glasgow Academy or
Urania College of Glasgow: that said organization was loyal; that
United States forces occupied school building for hospital and other
military purposes; that reasonable rental value was $1,215, exclud-
ing the element of damage as not proven to have been inflicted by
Federal forces. Court further re]:>orts that in May, 1865, the board
of trustees appointed an agent to present the claim.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Baptist Cht'rch of Harrodsburg, Ky. (S. D. 266-60-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court ]\farch 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal: that United States forces used church building as a
commissary: that reasonable rental value, with damage in excess of
ordinary wear and tear, was $675.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Conirresses.
78 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
FiKST Presbyteriax Church of Harrodsburg, Ky. (S. D.
375-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces
occupied church property for hospital purposes about five months;
that reasonable rental value, with damage in excess of ordinary wear
and tear, was $1,100.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South of Harrodsburg, Ky. (S.
D. 31G-G0-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces
occupied church building as a hospital about six months: that rea-
sonable rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and
tear, was $750.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
First Presbyterian Church, Lebanon, Ky. (H. D. 312-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906, by House resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied
church building at intervals for a period of about two years, first as a
hospital and later as a barracks and still later as a fort; that rea-
sonable rental value of building during occupancy, with damages
caused by United States forces in excess of ordinary wear and tear,
* was $1,500, of which it appears claimant has been paid $120, leaving
a balance due of $1,380. The claim is included in the bill in the
sum of $1,380.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
St. Augustines Roman Catholic Church, of Lebanon, Ky. (S.
D. 596-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loj-al; that United States
forces occupied church building for hospital purposes; that rental
value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $405.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church, Louisa, Ky. (S. D. 652-62-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court August 12, 1911, by Senate resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal ; troops occupied church property for
militaiy purposes; rental value, with damages incident to this use,
was $600. Court reports claim is equitable.
Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Mount Sterling, Ky.
(S. D. 189-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that United
States forces occupied building as a hospital and barracks ; that
rental value, with damage in excess of ordinarv wear and tear, was
$460.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 79
Presbyterian Church of Mount Sterling, Ky. (S. D. 96-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal and that United States forces occupied
church premises for quarters; that reasonable rental value, with
damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $650.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Salt Rr-er Lodge, Xo. 180, Free Ancient and Accepted Masons,
Mount Washington, Ky. (S. D. 130-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal; that United States forces occupied its premises for military
purposes; that reasonable rental value, including damages in excess
of ordinary wear and tear, was $120.
Court accompanies its findings with conclusion that claim is equita-
ble in the sense that the United States Army received the benefit of
the use and occupation of the building and damaged same to the
amounts found.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Green River Collegiate Institute, Mukfordville, Ky. (Suc-
cessor to Hart Seminary.) (S. D. 95-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds that Hart
Seminary, of IMunfordville, of which Green River Collegiate Insti-
tute is successor, was loyal ; that United States forces occupied build-
ing and grounds of said seminary for military purposes; that rental
value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $525.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Jessamine Female Institute. (Successor to Bethel Academy, of
Nicholasville, Ky.) (S. D. 605-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds that Bethel
Academy, to which Jessamine Female Institute, present claimant, is
successor, was loyal; that United States forces occupied building
and grounds for hospital and camping purposes; that rental value
during said period, w4th damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear,
was $725.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Christian Church of Nicholasville, Ky. (S. D. 96-58-3.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal and that United States forces occupied
church building for a period of about one year; that rental value,
with incidental damages, was $940.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Town OF Nicholasville, Ky. (S. D. 66-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent
to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. The findings of the
court in this case are not well drawn, and in order to arrive at a con-
clusion as to what the facts w^ere the findings must be read carefully
in connection with the bill referred and statements of the petition.
It may be reasonably inferred that the town of Nicholasville and
80 CLAIMS UXDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC.
the Presbyterian Church of said place jointly owned certain real
estate. It appears that the premises were occupied for hospital and
other militaiy purposes by United States forces ; that the reasonable
rental, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear,
was $300; that this sum or an}^ amount allowed by Congress should
be paid to the town of Xicholasville. as the church has released its
interest in the claim to said town. These seem to be the essential
facts of the case.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Sulphur Well Christla.n Church, >'ear Xicholasville, Ky.
(S. D. 97-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Sen-
ate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces
occupied church building as a picket post for several weeks; that
rental value, together with damage in excess of ordinary wear and
tear, was $300.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Baptist Church or Paris, Ky. (S. D. 560-60-2.) Tucker Act.
Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal ; that United States forces occupied premises of claim-
ant for military purposes; that rental value, with damage in excess
of ordinary wear and tear, was $600.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
First Presbyterian Church of Paris, Ky. (S. D. 594—60-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces occupied church
premises for quartermaster and commissary purposes; that rental
value, with damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $1,215.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Christian Church, Perryville, Ky. (S. D. 133-62-2.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court re-
ports claimant loyal; Federal forces took possession of its building
and placed therein Avounded Confederate soldiers; this occupation
lasted about four months, United States military authorities exer-
cising supervision and control ; rental value, with damages incident
to this use, was $220. It being the duty of the Federal authorities
to care for the wounded Confederate soldiers, these facts mean prac-
tically an occupation by Federal authorities of the building in ques-
tion, and the court finds the claim is equitable in the sense that the
United States received the benefit of the building as mentioned.
With this conclusion the committee fully agrees.
Findings were certified too late for inclusion in the previous bill.
EwixG Institute, Perryvili.e, Ky. (S. D. 374-60-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal : that Federal forces occupied school building for hos-
l^ital purposes: that rental value, with damage in excess of ordinary
wear ami tear, was $270.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 81
]\Iethodist Episcopal Church South, of Perryaille. Ky. (S. D.
520-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces
occupied church building for hospital purposes; that rental value,
with damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $425.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Presbyterian Church of Perryville, Ky. (S. D. 342-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces occupied church
building for hospital ; that rental value, with damage in excess of
ordinary wear and tear, was $325.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Baptist Church of Princeton, Ky. (S. D. 235-60-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied premises for hos-
pital purposes and damaged same ; a claim was presented in 1878 to
Quartermaster General for use and occupation and damages in sum
of $800; in 1879 the claim was allowed in the sum of $150, merely for
rent, and paid to that extent. The claim for damages incident to
occupation was disallowed for want of jurisdiction. The court re-
ports that the damages amount to $110, w^iich is the amount pro-
posed to be now paid.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congi'esses.
Madison Female Institute. (S. D. 132-59-2.) Tucker Act.
Sent to court March 3, 1905, by Senate resolution. Court finds that
claimant is an association for education of females, existing by virtue
of a special charter granted by State of Kentucky in 1858. In ab-
sence of anything to the contrary, the legal presumption is that this
claimant was loyal, Kentucky not being a seceding State. The find-
ings show that United States troops occupied premises of claim-
ant, improved by large and substantial buildings, from August 30,
1862, to June 25, 1863 ; that the Quartermaster General allowed and
Congress appropriated $4,097.22 as rental for said property ; that as
an incident to said occupancy the premises were damaged apparently
by demolition of outhouses, fences, etc., to the amount of $6,500,
which has not been paid. It is this item of damage that it is now
proposed to pay.
In the Sixty-second Congress it was suggested in a report made in
another body that the findings simply give the value of the entire
property and furnish no basis for any present appropriation. A
reasonable construction of these findings makes it obvious that the
allowance of $6,500 is for property torn down, removed, and used, as
it covers the items of outhouses, fences, trees, shrubber}^, and porches.
The finding is susceptible of no other reasonable construction.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Cumberland Presbyterian Church of Russellville, Ky. (S. D.
270-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court first time by Committee on
19855— H. Rept. 97, 63-2 6
82 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
War Claims on May 1, 1906, under Bowman Act.' On June 13, 1906,
sent to court b}^ Senate resolution under Tucker Act and tried under
that reference. Court finds claimant loj'al and that premises in ques-
tion were occupied by United States forces for about three years for
hospital and barracks ; that reasonable rental and damage amount to
$1,650.
Careful examination of Finding II shows that record title of
claimant was defective in that the conveyance to it was not recorded;
that after the war the claimant church, by its trustees, made a con-
veyance of the premises to one Barclay, and that the trustees of the
Baptist Church of that place joined in said conveyance as the original
grantors of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. That action by
the trustees of the Baptist Church obviously operated as a quitclaim
from the Baptist Church to cure the defect in record title occasioned
by failure to record deed made prior to w^ar evidencing transfer of
title from the Baptist Church to the Cumberland Presbyterian
Church. Such deeds are made every da}^ to perfect record titles and
can give rise to no suspicion as to title. Claim was presented to
Quartermaster General in 1877 for damages to the building, but Avas
rejected for lack of jurisdiction.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Baptist Church of Shepherdsville, Ky. (S. D. 563-61-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; that military forces occupied church
building about one year and a half; that claimant was paid $811.90
to cover damages or cost of making necessary repairs to building;
that claimant Avas never paid anything for rent; that reasonable
rental value was $150; that the claim for rent was disallowed b}^
Quartermaster General in 1871 for lack of jurisdiction.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Baptist Church of So^ierset, Ky. (S. D. 177-58-3.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court xA^pril 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal; that United States troops occupied church building
as a hospital ; that rental value, including repairs necessary to restore
building to former condition, was $1,500.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixtieth,
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
Presbyterian Church of Somerset, Ky. (S. D. 4-40-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution.
Court finds clainumt loyal; that United States forces occupied church
building for hospital pur])oses for a total period of about three years;
that rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear,
was $550.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
aecond Congresses.
Antioch Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Stewart, Ky.
{'S. D. 341-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by
Senate resolution. Courts finds claimant loyal; that Ignited States
forces occupied church building for hospital purposes; that rental
^alue, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $240.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-fiirst and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 83
LOUISIANA.
Vincent Avet. (Victorie C. Avet. administratrix.) (S. D. 191-
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds that Vincent Avet was a neutral alien, living in
Louisiana during war. So far as his conduct during war is con-
cerned, the fact that he was a neutral alien gives him in law the same
standing as though he had been a loyal citizen. Xeutralit}^ is all that
can be lawfully clemanded of an alien.
On property the court finds that he was the owner of certain real
estate in Plaquemine. La., worth about $6,000; that these premises
were used for military purposes from January 1, 1863, to November
14. 1865; that reasonable rental value, with damage incident to occu-
pation, was $2,200; that United States forces also took from him
horses worth $225, making a total of $2,425. Court further reports
that being an alien Avet did not present his claim to Southern Claims
Commission. The reason is obvious, as no tribunal was open to him,
especially as it appears from the statement of the case that Avet
became a citizen by naturalization in 1866, which act prevented him
from presenting any claim to the French- American Claims Commis-
sion established by treaty of 1880.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Remy Bagarry. (S. D. 167-57-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
June 27, 1902. by Senate resolution. Court finds that claimant was
a neutral foreigner during the war. As just mentioned in the case of
Vincent Avet, "that is sufficient on this point. The court further re-
ports that supplies worth $1,520 were taken for Army use. Xo allow-
ance was made on the item of cotton. Claimant being an alien during
the war could not have presented this claim to the Southern Claims
Commission, and it is further reported by the court that claimant was
absent in a foreign country during the time allowed for presenting
claims to that commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Selzer Bass (heirs). (H. D. 379-58-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court by House resolution March 2, 1895.
The court reports that at time of taking the supplies for which
claim is made it belonged to the widow and children of James A.
Bass, deceased, their respective interests being stated as follows :
1. Mrs. Indiana T. Bass, widow, one-balf.
2. Mattie S. Holland, daughter, one-sixth,
3. James A. Bass, jr., son, one-sixth.
4. Selzer Bass, son, one-sixth.
However, the court also reports that none of the owners have been
proven loyal except the youngest child, Selzer Bass, who was found
loyal because of his tender years. It therefore follows that under
the existing practice of paying only loyal owners for supplies taken,
the one-sixth interest of Selzer Bass is the only part of the claim
that can be now paid.
The court reports that supplies worth $20,445 were taken for Army
use. The one-sixth interest of Selzer Bass therein would be $3,-
407.50, which is the amount it is proposed to appropriate.
84 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TTJCKEE ACTS, ETC.
It being reported that Selzer Bass is dead, paj^ment should be made
to his heirs or estate, as the court has not reported who woukl be his
representatives or heirs.
It is noted that the court finds that Selzer Bass died before the
Southern Claims Commission was established and that the other
members of the family were financially unable to bring witnesses to
Washington to testify, as would have been required in a claim of
this size.
Henry Bauman. (John Fisher, administrator.) (S. D. 245-62-
2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 6, 1901, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds that Bauman was a neutral foreigner, which is
sufficient on that point. Court further finds that supplies worth
$950 were taken for Army use. In the claimant's petition it is cor-
rectly stated that it was impossible for him or his heirs to present a
claim before the Southern Claims Commission, because he was an
unnaturalized alien during the war. It appears that the claim was
presented to Congress by petition as early as 1900.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Mary J. Barrow. (Eugene Barrow, administrator.) (S. D. 175-
59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April, 1900, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds that Barrow was a British subject during the war and
was neutral, which is all that could be demanded upon this point.
Court further finds that supplies worth $12,625 were taken for Army
use. As in the claims just above mentioned, this claim could not
haA^e been prosecuted before the Southern Claims Commission, be-
cause of alienage of claimant during the war.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
H. B. Benjamin. (Adelia B. Greely, sole heir.) (H. D. 363-62-
2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 15, 1906. Court finds
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $755 were taken for Army
use. Claim presented to Southern Claims Commission and appears
on page 22 of index of such claims.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Eugene Augustin Bourcy. (Mrs. Marie Ernestine Bourcv et al.,
heirs. (S. D. 647-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26. 1904,
by Senate resolution. Court finds that Eugene Augustin Bourcy was
an alien during war and neutral ; that he lived part of time in Louisi-
ana and part of time in Mexico during war. Court further finds that
Mrs. Marie Ernestine Bourcy, Marie Ernestine Bourcy, jr., Stanislaus
L. B. Bourcy, and Augustine Theodore Bourcy are the only heirs at
law of decedent. Court further finds that supplies Avorth $1,125 were
taken from decedent for Army use ; also that as early as 1864 Bourcy
presented to the War Department a claim for compensation for the
sugar, which is the only item allowed by the court; that the claim was
rejected in 1867 by Commissary General for lack of jurisdiction;
that in 1881 the decedent presented the claim to the French- American
Claims Commission established by treaty of January 15, 1880; that
said claim was dismissed by said commission for lack of jurisdiction
because decedent was naturalized as a United States citizen prior to
1880.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AXD TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 85
Louisa Breaux. (Felix Guidry, administrator.) (S. D. 192-58-
3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 27, 1902, by Senate resolution.
It appears from the findings that Louisa Breaux was the original
owner of the property taken; that she died during the Avar, befor'e the
property was taken; that during her lifetime, by court decree, her
estate was separated from that of her husband ; that at her death she
left four children surviving her, viz, Felix Guidry, Arsene Brous-
sard (nee Guidry), Cecilia Alabarado (nee Guidry), and Loretta
Broussard (nee Guidry) ; that all of these children were loyal, be-
ing under 16 years of age in April, 1865. Tlie court further finds that
there were taken from these four children for Army use stores and
supplies worth $7,780 belonging in equal shares to these four heirs, no
allowance being made on account of the item of cotton. The court
further reports that on March 3, 1873, when the right to present
claims to the Southern Claims Commission was abrogated, three of
said four children were still minors; that during that time none of
said four children was able to read the English language, and they
were ignorant of the existence of that commission. The facts of this
claim are unusually strong in every particular as establishing its en-
tire justice.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
LixDSAY L. Broavn, Talton E. Bkoavx, and Sabaii Bushxell.
(S. D. 292-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1901, by
Senate resolution. The facts of this case are somewhat complicated
in the mater of title, but, briefly stated, are as follows :
William E. Brown, original owner of property, died in 1863, be-
fore an}-- property was taken. He left surviving him his Avidow, Mrs.
Elmyra Brown, and five children, named, in order of ages, William
Allison Brown, Henry J. Brown, Sarah Brown (now Bushnell).
Lindsay L. Brown, and Talton E. Brown. The court finds not loyal
the widow, Elmyra Brown, and two children, Henry J. Brown and
William Allison Brown.
The court finds loyal the three children, Sarah Bushnell, Lindsay
L. Brown, and Talton E. Brown.
Court further finds that supplies of total value of $17,250 were
taken for Army use from this family. Eliminating from furtlier con-
sideration the interests of the owners held not loyal, the interests of
the loyal owners were as follows :
1. Sarah Bushnell $1,725
2. Lindsay L. Brown 1,725
8. Talton E. Brown 1.725
The above three interests or shares are the only ones to be paid.
Lindsay L. Brown is found to be now deceased, and his heirs are
Rosa Brown, Meeker Brown, and Jennie May Brown, to whom the
appropriation of $1,725 for their father's share should be made. Tal-
ton E. Brown is also deceased, and his share, or $1,725, should be
paid to his heirs, who are found to be Mrs. Elmyra Jones, William
Brown, Bertha Brown, May Brown, and Esther I3rown.
Claim was not presented to the Southern Claims Commission, and
it is reported that during the time allowed for such presentation said
Lindsay L. Brown and said Talton E. Brown were minors.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixtj^-seconcl Congresses.
86 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC.
Felicite Xeda Chretien. (Athenais Chretien LeMore, adminis-
tratrix. ) ( S. D. 299-.59-1. ) Tucker Act. Sent to court December 16,
1903, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal: that supplies
worth $15,890 Avere taken from claimant and cooM'ner: that claimant's
share was $7,945. which is the amount carried by the bill. While the
court found that certain cotton was also taken, 'it made no allowance
therefor. The court reports that decedent presented her claim to the
Southern Claims Commission, but because of poverty was unable to
procure attendance of witnesses in Washington City", as required by
that commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Stephen D. Clark. (S. D. 135-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court March 3, 1905, by Senate resolution. It appears from the find-
ings that during the war the property in question belonged to Stephen
D. Clark and his coowners, Emily C. Lovelace and Charles L. Clark;
and the court finds all of these persons loyal by reason of their tender
years. The decedent, Emily C. Lovelace, was the half sister of
Stephen D. Clark and of Charles L. Clark, brothers. Since the war,
said Emily C. Lovelace and Charles L. Clark died, unmarried and
intestate, leaving Stephen D. Clark as their only heir and repre-
sentative. The court finds that the value of the supplies taken for
Army use from these three children was $4,240. all of wliich would
go to Stephen D. Clark, in his own right and as heir and representa-
tive of his said half sister, Emily C. Lovelace, and of his said brother,
Charles L. Clark. Court further reports that claim was not pre-
sented to any department, and that the reason given is the tender
age of present claimant and his decedents during the time allowed
for such presentation, which would have been between March 3. 1871,
and March 3, 1873. It appears from the allegation of the petition
that Stephen D. Clark Avas born in 1854. and therefore did not attain
majority until about 1875.
In the Sixty-second Congress, in a report in another body, it was
stated that the findings failed to show how these minors came into
the ownership and possession of the property, which leaves a doubt
as to whether it was in fact their property. No such objection is
found by your committee. It is true the Court of Claims has not
reported the evidence submitted, but has found material facts of
loyalty, ownership, and taking. It is not deemed by the Committee
on War Claims a part of its dut}^ to review the evidence adduced
before the Court of Claims.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
J. Martin CoMPTcw. (H. D. 1315-60-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court January 9. 1907. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies
were taken from claimant and his coowners, wherein claimant's in-
terest amounted to $1,990. Being tried under Bowman Act, claim
must have been presented to Southern Claims Commission, and is
found on page 54 of index of such claims.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Jean Crouchet. (J. G. Le Blanc, administrator.) (S. D. 329-
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1905, by Senate resolu-
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 87
tion. Court finds that Crouchet was during war a French subject,
who was neutral. This is a satisfactory finding upon this point.
Court further finds that supplies worth. $1,040 were taken for Army
use. The court declines to make any allowance on the item of cotton.
Claim was not presented to Southern Claims Commission, because,
as stated by the court, the claimant having been an alien during the
Civil War that commission could not have taken jurisdiction of the
claim on account of that fact.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Antoine Decuir. (S. D. 482-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
April 2G, 1904. by Senate resolution. Court finds that Antoine
Decuir, the deceased, was loyal during war; also that supplies worth
$4,115 were taken for Army use; that effort was made in 1874 to
present claim to Southern Claims Commission, and again in 1879;
that decedent had no knowledge of the law limiting the time for
filing claims before that commission. Decedent's lack of knowledge
of that law can occasion no surprise, because the law went into effect
on the date of its approval, i. e., March 3, 1871.
Court further finds that Antoine Decuir, Joseph Auguste Decuir,
and Rosa Decuir Macais are the only heirs of said Antoine Decuir,
deceased, and appropriation is to be made to them.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses.
Louis Delatte. (Charles R. Delatte, administrator.) (S. D.
238-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 25, 1900, by Senate
resolution. Court finds that Delatte was loyal; that United States
forces occupied his premises in Baton Rouge for hospital; that they
damaged the premises and also tore down certain houses belonging
to him in that city and used the materials therefrom; that they
also took certain stores and supplies for use of the Army; that the
aggregate rental value of building used as a hospital, with incidental
damages, with value of materials taken from the other two buildings,
and of supplies taken is $1,010. No allowance is made for the item
of cotton.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Eloise Deslonde. (Oclile Deslonde, sole heir.) (S. D. 138-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1903. by Senate resolution.
Court finds that decedent, Eloise Deslonde, was a free person of color
and loyal ; that supplies worth $5,325 were taken from her for Army
use; that Odile Deslonde is the sole heir and representative of said
Eloise Deslonde.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Bellot a. Doxato. (Nicaise Lemelle, administrator.) (S. D.
251_59_1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds that Donato was loyal ; that supplies worth
$750 were taken for Army use. Court further reports that claim was
not presented to claims commission and that it appears that the
decedent was unable to read and write the English language.
88 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
It is noted that it is alleged in the petition that decedent was a
free man of color, although that fact is not expressly reported by the
court with its findings.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congress.
Clarisse Donato. (Ludger Lemelle, administrator.) (S. U. 238-
50-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 20, 1904, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds that decedent was loyal and that supplies worth
$2,1G0 were taken for Army use; the court further reports that 13
bales of cotton Avere taken, but it makes no allowance therefor because
the evidence does not establish that the cotton was taken for Army
use or hospital purposes.
It is alleged in the petition that said decedent was a free person
of color and that the claim was placed in the hands of counsel for
filing with the Southern Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Alfred Duplantier. (David P. Gayle and Sarah H. Gayle, ad-
ministrators.) (S. D. 159-59-2.) Sent to court first time by Com-
mittee on War Claims under Bowman Act February 3, 188G; claim
dismissed under Bowman Act reference because claimant had failed
to submit proper proof in support of his claim filed with the South-
ern Claims Commission. Sent to court a second time on April 30,
1902, by Senate resolution.
Court finds Duplantier loyal and that supplies worth $9,675 were
taken under proper authority for Army use. Court further finds
presentation of claim to Southern Claims Commission, but by reason
of claimant's poverty he was unable to bring witnesses to Washington
City to testify in person as required by its rules; that bills were
introduced in the Fifty-fifth, Fifty-sixth, and Fifty-seventh Con-
gresses for relief of claimant.
Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress.
George W. Dyson. (Calvin H. Dvson, administrator.) (S. D.
354_Gi_2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth $715
Avere taken from him for Army use. Claim first presented to Fifty-
sixth and later Congresses.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Martin GuiLLORY. (S. D. 212-02-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
March 3, 1909, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; it
would appear from allegation in petition that he had l)een a slave.
Court further finds that supplies worth $311 Avere taken from him
for Army use. Findings are accompanied by court's conclusion that
claim is an equitable one.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
John Hoey. (Conrad B. Fischer, administrator.) (S. D. 981-
62-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds that Hoey Avas loyal ; that United States forces oc-
cupied certain real estate belonging to decedent, and also took from
him certain stores and supplies by proper authority ; that the reason-
able rental value of premises, together Avith value of said stores and
supplies, was $7,500. Court further finds that claim was presented
as early as Forty-third Congress (i. e., as early as 1874) and to later
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS^, ETC. 89
Congresses, and that the widoAV testifies that she placed the ch\im
in the hands of Gen. Emory, then commanding United States troops
at New Orleans, as early as 1873, and was later advised by him to
present it to Southern Claims Commission, but it was then too
late. The findings are accompanied by the conclusion that the claim
is an equitable one. The petition states the names and residences
of the various heirs, residing in New Orleans, La., and in ditierent
counties in the State of New York, but as the estate is represented
by an administrator appropriation should be made to him.
Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bills.
Emile Honore. (Adorea Honore, widow and sole heir.) (S. D.
115-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds that Emile Honore was lo3^al; that supplies
worth $976 were taken by proper authority; that the property was
community property, belonging to him and his wife. Adorea Honore,
the present claimant. It further appears that while the claim was
pending before Congress said Emile Honore stated under oath that
he was not advised of any tribunal established in the early seventies
to adjudicate claims of this character. The only tribunal open to
this claim was the Southern Claims Commission, March 3. 1871, to
March 3, 1873. While the court fails to expressly find it as a fact
it is alleged in the petition that the decedent and the present claim-
ant were free persons of color. Claim was presented to Congress as
early as Fifty-sixth Congress.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses.
Matthew J. Jones. (Annie E. Jones et al., heirs.) (H. D. 182-
58-3.) Bowman Act. The findings are so draAvn as to require ref-
erence to the petition in order to ascertain what facts the court means
to determine. Reading the findings and the petition together, the
following facts appear :
Property was taken from Annie E. Jones, Robert ]\lcElroy Jones,
Alice J. Jones, Mattie E. Blanchard (nee eTones), Clemence \V.
Brian (nee Jones), Cecilia McElroy Dunn (nee Jones), and Emma
H. Wells (nee Jones). They were evidently owners of property at
time of taking, as heirs of Matthew J. Jones, then deceased. All of
said seven owners are found loyal, and it is found by the court that
supplies Avorth $4,143 were taken from them while they were still
infants of tender years. Emma H. Wells is now deceased, and her
estate is represented by Robert M. Jones, administrator. The ap-
propriation for $4,143 should run to these seven claimants in equal
shares, as suggested in the bill.
In the Sixty-second Congress it Avas suggested by a report in
another body as an objection to payment of the claim that Matthew
J. Jones, the father, was not found loyal; that date of his death is
not reported; that no administration appears to have been had: and
that the court fails to shoAv that the claimants owned the property
at the time of taking, and dees not report that MatthcAv J. Jones did
not leave a surviA^ng widoAv. The Committee on War Claims finds
no such objections to payment of this claim. The court finds ex-
plicitly that the property " Avas taken from the claimants (then
infants of tender years)," folloAAed by a description of the property
and place of taking. Findings of the court must be read in a reason-
90 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
able way as meaning something material, and if inferences must be
drawn, they should rather be drawn in favor of the findings mean-
ing something than otherwise.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Florville Kerlegax. (S. D. 452-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court April 20, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds that Kerlegan
was a free colored man, who remained loyal, and that supplies Avorth
$671 were taken from him under proper authority; that it is shown
in evidence that he could neither read nor write nor speak English.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixtj^-second Congresses.
RosAMOXD Lacoitr AND CoLix Lacour. (E. G. Beukcr, adminis-
trator.) (H. D. 444-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March
15, 1890. Court reports both decedents loyal; also that supplies
worth $6?)5 were taken from them ))y proper authority. Claim found
page 138 of Southern Claims Commission index.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congi^ess.
Adele Rixner Lanaux. (C. La Branche, executor.) (S. D.
136-02-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1905, by Senate
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $5,090
were taken from her by proper authority; that claim was presented
to Claims Commission ; that being unable to defray cost of bringing
witnesses to Washington to testify claimant petitioned said commis-
sion to be allowed to take testimony locally; that said petition was
never allowed or denied by said commission; that just before expira-
tion of time allowed for submitting testimony before the connnission
said decedent departed this life, insane; that claim was presented to
Congress in Fifty-fifth and Fifty-sixth Congresses; that claim Avas
referred to court in Fifty-sixth Congress in the name of David
Lanaux, but it appearing that Mrs. Lanaux was owner of the prop-
erty at time of taking the claim was later referred in her name in
1905.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Joseph A. Landry. (Estelle Landrv, administratrix.) (S. D.
196-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 23, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds that decedent, Joseph A. Landry, was loyal ;
that supplies worth $1,320 were taken for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Jean Baptiste Lazap^. (Augustin Lazare, administrator.)
(S. D. 125-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by
Senate resolution. Court finds that decedent was a colored man, who
remained loyal; that supplies worth $697 were taken from him under
proper authority. Court declines to make any finding on the item
of five bales of cotton, stating that it does not appear what was done
with it.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Alexander Lemelle. (Mariane T. Lemelle, administratrix.)
(S. D. 207-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by
Senate resolution. Court finds that decedent was loyal; that sup-
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 91
plies worth $565 were taken by proper aiithorit}^ ; that daim was not
presented to Claims Commission, but was first presented in Fifty-
seventh Congress: that decedent was unable to read and write Eng-
lish. While not reported as a fact by the court, the statement of
case indicates that the decedent was a free colored man.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
EuPHEMiE Lemelle. (Barthelcmv Lemelle, administrator.)
(S. D. 206-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by
Senate resolution. Court finds that decedent was loyal; that sup-
plies worth $1,520 Avere taken by proper authority; that claim was
not presented to Southern Claims Commission, but was first presented
in Fifty-seventh Congress; that decedent was unable to read and
write English. While not stated in the findings, it would appear
from the petition that the decedent was a free woman of color.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Leon Lemelle. (Fiack Lemelle, administrator.) (S. D. 131-
62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds that decedent, Leon Lemelle, was loyal; that sup-
plies worth $845 were taken by proper authority. Claim not pre-
sented prior to presentation to Congress. While not found as a fact
by the court, it is set forth in the statement of case that the decedent
was a free man of color.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
EiGOBERT Lemeli^. (Marianne D. Lemelle, administratrix.)
(S. D. 384-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by
Senate resolution. Cotirt finds Rigobert Lemelle loyal; that supplies
worth $1,106 were taken from him for Army use; that he died during
the war, leaving a widow and several children; the widow is the
petitioner; it is further reported that she could speak only the French
language and was unable to read or write English.
Passed Senate Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and
Sixty-second Congresses.
BosMAN Lyons. (Mrs. Marie Melanie Broussard et al., heirs.)
(S. D. 181-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by
Senate resolution. Court finds that claimants herein, Mrs. Marie
Melanie Broussard (widow of Bosnian Lyons), Nunez Lyons,
Mary Azelima Simon, Mary Jane Campbell, and the decedent, Sarah
Jane Lyons Broussard (children of Bosnian Lyons), were loyal
throughout the war; that supplies worth $3,126 were taken from said
persons. It is further reported as a reason for failure to earlier
present the claim that said Mrs. Marie Melanie Broussard, the mother
of the other claimants, was an ignorant woman and her children were
minors of tender ^^ears.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Laura P. Maddox. (H. D. 516-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court February 18, 1885. Court finds that Laura P. Maddox was
loyal; also that certain supplies were taken for Army use from her
and two coowners (Fannie M. Wells and Ida F. Wells) ; that the
interest therein of said Laura P. Maddox was $15,000.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
92 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN" AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Jean Louis Malveau. (Jules Malveau. administrator.) (S. D.
184-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court reports that supplies worth $375 were taken from
a free colored famiW consisting of Elizabeth Malveau, a widow, and
her seven children, to wit, Marie. Louis, Jean P., Elizabeth, Mar-
gueritte, Dupres, and Jules Malveau ; that the}^ were all loyal.
Court also reports that military forces took from this widow and
her children seven bales of cotton rea,sonably worth $1,050, but that
it does not appear what became of the cotton. Following its general
practice, the committee has omitted the item of cotton without preju-
dice to its possible future consideration.
Court reports that claim was not presented prior to presentation
to Congress, but that the claimants were ignorant, free colored people.
An administrator having been appointed on the estate of the father
of this family, Jean Louis Malveau, it is believed that the appropria-
tion may be properly made to him, rather than involve possible con-
fusion of attempting to name all the present parties in interest. This
will leave distribution to the local courts of Louisiana.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
OzAM D. Metoyer. (Achille P. Rachal, administrator.) (S. D.
495-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth $960
were taken from him for Army use; also that claim was not pre-
sented prior to presentation to Fifty-ninth Congress and that the
claimant's decedent was an ignorant colored man.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Theophile Metoyer. (Louis V. Metover, administrator.) (S. D.
94-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court' March 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court finds that decedent was loyal; that supplies Avorth
$1,335 Avere taken from him for Army use; that claim Avas not pre-
sented prior to presentation to Congress; that claimant's decedent
was a colored man, unable to read the English language.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Alphonse Meuillon. (S. D. 403-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court April 26, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds that claimant
was a free man of color, who remained loyal during the war; that
supplies Avorth $245 Avere taken from him for Army use; that claim
was not ]H-esented until 1902 : that claimant is a colored man, unable
to read or Avrite the English language, and had no knoAvledge of his
right to i)resent a claim to the Claims Commission during the period
alloAved therefor.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses.
Francois Meuillon. (Marie Josephine Le Sassier, administra-
trix.) (S. D. 219-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3,
1905, by Senate resolution. Court finds that Francois Meuillon was
a free man of color and loyal ; that supplies Avorth $2,810 Avere taken
from him by proper authority : court declines to make any alloAvance
on the item of cotton. Claim not presented prior to presentation to
Congress, but claimant's decedent is found to have been a colored
man Avho used the French language and Avas unable to speak English.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 93
LuciEN Meuillon. (Aurore D. Kerlegan, administratrix.)
(S. D. 400-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by
Senate resolution. Court finds that decedent was a free man of
color, who remained loyal ; that supplies worth $200 were taken from
him for Army use ; that the claim was not filed before Claims Com-
mission; that claimant's decedent, a colored man, could not read or
write the English language and understood but little of said lan-
guage.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses.
George Neck, Sr. (Emile E. Zimmer, administrator.) (S. D.
343-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court finds that decedent, George Neck, was during war
an alien, a citizen of France, and that he was neutral ; that is all that
can be asked on this point of an alien. Court further finds that
supplies worth $550 were taken from decedent by proper authority;
also that claim was presented to French-American Claims Commis-
sion established by treaty of 1880, but was dismissed by that commis-
sion for lack of jurisdiction as Neck had become a citizen of the
United States in the meantime.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Gertrude Nolasco. (S. D. 263-57-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court February 28, 1900, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal ; also that supplies worth $540 were taken from her ; that claim
was first presented to Congress.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Robert Norris. (S. D. 611-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
April 26, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and
that supplies worth $900 were taken b}' proper authority.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Caroline Pierront. (Auguste Guirard, administrator.) (H. D.
334-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 3, 1911, by House
resolution. Court finds that Caroline Pierront was a neutral for-
eigner, which is satisfactory on this point. Court further finds that
supplies worth $1,960 were taken from her by proper authorit}^; that
claim was presented to French- American Claims Commission in
1881, but was dismissed for want of jurisdiction on the ground that
decedent lost her French citizenship by cession of the Department
of Moselle by France to Germany in 1871, decedent being a native
of that Department. Findings are accompanied by the court's con-
clusion that the claim is equitable.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Adolph Hartiens (tutor of Sidney L. Hartiens et al.). (S. D.
137-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 27, 1906, by Senate
resolution; had been previously considered under a reference by the
Senate of April 25, 1900. Material facts as found by the court are
as follows: William H. Osborne, the decedent in this case, owned
certain property in common with John Osborne as copartners;
United States forces took from the partnership certain supplies.
The findings of the court are exceedingly unsatisfactory in that they
are so drawn as to compel CongTCSs, or committees of Congress, to
engage in arithmetical computation in order to determine the real
94 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
ultimate facts. However, the committee has performed duties which
should have been performed by the court, and has arrived at the
following conclusion :
One million pounds of sugar were taken from the partnership of
John and AVilliam H. Osborne, of the value of $90,000. One-half
of that sum, or $-1:5,000, belonged to the decedent in this case, Wil-
liam H. Osborne. In addition other supplies were taken from the
partnership of a total value of $19,750, of which William H. Osborne
was the owner of one-half, or $9,875.
From this it is seen that decedent's share in the value of the sugar
taken was $45,000, and his share in the other supplies taken was
$9,875, making a total of $54,875.
As to the item of sugar, it is expressly found by the court that it
was loaded upon Navy gunboats or Army transports, but the court
states that it does not further appear what became of it, or whether
it was issued as supplies by the Army or Navy or whether it was
treated as abandoned and captured property and sold and proceeds
paid into the Treasury. AVhile. as a matter of general information,
such facts might properly be made the subject of inquiry, it would
appear upon the facts of the case that after the seizure of the prop-
erty and after it had been taken away upon gunboats or transports
it would more pro])erly devolve upon the Government to show Avhat
disposition Avas ultimately made of it than upon the claimant, who
could not be expected to follow it.
As to the general merits of the claim, one of the most material facts
is found stated in the second paragraph of the accompamdng opinion
of the court rather than in the findings of fact. This material fact
to which reference is made is that the other partner, John Osborne,
has already been paid for his half of the claim. The court fails to
state when that payment Avas made, but further investigation into
facts which might properly have been set forth by the court shows
that this claim was inchuled in the omnibus claims appropriation
act approved March 3, 1899 (30 Stats., 1190), in the following
language :
To Mrs. Belle Osborne, executrix of John Osborne, deceased, late of Alex-
andiia. La., for sugar and stores and supplies, .$54,87.5.
It will therefore be seen that one partner has been paid $54,875,
and, unless some objection appears, it would seem that the other
partner should be paid the same amount. The amount paj'able is
therefore fixed by the committee as $54,875.
It is further reported that the claim was not prosecuted before the
Southern Claims Commission, but in the same finding it is stated
that William H. Osborne, the decedent, died Decemlier '2, 1805, leav-
ing surviving him his widow, Mrs. Mary L. Duvol Osborne, and one
child. Mary Corinne Osborne, then less than 1 year (f age. It
appears that in 1868 this widow remarried Henry H. Rogers, and that
she died in 1872. The death of the former widow of William H.
Osborne left his only child, Mary Corinne Osborne, as the sole surviv-
ing heir. When, by act of March 3, 1873, Congress abrogated the
right to present claims to the Southern Claims Commission, this child
could not have been more than 9 years of age according to the find-
ing of the court. That would surely seem to be a complete excuse
for any failure on her part to follow up a remedy at that time, espe-
CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN A'ND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 95
cially when the remedy was taken away from her when she was but
9 5'ears old.
The further findings of the court show that this child, Mary
Corinne Osborne, married in 1887, and died in 1892, leaving surviving
her as her heirs three minor children, to wit, Sidney L. Hartiens,
William W. Hartiens, and Mary E. Hartiens, who are thus shown to
be the grandchildren and only heirs of William H. Osborne, deceased.
These three minors have appeared through their tutor, Adolph Hart-
iens, who is apparently also their father.
For reasons stated the committee believes that appropriation should
be made to Adolph Hartiens, tutor of the three minors mentioned, in
the sum of $54,875.
This claim for the amount now proposed to be paid passed the
Senate in the Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Alfred C. Parham et al. (H. D. 626-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent
to court January 10, 1907. The material facts appearing from the
findings in this case seem to be —
Harvey X. Parham was the original owner of a plantation : during
his lifetime supplies worth $300 were taken from him; he is found
loyal, and his estate is now represented by Alfred C. Parham, admin-
istrator.
After the death of Harvey X. Parham, and while title to the prop-
erty stood in his widow and other heirs, i. e., Euphrasie Parham,
Amelia Parham, Alfred C. Parham, and Corinne B. Parham, the
United States forces took supplies from said widow and children of
an aggregate value of $1,820; the widow and certain children are also
found lo3^al.
In this case the court has very properly stated explicitly the in-
terests of the various parties, as follows: Alfred C. Parham, admin-
istrator of Harvey X. Parham, $300; Alfred C. Parham, administra-
tor of ISIrs. Euphrasie Parham, $1,040: Alfred C. Parham, adminis-
trator of Amelia E. Smith (formerly Parham), $260; Alfred C. Par-
ham, in his own right, $260; Corinne B. McRight (formerly Par-
ham), $260. The interest of William B. Parham, one of the heirs
of Harvey X. Parham, has not been considered, as he was found not
loyal.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Michael Eubi. (H. D. 309-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
March 6, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal ; that he was the owner of
a building near Donaldsonville, which was torn down by United
States forces for Army use; that said forces also took a horse from
him, and building materials for use in building a fort and winter
quarters : that total value of the building torn down, of the building
material, and of the horse is $1,980. Itls further reported that the
claim was duly presented to the Southern Claims Commission, but
no decision on' the merits was rendered by said commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty- second Congresses.
John- Schwartzenblrg. (Oliver Schwartzenburg. administra-
tor.) (S. D. 172-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907,
by Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal and that supplies
96 CLAIMS UXDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
worth $4,720 were taken by proper aiithorit}^; that claim was first
presented to Congi'ess in 1884 and was referred to the court under
the Bowman Act. being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Findings
are accompanied by a conclusion that the claim is an equitable one.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Jacintha Strother (for herself and as administratrix of Joseph
T. Strother.) (S. D. 239-58-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court July
20, 1897. by Senate resolution. Court finds that Jacintha Strother
and Joseph T. Strother were loyal; that supplies worth $4,000 were
taken from Jacintha Strother and supplies worth $2,750 were taken
from Joseph T. Strother, the deceased husband, of whose estate she
is administratrix. Court finds that claim was not presented to
Claims Commission; that claimant's husband died in 1866, before
existence of said commission; that present claimant, after the com-
mission had been established, sent the claim to a lawyer to be pre-
sented and supposed that the claim had been filed; being informed
that, under the rules established, it would be necessary for her to
bring her witnesses to Washington to testify, and having no means
of bearing the expense of so doing, she then abandoned the claim.
Passed the Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-
first and f^ixty-second Congresses.
Arthur Taylor (surviving partner of Arthur Tavlor and Louis
Taylor.) (S. D. 30-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26,
1904. by Senate resolution. Court finds that Arthur Taylor and his
deceased partner, Louis Taylor, were loj^al and that supplies worth
$787 were taken from them for Army use. Claim not previously
presented. While not reported by the court in its findings, it is
alleged in the petition that claimant is a colored man and that his
former partner was his father.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses.
Delphixe a. Taylor and Marie C. Quays, Executrix Philip D.
Quays. (S. D. 128-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27,
1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds that supplies worth $4,895
were taken from Mrs. Amy A. Taylor, Philip D. Quays, and Mrs.
Delphine A. Tajdor. It further finds that Mrs. Delphine A. Taylor
was not loyal, but that Mrs. Amy A. Taylor and Philip D. Quays
were loyal, b}" reason of tender years during war.
The interest of Mrs. Delphine A. Taylor must, therefore, be elimi-
nated from present consideration. The elimination of one-third of
the total value of supplies taken means elimination of $1,631.66. Ap-
propriation should therefore be made to Mrs. Amy A. Taylor, loyal
owner, for $1,631.66 and to the executrix of Philip D. Quays in the
same sum. Marie C. Quays appears as such executrix.
In the Sixty-second Congress, in a report in another body, it was
objected that it did not appear whether Marie C. Quays was loyal
or disloyal. That has nothing to do with the claim, as she appears
in the present case only as executrix of Philip D. Quays, and he has
been found loyal. It was further objected that no administration
appears to have been had and that it is not stated that the three
persons above mentioned owned the property. If the findings are
read reasonably, they can mean nothing else than that these three
persons. Mrs. Delphine A. Taylor, Mrs. Amy A. Taylor, and Philip
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 97
D. Qua} s. Avere the owners of the property. The exact words of
the linding are that the military forces, by proper authority, " took
from the chiimants " property, etc. It is to be presumed that the
court intended Congress to act upon its findings, and that it would
not have made any such finding unless evidence of ownership) had
been adduced.
Passed the Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
EiCHARD Terrill. (Comelius F. Terrill et al., heirs.) (S. D.
279-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March ■!, 1900, by Senate
resolution. The reported facts in brief are as follows :
The decedent resided during the war in the city of New Orleans
and was neutral, doing nothing for or against either side during
that Avar. About June 15, 1862, United States forces took possession
of certain real estate belonging to Terrill, in the city of New Orleans,
as abandoned property, and held same until about September 15,
1863, when same was turned over b}^ military authorities to the
Treasury Department and held by it until about December 15, 1863,
when it was restored to Terrill. For the period between September
15, 1863, and December 15, 1863, i. e., while premises were held by
Treasury Department, Terrill was paid $2,841.63. He then gave his
receipt wherein it was recited that he released the Government from
any claim for damages, use, and occupation.
The restoration of premises to Terrill by Treasury Department,
on December 15. 1863, seems to have been only on paper, as it is
further found that the military forces continued to occupy the prem-
ises till about June 1, 1865. From December 15, 1863, to June 1,
1864, the Government paid Terrill rent at $500 per month, leaving
one year of occupation for which no payment was made, i. e., from
June 1, 1864, to June 1, 1865, at $500 per month, or a total of $6,000
for the year, which includes the incidental damages.
It is an historical fact that in May. 1862, Gen. B. F. Butler issued
a proclamation to the citizens of New Orleans, promising that their
rights of property would be held inviolate unless they committed
some overt act of disloyalty. The finding of the court that this man
"remained neutral shows that he did not violate the terms of that
proclamation. If the Government is to fulfill the promises made by
that proclamation then this claim should be paid. It was upon this
theory that the Senate and House have apparently both acted previ-
ously in considering this claim.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Charlton B. Tucker and Louisa Tucker Leforte. (S. D.
10-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 15, 1897, by Senate
resolution. The findings are rather complicated, but the material
facts for present consideration are as follows:
J. W. Tucker and his wife, Marcelline Tucker, owned a planta-
tion prior to the war in community, each owning one-half. In 1853
said J. W. Tucker died intestate leaving surviving him his said
widow and six children. Before beginning of the war the widow,
Mrs. Marcelline Tucker, married Caleb Tucker, by whom she had
19855— H. Kept. 97, 63-2 7
98 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
one child, now Louisa Tucker Leforte. Said Mrs. ]\[arcelline Tucker
also died before commencement of the war.
Federal troops took from these surviving children of J. W. Tucker
and also from said Louisa Tucker Leforte, as surviving heir of her
mother, supplies of a total value of $63,330 for Army use.
The only ow^ners who are found to have been loyal are Charlton
B. Tucker and said Louisa Tucker Leforte, found loyal by reason
of tender years. The share of said Charlton B. Tucker, as heir of
both his father and his mother, was two-thirteenths, or $9,743. The
share of Louisa Tucker Lefort, by inheritance from her mother only,
was one-thirteenth, or $4,871.
The claim was not presented to the Claims Commission; the
claimant, Louisa Tucker Leforte, was a minor during period that
commission was open, having been born about 1858. The claim was
placed by other heirs in the hands of counsel as early as 1870, and
thereafter all papers were destroyed by fire.
As to the interests of these two loyal children the claim should
obviously be paid, Charlton B. Tucker taking $9,743 and his half-
sister, Louisa Tucker Leforte, taking $4,871.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
RoMAiN Verdun. (J. B. Verdun, jr., administrator.) (S. D.
490-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 2(5, 1904, by Senate
■resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies woith $7,715
were taken far Army use; that claim was presented to Congress in
1887 and referred to court in 1888 by Committee on War Claims
under Bowman Act; that testimony was taken under that reference,
but the court was without jurisdiction, and that claim was dis-
missed; thereafter claim was presented to the Fifty-sixth and later
Congresses. While the court has not stated it in its findings of fact,
it is alleged in the petition that the vlecedent was a freeman of color.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Adolph Verret. (James A. Verret, administrator.) (S. D. 21-
58-2.) Tucker Act. This claim was first sent to court under Bow-
man Act and was considered on issue of loyalty as early as 1892 ; the
finding was equivocal on loyalty, and that case was dismissed. Feb-
ruary 14, 1901, claim was referred under Tucker Act by Senate reso-
lution, under which later reference it has been tried.
The facts of this case being unusual, they are here given at greater
length than in the ordinary claims.
This claiui was presented to and rejected by the Southern Claims
Connnission, as shown by page 241 of index of such claims. It was
referred to court under Bowman Act and was tried on loyalty. The
finding then made by the court was unusual, being as follows:
This case being a claim for supplies or stores jillege;! to have been taken by
or fnrnishe<l to the military forces of the ruited States for their use during the
bite war for the sui)pressiou of the rel)ellion. the court, on a preliminary in-
quiry, linds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Adoljih ^'erret. the
perst)n alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States
throughout said war, and the case is dismissed for want of further juiMsdiction.
The claimant was elected to the convention which passed tlie ordinance of
secession as a Union delegate, and while a member of that convention he exerted
his influence to prevent the passage of the ordinance of secession, but signed
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 99
the ordiuauce under protest. After the .-ouiuieucemeut of the war, in the year
1862, he was appointed sheriff of his parish by Gen. Butler. He did nothing to
assist the Confederacy after the war coninienced, but, on the contrary, exerted
himself for the Government of the United States. Signing the ordinance of
secession was prior to the proclamation of the President on the 15th of April,
3861.
The claim was thereupon dismissed by the court ft)r htck of further
jurisdiction, the finding not being explicitl}^ favorable on the issue of
loyalty. The claim Avas later referred to court under Tucker Act by
Senate resolution February 14, 1901. When tried under that refer-
ence the court merely reiterated its previous findings on loyalty and
reported supplies were taken from decedent for Army use reasonably
worth $4,067.
The only question presented in this case is whether the claim should
be ])aid, notwithstanding the qualified finding as to loyalty. After
careful consideration the committee is of opinion the claim should
be paid.
It will be noted that Verret was elected as a Union delegate to the
State convention to consider the question of secession, and while a
member of that convention exerted himself to prevent the passage of
the ordinance of secession, but after its adoption performed the
merely formal act of authentication of signing the ordinance " under
protest."
That action might properly be likened to the signing by the
Speaker of the House of a bill that had been passed by vote of the
House, but of which the Speaker himself disapproved. When Verret
affixed his name to the ordinance of secession it had already been
adopted by the convention, and, as reported by the court, Verret con-
tinued to show his opposition by signing his name " under protest."
It is therefore plain that Verret's act contributed nothing to the
attempted secession of Louisiana, but merely registered his con-
tinued protest against the attempt to secede.
The remainder of the finding of the court show^s that when Gen.
Butler assumed command of the sec'tion in which Verret lived (in
1862) he appointed Verret sheriff of his parish; that Ven?et did
nothing to assist the Confederacy during the war, " but, on the con-
trary, exerted himself for the Government of the United States."
One thought is brought out prominently by the findings of fact
in this case, and that is: If all the men of the South had acted as
did this man there would have been no secession, and even after
attempted secession there would have been no war.
The committee finds it difficult to account for the failure of the
court to report in this case, as an ultimate fact, that this man was
actually and affirmatively loyal. It woitld seem that the court wished
Congress to assume the responsibility of finally passing upon this
question, considering the findings of the court rather in the nature of
a special verdict including probative facts rather than ultimate
facts.
The Committee on War Claims of the Sixty-second Congress de-
cided and reported in favor of payment of this claim, and its action
was approved by the House, the claim being included in H. R. 19115,
Sixty-second Congress.
The present committee coincides in its opinion of the claim with
that of the former committee, and has for that reason included the
100 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
claim in the l)ill presented for tlie jiulj>nient of the House, believino:
the claim to be entitled to even unusual consideration in view of
Verret's affirmative activity for the cause of the Federal Govern-
ment during the Avar.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
JmiTH VixcENT Sole Heir of A:meli.\ Olivier Delille. (S. D.
135-62--2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March ;i, 1905. by Senate
resolution. Court finds that Mrs. Judith Vincent, the claimant, and
her mother, Amelia Olivier Delille, were loyal; that supplies were
taken from claimant and her mother for Army use worth $875. It
appears from allegations in the petition that these women were free
women of color during the war. If that is a fact it should have been
specifically found by the court as one of the facts.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Henry Vox Hofex. (Charles S. Von Hofen, administrator.)
(PI. 0(52-00-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court August 6, 1888. Court
finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth $010 Avere taken from
him for Army use. Claim Avas presented to (^laims Commission and
appears on page 240 of index, tliough by clerical error it is given in
the index as Henry Van Hofen.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Samuel N. White. (Elizabeth White, administratrix.) (S. D.
258-55-2.) Tucker Act. This claim originally presented to South-
ern Claims Commission; referred to court first P'ebi-uarv 12. 1887,
under BoAvman Act ; decedent found loyal in 1892, under that refer-
ence, but court in 1893 found adversely to claimant on merits. July
17, 1897, claim again sent to court under Tucker Act. by Senate reso-
lution.
This is an unusual case, and has been given special study on that
account. Two items are invoh'ed, i. e. :
Sugar and molasses .$4,700
Use steamboat Red Chief, 825 days 23,100
27, 800
No peculiar question arises as to the sugar and molasses, found to
haA^e been taken aAvay on the transport Essex. The court says it
does not appear what Avas ultimately done Avith the sugar and mo-
lasses; but its taking, evidently by proper authority, is shoAvn. as Avell
as its value. White obviously could not folloAv his property to see
Avhat was done Avith it. There seems no (question as to this item of
sugar and molasses, therefore.
As to the item of use of steamboat, the facts are as folloAvs :
White OAvned the steamboat Red Chief ; she Avas seized in 1863 by
United States military forces and Avas used by them thereafter.
White brought suit in United States court for eastern district of
Louisiana and secured a decree of restitution. The United States
appealed and secured an order that the appeal act as a supersedeas;
the appeal was never perfected or heard by any other court, so the
only court decision ever rendered Avas to the effect that White Avas enti-
tled to possession of his boat. MeauAvhile the Government continued
to use his boat until about October 12, 1865 — long after actual close of
the war.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 101
In October, 1865, the Government, having no further use for the
boat, sold it at auction for $7,000. "White thereafter asked relief at
the hands of the Secretary of War. At first his rights were wholly
denied; but on March 14, 18G6, Secretary Stanton ordered that White
be paid the $7,000 secured from the sale of the boat, stating the boat
had been sold " by mistake."
March 16, 1866, the $7,000 was paid "\A^iite and he was called upon
to sign a certain voucher, evidently prepared for him by the Quar-
termaster's Department. Said voucher, signed by White, read as
follows :
The United States to S. N. White, Dr. :
]Marcli 16, 1S66. To reinibursement of the proceeols of the sale of the ste:uiier
Red Chief ^o. 1, by the United States Quartermaster's Department, at Mobile,
Ala., on the 12th of October, 1.%;!, it being at the time the projierty of this said
Samuel X. White, \yhich reimbursement is in lieu of the boat and in full pay-
ment and I'elease for all claims by said Samuel N. White on the United States
Government or its officers on accoimt of said boat, and this said reimburse-
ment "being in full accord and satisfaction for all claims against the United
States and its officers for said boat or its value,'' .$7,000.
See subvouchers attached — two in number, as furnished from Quartermaster
General's office March 16, 1866.
I certify that the above account is correct, and that it has been made in
triplicate and read over carefully to the claimant. Samuel X. White, in the pres-
ence of the attesting witnesses, and that he. in their presence, accepted the sum
of $7,000 in full of all claims by him against the United States or its officers
on account of the steamer Red Chief No. 1.
J. C. M. Ferran,
Major, Quartermaster, Brevet Colonel, U. S. A.
Received at Washington, D. C. the 16th of March, 1866, of Bvt. Col. J. C. M,
Ferran, quartermaster. United States Army, the sum of $7,000 and — cents,
in full of the above account, in check No. 26. on the First National P.anlv of
Washington, D. C, payable to S. N. White or bearer, for $7,000.
S. N. White.
Witnesses :
W. M. Macrae.
C. A. Thorn.
The court lias foimd that the Government used this boat 825 days,
and that at then current rates being paid by the Quartermaster's
Department, the boat was worth $28 per day, or a total of $23,100
for the entire period of its use.
There is no question as to the use of the boat during this period.
Neither is there any question that, as an actual fact, White never was
paid for that use. The only question is whether or not, by signing
the voucher above set forth. White estopped himself from making any
claim for such use of his boat. This is a question not wholly free
from doubt, and is one primarily of law, to be determined by general
legal principles. If general principles of law do not preclude White
from making this claim, then it should be paid en the facts .stated.
While the terms " accord and satisfaction " are used in the voucher
quoted, their application must be restricted to claims mentioned in
that voucher. Carefid scrutiny of the voucher shows no claim for
use or rent or charter value of the boat to be mentioned therein. In
order that an agreement of accord and satisfaction shall be binding
by way of estoppel, there must be something in dispute, something in
controversy.
So far as appears from that voucher, the only controversy was
whether White was entitled to anything arising from the sale of the
boat, or was entitled, possibly, to the actual value of the boat rather
102 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
than to the proceeds of the forced sale at auction. The receipt given
would, in opinion of the committee, preclude consideration of a claim
now for tlie value of the boat, or for the difference between its value
and the $7,000 received ; but the committee perceives no fact or legal
principle Avhich estops assertion of this present claim for the rental
or use of the boat for the 825 da,ys.
From aught appearing in the findings and history of this claim,
no claim for use or rental of the boat was presented Iby White to the
War Department. From that it would follow that no claim for use
or rent of the boat could have been Avithin the contemplation of the
Secretary of War or of White Avhen the payment of $7,000 was made.
In case of Fire Insurance Association v. Wickham (141 U. S.,
564), it was stated:
If there be a bona fide dispute as to the amount due. sncli dispute may be the
subject of a compromise and payment of a certain sum as a satisfaction of the
entire claim, but where the larger sum is admitted td l)e due, or the circum-
stances of the case show that there was no good reason to doubt that it was
due, the release of the whole upon payment of part will not be considered as a
compromise, but will be treated as without consideration and void.
In case of San Juan v. St. Johns Gas Co. (195 U. S., 564), it was
said:
True it is as pointed out in Fire Insurance Association r. Wickham (141
U. S., 564), it must appear that the alleged dispute really existed and did not
arise merely from au arbitrary denial by one party of an obligation which was
obviously due.
The case of Pratt v. United States (3 C. Cls. Kept,, 105) involved
practically the same question. Pratt had signed a certain receipt
or A^oucher for rent of a steamboat at rate of $100 per day, though
he claimed $200 per day as per terms of original cliarter. After re-
ceiving the sum of $100 per day, Pratt brought suit and recovered
judgment for the remaining $100 per day. There Government
counsel contended claimant was estopped by his receipt, but the court
said :
The words " in full of the above account." upon wliich th(> solicitor relies to
maintain his position, should be restricted to the subject matter on which they
were to operate, nn.d that was " the above account."
They are not like words of release standing alone without refere.ice to any
specific matter to be taken most strongly against the releasor and not liable to
explanation by extrinsic evidence, but they constitute merely a receipt of the
particular account to which they are subscribed, and a receipt of that character
is always open to explanation.
It is the judgment of the committee that fair dealing requires the
Government to pay this claim in the total amount of $27,800.
This claim passed the Senate in this full amount in the Sixtieth
and Sixty-first Congresses, and passed the House in same amount
in Sixty-second Congress. The items of sugar and molasses also
passed the House in Sixty-first Congress.
Both Houses of Congress have therefore heretofore approved pay-
ment of the entire claim.
William R. Wimbish. (Frederick T. Wimbish, administrator.)
(S. D. 89-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by
Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal: that supplies worth
$5,100 were taken from him for Army use; that the claim herein
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 103
was presented by decedent to Gen. Canby, whose headquarters were
in New Orleans; that claimant was informed that his papers had
been lost by Gen. Canbj^ in moving from one headquarters to another.
It would appear that the claim must have been presented either
during- or immediately after the close of the Civil War.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Plains Lodge No. 135, Free and Accepted Masons, East Baton
Rouge Parish, La. (S. D. 27-58-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal;
also that it owned the second story of a certain building, used for
lodge purposes; that the Ignited States forces tore it down and used
material therefrom, together with furniture; that the interest of the
lodge in the building torn down and value of furniture taken amount
to $700.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
JuDA TouRO Almshouse Fund of New Orleans, La. (S. D. 336-
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 12, 1906. Court finds that
claimant corporation was loyal ; that the corporation owned an
almshouse building, partly completed in August, 1862; that premises
were occupied as mustering headquarters by order of (xen. Butler,
and later used as a recruiting depot for colored troops. It would
appear that Federal forces completed the building and made certain
improvements thereto, partly for purely military purposes, at a
total expense of $49,000. September 1, 1865, while in possession of
the military authorities, the building was destroyed by fire; the
reasonable rental value of the premises during the period of its oc-
cupation by tlie Federal authorities was $21,000, which the court
remarks is $28,000 less than the Government had expended in the
completion and repair of the building.
It is further found that the reasonable value of the building in-
cluding expenditures made by the Government thereto, amounting
to said sum of $49,000, was at time of the destruction of the build-
ing, $94,400.
These are the material facts. It is plain that a question arises as
to the exact amount which should be appropriated in payment of
this claim. If the building was worth $94,400 when destroyed, and
the Government had expended $49,000 in completing the unfinished
building and in fitting it up, it would seem that the building must
have been worth $45,400 when the Federal authorities took posses-
sion, and in one view of the case that sum of $45,000 might be
adopted as the measure of compensation.
However, the claim passed the Senate in the Sixtietli and Sixty-
first Congresses, and passed the House in the Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses simply foi* the rental value, i. e.. $21,000, and that
proposed appropriaticui and disposition of the claim having been
already approved twice by botli Houses of Congress the committee
has included the claim in that amount.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
104 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
MAINE.
Jacoi5 r>. D)KiX(;. (H. D. •i4(MiO-l.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay. $14<s.jJ;>.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
AVhitman L. Okcitt. (H. D. 5S1-.-)9-2.) Bo-N^man Act. Officer's
chiim for difference in ])ay, $878.47.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Plouse in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
William L. Koss. (H. I). 21<)-50-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's
chiim for difference in pay. $47.."')().
Passed vSenate in Sixtieth and Housie in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
maryi^vnd.
Jacob R. Adams. (H. I). I7r)-r)8-?).) Bowman Act. Sent to court
January 30, 1885. Court finds chiimant k)yal. and that supplies
worth $210 were taken for Army use. Having been tried under
Bowman Act. claim must have been presented to Quartermaster
General,
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Martin H. Avey. (S. D. P>14-G1--2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
March 3, 1909, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal,
and that supplies worth $625 were taken for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. (H. D. 9G1-61-2.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court June 7, 1890. Court reports on or about
October 1, 1801, United States, by permission in writing from mayor
of ]*>altimore City, took possession of citv parks and occu])ied same
until about October 27. 1805. as cam})ing places for troops. The
written permit provided that the Government should pay the city
such damages as might result from such use and occupation. Court
further fixes such damage at $2.99().94. No claim is made for rent
at all. It would seem that, in taking possession of the premises of
a city in a loyal State, under a written permit, the Government prac-
tically assented to the conditions contained in such permit. It is
true the court has not expressly found the city of Baltimore, as a
nninicipal corporation, to have been loyal, but Congress surely may
take cognizance of the fact that Baltimore is a municipality of the
State of Maryland, which State never seceded. The legal i)resiimption
is in favor of loyalty therefore.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Alekei) C. Belt. (Elizabeth V. Belt, administratrix.) (S. D.
59_(i0-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court ^lay (5. 1904, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies were taken from him
for Army use; also that the forces occupied a house on decedent's
farm for hospital purposes for about two years. The final fact found ^
is that the reasonable value of the supplies taken and the rental
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 105
value of premises occupied was $2,970. It further appears that a
claim for the supplies was presented to the Quartermaster General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Thomas Bevans. (A. Rcsa Bevans. sole heir.) (H. D. llOS-Gl-3.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 10. 1910. Court finds dece-
dent loyal: that supplies worth $570 were taken for Army use; that
claim first presented to Quartermaster General: was aj^parently
first sent to court in 1896 under Bowman Act. and loyalty found
under that reference, and then case dismissed for want of prosecu-
tion. The subsequent reference obviously reinstated the case before
the court, and no reason appears why claim should not be now paid.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Hezekiah Boteler. (William E. Boteler. administrator.) (H. D.
16G-o9-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 13, 1900. Court
finds decedent loyal and that military forces took supplies worth $5GS.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-fii'st, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Henry T. Deavee. (H. D. 716-62-2.) BoAvmanAct. Sent to court
February 4. 1908. Court finds claimant loyal : troops, by proper au-
thority, took supplies from claimant and occupied his farm in Mary-
land for military purposes. Court finds value of sujii^lies taken and
rental value of premises amount to $1,925. Claim was certified too
late for inclusion in any previous bill.
Thomas N. Gott. (Richard T. Gott and Benjamin N. Gott. ex-
ecutors.) (S. D. 32-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 29,
1908, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that his
farm in Maryland was used at various times by United States forces
for camping and drilling purposes, the rental value being $1,200.
Was placed in hands of counsel as early as 1877 and presented to
Fifty-sixth and later Congresses.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Henry N. Harris. (Mrs. Maria M. Harris et al.. heirs.) (S. D.
123-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth
$363.25 were taken for Army use in Montgomery County, Md. ; that
in December, 1879, Harris executed a petition and placed same in
hands of counsel for filing, but that it was not filed till February,
1880, too late for consideration by Quartermaster General. Harris
died since the war and left various heirs whose individual shares in
the amount allowed are stated by the court. The explicit findings of
all material facts in this claim might well be adopted as a model.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Harmon W. Hessen. (S. D. 371-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court June 27, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal. On property it finds that Ignited States forces occupied
claimant's dwelling one year and incidentally damaged it, the rental
value and damages amounting to $200.
106 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
It is also found that claimant did a large amount of blacksmith
work, Avagon repair work, furnished materials on such work, etc.,
all to the amount of $1,835, which added to the item of rent, makes
total sum of $2,03.") due him.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
John L. T. Joxes. (Cornelia Jones, administratrix.) (S. D.
96-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court first under Bowman Act
and claimant then found loyal but claim rejected on property
for lack of sufficient evidence. Later sent to court under Tucker
Act by Senate resolution, May 6, 1904. Court finds supplies worth
$240 to have been taken for Army use. Claim originally filed with
Quartermaster General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixtj^-second Congresses.
Jereimiah Kanode. (H. D. 199-(iO-l.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court February 13. 1900. Court finds claimant loyal and that sup-
plies worth $13() were taken for Army use. Having been tried under
Bowman Act, claim must have been filed with Quartermaster
General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Ignatius J. Langley. (Marv J. Langley-Norris, administratrix.)
(H.D. 390-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 8, 1906. Court
finds claimant loyal and that claimant furnished pasturage to Army
stock, which pasturage was worth $1,050. Having been tried under
Bowman Act, claim must have been filed with Quarteruiaster
(ieneral.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
William P. Leaman. (Raleigh Sherman, administrator.) (H. D.
543-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to conrt February 8, 1886. Court
finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $590 were taken for
Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Richard T. Mitchell. (Sarah C. Mitchell, executrix.) (S. D.
655-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May (>. 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and supplies worth $1,200
Avere taken for Army use. Court further finds that claim was
placed in hands of counsel about 1870, and counsel stated claim had
been filed Avith Quartermaster General, but no such claim is now
found there; that claim Avas referred to court under Bowman Act
February 20, 1885. but court dismissed same for Avant of jurisdiction
under that act.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-fir.-^t and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Eli Moats. (William H. Staubs, administrator.) (S. D. 654-60-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 29, 1906, by Senate resolution.
Court finds decedent loyal and that Army supplies Avorth $381
CLAIMS u:nder the bowman and tucker acts, etc. 107
were taken from him; that claims coverinjy same property were filed
with Quartermaster General. Claim might have been referred under
Bowman Act, therefore.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Augustine D. O'Leary. {S. Sollers Maynard, executor.) (S. D.
198-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 2G, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth
$1,450 were taken for Army use; also that the claim was presented to
Quartermaster General. Claim might have been referred under
Bowman Act.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixt3'-first
and Sixtj^-second Congresses.
William D. Poole. (J. Sprigg Poole, administrator de bonis
non.) (H. D. 757-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February
26, 1895. Court finds decedent loyal and that United States forces
occupied his farm in Montgomery County, Md.. for camping and
drilling jDurposes; that the rental value with damages incident to
such use, was $1,000. Claim filed with Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Urias D. Ramsburg. (Elmer K. Ramsburg and Alvali S. Rams-
burg, executors.) (S. D. 710-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
June 29, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal and
that his farm was used for pasturage of (government stock, and that
nearly 55 tons of hay were used also; that the value of such occupa-
tion for ])asturage and of hay consumed is $819: that claim Avas duly
presented to Quartermaster General.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Reverdy a. Rennoe. (Perrv Rennoe, administrator.) (H. D.
647-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court June 19, 1888. Court finds
decedent loj^il and materials Avere taken by troops from certain build-
ings for their use, said materials being Avorth $200. It is set forth in
petition that claim Avas presented to Quartermaster General, and fact
that court tried it under Bowman Act so shoAvs.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Hester Ann Ridout. (Zachariah D. Ridout, executor.) (H. D.
86-59-1.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court May 13, 1886. Court finds
decedent loyal and reports facts on property substantially as f oIIoavs :
Timber was cut from certain land in Maryland, under proper au-
thority, which timber Avas worth $3,800. The land Avas then in pos-
session of Hester Ann Chase, life tenant, the remaindermen being her
nieces, Hester Ann Ridout, Frances Chase, and Matilda Chase. All
four are found loyal. It appears that HeF^^er Ann Ridout survived
the life tenant and the other Iavo remaindermen, thereby inheriting
the property and becoming owner of the claim, as taking of timber
was a loss to the fee estate rather than merely of the estate of the life
tenant. It is true that the claim might, perhaps, haA'e been appor-
tioned between the life tenant and the remaindermen, but that would
appear immaterial, and it seems that Hester Ann Ridout, or her
estate, would be the sole party in interest. Her estate being properly
108 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
represented, and as distribution of the amount appropriated will
doubtless be made under supervision of the proper Maryland court,
there seems no o})jection to payment of the claim to her surviving
executor. Avho appeared before the Court of Claims. Claim was pre-
sented to Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
Henry Show. (Xathan F. Edmonds, administrator.) (S. D. 329-
59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court first under Bowman Act April
20, 1888; later sent to court under Tucker Act by Senate resolution
April 26, 1904. Court finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth
$225 w^ere taken for Army use, feu- which he has not been paid. The
court mentions certain payments made to him for other supplies; but
those payments are here immaterial and have nothing to do with the
claim wliich it is now proposed to pay. Claim Avas presented to
Quartermaster General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
George Snyder. (John L. Snyder, executor.) (H. D. 198-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 30. 1885. Court finds decedent-
loyal and that his interest in supplies taken from him for Army use
was Avorth $1,800. It Avould appear that he was a farm tenant and
entitled to half the gi^ain raised, and owned individually other sup-
plies taken. Being tried under P)Owman Act, claim must have been
presented to Quartermaster General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
George L. Stut^l. (H. D. 416-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court February 13, 1900. Court finds claimant loyal and that sup-
plies worth $200 were taken from him for Army use. Being tried
under Bowman Act claim must have been presented to Quartermaster
General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Elijah Thompsox. (William Viers Bouic, administrator.) (S. D.
115-57-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 2. 1900, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $1,386
were taken from him for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Cornelius Virts. (H. D. 38-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
March 4, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal and that United States
forces occupied his farm in Washington County, Md., from July,
1863, to July, 1865; that reasonable rental of 115 acres during that
period was $600.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Joseph WALT:NrAN. (William W. AVenner, executor.) (H. D.
224-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court December 15, 1886. Court
finds decedent loyal and also that certain supplies were taken from
him for Army use. and that United States forces also occupied cer-
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 109
tain real estate of decedent from August, 1861, to Ma}^ 1865; that
total value of supplies taken and of occupancy of the land is $3,270.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Leavis W. Williams. (Lewis D. Williams, administrator.)
(H. D. 323-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court June 19, 1888.
Court finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth $385 were taken
from him for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Zachariah L. Windsor. (John A. Windsor, administrator.)
(S. D. 245-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court April 11, 1896.
Court finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth $3(2 were taken
for Army use. Claim was presented to Quartermaster General.
Pased House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Frederick Wyand. (Grant Wy and, executor.) (S. D. 240-61-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 10. 1909, by Senate resolution.
Court finds decedent loyal ; also that United States forces occupied
certain premises of decedent and took from him certain supplies
enumerated in the petition; that rental value and value of supplies
taken aggregate $135. Claim was presented in 1873 to Quartermaster
General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Samuel C. Young. (Marion B. Young and Geno D. Weller, heirs.)
(H. D. 39-61-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 9, 1907.
Court finds decedent loyal, and that United States forces, by proper
authority, occupied certain described real estate belonging to him
in Montgomery County, Md., and that reasonable rental value was
$407. Claim is stated in petition to have been presented to Quar-
termaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
La Grange Lodge No. 36, Independent Order of Odd Fellows,
BooNSBORO, Md. (S. D. 180-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal;
also that United States forces occupied lodge building for hospital
and damaged same; that rental value with damages in excess of
ordinary wear and tear was $370. Claim presented to Quartermaster
General in 1873.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Boonsboeo, Md. (S. D.
347_60-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate
resolutioiiL Court finds claimant loyal; also that United States
forces occupied church building for hospital about two months and
damaged same; that rental value, with damages in excess of ordi-
nary wear and tear, is $120.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
United Brethren Church, Boonsboro, Md. (S. D. 295-59-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution.
110 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Court finds claimant loyal: also that United States forces occupied
church buildino; for hospital about three months: that rental value,
with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $170. Claim
was filed with Quartermaster General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Evangelical Lutheran Ciicrch, Burkittsville, Md. (S. D,
24T-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal: also that United States
forces occupied church buildino- for hospital, and that rental value
during occupation, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and
tear, was $'225.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Frederick Presbytekiax Church. Frederick, Md. (S. D.
28.5-00-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court fi,nds claimant loyal: also that United States
forces occupied church building four months: that rental value was
$200, no allowance being made for damages, they having been
already paid.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church, Hancock, Md. ( S. D. 251-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loj^al; also that United States forces occupied
churcli building as quarters; that rental value during such occu-
pation, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $550.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
St. Peter's Pomax Catholic Church, Hancock, Md. (S. D.
2i(',-(;i-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate
resohition. Couit finds claimant loyal: also that United States
forces occui:)ied church as (juarters; that rental value, with damages
in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $80.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congi-esses.
St. Thomas PROTESTA^T Episcopal Church, Hancock, Md.
{S. D. 90-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal: also ■ that Ignited
States forces occupied church from April 1, 1862.^ to September 10,
1862; that rental value during that period was $178. 3?>, No allow-
ance is made for damages, they having been paid for through the
War Depai'tment. The claim for rent was also filed with "War
Dei)artment.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second (^ongresses.
Mount Vernon Reformed Chcrch, Keedysville, ISId. (S. D.
212-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court INIarch 10, 1909, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; also that United States
CLAIMS UNDEK THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. Ill
forces occupied lioiise of worship and property connected therewith
for hospital; rental value, Avitli damapfes in excess of ordinary wear
and tear, was $515. Claim for rent filed with Quartermaster (General
in 1NT3.
Passed Senate in vSixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Grace Reformed Church, KjsOxville, ]Mu. (S. D. 418-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolutiim.
Court finds claimant loyal : that church building was used for a time
as hospital and that rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary
Avear and tear, was $410.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Christ Reformed Congregation, Middletowx. Md. (S. D. 57-
59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 27, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that buildings belonging to
it Avere used for hospital purposes: that rental value, with damages
incident to the use, was $450.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church. Oldtown. Md. (S. D. 125-58-3.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States troops, by proper au-
thority, tore down church building and removed materials therefrom;
that building was worlh $1,200.
Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress.
St. Paul's Protestant Episcopal Church, near Point of Rocks,
Md. (S. D. 200-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 18, 1906,
by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal: that United States
forces used church property for hospital and other purposes; that
rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary Avear and tear, was
$790.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
St. Paul's Protestant Episcopal Church, Sh \rpsbi rg-Antie-
TAM Parish, Md. (S. D. 86-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May
29, 1908, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that
United States forces, by proper authority, occupied church property
for hospital purposes; that reasonable rental value, with damages in
excess of ordinary wear and tear. Avas $1,350. Claim jiresened to
Quartermaster General in 1873 and rejected for Avant of jurisdiction.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
St. Augustine's Roman Catholic Church, Wh^liamsport. ^Id.
(S. D. 356-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court ISlay 22, 1908, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied
church as hospital ; rental value, Avith damages in excess of ordinary
wear and tear, Avas $425. Claim certified too late for consideration
in connection with previous bills.
112 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
:NrASSACHlSETTS.
William W. DrrcHEn. (H. D. 27;>-r)0-l.) Bowman Act. Of-
fifei"'s claim for diffpi-eiicc in pay. $457.84.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Thomas B. Flower. (Frederick L. Greene, administrator.)
(S. D. 19.")-57-l.) Tuclver Act. Sent to conrt by Senate resohition
in April. 1900. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth
$5,588 were taken from decedent for Army use. From the petition it
woidd appear that decedent Avas a resident of Massachusetts who
had property in Viroinia. The esstntial facts of loyalty, of taking
for Army use. and of value of property are all found by the court.
William B. KrTsriiALL. ( H. D. 245-00-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for diiference in pay, $21.84.
Passed Senate in v'^ixtieth and House in SixtietlL Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Coniire^ses.
Xatiia>iel Shatswei.e. (Susan Shatswell, executrix.) (H. D.
218-50-2.)' Officer's claim for diiference in pay. $244.90.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Horace P. Williams. (H. D. 211-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent
to court January 8. 1901. This claim is somewhat similar in prin-
ciple to the numerous claims of officers foi- difference in pay due to
their not being mustered in as of advanced rank.
This claimant Avas commissioned major by the governor of Massa-
chusetts; he actually served from July 14. 1803, Avhen he Avas com-
missioned, until January 7. 1804, AAdien he left camp on account of
illness: he was not discharged till March 4, 1804. He had charge
of recruiting service and also served as commandant for a time.
When his regiment Avas nuistered in this officer Avas sick and did
not hai)pen to be ])resent, and the result Avas that he Avas neA'er mus-
tered in at all. He Avas denied all pay by the War Department on
the ground that he never was mustered into the United States
service.
These facts shoAv that he Avas in fact a major for 7 months and
21 days, even though he had not been formally mustered in. The
pay of a major Avas $208.33 per month, at Avhich rate he Avould haA^e
received a total of $1,004.14, had he been paid at all. as of the rank
he actually filled.
Under these facts it Avould seem that this man should be paid the
sum mentioned.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
MICHIGAN.
AViLLiAM M. Beoole. (Harriet C. Begole. mother.) (H. D. 589-
59-2.) BoAvman Act. Officer's claim for diiference in pay, $19.33.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixtv-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 113
Myron C. Bond. (H. D. -24-61-1. ) Bo^vmaii Art. .Sent to court
January ('\ 1903. This is a claim arising from claimant's service
du ring the War with Spain. By statutes of Michigan each battalion
(if the Michigan regiment then in United States service was entitled
to a major. Upon resignation of the major one of the battalions
of said regiment, James M. HoUoway, captain of Company B, was
commissioned by the governor to fill that vacancy and was mustered
in as major March 13. 1899. Bond was second lieutenant of his
company: the promotion of the captain left a vacancy, which was
filled by promotion of the first lieutenant, and tliat resulted in
Bond's promotion to the position of first lieutenant : lie was com-
missioned as first lieutenant by the governor of Michigan March 13,
1899; from that date he performed the duties of fii-st lieutenant
under his colonel's orders until mustered out. May IT, 1899.
A question was raised as to the legality of the muster in of Maj.
Holloway, and this claimant was refused muster by the United States
mustering officers and was never mustered into the United States
service as first lieutenant.
During the period in question, i. e.. March 13 to May IT. 1899,
claimant received the pay of a second lieutenant, and having served
honestly and faithfully beyond limits of United States during that
Avar. Avas paid two months" extra pay: he also received 48 days-
travel pay from Savannah. Ga.. to Adrian. Midi., at the rate of
$11().6T per month, the pay of a second lieutenant.
Had he been mustered in as first lieutenant on March 13, 1899, he
would have received in addition to what he has received the further
^um of $48.04.
This may be called a companion case to that of Guv M. Claflin
(H. D. -23-61-1) and to that of Edwin A. Wells (H. D." 2.V61-1).
These three claimants all served in the same company. In the
Wells case it is expressly reported by the court that the legality of
the muster in of said Holloway as major was subsequently recog-
nized by the War Department.
It is therefore plain that the refusal of the mustering officers to
nnister in Bond as first lieutenant was erroneous and illegal. Bond
was therefore denied pay to which he Avas in laAv entitled. Tliere is
no (luesticn in this case as to the command being of proper strength
to Avarrant its having its full complement of officers.
In vieAv of these facts this claim is included in the bill in said sum
of $18.04.
Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress.
Lemuel C. Canfield. (H. D. 631-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $58T.68.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Gi Y M. Claflin. (H. D. 23-61-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court January 6, 1903. This is a companion case to that of Myron
C. Bond, above mentioned. Claflin av as first sergeant of his company
during the vSpanish War, and owing to the promotion of the com-
missioned officers of his company Claflin Avas promoted to be second
lieutenant, and was so commissioned by the governor of Michigan.
He Avas denied muster OAving to (jiiestion as to the legality of the
jiromotion of Holloway to be major.
108.55— H. Rei>t. 97, 63-2 8
114 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Claflin i)erformed all the duties of second lieutenant from March
13, 1899, until mustered out. May 17, 1899.
He received the pa}'' during said period of first sergeant instead
of that of second lieutenant. As in the Bond case, it is plain that
this man was refused muster in as second lieutenant, to which he
was legally entitled, and he Avas therefore refused the pa}^ of second
lieutenant, to which he was entitled.
The difference between the pay he did receive and that to which
•he was properly entitled amounts to $499.79.
Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress.
U^iLLiAM A. Clark. (H. D. .517-,59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay. $329.30.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
James S. De Land. (H. D. 270-00-1. ) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $202.88.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Ebenezer Gould. (Lucius E. Gould, Abbv E. Allison, and Mary
I. Todd, heirs.) (H. D. 457-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim
for difference in pay, $42.70.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Judson H. Gregg. (Elvira D. Gregg, widow.) (H. D. 571-60-1).
^Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $116.28.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
James X. Hill, sole heir of Joshua Hill, deceased. (S. D. 110-
'«63-l.) Tucker Act. First sent to court in 1890, under Bowman
Act; later sent to court under Tucker Act, bv Senate resolution, in
1909.
Court reports decedent loyal and that Army supplies taken from
him were worth $3,040. One of the items is cotton, taken for hos-
pital purposes. The court expressly reports that the claim as to
item of cotton was transmitted as early as February, 1865, before
close of war, with recommendation by Maj. Gen. Reynolds that it be
ipaid. It was made the subject of bill in Thirty-ninth Congi-ess in
1^66. Court reports claim as an equitable one.
'Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bills.
Frederk'K S. Hutchinson. (S. D. 529-61-2.) Tucker Act.
'Officer's claim for difference in pay, $118.80.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congi-ess.
George Lockley. (George J. Lockley, Joseph F. Lockley, and
Sarah E. Todd, heirs.) (H. D. 249-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $99.50.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty -second Congresses.
Elisha R. Swain. (Maria N. Swain, widow.) (H. D. 325-59-1.)
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $361.86.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 115
Edwin A. AVells. (H. D. 25-61-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court January 0, 1903. This is a companion case to tlie cases of
Myron C. Bond and Guy M. Claflin, above mentioned.
This chiimant was first lieutenant of his company during the
Spanish War. His captain was promoted to be major and claimant
was duly commissioned captain, to fill the vacancy, and exercised
ccmmand as captain from March 13, 1899, until mustered out. May
IT, 1890. He was denied muster as captain because of question as
to Avhether the regiment was entitled to two majors. The legality of
the muster of Holloway as a second major was subsequently recog-
nized by the War Department.
It appears clear that this claimant was denied the muster to which
he Avas entitled. Instead of receiving pay as captain thereafter he
received the pay of a first lieutenant. The difference between the
pav actually received by him and that to which he was entitled is
reported as $116.67.
Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress.
3IINNES0TA.
Omar H. Case. (H. D. ,583-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim
for difference in pay, $191.63.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Frederick Lambreciit. (H. D. 280-60-1.) Bowman Act. Of-
ficer's claim for difference in pay, $324.73.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Warren Onan. (H. D. 279-60-1.) BoAvman Act. Officer's claim
for difference in pay, $39.74.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Eandolrii M. Probsfield. (S. D. 37-62-1.) Tucker Act. Sent
to court January 24, 1901, by Senate resolution. Court reports that
claimant Avas loyal and that, between September 15 and October 30,
1863, there was taken from him for Army use in the State of Minne-
sota supplies, consisting of hay, reasonably worth $200.
The only unusual feature of this case to distinguish it from nny
other war claim is that it arose in the State of Minnesota.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
MISSISSIPPI.
X. M. Aldridge. (T. a. Xorris, administrator.) (H. D. 443-
60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court April 24. 1896. Court finds
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $980 were taken for Army
use. Claim filed before Southern Claims Commission, appearing on
page 8 of index of such claims.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Charles Baker. (I. P. Watts, administratrix.) (S. D. 196-58-
2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court July 17, 1897, by Senate resolution.
116 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
The findings are not as explicit as they should be and must be read
in conneotion with the allegations of the petition in order to ascer-
tain the exact facts which the court intends to report.
It appears that Charles Baker died in 1801 and that, subject to
two legacies, his estate was bequeathed to Amanda Malinda Heath
(afterwards Powell) and to Elizabeth Jane Snyder (afterwards
AVelch) ; that said two persons were loyal. There was taken from
the estate of said Charles Baker, the beneficial interest being then
vested in said Auumda M. Heath (afterwards Powell) and said
Elizabeth Jane Snyder (afterwards Welch), subject to payment of
said two legacies, supplies worth $8,213 for Army use.
It would appear that appropriation might properly be uuule to
Amanda M. Powell and Elizabeth Jane Snyder under these circum-
stances, but as an administratrix of Charles Baker's estate has been
appointed it is doubtless advisable to make an a}q)ropi'iati()n lo such
administratrix.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Leopold Bickart. (H. I). r)0(5-51)-l.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court March G, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies
were taken from Bickart and his coowner. Christian Schwartz ; fur-
ther, that Bickart's share in the supplies taken for Army use was
worth $1,500. Index of claims presented to Claims Commission,
page 207, shows the claim Avas presented by Schwartz to that conunis-
sion and rejected.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-secimd Congresses.
RonERT Bradley. (Hiram Baldwin et al.. heirs.) (S. D. 503-
59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April -iG, 11)04, by Senate resolu-
tion. Heading the statement of the case with the explicit fiiulings of
fact, it appears that Robert Bradley died in 18GH, leaving various
heirs; that the claimants herein, Hiram Baldwin. Joseph I)e France
Bahbvin, and Richard Robert Baldwin, were grandchildren and heirs
of said Robert Bradley, owning an undivided Ki per cent of the
estate; that supplies were taken for Army use from the Bradley
heirs; and that the reasonable value of the interest of these three
claimants there was $2,000.
These three clainumts were all under 7 years of age at the time
the property was taken. Hiram lialdwin is the oldest of petitioners
and was born about 1857. Claim Avas not presented to Claims Com-
mission, and it is plain that the eldest of these present claimants
did not attain majority until about 1878, or about five years after the
right to present claims to that c(mimission had been abrogated by act
of Congress.
l^issed Senate in Sixtieth Congress as a Louisiana claim, two of
the claimants residing in that State. Passed House in Sixty-second
Congress.
1). H. CiiAMBEKLAix. (S. I). -180-61-2.) Tuclvcr Act. Sent to
court March 3, 1901). Court reports that clainumt was loyal; that
supi)lies were taken from him and cooAvners, in which his share
amounted to $340.
While not reported as one of the facts found by the court, it is
alleged in the petition that the claim of T. J. Chamberlain, one of
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 117
claimant's cnowners, has been allowed, and examination of the claims
appro]:)riation act approved Febiniarv 24, 1905 (33 Stat., 755), shoAvs
the claim of T. J. Chamberlain, of Jefferson County, Miss., in the
sum of $340. Present claimant was only 15 years old when war
ended. His brother has already received pay for his share in the
supplies taken, and there would seem to be no reason for denying
payment to the present claimant.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
EoYALi. Chambers. (Eliza Chambers, administratrix.) (H. I).
37-50-1.) Bowman Act. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies
worth $070 Avere taken from him by proper authority. Claim ap-
pears ])age 47 of index of claims filed with Claims Commission.
While not reported as one of the facts found by the court, it would
appear from allegations in the petition that the decedent was a col-
ored man who was a s\n\e until freed in 1863.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixtj^-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Sarah (t. CYark. (AA'illiam T. Ratliff". administrator.) (S. 1).
lT-5()-i2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court July 17. 1897, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds that Sarah G. Clark, a widow, owned certain
property during wai" it further finds in effect that she was loyal, ex-
pressly stating that she did nothing for or against either side except
to express herself in favor of the I^nion and to furnish food to offi-
cers and soldiers of the Ignited States Army. This finding must l)e
taken to reasonably mean loyalty. Court further finds that Army
supplies worth $1,355 Avere taken from her. She died in 1873.
Passed vSenate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses.
S. X. Clark. ' (W. T. Ratliff, administrator.) (S. D. 2G2-57-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 11, 1900, by Senate resolution.
Court finds decedent loyal and that Army supplies worth $5,()50 were
taken from him.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Willta:m L. Clearmax. (G. B. Harper and J. D. Clearnum, execu-
tors.) (S. D. 313-GO-l.) Tucker Act. Claim first referred to court
under Bowman Act July 13, 1892, but claim not having been i^'-f^-
sented to Claims Commission, court was without jurisdiction under
that reference; later sent to court April 26, 1904, by Tucker Act, un-
der Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that Army suj)-
plies worth $1,010 were taken from him: that claim was presented to
Congress as early as 1878.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Margaret Davidson. (T. M. Davidson, administrator.) (H. 1).
229-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court September 6, 188,S. Court
finds decedent loyal and that supplies Avorth $2,450 were taken for
Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Carles A. Doak and John R. Doak. (H. D. 1225-60-2.) Tucker
Act. Claim first referred to court inider Bowman Act; latei- referred
March 31, 1906, under Tucker Act by House resolution. Court re-
j)orts these two claimants loyal, they being infants of tender years
118 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAK AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
duriiio- war. Also reports that supplies were taken for Army use
from these two claimants, their mother, and three older brothers": that
tlie reasonable value of the interests of these tAvo claimants in those
sripplies was $1,796.48. Court further reports that claimants' mother
presented a claim to the Claims Commission, which was rejected.
Findings are explicit as to loyalty, ownership of property, taking,,
and value.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Eliza A. Fielder (Jeti'erson T. CoAvling. administrator) and Bp:x-
•lAMiN L. FiELDEK. (H. D. 812-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
March 31, 1906, by House resolution. Court finds Eliza A. Fielder,
now deceased, and Benjamin L. Fielder were loyal; that Army sup-
plies worth $6r)5 were taken from said two persons, who were mother
and son.
Passed Plouse in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Hardinia p. Kelsei' and Mildred E. Franklin. (Heirs of
Hardin P. Franklin.) (S. D. 113-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court March 3, 1905, by Senate resolution. Court finds these two
claimants loyal by reason of tender years during war; that United
States forces took for Army use supplies from these claimantvS and
their coowners; that the interest of these two claimants in the
property so taken Avas worth $860 ; that the reason the claim was not
earlier presented Avas the minority of the claimants. The exact ages
are not stated in the findings of fact, but it is alleged in the petition
I hat Mildred E. Franklin Avas born in 1849 and Hardinia P. Kelsey
in 1851.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
William Freeman. (Susan K. Jones, administratrix.) (H. D.
323-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 20, 1903, by House
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal and that Army supplies
Avorth $4,010 Avere taken from him; that decedent placed the claim
in the hands of a hiAvyer for collection in 1863 or 1864, but that the
laAvyer died in the seventies Avithout having taken action.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
J. B. Fuller. (John Fuller, administrator.) (H. D. 884-61-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906, by House resolution.
Court finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $790 were taken from
him for Army use; that claim Avas presented as earl}^ as Fifty-fiftli
Congi'ess.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Matilda B. Harvey. (J. P. Harvey, administrator.) (S. D.
120-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court by Senate resolution. Court
finds decedent loyal; that Army supplies Avorth $1,382 were taken
from her.
Passed House in Sixty-second Ctmgress.
Benjamin Haaves. (J. A. Hill, administrator.) (S. D. 616-61-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Senate resolution.
Court finds decedent loyal; that Arm}- supplies Avorth $1,150 Avere
taken ; claim presented first to P'ifty-sixth and succeeding Congresses.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKER ACTS; ETC. 119
California M. Hearn. in Her Own Right, and as Administratrix
OF Susan L. Bailey and or Julia B. Hancock. (H. D. 532-61-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31. 1906. by House resolution.
Court finds claimant and her two decedents loyal; that Army sup-
plies worth $1,695, owned in equal shares by claimant and her two
decedents, Avere taken from them; that in 1874 decedent, Mrs. Bailey,
placed claim in hands of counsel for prosecution ; claim first presented
in Fiftj'-seA'enth Congress.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Hartwell B. Hilliard. (H. D. 239-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent
to court March IT, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal and that sup-
plies were taken from him and his brother, wherein claimant's interest,
was worth $300.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
David R. Hubbard. (J. B. Hubbard, administrator.) (S. D..
362-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 27, 1906. by Senate
]esolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that Army supplies worth
$1,500 were taken from him: presented to Quartermaster General
in 1892.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
WiLLiA^r Hunt. (W. E. Hunt, executor.) (S. D. 619-61-2.)
Tucker Act. This claim first presented to Southern Claims Commis-
sion and rejected; was evidently sent to court first under Bowman
Act and dismissed because loyalty not found : later sent to court
under Tucker Act. and upon new evidence adduced decedent found
loyal. Court further finds that Army supplies worth $16,010 were
taken from decedent. There seems to be nothing to distinguish this
case from any other case of the sort, save that it has been tried twice
b}^ the court.
Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress.
Sarah T. Jarratt. (John B. Jarratt. administrator.) (S. D.
470-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26. 1904, by Senate
resohition. Court finds decedent loyal: that Army supplies, worth
$1,389, were taken from her.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Elizabeth Johnson. (S. D. 203-58-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court February 5, 1901. by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal; that Army supplies, worth $1,170. Avere taken from lier.
Passed House in Sixty- second Congi'ess.
Vernon H. Johnston. (Mary Julia Quick, Belle O. Coward, and
John Anderson, heirs.) (S. D. 332-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court February 24, 1904. by Senate resolution. Frcan findings it
appears that Vernon H. Johnston died in 1862. his estate vesting in
his widow, Mrs. Fannie J. Johnston, and three children. Mary Julia
Quick. Belle O. Cow^ard. and Vernon Olivia Anderson, the names of
the children being those after they were married. Court finds that
this widow and these children remained loyal, the eldest of said
children being under 10 years of age at close of war.
Army supplies, worth $4,320, were taken from the widow' and chil-
dren, eliminating certain items for which allowance was not made.
120 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKEE ACTS^ ETC.
The petitioners, Mary Julia Quick and Belle O. Coward, claim in
their own rights and also as heirs of their deceased sister and of their
mother: petitioner John Anderson claims only as representative of
Mrs. Fannie J. Johnston through his deceased wife, who was Vernon
Olivia Johnston. The court has explicitly stated the present respee-
tiA'e interests of the three claimants as follows: Marv Julia Quick,
§1,080: Belle O. Coward, $1,980; John Anderson, $3G0. Claim was
placed in hands of counsel as early as 1873 or 18T4. During period
that Claims Commission was open to filing of claims the three chil-
dren mentioned were minors.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congress.
Hexry Jones. (Jane Jones, administratrix.) (S. D. 134-GO-l.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26. 1904. by Senate resolution.
Court finds decedent loyal; that Army supplies, worth $215. were
taken.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
KixcHEN W. King. (Henry W. King et al., heirs.) (S. D. 255-
62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1909, by Senate reso-
lution. The facts in this case are peculiar. It appears that during
the war Kinchen W. King was living, and court finds that he was
loyal. From Kinchen W. King Army supplies were taken, found to
be worth $6,095. Shortly after the war said Kinchen W. King died:
claim was presented by the heirs to the Claims Commission, which
found said Kinchen W. King loyal. The commission assumed to
pass upon loyalty, not only of the ])erson from Avhom the proi)erty
was taken but of every beneficiary of his estate.
In so doing it concluded that two of the King heirs had not re-
mained loyal, their interest amounting to two-sevenths of the claim.
Hence the commission rejected two-sevenths interest, amounting to
$1,741.42. and allowed remainder, or $4,353.58. The present claim is
made by one of the two heirs whose interest was rejected and by the
estate of the other of said heirs for the interest eliminated by the
Claims Commission.
The only question in this case is whether the Government will
extend its inquiries on loyalty further than the loyalty of the person
who owned the property when it was taken. If it is necessary to
inquire into the loyalty of every heir, beneficiary, or creditor, then
this claim must stand rejected. If it is sufficient that the person from
whom the property was taken was loyal, then this claim should be
paid.
It is very obvious that if this claim had been presented to the
Court cf Claims under the Tucker Act for the first time by an
administrator of Kinchen W. King the only inquiry on the matter
of loyalty would be as to loyalty of Kinchen W. King himself. That
is the uniform practice followed by the Court of Claims and recog-
nized by Congress ever since the passage of the Bowman and Tucker
Acts. This simply means that the loyalty of the person from whom
supplies were taken is the only loyalty in issue. Applying that
principle to this case, it means that Kinchen W. King, owner of the
property, having been found loyal, the claim should be paid for the
total value of the supplies taken. For this reason the claim was
approved by the Committee on War Claims in the Sixty-second Con-
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AXD TUCKER ACTS. ETC. 121
gress. and the claim passed the House in that Congress: and Ihe
present committee adopt the same theory and therefore include this
claim in the bill.
Xancy Lay. (Robert M. Lay, administrator.) (S. D. 34-(>0-L.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 4. 1901. by Senate resolution.
Court finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth $2,801 were taken
from her for Army use: claim was apparently filed with x^outhern
Claims Commission, but too late for consideration.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congi'esses.
Emma S. Lewis. (Emma Jones and Leon Lewis, heirs.) (H. D.
640-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 12. 1904. Court
finds Emma S. Lewis was loyal: that supplies worth $l.Sl;i were
taken from her for Army use. From the title of the case adopted
by the court, it apjjears that Emma Jones and Leon Lewis are the
heirs of Emma S. Lewis. Claim appears on page 143 of Southern
Claims Commission index, showing presentation to that commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Martha Lindley. (Amnion F. Lindlev. administrator.) (H. D.
73T-G0-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to coui-t April 20. 1888. Court find^
decedent loyal and that supplies worth $320 were taken from her
for Army use. Claim presented to Claims Commissi(>n.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Uriah Lunenburger. (William Liinenburger, administrator.)
(S. D. 64-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26. 1904. by Sen-
ate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth
$250 were taken for Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Traxquilla McRavex. (Harvey R. McRaven. heir.) ( S. D.
562-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 7, 1901. by Senate
resolution. Court's findings in this case are not clearly drawn, and
require careful study in connection with allegations of the petition.
This study shows that supplies were taken from the heirs of R')bert
McRaven. and in its second finding the court states that in Army
supplies taken by proper authority the " value of claimant's share ''
was $1,160. Court further reports as a reason for failure to present
claim prior to Fifty-sixth Congress the minority of the claimant.
Presumably the court intended its findings to mean something mate-
rial to consideration of the claim, and while they are blindly drawn
the meaning thus given them is the only one which would make them
material.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Harriet Miles. (S. D. 102-57-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
February 26, 1901, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal :
that supplies w^ere taken for Army use worth $1,795. eliminating all
items of use and occupation, damage or destruction. Court fur-
ther reports that the claim was presented to a military commission
as early as 1863, which was necessarily within a few months of the
122 CLAIMS UXDEE THE BOWMAX AND TUCKEE ACTS^ ETC.
time when the property was taken. This fact would indicate dili-
gence of a very unusual degree.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congi-esses.
Willis J. Morak. (Mrs. L. H. Rowland, administratrix.) (S. D.
331-60-1.) Tucker Act. Claim first sent to court under Bowman
Act and case dismissed; later sent to court March 81, 190G, under
Tucker Act, by Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal and
that Army supplies worth $845 were taken from him. Apparently
claim was not filed with Claims Commission, which accounts for
dismissal of Bowman Act reference.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
William O. Moseley. (John M. Bass, administrator.) (H. D.
363-56-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 15, 1899, by House
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that Arm}' supplies worth
$4,285 were taken from him, no allowance being made for cotton.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Mary Ann Nagle. (E. L. Brien. administrator.) (S. D.
160-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 23, 1900, by Senate
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal ; that United States forces, by
proper authority, occupied decedent's dwelling for two years, begin-
ning July, 1863 ; that rental value was $960. Claim apparently not
presented to Claims Commission, which had no jurisdiction of claims
for rent. No tribunal ever oj)en to this claim.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Thomas J. Price. (James M. Price, sole heir and legatee.) (S.
D. 491-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1903. by Senate
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal : that Army supplies worth
$665 Avere taken from him.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and Plouse in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Julia Quine. (A. A. Raley. administrator.) (H. D. 564-61-2.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court April 7. 1908. Court finds decedent
loyal and that supplies Avorth $885, were taken from decedent for
Army use. Claim appears on page 193. index of Southern Claims
Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Robert Raiford. (Margaret Raiford Loftin. administratrix.)
(S. D. 218-57-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court July 17. 1897, by
Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal: tliat Army supplies
worth $2,578 were taken from him: that claim was presented to the
Quartermaster General and dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
John Read. (W. A. Montgomery, administrator.) (H. D. 120-
59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court August 6. 1888. Court finds de-
cedent loyal and that Army supplies Avorth $2,160 were taken from
him. Fact that court tried case under Bowman Act shows it must
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 123
liave be-en presented to Claims Commission: claim appears on page
19~) of Southern Claims Commission index.
^Makia a. Eeixhardt. {W. T. Smith, administrator.) (S. D. 177-
:,9-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds decedent loyal: that Army supplies worth $3,395
were taken from her by proper authority ; that decedent died in 1870,
prior to establishment of Southern Claims Commission : that her heirs
presented the claim to Congress in 1878; that claim was first referred
to court under Bowman Act in 1890 and dismissed: case was neces-
sarily dismissed under that reference for lack of jurisdiction.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses.
Mp:lchisedec Robinson. (J. D. Robinson, administrator.) (H. D.
303-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 20, 1903, by House
resolution. Court finds decedent loj^al and that Army supplies worth
$1,531 were taken from him. Index of claims presented to House
shows this claim was presented by petition in first session of Forty-
eighth Congress: was not acted upon until 1901: claim pending be-
fore Congress from 1877 till 1901.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congi'esses.
Catherine J. Rutherford. (G. D. Able, administrator.) (H. D.
379-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 6. 1888. Court finds
decedent loyal : that Army supplies Avorth $620 were taken from her.
Being Bowman Act case claim must have been presented to Claims
Commission: claim found on page 205 of index of that commission.
Passed House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
Minor Saunders. (H. D. 227-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
March 31, 1906, by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal, he
having been a slave until freed by emancipation proclamation: court
further finds that after being emancipated claimant worked for him-
self and became owner of some property, of kinds mentioned in peti-
tion, i, e., 2 mules, 1 ox team and wagon, and some corn; that sup-
plies of these kinds worth $160 were taken from him under proper
authority. Claim not presented to Claims Commission, but the fact
that this man was a former slave would probably show reason for
failure to follow up his claim before that commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Christian Schwartz. (Susannah SchAvartz. executrix.) (H. D.
499-59-1.) BoAvman Act. Court finds claimant loyal. This is the
same partnership claim previously commented upon under the title
of Leopold Bickart. Court finds supplies taken for Army use from
two coowners, and that the interest of Schwartz therein was Avorth
$1,500. ShoAvn in referring to the Bickart claim this claim was pre-
sented to Claims Commission.
William B. Sims. (W. J. Sims, executor.) (H. D. 62-63-1.}
Bowman Act. Sent to court December 8, 1884. and again on April
30. 1910. Claim prosecuted before the Southern Claims Commission,
and appears on page 214 of the printed index of such claims. Claim-
124 CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AXD TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
ant found loyal, and it is found that supplies worth $•2,325 were
taken for Army use.
Case tried too late for inclusion in prior bills.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Fannie Solari. (Heir of Emanuel M. Solari.) (H. D. 104-.58-3. )
Tucker Act. First sent to court in 1891 under Bowman Act ; later
sent under Tucker Act on February 12. 1899, by House resolution.
Court finds that decedent, Emanuel M. Solari, was loyal; that sup-
plies were taken from him by proper authority; that the ]iresent
claimant's interest in the claini as heir of her father is an undivided
one-eighth and amounts to $219. Claim not presented to claims
commission; decedent died in 1863, when present claimant was 1()
years of age.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, tind
Sixty-second Congresses.
Charles O. Spencer. (S. D. 220-56-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court July, 1897, by Senate resolution. Court finds that claimant
was born in 1850 and took no ])art in rebellion, this amounting to a
finding of loyalty. Court further reports that Army supplies were
taken from claimant and his cooAvners, wherein claimant's interest
was reasonably worth $2,031.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Wiley W. Tipton. (H. D. 801-59-1.) Bowman Act. Referred
to court August 6. 1898. Court finds claimant loyal and that sup-
plies worth $600 were taken for Army use. Claim appears on page
236 of S<mthern Claims Commission index.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John Waters. (Smith Summers, administrator.) (S. D. 32-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 1-1, 1901, by Senate resolution.
Court finds decedent loyal. Army supplies worth $1,700 taken for
Army use,
Elizabeth H. Welkord. (Mrs. J. H. T. Jackson, administratrix.)
(S. D. 192-(;0-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 2(), 1904. by Sen-
ate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal by reason of tender years
during war; that Army supplies were taken from decedent worth
$3,650; that claim was presented to Southern Claims Commission,
but was not proven, it being alleged that the expense thereof was
greater than she was able to bear.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Joel H. AVillis. (Bettie B. Willis, administrati-ix.) ( H. D.
207-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March -1, 1887. Court finds
decedent loyal ; that supplies Avorth $6,040 were taken from him for
Army use. Claim presented to Southern Claims Conunission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John Wood. (H. D. 538-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
February 12, 1907. Court finds claimant loyal and that Am y sup-
CLAIMS UXDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 125
])lie.s worth $880 Avere taken from hiin. Claim tried under Bowman
Act, which presupposes presentation to Southern Claims Commission.
Found on page 258 of index of that commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Richard O. Woodson. (John L. Woodson, administrator.) (H.
D. 677-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court April 30, 1886. Court
finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $2,250 were taken from him
fcr Army use. Claim filed with Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Baptist Chvrch or Corinth, Miss. (S. D, 556-61-2.) Tucker
Act. vSent to court May 22. 1908, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal : that ITnited States forces by proper authority took
the material from claimant's church building for military purposes;
that liuilding was worth $800: claim first presented to Fifty-second
and succeeding Congresses.
Passed Senate in Sixty-second and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Christian Church of Corinth, Miss. (S. D. 72-59-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loj^al; that its brick church building was torn down by
United States forces and materials used in camps; that building was
worth $1,250.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixty-second Congresses.
Presbyterian Church of Corinth, Miss. (Successor to Cumber-
land Presbyterian Church.) (S. D. 557-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent
to court May 22, 1908, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal : that United States forces occupied the church building for
military purposes and damaged same; that rental value during period
of occupation, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was
$833.
Passed House in Sixt3^-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Corinth, Miss. (S. D.
622-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces used
premises as a guardhouse and erected a stockade about the building;
that on evacuation of Corinth commanding officer was ordered to
remove all hunber in buildings erected by troops and to destroy such
lumber as could not be removed; that the stockade was burned and
the church building also burned; that rental value during period of
occupation and value of building at time of destruction are $1,790.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Red Bone, Miss. (S. D.
336-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 21, 1910, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops used church building for
hospital and other military purposes; rental value, with damages
incident to this use, was $650. Court concludes claim is equita,ble.
Claim certified too late for consideration in connection with previous
bills.
126 CLAIMS UNDER TPIE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
MISSOURI.
Willis M. Allmax. (Merit F. Thomas, administrator.) (S. 1).-
254-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3. 1909, by Senate res-
olution. Court finds decedent loyal ; that supplies were taken for
Army use from decedent and his coowner, Avorth $420 ; that Allmaii's
interest therein was worth $210. Findings accompanied by conclu-
sion that claim is equitable, in that United States received iDenefit of
the property.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
John M. Armstrong. (Francis T. Buckner. administrator.) (S.
D. 22^61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that United States troops
occupied his storeroom and stable as quarters and stable ; that the
damages to buildings incident to such occupation amount to $460.
No allowance made for rent, that item having been paid through
Quartermaster General. Claim presented to that officer in 1874 and
rejected as to damages for want of jurisdiction.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
John Bagg. (Caroline E. Bagg, widow.) (H. D. 254-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $922,90.
The findings were apparently made during the lifetime of the de-
cedent, John Bagg, but it has been represented to the committee that
he has since departed this life, and it has been requested that appro-
priation be made to his widow, who is named in the bill.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
AViLLiAM Baker. (H. D. 87-61-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
April 23, 1890. Court finds claimant loyal ; that supplies worth $140
were taken for Army use. Claim presented to Quartermaster Gen-
eral and to Commissary General and rejected.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Louis Benecke. (H. D, 804-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
April 6. 1906, by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that
he served in Union Army greater part of war; was captain latter
part of war; his company was originally formed for local defense,
but became Company I, Forty-ninth Missouri Volunteers. Capt.
Benecke furnished his company repeating rifles and cartridge boxes
at his own expense, same to remain his property till paid for; that
43 rifles and cartridge boxes were lost without fault on Benecke's
part, some through casualties of service and some being retained by
hospital authorities when members of company died in hospital or
were discharged therefrom ; that cost to claimant of the arms so lost
was $1,763. Claim presented to Treasury Department as early as
October, 1865, but rejected for w^ant of jurisdiction; later presented
to Fifty- fourth Congress.
If any claim has been reported by the court which the Government
should gladly pay, this would seem to be such a claim. It is merely
proposed to reimburse this Federal captain for what he spent for
Government use from his own funds.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 127
E. W. Bishop. (Jane S. Bishop, executrix.) (H. D. 735-GO-l.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court March -i, 1887. Court finds decedent
loyal; that by proper authority United States forces occupied de-
cedent's lands and buildings described in petition, in Missouri, and
that reasonable rental value was $600. Claim presented to Quarter-
master General and rejected for supposed lack of jurisdiction.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Joseph C. Black. (H. D. 173-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court April 23. 1890. Court finds chiimant h)yal : that supplies woi-th
$235 Avere taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act, so claim
must have been presented to Quartermaster General in proper time.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Jesse M. Blue (Sarah Katherine Bhie. executrix) and Davu)
Blue (William Traughber. administrator). (H. D. 11-61-1.) Bow-
man Act. Sent to court September '21. 1888. Court finds Jesse M.
Blue loyal; that he was surviving partner of Jesse M. and David
Blue; that as such surviving partner he hekl certain property; that
some of the partnership property, being Arm}' supplies, were taken,
worth $710. AVhile payment might be made to estate of surviving
partner, yet as estates of both partners are represented, appropria-
tion may more properly be made in equal shares to both estates.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Sarah D. Bookout. (K. D. and F. M. Boolvout, heirs.) (H. U.
641-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 12. 1010. Court
finds claimant loyal; Army supplies taken, worth $530. Chiim
presented to Quartermaster General and rejected by him.
Findings certified too late for consideration in connection with
previous bill.
Sterling M. Boyse. (William D. Boyse, heir. ) ( H. D. 511-()0-l.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court Marcli 2. 1891. Court finds decedent
loyal ; that supplies worth $365 were taken for Army use. First
2)resented to Quartermaster General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Alexander Bradshaw. (Jane F. Bradshaw et al., heirs.) (H. D.
519-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court January 16. 1903, by House
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $420
were taken for Army use ; that his heirs are : Mrs. Jane F. Brad-
shaw, widow, and Lucius M. Bradshaw, James E. Bradshaw. and
Susan L. McLaughlin, children. Claim placed in hands of counsel
about 1874 or 1875. in time for presentation to Quartermaster Gen-
eral. Only one heir appears in petition, so let appropriation run to
heirs generally for legal distribution.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
William C. Brum^iett. (H. D. 628-60-1.) Bowman Act.
Officer's claim for difference in pay, $390.93.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Isaac Brooks. (John W. Brooks, heir.) (H. D. 867-59-1.) Bow-
jiian Act. Sent to court May 14, 1902. Court finds decedent loyal ;
128 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
that supplies worth $320 were taken from him for Army use. Tried
under Bowman Act, Avhich presuppf;sed presentation of claim to
Quartermaster (xeneral.
Passed House in Sixtj^-first and ^Sixty-second Congresses.
<). H. CoosAVELL. (Mrs. Nannie Coos-well et al.. heirs.) (H. D.
48i)-r50-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court" February 20, 1903, by House
resoiutii n. Court finds decedent Avas loyal; that supplies were ap-
propriated to use of United States troops worth $1,(500; also that
Mrs. Nannie Cogswell, widow, and O.-cai- W. Cogswell, John R.
Cogswell, and Emma Cogswell, children, are the heirs of said de-
cedent.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
secontl Congresses.
AxsKi.^i L. DAvrosoN. (C. C. Bnndy. administrator.) (H. D.
.)(53-Gl--_!.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 1. 1908. Court
finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $000 were taken from him
for Army use. Claim presented to Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
John P. Dike. (H. D. 637-r)9-2.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court
January 11, 1902. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States,
troops took possession of certain supplies and shipped them to
Kansas City : the supplies were worth $2,390, and consisted of
Iniots, shoes, and leather.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Hu(;ii (r. Geenn. (Estate.) (H. D. 018-61-2.) Bowman Act.
Sent to court July 10, 1888. Court finds decedent loyal; also that
supplier; worth $1,280 were taken from him for Army use. Claim
presented to Quartermaster General. Claim is entitled " Estate of
Hugh (t. Glenn,"" but findings and ^tatement fail to show whether
estate is represented b}^ an administrator. Hence let appropriation
run to the estate for legal distribution.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
County of (tijeene. Mo. (S. D. 23:)-G2-2.) Tucker Act. Sent
to court May 22, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal as a county; that ITnited States military forces, under proper
authority, occupied the county c(»urt-house and jail for hospital and
guardhouse and damaged same: that rental value, with damages in
excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $0,010. A conclusion accom-
panies the findings that claim is an equitable one in that the Gov-
ernment received benefit of use of the jiroperty.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Joseph C. Gkissom. (H. D. .-) 90-5 9-2.) Bowman Act. Olticer's
claim for difference in pay. $1,208.19.
Passed vSenate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John Iv. Haafacheu. (H. D. 2sri-f-0-l.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in j^ay, $42. 3S.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Hon^e in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixtv-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDEK THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 129
John Hammontree. (Elijah B. Hammontree, administrator.)
(H. D. 689-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court July 10, 1888.
Court finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $425 were taken from
him for Army use. Claim presented to Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Nathan E. Harrelson. (John B. Harrelson, administrator.)
(H. D. 472-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 19, 1909.
Court finds dececlent loyal; that supplies worth $5,268 were taken
from him for Army use. Claim presented to Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Manning Harris. (Mary C. and Agnes A. Estes, heirs.) (H. D.
65-63-1.) Judicial Code of March 3, 1911. Referred to court by
House resolution June 22, 1912. Court finds that the decedent,
Manning Harris, was loyal and that supplies worth $3,000 were
taken for Army use. The conclusion of the court is that the claim
is an equitable one.
Claim certified too late to be included in former bills.
Paschal Henshaw. (H. D. 46-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court March 31, 1906, by House resolution. Court finds claimant
was a private in Missouri Militia; enrolled August 10, 1864; in Oc-
tober, 1864, he was serving in defense of Glasgow, Mo. The colonel
in command found it necessary to surrender the town and the de-
fending forces to the Confederates. Henshaw brought into the serv-
ice his own horse, worth $120 ; horse equipment, worth $27 ; revolver,
worth $25 ; and overcoat, worth $15 ; all amounting to $187, and all
this property was taken from him as an incident to said surrender.
Claims were made by Henshaw and 10 others of said company simi-
larly situated; three claims were allowed by Treasury Department
and remainder, including Henshaw's, were rejected under a decision
of the comptroller that there was no law providing for payment.
While the comptroller's decision was doubtless correct, it would
seem that the claim possesses strong equity, such as may be very
properly recognized by Congress by payment of the small claim.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Samuel E. Howell and James H. Howell. (In their own right
and as heirs of Mary Ann Thomas, deceased, and of William T.
Howell, deceased.) (H. D. 63-63-1.) Tucker Act. Referred to
court by House resolution February 3, 1911. This case really com-
bines two claims. The first is for property taken from Mary Ann
Thomas, grandmother of the present claimants; the court finds her
loyal. The second claim is for property taken from the present
claimants, Samuel E. and James H. Howell, and their deceased
brother. William T. Hinvell; all three have been found loyal by the
court. The court further finds that supplies worth $1,350 were taken
from Samuel E. Howell, James H. Howell, and their two decedents,
Mary Ann Thomas and William T. Howell, for Army use. The
present claimants are sole surviving heirs of their decedents. The
conclusion of the court is that this claim is an equitable one.
The claim was certified too late for inclusion in former bills.
19855— H. Kept. 97, 63-2 9
130 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
George W. Hockexsmith. (David Hockensmith, administrator.)
(S. D. 141-6-2-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1909, by
Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal : Army supplies worth
$540 taken. Claim for part of the property herein was filed with
Quartermaster General in 1867 and rejected ; claim previously re-
ferred to court in 1890, under Bowman Act, and later referred under
Tucker Act. as mentioned. Court reports that claim is equitable in
that Government received the benefit of the supplies.
Findings certified too late for previous consideration.
Jacob HrrTV. (W. W. Huffman, administrator.) (S. D. 201-
62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1909, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds decedent loyal ; troops took lumber from him for
use in building winter quarters worth $1,020. Conclusion of court is
that claim is equitable.
Case tried too late for consideration in connection with previous
bills.
Jacksox Couxty, Mo. (H. D, 17.5-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court February If). 1887. Court finds that United States forces, by
proper authority, occupied courthouse and jail for quarters and hos-
pital: that rental value was $410. County presumed loyal, as Mis-
souri was itself loyal as a State.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth and Sixty-second
Congresses.
Thomas James. (Mary ¥.. James, widow.) (H. I). 568-00-1.)
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $149.90.
In this case the court further reports that if it be decided that
claimant did not forfeit part of his veteran bounty when promoted to
a lieutenancy the total claim would amount to $289.90. No reason is
reported for allowing the additional sum mentioned, so the appro-
priation recommended is of the lesser sum of $149.90. which is the
amount carried by the previously reported bills.
Passed House in vSixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
AmtAM JoxES. (H. D. 845-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
February 20. 1890. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies worth
$245 Avere taken from him for Army use. Having been tried under
Bowman Act. claim must have been filed with Quartermaster General
and Commissary General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Benjamin Kirk. (H. N. Vaughn, executor.) (H. D. 819-59-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court April 23, 1890. Court finds decedent
loyal; that supplies Avorth $330 were taken for Ai-my use. Claim
filed Avith Quartermaster General and Commissary General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixt3^-second Congresses.
John W. Livesay. (Amanda M. Livesay, administratrix.) (H.
D. 51.3-00-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 15, 1901. Court
finds claimant Ioa^tI. and that supplies Avorth $810 were taken for
Army use. Claim presented to Quartermaster General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 131
Benjamin F. Lutman. (H. D. 458-59-2.) Bowman Act. Offi-
cer's claim for difference in pay, $388.96.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Philip Michael. (Philip Michael, jr., heir.) (H. D. 744-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court April 23, 1890. Court finds decedent
loyal, and that supplies worth $425 Avere taken for Army use.
Claims presented to Quartermaster General and to Commissary
General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Kaeoline Mulhaupt. (S. D. 74-59-1.) Tucker Act, First sent
to court under Bowman Act, February 27, 1887 ; loyalty found under
that reference, but that case went no further as court had no juris-
diction under Bowman Act; later sent to court under Tucker Act,
January 5, 1905, by Senate resolution. Under last reference court
finds claimant loyal: also that United States forces occupied, by
proper authority, a house and lot in Memphis, Tenn., belonging to
claimant from June, 1862, to April, 1866, or 45 months; that reason-
able rental value, with damages incident to such use, was $1,395.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Mrs. E. S. Munn. (Charles W. Munn, administrator.) (H. D.
604-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 5, 1909, by House
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; also that supplies worth
$1,615 were taken from her in Barry County, Mo. Claim placed in
hands of an attorney in early eighties.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Andrew J. Neff. (Jay H. Neff, administrator.) (H. D.
591-59-2.) Bowman xVct. Officer's claim for difference in pay,
$240.28. The sum mentioned is made up of two separate items
reported by the court, i. e., $227.90 and $12.38.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Levi S. North. (H. D. 172-58-3.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court
August 6, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies worth
$490 Avere taken for Army use. Having been tried under Bowman
Act, must have been filed with Quartermaster General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
William B. Payne. (H. D. 912-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court by House resolution, date not stated. Court finds claimant
loyal; that supplies worth $4,754 were taken for Army use. Claim
not filed with Quartermaster General; placed in hands of counsel
in 1867.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Phelps County, Mo. (S. D. 353-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds United States
forces occupied county courthouse for hospital and other purposes;
that rental value and damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear
was $890.
132 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TTJCKEE ACTS, ETC.
There is no finding on loyalty; but as Missouri never se<?eded the
legal presumption, in absence of any thing to contrary, is that a sub-
division of a loyal State was itself loyal. No objection is found to
this claim.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses.
Dais'iel K. Pondei;. (S. D. 584-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court April 26, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal ; that supplies worth $530 were taken for Armj^ use.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
TiLLARD Eagax AND SoPHiA L. Eagan. (Mary L. Cropper et al.,
heirs.) (H. D. 1272-60-2.) BoM'man Act. Sent to court February
28, 1906. Court finds Tillard Ragan and Sophia L. Ragan loyal;
that supplies worth $2,970 were taken from them for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
William B. Reich. (S. D. 272-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court June 27, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal; that a mule was taken from him for Army use worth $115.
Court states conclusion that claim is equitable.
Case tried too late for inclusion in any previous bill.
William A. Ryan. (George W. January, administrator.) (H. D.
335-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 4, 1908. Court
finds decedent loyal; that supplies ^vorth $1,260 were taken for Army
use. Claim filed with Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
County Court, Ste. Genevieve County, Mo. (S. D. 441-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Senate resolution.
Court finds that United States forces, by proper authority, occupied
county courthouse for military purposes; that rental value, with
damages incidental to the occupancy, was $1,200. There is no find-
ing on loyalty, but a county of a loyal State was presumptively loyal.
Passed, Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses.
Shadrack Securest. (S. D, 551-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court June 21, 1910, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal; Army supplies, worth $500, taken. Court reports claim is
equitable. Case tried too late for inclusion in any previous bill.
Francis M. Sheppard. (H. D. 1463-60-2.) Bowman Act. This
is an unusual claim and has been therefore given special considera-
tion. The facts found by the court are, in brief, as follows :
Sheppard was a private in Company I, One hundred and sixteenth
Illinois Volunteers. The provost marshal seized $830 belonging
to him, on ground that Sheppard was a gambler (and supposedly on
groimd that the money had been won by gambling) ; in April, 1865,
a court of inquiry was convened and Sheppard was required to prove
that the money had not been won gambling.
This court of inquii"y recommended that $376 be restored to him
and that the remaining $454 be confiscated as being proceeds of a
gambling game known as " chuck luck." The $376 was never restored
to Sheppard; the $454 was used by the commanding officer as part
of what was called a " provost " fund, wliich was not regarded a«;
public money.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 133
The whole sum of $830 comj)rised $200 in coupons and $600 in
interest-bearing bonds.
As to the right of claimant to restoration of the smaller sum of
$376 there is no room for question. The only real question in this
claim is whether this man should be paid the other sum of $454.
It is possible that by some proper proceeding. Sheppard. if found
guilty of gambling in defiance of Army regulations, might have been
fined by a duly convened court-martial the sum found to have been
won by him. That was not, done, however. He was never court-
martialed at all, so far as shown by the findings. When called before
this mere court of inquiry the burden was placed upon him to prove
that the money was not won in gambling.
It seems clear that no mere court of inquiry had the power to con-
fiscate this man's money ; nor had his commanding officer any such
authority, in the opinion of the committee. It would therefore ap-
pear that this man's property was taken from him without due process
of law, either civil or military.
This conclusion leads to the further question as to whether the
Government should pay claimant the money disbursed by the com-
manding officer as part of the " provost fund." The money was not
placed in the United States Treasur}'. apparently. It would seem to
be a fair inference, however, that the money so spent was expended
for benefit of the troops, die Government therefore securing a benefit
from the expenditure, even though by indirection.
For these reasons the committee recommends payment of tlie entire
sum illegally taken from him — i. e., $830 — thus resolving any possible
doubt in favor of this former Union soldier.
Claim for restoration of the $376 was made in 1801 to the Treasury
Department and denied for lack of jurisdiction.
This claim passed the House in Sixty-first Congress as to $376. and
passed House in Sixty-second Congress as to entire sum involved.
William F. Smithey. (H. D. 572-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court February 5, 1909, by House resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal; troops took supplies for Army use, in which claimant owned
an undivided half interest; also used for military purposes a livery
stable wherein claimant had an undivided half interest. Claimant's
interest in the supplies taken and in rental value of the stable, includ-
ing damages incident to use, amounts to $600. Court reports claim
equitable.
Case tried too late for inclusion in any previous bill.
LoAVELL G. Spaulding. (Willia'ui W. Trigg, administrator.)
(S. D. 260-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by
Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth
$12,500 were taken from him for Army use. Court further finds
claim not presented to Quartermaster General: that decedent was
preparing to come to Washington to present his claim in 1864 or 1865,
but fell sick and died ; that by the taking of the property in question
the widow was so impoverished that she could not have the claim pre-
sented. Court states its conclusion that the claim is equitable in that
the Government received the benefit of the supplies taken.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
134 CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC.
State Hospital Xo. 1. Fulton, Mo. (John P. Bell, treiisurer.)
(S. D. 121-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3. 1903, by
Senate resolution. Court finds that the property in question be-
longed to the State of Missouri, which remained loyal; that United
States forces occupied State Hospital No. 1, at Fulton, Mo., for mili-
tary purposes ; that compensation as to rental value during the occu-
pancy has already been given: that by reason of said occupancy re-
pairs were made necessary which actually cost $14,000 merely to re-
store the premises to their condition prior to said occupancy.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Merit F. Thomas. (H. D. 736-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court April 9, 1906. by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ;
that Army supplies Avorth $420 were taken from him and his coowner,
W. M. Allman; that claimant's share therein was worth one-half, or
$210. This is companion claim to that of Allman, above mentioned.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
John Turley. (Mildred Turley, administratrix.) (H. D. 918-
59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 1, 1904. Court finds
claimant's decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $3,390 were taken
for Army use. Claim tried under Bowman Act, so must have been
filed with Quartermaster General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Mary E. WiLLETT. (S. D. 381-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
June 21, 1910, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal;
Army supplies worth $871 taken. Court reports claim is equitable.
Case tried too late for inclusion in any previous bill.
John Wilson. (Eli D. Wilson and Narcissus Wilson, executors.)
(H. D. 230-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court June 5, 1890.
Court finds decedent loyal : that supplies worth $425 were taken for
Army use. Claim filed with Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
George W. Yancey. (William Yancey, administrator.) (S. D.
264-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 21, 1911. by Senate
resolution. Case previously referred in 1906, under Bowman Act, but
dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Court finds decedent loyal; that
rails and corn Avorth $2,100 were taken for Army use by proper au-
thority. Coiu't reports its conclusion that claim is equitable.
Case tried too late for inclusion in any previous bill.
Solomon Young. (Harriet L. Young, administratrix.) (H. D.
901-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court June 7, 1890. Court finds
decedent loyal; that supplies worth $3,800 were taken for Army use.
Having been tried under Bowman Act, claim must have been filed
with Quartermaster (xeneral and Commissary General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Christian Church. Harrison ville, Mo. (S. D. 160-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAIST AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 135
Court finds claimant lo^^al; that United States forces occupied church
premises about two years and damaged same; that rent has been
already paid, but that the claim filed with Quartermaster General for
damages was rejected for lack of jurisdiction: that damages incident
to such occupancy, in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $650.
Claim presented to Quartermaster General and rejected as to item
of damages, as above mentioned.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses,
Methodist Episcopal Chukcii South, Harrisonvili.e. Mo. (S. D.
21-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27. 190-t. by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces occu-
pied its building three years; that rental ^alue with damages inci-
dent to the use was $779.75.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congi'esses.
First Baptist Church, Jefferson City, Mo. (S. D. 140-58-3.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904. by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; that in September. 18(31. l.^nited States
forces took possessicm of its premises and occupied them till spring
of 1865; that rental value, plus expense of making repairs necessary
to restore building to former condition, was $1,380.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congi'esses.
Methodist Episcopal Church, Macox. Mo. (S. D. 557-60-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907. by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces occupied church
building for hospital and other ])urpo3es; that rental value, with
damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $760.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses,
Presbyi'eeian Church, Macon, Mo. (S. D. 480-60-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907. by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal; that United States forces (jccupied churcli building
as barracks and commissary; that rental value, with damages in
excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $600. Claim ])resented to
Quartermaster General and rejected.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Christian Church, Marshall, Mo. (S. D. 41-00-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal; that church building was used by United States
forces from March, 1862, to August, 1865; that rental value, with
damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $1,240.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
First Christian Church, Mexico, Mo. (S. D, 291-60-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied church building;
136 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN" AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC.
that rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear,
was $550.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-seoond Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Mexico, Mo. (S. D.
267-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces occu-
pied church buildino- about two years; that rental value, with dam-
ages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $710.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
University or Missouri. (S. D. 123-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court in April, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant an
institution of learning, whose officers were loyal men, and that its
property was not used to aid the rebellion. Claimant's property was
worth $169,000; United States forces occupied same from fall of
1861 till close of war, save for short intervals; damages resulting from
such occupation amount to $5,075. Claim v. as made to War Depart-
ment for rent and incidental damages; it was rejected as to item
of damages for lack of jurisdiction; claim for rent only was adjusted
and paid. Present claim for damages obviously just.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Christian Church, Pleasant Hill, Mo. (S. D. 39-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904. by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied its
building about 18 months and totally destroj^ed same; that value of
building was $500. including use and occupation. The court says
this was done " ))y proper authority for the use of the Army." This
claim may be j^roperly considered as falling within the general class,
evidently, where buildings were used and thereby damaged or de-
stroyed otherwise than as an act of Avarfare.
Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress.
First Christian CmrRCii, Springi'ield, Mo. (S. D. 343-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal: that United States forces occupied its
building for 16 months and claimant was paid $160 as rent; that
building was damaged to extent of $275 by said occupancy. Claim
for rent and damages filed with War Department in 1874; allowed as
to rent and rejected as to damages. No reason appears why this
church should not be compensated for the damage done its building.
Passed Senate in .Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Mf:thoi)ISt P>iscopal Church South, Springfield, Mo. (S. D.
20-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27. 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces
occupied church building from August, 1861, to May, 1864; that
rental value with sum necessary to restore building to former condi-
tion was $3,150.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixtv-.second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN" AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 137
Chri8tia>" Church, Sturgeon, Mo. (S. D. .374:-59-2.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal ; that United States forces occupied church building as
hospital and stable greater part of the time from summer of 1861 to
October, 1864; that rent was paid through Quartermaster Depart-
ment, but nothing paid on account of damages : that damages in ex-
cess of ordinary wear and tear were $550.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Christian Church, Warsaw, Mo. (S. D. 8-61-1.) Tucker Act.
Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate resolution. Court finds claim-
ant loyal; that United States forces occupied church building for
hospital and other purposes; that rental value Avith damages in ex-
cess of ordinary wear and tear was $660.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
MONTANA.
James E. Callaway. (Mary E. L. Callaway, widow.) (H, D.
582-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay,
$53.23.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
NEBRASKA.
Columbus P. French. (Margaret C. French, widow.) (H. D.
584—59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay,
$176.40.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Michael Trucks. (H. D. 595-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $377.67.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
NEVADA.
John Allman. (S. D. 68-58-3.) Tucker Act.
John M. Forsyth. (S. D. 71-58-3.) Tucker Act.
Frank J. McWorthy. (S. D. 72-58-3.) Tucker Act.
Thomas RoDGERS. (S.D. 69-58-3.) Tucker Act.
James M. Thompson. (Vinnie J. Thompson, executrix.) (S. D.
74-58-3.) Tucker Act.
These claims may be considered together, as they all arose out of
the same general conditions. They were sent to the court by Senate
resolutions on February 8, 1900, save the Forsvth claim, sent April
11, 1899.
These claims arose from necessity of white people in and about
Carson City and Virginia City and smaller settlements in Nevada
protecting themselves against hostile Indians in winter of 1859-60.
Regular troops were sent from California, but did not arrive till a
volunteer company had fought the Indians and had been defeated,
138 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TTJCKEE ACTS, ETC.
with loss of supplies and property. The volunteer troops then oper
ated with the Regulars till the Indians sued for peace.
These claims are for value of supplies, arms, horses, mules, etc.,
furnished for this campaign. It appears that some of the supplies
were furnished to the regular troops. (See findings in Forsyth case.)
Forsyth was himself one of the volunteers. AVliile it might be con-
tended that isolated settlers in the West knew they must protect
themselves from Indians, that theory could hardly hold good as to
residents of Carson City or Virginia City and vicinity. It would
seem that there must have rested some obligation upon the Govern-
ment to protect those settlements. The fact that Regular troops were
later sent to the scene would seem to prove this responsibility of the
Government.
As to supplies furnished the regular troops there would seem to
be the basis of a legal claim against the Government. It is impos-
sible to tell, however, just what supplies were furnished to the
Regidars and what to the Volunteers.
Under these peculiar circumstances it would seem more nearly
accomplishing justice that the loss arising from these conditions
should be borne by all the people than be left on the shoulders of
these five public-spirited men. This view has evidently been pre-
viously adopted by both Houses of Congress in different Congresses.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-second Congress.
Claims are for following sums :
AllniMii $2,358
Forsyth 2. 728
McWorthy 450
Rodsers 440
Thompson .3,730
NEW HAMPSHIRE.
Eleazer L. Sarsons. (H. D. ,594-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay. $40.33.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
NEW jersey.
John H. Arey. (H. D. 221-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim
for difference in pay, $20.39.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
new MEXICO.
Francisco de Baca. (Anastacio de Baca, administrator.) (H. D.
551-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 13, 1900. Court
finds decedent loyal. On property the facts of this case are peculiar.
It appears that Xavajo Indians drove off a flock of sheep belonging
to the decedent: that United States troops recovered some of the
sheep from the Indians, but instead of restoring them to the owner,
used them for the benefit of the United States. The sheep so recap-
tured by the troops from the Indians and converted to the use of
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 139
the Government are fonncl by the court to have been reasonably worth
$1,825 at time and place of taking.
This man was left in the yjosition of one Avhose property lias been
stolen, and which property is later recovered by a policeman and con-
verted to the use of the policeman or to use of the Government
employing him.
There is a plain liability in this case on part of the Government.
The claim was presented to the Commissary General and rejected.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixt^^-second Congresses.
Edward Bergmann. (H. D. 174-58-3.) BoAvman Act. Sent to
court February IT, 1890. Court finds claimant loyal, and that he
was a captain in Kit Carson's regiment; that in 1862. his company
being nearly destitute of clothing, he advanced of his own funds the
sum of $1,200 to buy clothing for them. The court further finds
that the reports of the Quartermaster General show that no clothing
was issued for months where this company was stationed or operat-
ing, thus showing the necessity for the action of Capt. Bergmann.
This money was clearly expended by this captain for the use and
benefit of the United States Government. It is apparent that these
troops were operating in a locality remote from supplies, and this
officer, when his men were destitute of absolutely necessary clothing,
cut military red tape by purchasing the supplies with his personal
funds, naturally looking to the Government for reimbursement.
This claim would seem to be of the very highest order of merit.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
W. J. GooDAviN. ( S. D. 147-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May
22, 1908, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal. IVoperty
was taken by proper authority for Army use; worth $2,980. Claim
placed in hands of counsel for presentation in 1867; he died without
action on claim; placed in hands of other counsel in 1869: he died
without action being taken. Court concludes claim is equitable.
Claim recently certified and not previously ccmsidered in connection
with previous bills.
William J. Littell. (Mary W. Littell. widow.) ( H. D. 156-
69-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay. $632.18.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth and Sixty-second
Congresses.
NEW YORK.
Luther S. Bryaxt. (H. D. 240-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $45.31.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
George Campbell. (Josephine Campbell, widow.) (H. D. 291-
60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $272.14.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congressp^;.
140 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Benjamin Fenton. (Surviving partner of Fenton & Co.) (S. D.
199-59-2 and S. Kept. No. 330-44-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution.
This claim is for rent of certain premises in Memphis, Tenn. The
firm of Fenton & Co. consisted of Benjamin Fenton and his brother,
D. W. Fenton, both northern men. This firm had a leasehold estate
in the property at Mempliis. United States forces, for Ai^my use,
occupied the premises from June 6, 1862, until September, 1868.
In 1870 the firm presented its claim for rent for the entire period.
It was then thought by the accounting officers that, as the war did
not technically end until August 20, 1866, and as under the law limit-
ing jurisdiction of the accounting officers rent could not be paid for
occupation occurring during the war, that only that part of the claim
for occupation after August 20, 1866, could be allowed.
Accordingly the claim was then allowed and paid, covering only
rent after August 20, 1866, at rate of $2,500 per year.
As a matter of record in Congress it further appears that Fenton
& Co. presented the rejected part of their claim to Congress as sub-
ject matter of S. 855, Forty-fourth Congress. That claim was cov-
ered by Senate Report No. 330, Forty-fourth Congress, first session.
As then considered, the claim so presented was divided into two
parts. One item was considered as rent from June 6, 1862, to April
2, 1866: the other item was rent from April 2, 1866, to August 20,
1866.
On the theory that the war ended in the State of Tennessee on
April 2, 1866 (the Protector, 12 Wall., TOO), the report on that bill
recommended that the rent accruing after April 2, 1866, and up to
August 20, 1866 (beyond which last date rent had been already
paid), be paid to claimants. The report further recommended that
no rent be paid for the period of occupation prior to April 2, 1866,
so that part of claim was again rejected.
This action in Congress resulted in enactment of a sj^ecial act ap-
proved March 3, 1ST7 (19 Stats., 538), apjH-opriating $958.32 as rent
of said premises betAveen April 2, 1866, and August 20, 1866.
That action still left unpaid, hoAvever. the rent from June 6, 1862,
to April 2, 1866.
It is evident that the Treasury Department did not report this
payment so made by special act when the claim was pending in the
Court of Claims, so the court did not take that payment into ac-
count in making its findings, which covered rent from June 6, 1862.
to August 20, 1866.
The court therefore found the rental value from June 6. 1862. to
August 20, 1866, at rate of $2,.500 per year, amounting to $10,520.66.
From this sum must be deducted said sum of $958.32. paid by
special act in 1877, which leaves $9,562.34, which it is now propo.sed
to appro):)riate in final settlement of this long-pending claim. That
this much remains due and unpaid is plain.
It may be mentioned, also, that the firm of Fenton & Co. con-
tinued to pay rent for the premises, under its lease, during the period
in question. This is expressly reported by the court.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 141
JoH?^ Fryer. (Anna Cavanaugh, sister and sole heir.) (H. D.
288-60-1.) Bowman Act. OiRcer's claim for difference in pay,
$60.80.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Theodore Hoes. (Harry AV. Hoes, administrator.) (H. D. 260-
60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $491.08,
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Harrison Lockwood. (Emily A. Lockwood, widow.) (H. D.
247-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay,
$484.11.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Andrew J. McNett. (Abby C. McNett, widow.) (H. D. 678-
60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $816.77.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Martin H. Mullin. (H. D. 575-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $351,68.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
^ Lucius V. S. Mattison. (H. D, 303-60-1.) Bowman Act, Of-
ficer's claim for difference in pay, $490.44.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Hamilton S. Prestox. (Cornelia P, Beckley and Maud P. Clark,
daughters and sole heirs.) (H. D. 278-60-1.) Bowman Act. Of-
ficer's claim for difference in pay, $104.05.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Allen Sheldon. (Alice A. Sheldon, widow.) (H. D. 250-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $274.54.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
north CAROLINA.
Francis Allison. (E. M. Allison, administrator.) (H. D.
869-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 6, 1888. Court
finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $550 were taken for Army
use. Having been tried under Bowman Act, must have been filed
with Claims Commission. Appears on page 10 of index of such
claims.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Esau Berry. (John E. Berry and Lovey T. Williamson, heirs.)
(S. D. 558-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by
Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that present claim-
ants are his sole heirs ; that timber worth $450 was taken from dece-
142 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC.
dent for Army use; that claim was not presented prior to Fift}'^-
seventh Congress owing to illiteracy of decedent.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Raiford Brewington. (Hardv A. Brewington, administrator.)
(S. D. 471-59-1.) Tucker Act. ' Sent to court April 28, 1904, by
Senate resolution. Court finds decedent was a free colored man. who
remained loyal; that supplies worth $530 were taken from him for
Army use; that he was a colored man Avho was ignorant of his right
to present the claim to the Southern Claims Commission during the
two years the commission was open to filing of claims; that he had no
other opportunity to present the claim save by petition to Congress.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
WiLLiA^r H. BucKLiN. (S. D. 62-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court April 26, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal ; that a schooner worth $390 was taken from him for Army use.
While not included in the findings of fact, it would appear from the
petition that claim was made about two j^ears after taking of the
property.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixtj-first and House in Sixtj^-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Ends Case. ( Louise C. Smith, administratrix. ) ( H. D. 442-60-1. )
Bowman Act. Sent to court Julj^ 11, 1892. Court finds decedent
loyal: that supplies worth $120 were taken from him for Army use.
Claim evidently filed wdth Claims Commission, and appears on page
45 of index of that commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
IsADORE Cohen. (William Cohen, administrator.) (H. D.
415-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 10, 1899. Court
finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $532 were taken for Army
use. Claim found on page 52 of index of Southern Claims Com-
mission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Sylvester Dibble. (Lucy A. Dibble, administratrix.) (S. D.
293-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds decedent was loj'^al; that supplies worth
$705 were taken from him by projjer authority; that decedent made
inquiry as to presenting a claim soon after taking of his property,
but was then informed that he could make no claim because he had
been a slave. From the petition it would appear that the property
was taken after surrender of Gen. Lee.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
William Howett. (J. W. Howett. administrator.) (S. D.
37-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court July 24, 1897, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $1,480 were
taken for Army use; that claim was not filed w^ith Claims Commis-
sion, decedent being illiterate, unable to read or write, and working
in a remote region in the cedar swamps of North Carolina.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 143
T. L. Ix)VE. (Surviving partner of Robert Love & Son.) (S. D.
1017-62-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant, T. L. Love, the surviving partner,
loyal, and also finds his deceased partner, Robert Love, loyal. Cot-
ton worth $5,000 was taken and used, by proper authority, as bed-
ding by troops. The sum fixed by the court represents only the loss
of the firm for which the Government is responsible.
xA.s early as 1867 the firm endeavored to have the claim properly
presented, but their representative failed to prosecute the claim.
The findings in this case are accompanied by an opinion which is
of value in showing conditions pertaining to this case and also in
war claims in general.
The court, in its opinion, says:
The use made of the cotton was a supply. The Fifteenth Army Corps (of
fifteen or twenty thousand men) was camped in the immediate vicinity. The
bales of cotton were taken from storage and cut open and beds were made out
of it for the use of the troops all over the camp.
The findings were not certified until January 15, 191.3, too late for
consideration in connection with previous bill.
Harmon Modlin. (B. A. Critcher, administrator.) (H. D. 446-
62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 15, 1906. Court finds
decedent loyal; that supplies worth $293 were taken for Army use.
Claim found on page 166 of Claims Commission index.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Davh) W. Morton. (John S. Morton, administrator.) (H. D.
931-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 19. 1889. Court
finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $350 were taken for Army
use. Claim found on page 170 of index of Claims Commission.
Claim is for 6,000 cubic feet of timber, which would equal 72,000 feet
board measure.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Levi T. Oglesby. (Mary Lee Dennis, executrix.) (S. D. 176-
59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court first time under Bowman Act, in
1890; while it had been filed with Claims Commission, it had not
been prosecuted to a final decision there, so court had no jurisdic-
tion under Bowman Act reference. Last reference was made April
26, 1904, under Tucker Act, by Senate resolution, in Fifty-eighth
Congress. Claim had been pending in Fifty-first, Fifty-second, and
later Congresses for such reference. Court finds decedent loyal.
Report on property shows a case of hardshijo. Under military or
naval orders he sold and delivered to the naval authorities turpen-
tine worth $588, subject to inspection. Before his turpentine could
be or was inspected Confederates drove out the United States forces
and seized part of the turpentine, all but 27 barrels, that were actu-
ally finally used by the United States naval forces, these 27 barrels
of turpentine being worth $182. Under the circumstances serious
doubt arises as to whether this man should be paid for all the tur-
pentine delivered or only for the portion actually used by United
States forces. However, as claim has passed both Houses twice pre-
viously in the smaller sum, that is adopted as the measure of com-
pensation.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
144 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
George W. Pekky. (O. H. Perry, administrator.) (S. D.
187-58-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $4,350
were taken from him for Army use; that claim not filed with Claims
Commission, but was placed in hands of an attorned' soon after
close of war, but what he did does not appear.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Cong-resses.
William O. Eobards. (S. D. 280-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court April 26, 1904, by Senate resolution. Claim arose in Ken-
tucky; claimant now living: in North Carolina. Court finds claim-
ant loyal: that supplies worth $1,980 were taken from him for Army
use; no allowance made for boarding Federal soldiers.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
J. A. Reagan. (H. D. 290-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
April 15, 1910, by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal;
that supplies worth $240 were taken for Army use. Court reports
claim is equitable.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Jacob West. (H. D. 347-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
February 26, 1895. Court finds claimant loyal; supplies worth $215
taken for Army use. Presented to Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Beaueort, N. C. (S. D.
613-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces
occupied church and parsonage for hospital and other purposes; that
rental value, includinir damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear,
was $1,280.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Beulah Piji:mttive Baptist Church, Johnston County, N. C.
(S. D. 267-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 21, 1910, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal. Troops, by proper
authority, tore doAvn the church and used materials in constructing
a bridge. Building Avorth $420. Court concludes that claim is
equitable.
Passed Senate in Sixty-second Congress.
Presbyterian Church. Lumber Bridge, N. C. (S. D. 137-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces tore down
church building and used materials therefrom; building worth $1,800.
Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Morehead City, N. C.
(S. D. 135-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1905, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States
forces occupied church building about 18 months, and then tore it
down and used materials secured; building worth $800, together with
use and occupation.
Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 145
Diocese of East Carolina Protestant Episcopal Church (for
church at Nags Head). (S. D. 124-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent court
March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution. Court finds church of Nags
Head was loyal; that church building was torn down by United
States forces and materials appropriated; building worth $856.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
First Baptist Church, NEA\TiERN, N. C. (S. D. 51-60-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied church building
greater part of three years for commissary depot; rental value, with
damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $1,200.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-second
Congresses.
First Presbyterian Church, Newbern, N. C. (S. D. 1069-62-3.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal; that United States military forces,
by proper authority, occupied premises for military purposes; that
a reasonable rental, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and
tear, is $3,300. A claim for damages only was presented as early as
1866, but was rejected.
The court reports its conclusion that the claim is equitable.
This case was tried too late for inclusion in earlier bills.
Primitive Baptist Church, Newport, N. C. (S. D. 192-61-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court
finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces occupied the church
building for hospital purposes and that it was accidentally burned,
evidently during this occupation ; building worth $350.
This claim is identical in principle with several mentioned in pre-
ceding parts of this detailed report. If the Government ought to
surrender a building, used by proper authority for military purposes,
in its original condition, then it would seem that this church should
be paid for its building. This building was not destroyed as an act
of warfare. Considering that the troops were in possession of the
building, it would be impossible for the claimant to prove affirma-
tively any negligence on part of the military authorities. Undoubt-
edly the mere fact of the accidental destruction may be deemed in
itself equivalent to a finding of negligence. For reasons stated, this
claim for $350 is included in the bill.
Passed Senate in Sixty-second Congress.
KoANOKE Island Baptist Church, N. C. (H. D. 747-62-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 18, 1910, by House resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal; troops tore down church building by
proper authority and used material in erecting a hospital ; building
worth $330. Court concludes that claim is equitable.
Tried too late for inclusion in any previous bill.
Bushrod W. Nash, Trustee op Union Baptist Association (succes-
sor to Hood Swamp Baptist Church, Wayne County, N. C.) (S. D.
306-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court June 13, 1906, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds Hood Swamp Baptist Church loyal; that in
19855— H. Kept. 97, 63-2 10
146 CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC.
March, 1865, its cluircli building, then nearly completed, was torn
down by United States forces and material used in constructing quar-
ters; building worth $650; that Union Baptist Association is succes-
sor to Hood Swamp Church.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
NORTH DAKOTA.
James W. Mullery. (Martha A. Mullery. widow.) (H. D. 460-
59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $260.35.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
OHIO.
Henry L. Biddle. (H. D. 282-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim
for difference in pay, $362.44.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Jeremiah Cain. (H. D. 55-61-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
January 26, 1904. The facts of this case are very peculiar. He
entered volunteer service in 1861 as private, rose through grades of
corporal and sergeant to be second lieutenant on January 4, 1863.
May 26, 1864, while serving at Vicksburg, he was dismissed by special
orders, by direction of the President, for alleged disobedience of orders
and neglect of duty. He had been served with no charges and had
not been brought before any court. It appears that April 11. 1864,
a notice was published in the Army and Navy Gazette citing him
to appear before a military commission at Washington within 15
days to answer charges against him. Claimant had no knowledge of
that citation or even of existence of that paper. He was on duty
at Vicksburg at that time.
After being dismissed from the service Cain started for Wash-
ington, by way of his home in Ohio, where he secured services of a
lawyer, who came to Washington with him. A hearing was secured
before a military commission; Cain was found not guilty of any
willful disobedience of orders, and the commission recommended his
restoration to the service.
June 22, 1864, by special orders, he was restored to his command
and rejoined his command at Vicksburg, July 15, 1864. He was
later promoted to be first lieutenant and was mustered out August
10, 1865.
Court finds that claimant lost, in expenses and in loss of pay and
allowances between May 26, 1864, date of dismissal, and July 14,
1864, a total of $684.34.
This man seems to have been a good soldier, judging from his
promotion from private to first lieutenant. It is plain that he was
shamefully mistreated ; he was dismissed without hearing ; was served
only by publication with notice to appear before a commission in
Washington, although the War Department must have known at the
time just where he was serving, at Vicksburg. Further, later events
showed him not guilty of any offense, and he was restored to service.
Without necessarily holding that payment of this claim should
form a precedent, yet under the very peculiar circumstances of hard-
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 147
ship appearing- here, the committee believes this man should be com-
pensated for his direct loss in the sum of $684.34. He never had any
legal remedy in this case.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Charles W. Clancy. (Amanda W. Clancy, widow.) (H. D.
292-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay,
$374.88.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth and Sixty-first
Congresses.
John Hamilton. (H. D. 572-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $272.77.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Barton A. Holland. (H. D. 397-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $182.82.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
George W. Northup. (H. D. 456-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay. $482.40.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
David Skeeles. (H. D. 596-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim
for difference in pay, $245.85.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
James R. Smith. (Ellen R. Smith, widow.) (H. D. 108-59-1.)
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $514.71.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Baptist Church or Gallipolis, Ohio. (S. D. 344-60-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal ; that United States forces occupied church building as
hospital and damaged the same; that reasonable rental, with damages
in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $175; that a claim was pre-
sented for rent, damages, and coal to Quartermaster General; that
$16 was paid for the coal in 1867, but the claim for rent and damages
was disallowed.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
OKLAHOMA.
George W. Clark. (H. D. 269-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $106.26.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John S. Cozine. (Robert C. Cozine, heir.) (H. D. 105-59-1.)
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $520.22.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
148 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN" AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC.
OREGON.
John E. Butler. (H. D. 395-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $417.31.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
PENNSYLVANIA.
James Ashworth. (William Ash-vvorth and Adam I. Ashworth,
heirs.) (H. D. 46(5-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for differ-
ence in pay, $44.57.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty -second Congresses.
John H. Black. (H. D. 115-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $361.28.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John Craig. (H. D. 580-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim
for difference in pay, $88.05.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John A. Danks. (John H. Danks. heir.) (H. D. 271-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $187.81.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Frank E. Foster. (H. D. 112-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay $569.52.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John Houston. (Eliza J. Houston, Avidow.) (H. D. 299-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay $136.78.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Jacob Johnson. (Milton S. Johnson, son and assignee.) (S. D.
123-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3. 1905, by Senate
resolution. Court finds that decedent was loyal; that United States
forces took for Army use, at York, Pa., certain gunpowder reason-
ably worth $580. The claim is entitled Milton S. Johnson, assignee
of Jacob Johnson, deceased. The petition alleges that Milton S.
Johnson is the son and assignee of Jacob Johnson. The court fails
to report how any interest, equitable or otherwise, could be held by
Milton S. Johnson as assignee in view of the express provisions of
section 3477, United States Revised Statutes, prohibiting assignment
of any claim against the Government. Even if that statutory pro-
hibition should be held not to technically cover the case, it has cer-
tainly not been the policy of Congress to recognize assignments of
claims. For this reason it is believed that- appropriation should be
made to the estate of the decedent, Jacob Johnson, leaving any dis-
tribution to the local courts of probate jurisdiction.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN" AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 149
Augustus B. Miller. (H. D. 891-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court March 31, 1906, by House resolution. Court finds claimant
was a resident of Pennsylvania during war and loyal. Claimant
was owner of a certain barge ; on July 3, 1863, while being towed in
the Potomac River the barge collided with United States gunboat
Eutaw and was damaged ; the court finds that claimant's damage on
account of loss of use of the barge and injury thereto was $1,120.
Court expressly finds that the collision was without fault of the
owner of the barge, but occurred through the gunboat becoming un-
managable.
It is further reported that within a few days after the collision
claimant tried to get payment for his loss through the Navy Depart-
ment, but was informed that it was impossible for that department
to settle the claim ; that he must wait until the close of the war. It
was next presented about April, 1898. The claim could not have
been presented directly to the Court of Claims, because that court
has no admiralty jurisdiction. There was no tribunal that could have
entertained or allowed the claim at any time. The claim is evidently
a just one.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
James Millingae. (Henry Millingar and Charlotte Wilson,
heirs.) (H. D. 234-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 9,
1906. Court finds decedent loyal; that United States forces, for
military purposes, used a steam sawmill belonging to the decedent
and his partner, R. McClay ; that partnership was dissolved in 1864,
Millingar assuming firm obligations and becoming owner of the mill ;
that reasonable value of the use and occupation of the mill is $1,771 ;
that decedent filed a claim before the War Department ; that the de-
partment found him loyal and recommended payment of $1,771, but
Millingar would not accept said sum, not considering it a fair allow-
ance; that claim was later presented to the Claims Commission, but
rejected for want of jurisdiction. The court further finds that
several persons mentioned are children and grandchildren of the
decedent and his heirs. As the court fails to state the precise interest
of each heir it is deemed advisable that appropriation be made to the
legal representatives of James Millingar, deceased, leaving the dis-
tribution to the local court of probate jurisdiction.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Tonoloway Baptist Church, Fulton County, Pa. (S. D.
248-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court finds that claimant was loyal; that United States
forces occupied church property (a large brick building, with seat-
ing capacity of about 1,000 people) for hospital purposes ; that rental
value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $225.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
St. James Evangelical Lutheran Church, of Gettysburg, Pa.
(S. D. 43-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Sen-
ate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces
occupied church building for hospital; that reasonable rental was
150 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
$150. No allowance is made for incidental damages, as they were
paid through Quartermaster General in Decemberr 1863.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
St. Marks German Reformed Church, of Gettysburg, Pa. ( S. D.
263-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces
occupied church building for hospital ; that rental value, with dam-
ages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $215.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Trinity German Reformed Church, Gettysburg, Pa. (S. D.
478-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal, and that United States troops occu-
pied the premises about a month and a quarter for hospital purposes,
and that the rental value during that period, and for which no pay-
ment has ever been made, was $70, which is the amount proposed to
be now appropriated.
In 1864 the church was paid the sum of $300 merely to repair the
building, but that covered no item of rent, so that payment is im-
material to the present claim save that it precludes any allowance
now for damages incident to the use and occupation.
This claim seems to have been overlooked in preparation of prior
bills.
RHODE ISLAND.
Wn,LARD H. Greene. (S. D. 167-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court December 18, 1905, by Senate resolution. This case is out of
the usual. Briefl}^ the facts found by the court nre as follows:
Claimant was a private in volunteer service during Civil War; he
was transferred to the position of hospital steward, with First Xew
York Light Artillery. That command appears to have been without
any regular medical officer or surgeon practically all the time for a
considerable period, specifically mentioned b}^ the court, and during
that period claimant practically performed the duties of an Army
surgeon.
He made application to be appointed medical officer, but no action
seems to have been taken thereon. He was paid as a private during
the period mentioned, with extra duty pay of 25 cents per (\ay. Dur-
ing the greater portion of the time he employed a civilian servant.
The court reports that if it should be held proper that this man be
paid as an assistant surgeon with a servant from Xovember 3, 1862,
to July 9, 1863, there would be due him $701.26. as reported i)}' the
Auditor for the War Department.
It appears that the claim was presented to the Auditor for War
Department and was disallowed.
While the facts of the claim are unusual it would seem only right
that this man be paid according to the duties performed rather than
according to the pay of the position which he occupied. It seems
to be a case of a man being employed in one capacity and being then
required to act in a much higher capacity.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 151
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
Second Congresses.
SOUTH CAROLINA.
Angelo Buero. (A. J. Bnero, administrator.) (H. D. 566-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court May 4, 1888. Court finds decedent
loyal ; that, by proper authority, United States forces took possession
of decedent's sloop Julia, used the sloop about two months, and dam-
aged it ; that reasonable value of the use, together with damage done,
was $725. Case was tried under Bowman Act, which presupposes
presentation to Claims Commission ; claim appears on page 37 of
Claims Commission index.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Xathan Gradick. (J. P. Matthews, administrator.) (H. D.
1199-60-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 15, 1907. Court
finds decedent loyal; that supplies, worth $1,180, were taken for
Army use. Claim found on page 91 of Claims Commission index.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
James B. Howard. (Robert Howard, heir.) (H. D. 713-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court May 4, 1888. Court finds decedent
loj^al: that supplies, worth $1,100, w^ere taken from decedent for
Arnw use. Claim presented to Claims Commission. From the man-
ner in which the court has entitled the case it must be necessarily in-
ferred that Robert B. Howard has proven that he is the heir of James
B. Howard.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Moses Winstock. (A. Rosenberg, executor.) (S. D. 716-62-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 27, 1906, by Senate resolution.
Court finds decedent loyal; that by proper authority troops took
property from him and hauled it aAvay in wagons ; the property was
worth $16,155, and would seem to have consisted almost entirely of
tobacco. The conclusion accompanving the findings, as required by
act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat., 837), 'is as follows:
CONCLUSIONS.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact tlie court concludes that the claim is an
equitable one in the sense that the United States received the benefit of the
supplies for which claim is herein made.
By express act Congress called upon the court to inform Congress,
by a conclusion, whether claims sent to the court under the Tucker
ii-Ct were legal or equitable, and it would seem that Congress should
act on the conclusions so reported. Claim certified too late to be con-
sidered in connection with previous bills.
Baptist Church or Beaufort, S. C. (S. D. 45-60-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied church property
for hospital purposes about 18 months ; that rental value, with dam-
ages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $2,200.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
152 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
St. HJELENA Episcopal Church of Beaufort, S. C. (S. D. 297-
61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13. 1906, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces occupied
church building for hospital and other purposes; that rental value,
with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $1,150.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress,
Public Schools OF Darlington, S. C. (S. D. 237-62-2.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate resolution. Court re-
ports that board of trustees of public schools of Darlington, S. C, is
the successor to St. John's Academy of that place ; that during war
St. John's Academy, as an organization, was loyal; that United
States forces occupied buildings and grounds of St. John's Academy;
that rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear,
was $980. Court reports its conclusion that claim is equitable.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Trinity Protestant Episcopal Churcpi of Edisto Island, S. C.
(S. D. 205-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by
Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; that United States
forces occupied for military purposes claimant's building; that rental
value, with repairs made necessary 'by said occupation, was $1,200.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Mount Zion Society, Fairfield County, S. C. (S. D. 136-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 12, 1903, by Senate resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied
church buildings and land for military purposes; that reasonable
value of the use and occuj^ation was $6,000. It is set forth in the
petition that this was an educational institution, owning 30 acres of
land, with a large main college building with three wings, three
stories high, together with numerous dormitories, etc., which accounts
for the considerable amount allowed by the court.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal Church, South, of Hampton
County, S. C. (S. D. 341-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June
13, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; that
United States forces took possession of church building, tore the
building down, and used the materials for various purposes; that
building was reasonably worth $1,710.
Passed House in Sixtj^-second Congress.
Baptist Church OF Hardeeville, S. C. (S. D. 313-59-2.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court
reports claimant loyal; that United States forces took possession of
church building, tore it down, and used material therefrom in build-
ing winter quarters; building Avortli $1,050.
Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress.
Stony Creek Presbyterian Church, of McPhersonville, S. C.
(S. D. 299-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Sen-
ate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces
took possession of church property, tore the building down, and used
the material in constructing barracks; building worth $2,500.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AXD TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 153
Court further finds that the troops destroyed by burning the
parsonage building belonging to claimant as an act of war, that
building being ^vorth $1,500. This item has been omitted from the
bill by the committee, and has been left for consideration with similar
claims arising from mere destruction.
Passed Senate and House in Sixtv-second Congress, as to the
item of $2,500.
Germax Lutheran Church of Orangeburg, S. C. (H. D.
708-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 23, 1906. Court
finds claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied claimant's
church building from about June 1. 1865. until March 20, 1866, for
hospital purposes. It is evident that this occupation was after actual
close of the war. Court finds that the reasonable rental value, with
damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $983.33.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixt3^-second Congresses.
SOUTH DAKOTA.
John B. Geddis. (H. D. 2T6-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $391.33.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
TENNESSEE.
Susan E. Joyner et al. (Heirs of Josiah Anthony.) (H. D.
173-59-1.) Sent to court March 17, 1904. It appears from findings
that Josiah Anthony died in 1854 ; he left a considerable estate. One
Martin was his executor, and in 1860 was also appointed guardian
of Susan E. Joyner, Mary E. Koberson. Martha F. Luster, and Jane
F. Crump, the sole heirs of said Josiah Anthony. This guardian
collected certain funds belonging to his wards and invested same in
mules and horses, which Avere taken for Army use in December,
1862. The stock is found to have been worth $4,520. and the court
reports that the four owners were loyal. It is obvious that they
were minors, as they had a guardian during the war. Claim was
tried under Bowman Act. which means it must have been presented
either to Quartermaster General or Claims Commission in proper
time.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John J. Bailey. (Emma Bailey, executrix.) (S. D. 28-56-
1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court July IT. 1897. by Senate resolu-
tion. Court reports that decedent was loyal; that supplies worth
$3,353 were taken for Army use; that claim was presented to Con-
gress in 1885, referred to court in 1886. under Bowman Act. but
dismissed in 1888 because claim had not been presented to the Claims
Commission, Quartermaster General, or Commissary General.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Alexander F. Beckham. (Daniel W. Beckham, administrator.)
(S. D. 65-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by
Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loval: that he was killed
154 CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAX AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
during Avar; that about the time of his death there was taken from
him, or from his estate after his death, Army supplies Avorth $7,880,
no allowance being made for merchandise, farm implements, or
household goods taken by way of depredation and without authority.
From the entire statement it would appear that the property was
taken just about the time of the decedent's death, and that it is im-
possible to state definitely Avhat was taken before his death and just
what was taken afterwards. It would appear that his surviving
children were young, and substantial justice will be done by paying
his administrator the sum mentioned.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
JohnB. Baird. (H. B. Bond, administrator.) (H. D. 344-62-2.)
Sent to court March 3. 1903. Court finds decedent loyal ; that sup-
plies worth $2,650 Avere taken for Army use from decedent; court
reports conclusion that claim is equitable.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
James Boro and Mary Boro. (S. D. 210-59-2.) Tucker Act
Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Senate resolution. ISIaterial facts
stated by court are as follows:
James Boro, sr.. died February 27, 1864, leaving James Boro, jr.,
and Mary Boro, present claimants, then aged, respectively, 10 and 12
years, as his only heirs. These heirs became oAvners of a certain
large four-story brick store building in Memphis. The premises
were occupied by United States authorities from June 19, 1862, to
April 1, 1866, and the court expressly reports that the rental value,
Avith incidental damages, accruing in favor of these two claimants
(after death of their father) amounts to $1,800. The rent accruing
during the lifetime of the father is removed from consideration be-
cause he Avas found not loyal. No question as to justice of paying
the $1,800.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Reece B. Brabsox. (Rose Douglass Bullard et al., heirs.) (S. D.
127-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 28, 1908, by Senate
resolution. The findings are rather complicated. It appears that
Reece B. Brabson Avas owner of real estate out of which this claim
arises. He died August 22, 1863, and his real estate descended to
seven children, Ada E. Colburn, Maria M. Brabson, Katherine K.
Waggner, Mary L. Littleton, Rose Douglass Bullard, John Bowen
Brabson, and a daughter also named Reece Brabson. The son, John
BoAven Brabson. died at age of 18, in March, 1864; the daughter,
named Reece Brabson. died in summer of 1864, at age of about 2
years.
Of the other five heirs or children the eldest Avas Ada E. Colburn,
who, in August, 1863, was under 14 years of age. She and the other
claimants, other than John Bowen Brabson, are found loyal, evidently
by reason of their tender years. The court reports that the son,
John BoAven Brabson. has not been proven loyal.
After death of Reece B. Brabson, on August 22, 1863, the seven
children became the oAvners in common of a large brick residence
and of two store buildings at Chattanooga, together Avith a farm of
about 327 acres near toAvn : also of a frame residence in that town.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 155
In September, 1863, United States forces took possession of the
residence and of the two store buildings and used same until June
18, 1865 ; they also took possession of the frame residence at same
time and occupied it until it was destroyed by fire, about a month
later. During occupation of the city property it was damaged, and
outbuildings torn down and used. It is evident that the farm was
also occupied.
The court reports that the reasonable rental value of the buildings
mentioned during said period, as well as of the tillable part of
claimants" farm, which was used one season in raising vegetables for
use in Army hospital, including damages in excess of ordinary wear
and tear, was $6,500.
No allowance is made on the items of lumber, wood, and rails in-
cluded in the claim, as they were paid for through the Quartermaster
General's Office.
The only question in this case arises from the fact that the occupa-
tion of the premises began in September, 1863, during the lifetime
of John Bowen Brabson. then about IT or 18 years old, who has not
been found loyal. He lived about six months after the occupation
began, and it might be technically contended that no allowance should
be made for his share of the rental during that period. The court
has not segregated that sum from the remainder of the claim, as it
might have done. It is believed that under the circumstances a de-
duction of $300 from the total sum allowed would leave the Govern-
ment on the safe side of this question. For that reason the committee
has included only the sum of $6,200 in the bill, although it passed the
House in Sixty-second Congress in the full sum of $6,500.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Nancy N. B. BRmoEs. (John L. Smith, administrator.) (H. D.
165-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 1, 1888. Court finds
decedent loj^al; that supplies worth $1,520 were taken for Army use.
Claim appears on page 32 of Claims Commission index.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John C. Brooks. (S. D. 175-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal. On
property the facts reported are to effect that this claimant with
three others owned the fee estate in certain land at Nashville, as the
heirs of their father, who died prior to the Civil War, and subject
to a life estate in their mother. The premises were occupied by
United States forces and damaged in the total sum of $2,100, of
which this claimant's interest was one-fourth, or $600. No allowance
is made for rent, as the mother owned the life estate during that
period and makes no claim. Court reports its conclusion that claim
is equitable.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Octavia p. Brooks. (H. D. 198-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to-
court Msij 22, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal ; that supplies worth
$350 Avere taken for Army use. Having been tried under Bowman
Act, claim must have been presented to Quartermaster General or
Claims Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
156 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
John Brown. (H. D. 869-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
January 31, 1907. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies worth
$150 were taken for Army use. Claim presented to Quartermaster
Oeneral.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Mathew Brown. (Leonidas Thompson, administrator.) (S. D.
rf53-59-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 22, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court reports that decedent was loyal; that supplies
worth $1,420 were taken for Army use; that claim was not presented
to Quartermaster General or Claims Commission ; that decedent had
no knowledge whatever of existence of that commission in the early
seventies, and that if he had had such knowledge it would have been
impossible to prosecute his claim by reason of his ill health ; that he
died in 1872, and none of the parties interested knew how to collect
the claim.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
William Brown. (Eli Marshall, executor.) (H. D. 177-58-3.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court February 18, 1902. Court finds decedent
loyal; that supplies worth $80 were taken from him for Arnw use;
that represents decedent's one-third interest in property taken from
him and his coowner Thomas H. Brown. Claim tried under Bow-
man Act, so it must have been previously presented. Claim found on
page 36 Southern Claims Commission index.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Elizabeth Burke. (Charles C. Burke, administrator.) (S. D.
231-57-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 21, 1900, by Senate
resolution. Court found decedent loyal, under a previous Bowman
Act reference, in 1885. On property court finds that supplies worth
$812 were taken from decedent for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Thomas P. Butt. (Mitchell H. Butt, heir.) (H. D. 301-59-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 12, 1904. Court finds decedent
loyal ; that supplies worth $465 were taken for Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Nelson M. Buyers. (George N. L. Bu3^ers, administrator.) (H. D.
749-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 31, 1907. Court
finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $425 were taken for Army
use. Claim filed with Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
James F. Calhoon. (S. J. McDowell, administrator.) (H. D.
638-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 9, 190<). Court
finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $290 were taken for Army
use. Having been tried under Bowman Act, claim must have been
previously duly presented. It is found on page 41, Claims Commis-
sion index, under name of James F. Calhoun.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 157
James M. Campbell. (H. D. 324-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court February 14, 1889. Court finds claimant lo^^al; that supplies
worth $200 were taken for Army use. Being tried under Bowman
Act, claim must have been duh^ presented previously.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
S. L. Carpenter. (A. A. Wade, administrator.) (S. D. 86-57-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 21, 1900, by Senate resolution.
Court finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $468 were taken for
Army use : that claim was presented to Quartermaster General, but
owing to petition being unsigned was not considered; later again
presented to Quartermaster General, but too late for consideration.
Passed" Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Felix Carter. (Mrs. Virginia Carter, administratrix.) (H. D.
345-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court June 10, 1902. Court finds
decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $1,380 were taken for Army use.
Claim found on page 45 of Claims Commission index.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Melvina a. Carter. (William E. Carter, administrator.) (H. D.
822-60-1.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court January 10, 1905. Court
finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $240 were taken for Army
use. Claim tried under Bowman Act, so must have been previously
presented. Petition alleges presentation to Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Alexander Caavood. (Effie Cawood, administratrix.) (H. D.
1424-60-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 12, 1907. Court
finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $390 were taken for Army
use. Claim filed with Quartermaster General, and later with Claims
Commission. Claim appears page 46, Claims Commission index.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixtj^-second Congresses.
William H. Cherry. (Edgar Cherry and James M. Heard,
executors.) (H. D. 34—59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March
6, 1888. Court finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $2,787 were
taken for Army use. Claim tried under Bowman Act, so must have
been presented to Quartermaster General, as it does not appear on
Southern Claims Commission index.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John Chitavgod. (C. H. Com, administrator.) (H. D. 628-59-2.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court February 24, 1887. Court finds de-
cedent loyal; that supplies worth $290 were taken for Army use.
Claim appears page 49, claims commission index.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John W. Cloyd. (J. W. Cloyd, administrator.) (H. D. 809-
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 20, 1903, by House
resolution. Court finds decedent loA^al; that supplies worth $2,125
were taken for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
158 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Sylvannus Cobble. (H. D. 227-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court January 21, 1906. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies
worth $175 were taken for Army use. Appears on page 51, Claims
Commission index.
Passed House in Sixtj^-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Martha C. Cole. (Ida J. Cole, sole heir.) (H. D. 379-58-3.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court April 10, 1888. Court finds decedent
loyal ; that supplies worth $925 were taken for Army use. Claim
tried under Bowman Act and must have been previously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Andrew A. Colter. (H. D. 363-59-1.) Bowman Act. • Sent to
court February 18, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies
worth $173 Avere taken for Army use. Claim tried under Bowman
Act, so it must have been previously duly presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Elam C. Cooper. (S. D. 401-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
April — , 1901, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal;
that supplies worth $815 were taken for Army use ; claim never pre-
sented prior to presentation to Congress ; that claimant could not read
or write and had no knowledge of existence of Southern Claims Com-
mission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
John Coppinger. (H. D. 228-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court February 21, 1906. Court finds claimant loyal ; that supplies
worth $315 were taken for Army use. Filed with Chiims Commis-
sion; appears page 56, Claims Commission index.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Daniel Covington. (James H. Covington and Benjamin Coving-
ton, sole heirs.) (H. D. 481-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
January 9, 1906. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth
$225 were taken for Army use; that James H. Covington and Benja-
min Covington are sole surviving heirs. Claim filed with Claims
Commission ; found on page 57 of that index.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
William Crlttchfield. (Thomas W. Crutchfield, executor.) (S. D.
125-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 28, 1908. by Senate
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that United States forces
occupied certain real estate of decedent ; that reasonable rental value,
with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $3,850; that
claim was presented to Claims Commission, but items of rent and
damages were rejected, evidently for lack of jurisdiction.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Rebecca CuarMiNGS. (J. W. Cummings, administrator.) (H. D.
171-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 26, 1901. Court
finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $666 were taken from her
CLAIMS UXDEE THE BOWMAX AXD TUCKER ACTS;, ETC. 159
for Army use. it appearing that this represents her interest in prop-
erty taken from her and others. Chiim tried under Bowman Act, so
it must have been j^reviouslj^ presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Elvixa Cunxyxgham. (R. C. M. and W. H. Cunnyngham, execu-
tors.) (H. D. 498-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February
13, 1900. Court finds decedent loyal ; that supplies were taken worth
$933 for Army use. Claim is found on page 61, Claims Commission
index.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth and Sixty-second
Congresses.
LucKETT Davis. (C. Pv. Holmes, administrator.) (H. D. 360-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 27, 1888. Court finds decedent
loyal; that supplies worth $1,490 were taken for Army use. Claim
tried under Bowman Act, so must have been previously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Harriet Day. (AVoodson H. Webb, administrator.) (H. D. 734-
59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court August 6, 1888, Court finds
decedent loyal : that supplies worth $310 were taken for Army use
from decedent. Claim presented to Claims Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
William H. Daavsox. (H. D. 414-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court January 26, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies
worth $680 were taken for Army use. Claim found on page 65,
Claims Commission index.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Robert A. Dickson. (H. D, 848-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court January 26, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies
worth $142 Avere taken for Army use. Claim found page 68, Claims
Commission index.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Martix Dill. (John J. Christenberrv. administrator.) (H. D.
573-62-2.) Bowmian Act. Sent to court March 29, 1906. Court
finds decedent loyal ; Army supplies worth $160 taken. Claim found
page 68, Claims Commission index.
Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill.
Lydia Dillard. (H. D. 626-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
January 12, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies worth
$100 w^ere taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act, so must
have been previously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John Doherty. (P. J. McGlynnan. administrator.) (H. D. 915-
61-2.) Bowman Act. This claim is a consolidation of two claims.
160 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC.
presented to Qiiartermnster General; one was sent to court under
Bowman Act August 1, 1888; the other was sent to court under
Bowman Act February 4. 1908. Court finds decedent loyal; that
supplies worth $1,600 were taken for Army use. Claim was presented
to Quartermaster General, as above mentioned.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresse:^.
Adaline P]lliott. (Jimmie A. Elliott, sole beneficiary.) (S. D.
129-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1909, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds decedent loyal ; that United States forces occupied
real estate of decedent January 5, 1863, to June 4, 1863 ; that reason-
able rental was $160; that claim was presented to Quartermaster
General in 1869; court reports that claim is equitable in that the
Government received benefit of use and occupation mentioned.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Thomas A. Elliott. (Jimmie A. Elliott, sole leo-atee.) (S. D.
132-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1909,^by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds decedent loyal; that United States forces occu-
pied his real estate as commissary storehouse January 10. 1863-July
17, 1865; reasonable rental was $1,020; that claim was presented to
Quartermaster General in 1865 and dismissed for want of jurisdic-
tion; was again presented in 1866 to the Secretary of War and
recommended for allowance; later presented to Forty-second and
later Congresses; court reports claim equitable in that Government
received benefit of use and occupation mentioned.
Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress.
Warham Easley. (H. D. 235-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
March 4, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal ; that supplies worth $2,807
taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act and must have been
previously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixtj^-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Edwaed W. Eggleston. (H. D. 389-60^1.) Bowman Act. Sent
to court July 10. 1888. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies
worth $590 taken for Army use. Claim tried under Bowman Act, so
must have been previously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Joseph Ewing. (H. D. 299-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
January 12, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies worth
$90 taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act, so claim must
have been previously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Lemuel Farmer. (John B. McEwen. executor.) (H. D. 358-
60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 6, 1888. Court finds de-
cedent loyal; that supplies worth $340 taken for Army use. Tried
under Bowman Act and must have been previously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
,Sixty-second Congi^esses.
CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 161
Archie B. Forbess. (W. F. Forbess, administrator.) (H, D.
378-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906. by House
resolution. Court finds decedent loj^al; that supplies worth $2,600
were taken for Army use by proper authority ; part of this property
was cotton, but in view of the explicit finding of the court as to the
nature of the taking for Army use it is believed that this property
should be considered an Army supply: probably taken for hospital
purposes.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second
Congresses.
EiAL Foster. (H. D. 627-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
January 12. 1904. Court finds claimant loyal: supplies worth $l;]5
taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act, hence must hii\e
been previously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, aivl
Sixty-second Congresses.
Hiram Gailey. (Julia Gailey. sole heir.) (H. D. 122-59-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 26. 1901. Court finds decedent
loyal: supplies worth $232 taken for Army use. Case tried under
Bowman Act. so must have been previously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Z. H. German. (John W. Harvev. jr., administrator.) (H. D.
225-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to Vourt March 30, 1S88. Court
finds decedent hjyal: supplies worth $500 taken for 9rmy use; tried
under Bowman Act, so must have been previousl}^ presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixt}-second Congresses.
John G. Henson (guardian of Mrs. Catherine J. Gilson, insane,
and administrator of Samuel L. Gilson.) (H. D. 557-59-2.) Bow-
man Act. Sent to court March 26, 1892. Court finds Catherine J.
Gilson and Samuel L. Gilson loyal; that supplies worth $945 were
taken from them for Army use. It appears that claims Avere pre-
sented to Quartermaster General. Evidently Mrs. Gilson is now in-
sane and represented by her guardian.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House m Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Minna H. Glassie. (S. D. 191-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
March 3, 1901. by Senate resolution. Court finds Minna H. Glassie
and her decedent. Joseph C. Nash, loyal ; that their coowner, Emma
Nash, was not loyal. The three persons mentioned owned land from
which timber worth $2,115 was taken. One third interest, belonging to
Emma Nash (not loyal) , is eliminated. The court reports that Minna
H. Glassie is entitled to the other two-thirds, evidently in her own
right and as heir of the decedent, Joseph C. Nash. Therefore the
sum of $1,410 should be paid to Minna H. Glassie. It is true that the
court does not report the facts which prove Minna H. Glassie to be
the owner of two-thirds interest; but that is a matter of evidence and
Congress certainly has a right to rely upon the statement of the court
as to her interest.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
19855— H. Kept. 97, 63-2 11
162 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Charles Gotthardt. (George W. Pearson, administrator.) (H.
D. 542-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 9. 1906. Court
finds decedent loyal; that supplies (leather) worth $1,575 were taken
from him for Army use. Claim presented to Claims Commission
and was previously presented in 1868 to a State commission of Ten-
nessee and was approved by Gov. BrownloAv.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Ella M. Guy. (H. D. 668-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
March 2, 1885. Court finds claimant loyal; supplies worth $6,412
taken for Army use by proper authority. Claim certified too late for
consideration in connection with previous bills.
George B. Harlan. (Peter H. Harlan, administrator.) (H. D.
37-61-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 6. 1906. Court finds
decedent loyal; that supplies worth $1,060 were taken for Army use.
From the statement of case it would seem that claim was rejected by
Claims Commission because of bankruptcy of the then beneficiary,
which was no reason at all.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Daniel B. Harold. (D. N. Kelley, administrator.) (H. D.
908-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 18, 1910, by House
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal ; that timber was taken from
him for military purposes, by proper authority, worth $1,265; that
claim was presented to Claims Commission and was later sent to
court under Bowman Act, and still later sent under Tucker Act.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Thomas C. Hawley. (James .C. Anderson, administrator.)
(S. D. 242-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by
Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth
$1,030 were taken for Army use; that soon after close of war claim
was presented to a State claims commission, was favorably consid-
ered and approved by the governor.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
John Haynes. (W. O. Batey, administrator.) (H. D. 413-
CO-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 1, 1888. Court finds de-
cedent loyal; that supplies worth $675 were taken for Army use.
The fact that claim was tried under Bowman Act shows it must have
been previously presented to Quartermaster General, as it does not
appear on index of Claims Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
F. S. Heiskell. (R. M. Rogan, administrator.) (H. D. 796-
CO-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 16, 1902. Court
finds Heiskell loyal; that real estate in which he owned an interest
was occupied for guardhouse purposes; that grain in which he
owned an interest Avas also taken; that Heiskell's interest in rental
value and value of the grain was $390. Being tried under Bowman
Act claim must have been previously presented. Claim appears page
108 Claims Commission index.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 163
John Henson. (W. R. Henson, administrator.) (H. D. 333-
59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court July 10, 1888. Court finds
decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $2,990 were taken for Army use.
Tried under Bowman Act. and therefore must have been previously
presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John A. Herrod. (H. D. 502-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court February 17, 1890. Court finds claimant loyal ; that supplies
worth $400 Avere taken for Army use. Tried under Bownum Act,
so must have been previously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John W. Hester. (John T. Hester, administrator.) (S. D.
271-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal: that property worth $1,190
was taken for Army use. It is alleged in petition that claim was not
presented to the Claims Commission, because prior to the establish-
ment of that commission decedent had passed through bankruptcy,
which precluded favorable consideration by that commission. This
fact of bankruptcy was not reported by the court. While it is not
the custom of the committee to go behind the findings of the court,
in this case the files of the court have been exhibited to the committee,
showing that record proof was submitted to the court showing the
bankruptc}^ mentioned. This material fact ought to have been re-
ported by the court. At any rate, the findings show the claim to be
just.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Charles W. Hewgley. (H. D. 568-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent
to court July 10, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies
'worth $580 were taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act,
so must have been previously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John R. Hickman. (J. M. Nelson, administrator.) (H, D.
906-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 4, 1908. Court
finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $195 were taken for Army
use. Claim appears page 110 index of Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty -first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Catherine Hopson. (J. B. Carter, administrator.) (H. D.
18-62-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 28, 1906. Court
finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $90 were taken for Army
use. Tried under Bowman Act, so must have been previously pre-
sented.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Thomas Hord. (Sarah Bibb et al.. heirs.) (H. D. 32-59-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court February 3, 1903. Court finds decedent
loyal; that supplies worth $2,913 were taken for Army use. The
claim is for cotton, which was taken for hospital purposes, and must
164 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AXD TUCKEE ACTS, ETC.
therefore be considered an Army supph". Tried under Bowman Act^
so must have been previously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Brice M. Hughes. (E. P. Moss, administrator.) (H. D.
4()2-G2-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 6, 1888. The find-
ings of the court are not as clearly drawn as they should have been.
, Careful examination shows that Brice Hughes, William Hughes, and
Mrs, Sallie M. E. Ewing were loyal; that supplies were taken,
wherein the three persons mentioned owned together a three-fourths
interest, amounting to $900.
As Moss appears to be administrator only of Brice M, Hughes,
appropriation should be made as follows:
To Mrs. Sallie M. E. Ewing, AYillinm Hughes, and Brice M. Hughes, deceased,
late of Williamson County, in equal shares, nine hundred dollars.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
John Hughes. (H. D. 244-GO-l.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim
for difference in pay, $43.33.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Hugh C. Jackson. (Baxter Smith, administrator.) (H. D.
57-61-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 15, 1906. Court
finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $2,795 were taken for Army
use. Claim presented to Commissary General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
David Jameson. (Robert C. Jameson, administrator.) (S. D.
335-57-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 2, 1900, by Senate
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that he was half owner of a
building in Memphis, which was occupied for Army purposes from
July 31, 1862. to August 1. 1863; that reasonable rental value was
$1,800, of which decedent would be entitled to $900; that claim was
first presented to Congress in 1874, and was sent to court under
Bowman Act in 1884, and later dismissed. Cause for dismissal of
Bowman Act case was evidently lack of jurisdiction.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Henry Johnson. (J. E. Smalling, administrator.) (H. D. 542-
6-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 23, 1908. Court finds
decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $450 were taken for Army use.
Claim previously presented to Quartermaster General and Commis-
sary General, and also to Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Richard M. Johnson. (H. D. 573-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay, $183.26.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Mrs. Pettie Light Johnston and Scrappy Light Bradshaw.
(H. D. 58-61-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court July 10, 1888. Court
finds these two claimants loyal ; that supplies were taken from them
and their coowners for Armv use; that the interests of these two
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 165
claimants therein amount to $327.50. Claim presented to Quarter-
master General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Nathaniel W. Jones. (S. D. ^31-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court June 15. 190-2, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal; that supplies worth $480 were taken for Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Henry J. Kinzel. (H. D. 173-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court Januar}^ 9, 1906. Court finds clamiant loj^al; that supplies
worth $60 were taken for Army use. Claim filed with Quarter-
master General.
Passed House in Sixtj^-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
John Krider. (E. M. McNamee. administrator.) (H. D. 327-
59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 12, 1891. Court finds
decedent loyal; that supplies worth $221 were taken for Army use.
Being tried under Bowman Act claim nnist have been presented to
Commissary General, as it is not on Claims Commission index.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
William H. Landrum. (H. D. 710-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent
to court January 9. 1906. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies
worth $257 were taken for Army use. Owing to fact that this same
man was once paid a claim the committee found it necessary to in-
vestigate this case, to avoid any possible second payment. This in-
vestigation showed that this man filed one claim with Quarter-
master General and another with Commissary General. The Quarter-
master General claim was paid in 1905. The present claim is for
commissary supplies, and is an altogether ditt'erent claim from that
which was paid.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
An IS Laavrence. (H. D. 362-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
March 2, 1891. Court finds claimant loyal : that supplies worth $415
were taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act, which means it
must have been previously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Joe Lester. (Maria Lester, widow.) (H. D. 114.5-60-2.) Bow-
man Act. Sent to court January 30, 1906. Court finds decedent
loyal; that supplies worth $225 were taken for Army use. Tried
under Bowman Act; therefore was previously presented.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Abner D. Lewis. (S. D. 85-56-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
first time under Bowman Act in December, 1884 ; claimant was found
loyal in 1886, but case was dismissed as to supplies taken in Arkan-
sas, because claim for that property had not been presented to Claims
Commission. An allowance was made under that reference for
propert}^ taken in Tennessee, as that claim had been filed before
Claims Commission. June 5, 1896, the claim for property taken in
Arkansas was referred bv Senate resolution.
166 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TITCKEE ACTS, ETC.
Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies worth $5,080 were taken
in Arkansas for Army use. exclusive of cotton, no allowance being
made for that item.
It hayin^o; been noted by the committee that this man had been paid
one claim, it became necessary to carefully investigate the present
one to avoid any possible duplication of payment. Investigation
shows that this man had a farm in Arkansas and another in Ten-
nessee, and that property was taken from both farms. His home
was in Tennessee. He filed a claim before the Claims Commission
for property taken from the Tennessee place; that claim was re-
jected by the commission because he had passed through bankruptcy.
Evidently after that experience with his Tennessee claim Lewis did
not deem it necessary to then waste further money in the futile effort
to prosecute his Arkansas claim before that commission. Having
passed through bankruptcy, this man could not possibly have secured
payment of this claim before that commission. This claim is entirely
distinct from that which was paid.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Elizabeth Lewis. (H. D. 380-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court May 12, 1908. Court finds claimant loyal ; that supplies worth
$220 were taken for Army use. Claim filed with Quartermaster
General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixtj^-second Congresses.
Benjamin LiLLARD. (Benjamin F. Lillard, administrator.) (H. D.
148-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 18, 1903, by House
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $16,865
were taken for Army use. exclusive of item of cotton, as to which no
allowance was made. AAHiile not so reported by the court, the claim
IS found on page 144 of Claims Commission index, showing it was
filed with that commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Charity M. Locke. (A. J. Williford, administrator.) (S. D.
01-58-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 27, 1901, by Senate
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $695
were taken for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
James G. Logan. (E. D. Grizzle, administrator.) (H. D. 346-
62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court June 15, 1892. Court finds de-
cedent loyal; that supplies worth $440 were taken for Army use.
Tried under BoAvman Act. so must have been previously presented.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
John McClarin. (C. R. McClarin, administrator.) (H. D. 80-
62-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court August 1, 1888. Court finds
decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $320 were taken for Army use.
Tried under Bowman Act, hence previously presented.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
(teorge W. McGrew. (B. F. McGrew. administrator.) S. D. 150-
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $7,315 were
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 167
taken for Army use: that claim was presented to Quartermaster
General in 1875.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Davu) V. Marxey. (W. a. Simpson, administrator.) (H. I).
902-61-2.) BoATman Act. Sent to court February 4, 1908. Court
finds decedent loyal : supplies worth $867 taken for Army use. Claim
filed with Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
WiixiAM M. Mayfield. (O. S. Shannon, administrator.) (H. D.
384-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 1, 1888. Court finds
decedent loyal ; supplies worth $650 taken for Army use ; claim filed
with Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
James E. Meacham. (S. D. 190-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court April 26. 1904. by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal ; that his premises at Chattanooga were occupied for Army use
and buildings torn down and materials used; rental value during oc-
cupancy and value of materials taken by Army are $750. Could not
have been collected before Quartermaster General or Claims Com-
mission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixtieth,
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
Patrick G. AIeath. (S. D. 180-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court June 5. 1900. by Senate resolution. Court reports claimant
loyal ; that United States forces occupied real estate described in peti-
tion for two years and a half; also took property of kinds described
in petition : also used and damaged the steamboat Le Grand; all
of reasonable worth, $27,280. Court further reports that a claim for
$36,947 was presented to Claims Commission, but did not include the
items of rents or damage to property nor use or damage of steamboat ;
presented to Congress as early as Fifty-fourth Congress. Claims
Commission and Quartermaster General could not have allowed the
present claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses.
City of Memphis. Tenn. (S. D. 75-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent
to court March 2. 1903, by Senate resolution. The material facts re-
ported by the court are :
United States forces occupied certain real estate belonging to the
city for militaiy purposes, for quarters, barracks, supply depot, and
for manufacture of supplies, etc. Exact dates are shown in the find-
ings. Occupation of some of the premises lasted several years after
close of war.
In 1878 the city was paid the sum of $9,358.99 as rent of premises
after April 2. 1866, but has received nothing as rent accruing prior
to that date.
This claim is for rent from January 1, 1863, to April 2, 1866, and
court reports rental value during that time amounts to $21,192.88,
that being the sum the city Avould have received from its regular
tenants had they not been dispossessed b}' the Government.
168 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
The last finding- of the court is to etfect that Tennessee was ex-
cepted by President Lincoln from his proclamation of January 1,
1863. designating States then in rebellion, and for that reason other
claimants were paid rent in Memphis.
The court has not found the city to have been loyal throughout the
Avar, but under the circumstances that is immaterial, just as it would
be in case of the city of Baltimore, mentioned in considering the
Maryland claims.
This is shown by decision of Court of Claims in case of Xeal v.
United States (21 C. Cls. Kept.. 240). Referring to the emancipation
proclamation of President Lincoln (12 Stat., 1268), the court said:
On the 1st of January. ISO.S, the President issued the proclamation of emanci-
l)ation. wherein he recited the provisions above referred to of the preceding
proclamation, and declared that in accordance with his purpose, •'publicly
proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days," he did " order and designate
as the States and parts of States wherein the ptople thereof, respectively, are
this day in rebellion against the United States the following," and Tennessee
was not one of them.
After reciting various acts of Congress whereby Tennessee was
treated thereafter as a loyal State and as though it had never been
disloyal, the court further said:
Upon this executive and legislati\e action, and for the reasons set forth in
lleflebower's case (.just decided), of which this is a serpiel. the court bases its
conclusion that on the 1st January, 1863, the State of Tennessee ceased to be
hostile territory, and from that time can not be regarded as the seat of war
within the meaning of the third section of the Bowman Act.
It seems very plain that if Tennessee was not in rebellion after
January 1. 1863 — if it was not disloyal territory, as decided by the
court — then the city of Memphis, in that State, was just as much en-
titled to receive pay for use of its property as would have been the
city of Xew York or Chicago in other loyal States.
As before mentioned, the claim was made to the Quartermaster
General and was allowed, as he thought, to the extent which he
could alloAv it under then existing conditions and constructions of
the laAV.
The claim is just, and every fact has been reported h\ the court.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Felicia Z. Metcai.f, Louisa Z. Sansom, and Mary D. Z. Gaither.
(S. D. 346-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 24, 1911.
The printed findings in this case are entitled " Octavia Z. Bond and
others." The reported facts are, in brief, as follows:
Felicia Z. Metcalf, Louisa Z. Sansom. and Mary D. Z. Gaither
were loyal by reason of tender years; their coowners (apparently
their sisters), Octavia Z. Bond and Virginia Z. Wilson, were not
loyal.
United States forces, by proper authority, occupied real estate be-
longing to the five owners mentioned; reasonable rental value, with
damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $15.r)00.
The court fails to set forth the computation as to the relative inter-
ests of each of the five owners. Each would take one-fifth of the
total amount found, or $3,100. Eliminating the interests of the two
owners who were found not loyal, it follows that the three loyal
owners, Felicia Z. Metcalf, Louisa Z. Sansom, and Mary D. Z.
Gaither should be paid each $3,100, or a total of $9,300, in equal
shares.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 169
It would appear that Mary D. Z. Gaither is deceased, but the court
fails to report explicitly who are her heirs. For this reason appro-
priation should be made for her interest to her estate, leaving dis-
tribution to be made by the proper probate court.
The court further reports that claim was presented to Quarter-
master General in 1864 and rejected; that claim is equitable.
Case was tried too late for inclusion in previous bill.
James P. Moore. (Mora B. Fariss, administratrix.) (H. D.
322-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 26, 1904. Court
finds decedent loyal; supplies worth $2,100 taken for Army tise.
Tried under Bowman Act, therefore must have been previously
presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Hexry M. Neely. (John H. Neely, administrator.) (H. D.
690-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 4, 1908. Court
finds decedent loyal; supplies worth $5,450 taken for Army use.
Claim filed with Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixtj^-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Samuel B. Nelson. (Louis Nelson, administrator.) (H. D.
119-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 4, 1904. Court finds
decedent loyal; supplies worth $2,170 taken for Army use. Tried
under Bowman Act; hence previously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixtj^-second Congresses.
B. B. Neville. (C. A. Russell, administratrix.) (S. D. 14-58-3.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 21, 1900, by Senate resolution.
Court finds decedent loyal; supplies worth $5,282 taken for Army
use. Claimant testifies as reason for not earlier presenting claim that
she understood no claims would be paid unless accompanied by
vouchers.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Oswell p. Newby. (Mrs. Mary K. Henry et al., heirs). (S. D.
179_59_2.) Tucker Act. Claim first sent to court June IT, 1886,
under Bowman Act; was dismissed in 1896 for lack of jurisdiction.
March 21, 1900, was referred, under Tucker Act, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds decedent loyal ; that United States forces occupied
decedent's real estate in Memphis about 2^ years ; reasonable rental
value was $4,500. Court reports presentation to Congress prior
to enactment of Tucker Act ; that means claim was presented before
there was any jurisdiction to entertain it. The heirs are Mrs. Mary
K. Henry, Mrs. Alice A. Pope, Mrs. Jennie Alexander, and Nannie
Newby.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
^y. ^Y. Newhouse. (Francis M. Newhouse, administrator.) (H. D.
445-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 26, 1895. Court
finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $575 taken for Army use.
Claim filed with Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
170 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS; ETC.
John Xorth. (Silas H. Henry, executor.) (H. D. 1297-61-3.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906. by House resolution.
Court finds decedent loyal ; supplies worth $791 taken for Army use.
Decedent tried in his lifetime to present his claim by a receipt for
part of property. Court reports conclusion that claim is equitable.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Charles X. Ordway. (J. Minnick AYilliams, administrator.)
(H. D. 863-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 7, 1888. Court
finds decedent loyal; supplies worth $3,025 taken for Army use.
Claim found page 178, Claims Commission index.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Overton Hotel Co. (S. D. 6-55-2.) Tucker Act. This claim
was first sent to court under Bowman Act March 4, 1885. It was
dismissed under that reference for lack of jurisdiction, because it
was a claim for rent of Memphis property, and the occupancy began
June 6, 1862, while Memphis was still " seat of war," and because
the Bowman Act excluded from court's jurisdiction claims arising
from occupation of real estate at " seat of war." The decision of the
court refusing to consider the claim under Bowman Act is found in
case of Overton Hotel Co. v. United States (23d Court of Claims
Eept., 186.)
Later claim was sent to court under Tucker Act by Senate resolu-
tion June 11. 1896. As first presented claim was made for rent only
from January 1, 1863, when Tennessee ceased to be " seat of war." to
September, 1865. The court then said that the occupation having
begun in June, 1862, it must dismiss the claim, under the Bowman
Act, even though the period for which rent was asked began January
1. 1863.
Under the Tucker Act trial the court finds that Federal forces
occupied Memphis June 6, 1862. After stating that fact and some-
thing of previous liistory of the claim, the court reported :
The property was then immediately occupied by the United States forces, and
its use as a hospital was continued (not only for their own sick and wounded
soldiers, but also for those of the Confederate Army found there) until Septem-
ber, 1865. when it was surrendered to the claimant corporation. The ground
floor of the building was intended for shops; second and upper stoi'ies were
intended for a hotel.
The building had not been entirely completed when occupied as aforesaid.
The hotel had been leased (before the occupancy aforesaid) to James P. M.
Stetson for the term of five years from 1861 at an annual rental of .$20,000.
A reasonable rental of this building for hospital purposes during the period
in question was .$20,000; the rental at this rate from January 1, 1863, to Sep-
tember 1, 1865, is fifty-three thousand three hundred and thirty-three dollars
(53,333), for which no payment appears to have been made.
It will be noted that the court finds :
1. Occupation from June 6. 1862, to September 1, 1865,
2. That rental value was $20,000 per year.
After stating those facts, however, the court computed the rental
for the period between January 1, 1863, and September 1, 1865, as
amounting to $53,333, which computation did not include the period
from June 6, 1862, to January 1. 1863. This rather peculiar action by
the court will be explaine-d by examination of the Senate resolution of
reference, which is set out by the court, and which in terms refers the
claim to the court —
to find and report to the Senate the facts bearing njyon the merits of the f^-laim
as to the term of occupancy of the said Overton Hotel from the 1st of January,
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 171
1863, at which date the said Court of Claims having determined that the State
of Tennessee ceased to be hostile territory, and therefore not to be regarded as
the seat of war within the meaning of the third section of the Bowman Act
Csee Neal r. V. S., C. Cls. R., 21, p. 240), and the rental valne of said property
during said term of occupancy, and all other facts contemplated by the pro-
visions of said act.
It is seen that the resohition of reference expressly directed the
court to report the rental value from the 1st of January, 1863. For
that reason the computation by the court began with that date. At
the same time, however, the court reported the further fact that the
occupancy actually began June 6, 1862. The court could not have
gone further than it did under the peculiar wording of the resolution
of reference.
When it was later considered by Congress these details were ap-
parently overlooked, as appropriation was made in the omnibus
claims bill approved March 3. 1899 (30 Stats., 1189), in the follow-
ing language:
To Amos Woodruff, president of the Overton Hotel Company, of Memphis,
Tennessee, for use of hotel as military hospital from January first, eighteen
hundred and sixty-three, to September first, eighteen hundred and sixty-five,
fifty-three thousand three hundred and thirty-three dollars.
From these facts it is clear that the company has never been paid
for that period of occupancy from June 6, 1862, to January 1, 1863,
which, at the annual rental value fixed by the court, would be $11,388.
It has been suggested that the payment of $53,333 in 1899 operated
to extinguish the entire claim ; but the committee does not agree with
that idea as the appropriation expressly stated the period of occu-
pancy for which the payment was made, thereby necessarily exclud-
ing from consideration at that time any other or different period of
occupancy. Stated otherwise, it is plain that the sum of $11,388 still
remains due the company, never having been paid as yet.
The very fact that the previous payment stated in so many words
that it covered only a certain described period of occupancy, prevents
that previous payment from acting as a bar to payment of the present
claim. Had the other appropriation stated that the sum of $53,333
was appropriated in full payment for all occupancy of the premises,
then acceptance of that sum would have forever settled the whole
claim ; but under the wording of the previous appropriation, it can
not be considered as covering more than the occupancy described in
the act itself, i. e., January 1. 1863. to September 1, 1865.
There is no room for question as to the facts, as they have all been
reported by the court. They show this company to be entitled to
$11,388 at the present time.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Alexander M. Owen. (H. D. 441-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent
to court April 19, 1898. Court finds claimant loyal; supplies worth
$40 taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act; hence was pre-
viously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Mary Parker. (H. D. 176-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
January 26, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal; supplies worth $656
172 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
taken for Army use. Claim tried under Bowman Act, so was pre-
viously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Henly Patton. (H. D. 383-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
January 31, 1907. Court finds claimant loyal; supplies worth $200
taken for Army use. Claim presented to Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixt^'-second Congresses.
James L. Paul. (James T. Moore, administrator.) (S. D. 412-
62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3. 1905, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court reports decedent loyal : Army supplies worth $975 taken ;
claim presented to Quartermaster General, Court reports that claim
is equitable.
Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill.
John R. Pearson. (A. P. Young, administrator.) (H. D. 233-
59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court Januarj^ 9, 1906. Court finds
decedent loyal; supplies worth $2,579 taken for Army use. Case
tried under Bowman Act; hence was previously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Hexry Pepper and Elizabeth H. Cle%^land. (S. D, 472-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court May 17. 1906. by Senate resolution.
Facts found by court are as follows :
In 1862 William Pepper died intestate, leavin.s survivinj; him as only heirs
three children, Mary Ann Pepper (later ^frs. Webster), born ^Lirch. 1848:
Henry Pepper, born July, 1849: and Elizabeth H. Pepper (now Cleveland'),
born February, 1851. These three children are found loyal. After the death
of their father, and while title was vested in these three children. Army sup-
plies worth $1,875 were taken from them. INIrs. Webster is now deceasetl. and
her brother, Henry Pepper, and lier sister, Mrs. Elizabeth H. Cleveland, pres-
ent claimants, are her only lieirs. to whom ai)propriation should be made.
These three claimants were young during the short time the Claims Commis-
sion Avas open to filing of claims, and one did not attain majority until that
time had partly elapsed.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
OcTAviA R. Polk. (S. D. 326-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
March 3, 1905, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal;
supplies worth $2,919 taken for Army use.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress,
XiMROD Porter. (Thomas L. Porter, administrator.) (H. D. 321-
62-2.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court July 30, 1886. Court finds de-
cedent loyal; supplies worth $3,160 taken for Army use. Claim filed
with Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Washington Pryor. (Marv A. Prvor. administratrix.) (H. D.
672-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 19, 1906. Court re-
ports decedent loyal ; Army supplies worth $820 taken. Claim pre-
viously presented to Commissary General; was once presented to a
military claims board at Chattanooga, Tenn., which made an allow-
ance of" $1,467.20 in 1864. which was never paid.
Claim tried too late for inclusion in previous bill.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 173
William Raines. (H. D. 868-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
February 9, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal; supplies worth $155
taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act, so must have been
previously filed.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixtj^-first, and
Sixty- second Congresses.
James S. Read. (Frank Read, administrator.) (H. D. 386-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court April 20. 1888. Court finds decedent
loyal; Army supplies worth $715 taken. Tried under Bowman Act,
so must have been previously filed.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
William H. Reagan. (S. D. 713-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court March 3, 1908, by Senate resolution. Court reports claimant
loyal. He served as corporal and sergeant in TenneSvSee Volunteer
Cavalry. He rode his oAvn horse, and in battle, when his company
was attacked, was compelled to abandon the horse, which was not
thereafter recovered. The horse was worth $50 at that time and
place. Claim filed in 1883 with Third Auditor, but then rejected for
insufficient proof.
The court reports as its conclusion that, under circumstances speci-
fied, claimant could have prosecuted his claim in the court under its
general jurisdiction; that claim is equitable, as horse was lost in
exigencies of services during battle, witliout fault of claimant.
This would appear to be a claim Avhich was legal, and is undoubt'
edly equitable. .
Claim tried too late for inclusion in previous bill.
Lewellen Rhodes. (T. X. Rhodes, administrator.) (H. D. 660-
60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court April 10, 1888. Court finds de-
cedent loyal ; supplies worth $290 taken for Army use. Tried under
Bowman Act, so was previously presented.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Margaret Robertson. (J. G. Robertson, administrator.) (H. D.
531-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 9, 1906. Court
finds decedent loyal ; Army supplies worth $900 taken. Presented to
Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Mrs. Jane Elizabeth Rodes. (John B. Atchison and Clifton R.
Atchison, heirs.) (H. D. 888-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
August 1, 1888. Court finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth
$2,140 taken from her. John B. Atchison and Clifton R. Atchison
present parties in interest. Claim found on page 202, Claims Com-
mission index.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
James W. Roulston. (Laura E. Roulston, administratrix.)
(H. D. 404-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court July 10, 1888.
Court finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $272 taken from
him. Claim rejected by Claims Commission because decedent had
passed through bankruptcy. Was later presented to the Fiftieth
174 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Congress. The ground of rejection by Claims Commission was
wholl^^ untenable.
Passed the Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first,
and Sixtj^-second Congresses.
Thomas D. Ruffin. (S. D. 468-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court April 26, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal; Army supplies worth $1,400 taken, no allowance being made
for cotton.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
W. J. Sawyers. (S. D. 3-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
April 26, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal, he
having been born in August. 1859. being less than 6 years old in
April. 1865. Court further reports that he was owner of one-fifth
interest in an undivided estate from which timber was taken for
Army use; that his one-fifth interest in the property so taken
amounted to $1,908. Claim for the entire value of property taken
was filed with Quartermaster General.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
JUI.IA MooKE Seldon. (S. D. 99-56-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court July 5, 1898, by Senate resolution. Court finds that Mrs. Julia
Moore Seldon (formerly Driver) did not attain majority until some
years after the war and rendered no aid or comfort to the Rebellion.
She was under 18 years of age at time of surrender in April, 1865.
In case of a girl of her age, the finding that she gave no aid to Re-
bellion must in reason be regarded as practically equivalent to an
affirmative finding of loyalty.
During the war this girl owned a one-half interest in certain real
estate at Memphis, Tenn., containing valuable improvements; prop-
erty was occupied by United States forces from January 1, 1863, to
April 1, 1866, part of the time as Gen. Grant's headquarters and there-
after as hospital. Total rental value during this period was $5,850,
of which one-half, or $2,925, belongs to the claimant.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
W. W. Sharp. (C. H. Com, administrator.) (H. D. 630-59-2.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court March 4, 1887. Court finds decedent
loyal; Army supplies worth $1,248 taken. Claim filed with Claims
Commission, appearing on page 210 of published index.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John Smith. (William M. Moss, administrator.) (H. D.
387-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 20, 1903, by
House resolution. Court finds decedent loyal ; Army supplies worth
$1,600 taken.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Margaret E. Smith. (H. D. 385-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent
to court P'ebruary 4, 1908. Court finds claimant loyal; Army sup-
plies worth $860 taken. Filed with Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 175
Warrex F. Speed. (John M. Speed, heir.) (H. D. 642-59-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 12. 1904. Court finds de-
cedent loyal: supplies worth $310 taken. Tried under Bowman
Act: hence must have been previously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Sallte B. Stamper. (H. D. 877-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court ^Nlarch 17. 1904. Court finds claimant loyal: supplies worth
$1,110 taken for Arm}^ use. Tried under Bowman Act; necessarily
previously presented.
Passed House in Sixt^^-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Mark Stone. (William Stone, heir.) (H. D. 300-59-1.) Bow-
man Act. Sent to court January 12, 1904. Court finds claimant
loyal: Army supplies Avorth $110 taken. Claim rejected by Quarter-
master General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
M. T. Savick. (S. D. 287-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
in March, 1902, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal;
Army supplies worth $1,985 taken from him.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Mary F. Swindell. (North Memphis Savings Bank, adminis-
trator.) 0^. D. 559-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 7.
1910, by Senate resolution. Court reports that decedent (formerly
Mary F. Morris) Avas loyal; that United States forces occupied her
real estate in Memphis, exact months being designated in petition;
that rental value, with damages incident thereto, was $650. Court
further reports claim presented to Quartermaster General in 1867
and rejected for lack of jurisdiction; also presented to State Claims
Commission and approved by that commission; referred to court
some years ago under Bowman Act (apparently in 1902). It would
appear that this claimant started to prosecute the claim as early as
1867, but as yet without success.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Isaac Tipton. (Clarissa H. Tipton, administratrix.) (H. D.
230-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 3, 1903. Court
finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $82 taken. Tried under
Bowman Act; hence was pre^dously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
George Todd. (H. D. 359-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
February 14, 1889. Court finds claimant loyal ; supplies worth $110
taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act, so was necessarily
previously presented.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
J. J. Todd. (Mrs. Sallie H. Perkins, daughter and heir.) (S. D.
15-56-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court July 17, 1897. Facts reported
by court are practically as follows ; J. J. Todd died in August, 1861,
176 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
leaving- his property to his minor daughter, Trho later became Mrs.
Sallie H. Perkins. This girl married during minority; she married
a Confederate soldier, who, immediately^ after marriage, left the
army and devoted his attention to the care of his wife's property ; the
court states that Mrs. Perkins desired her husband to keep out of the
Confederate service; did not desire " subjugation" of the South, but
gave no assistance or practical sympathy to either side. It appears
that the property was taken in 1862 and 1863, while Mrs. Perkins was
still a minor.
Court further reports that Army supplies worth $5,684 were taken.
The only question is whether the claim should be paid in view of the
finding on loyalty. It has been held that a presumption of disloyalty
arises only from a voluntary residence in an insurrectionary State.
It has further been held by the Supreme Court that a minor has no
legal power to change his residence. (See Lamar v. Micou. 112 U. S.,
452.) It would thus appear that there was no presumption of dis-
loyalty against this girl during her minority. Before she became of
age Tennessee had ceased to be seat of war under the President's
proclamation of January 1. 1863. The committee believes that under
these facts the claim may properly be paid.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Alpheus Tritett. (H. D. 640-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court March 31, 1908. Court finds claimant loyal; Army supplies
worth $700 taken. Claim filed with Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
William L. Vance. (George T. Vance and Guv P. Vance, ex-
ecutors.) (S. D. 22-54-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to^court April 21,
1892. by Senate resolution. The facts of this case are very extraor-
dinary. As reported by the court, they are as follows :
Robertson Topp and William L. Vance were loyal citizens, trad-
ing under the firm name of Topp & Vance. William L. Vance was
the surviving partner of the firm, and the present claimants, George
T. Vance and Guy P. Vance, are his executors.
The firm of Topp & Vance owned certain cotton, being 170 bales;
it was taken by proper military authorities ; while being held by the
military authorities an order was issued to turn over to the agent of
one James Nolan 600 bales of Government cotton in satisfaction of
his claim for that quantity of cotton which had been taken. In exe-
cution of that order the officer in charge turned over to Nolan the 170
bales belonging to Topp & Vance. The cotton was at the time
identified by the agent of Topp & Vance, and the transfer to Nolan
was made against protest of their agent.
From this it appears that the Government, practically speaking,
used the property of this firm to pa}'^ a Government debt owed to
another citizen. As suggested by the court, this action was entirely
illegal, but the effect was nevertheless that of canceling an obligation
of the Government to the extent of 170 bales of cotton, thereby
benefiting the Government to that extent. It is also plain that it
operated to take just that amount of property from the firm of
Topp & Vance.
Under these circumstances the only question requiring any ex-
tended consideration at the hands of the committee seems to be the
CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN" AND TUCKEE ACTS;, ETC. 177
matter of title, i. e., whether the firm of Topp & Vance was the actual
owner of the cotton.
On that point it would not appear that the court really performed
its full function in rejiorting all material facts. The court has gone
into considerable detail in giving what may be called probative facts,
but omitted to state the final fact of ownership one way or the other.
It appears that the cotton was on the farm of Mrs. Mary A. Butler,
in Sunflower County, Miss., when taken. Immediately thereafter a
military board in Vicksburg considered the claim presented by this
firm; the board found that Topp & Yance were the oAvners of the
property, this finding being based in part on the affidavit of Mrs.
Butler, stating she had sold the cotton to the firm, and also based in
part on the further fact that Mrs. Butler sought to recover for herself
only the remainder of the cotton captured on her premises.
The court reports that there is competent evidence to show that
Mrs. Butler, in whose possession the cotton was captured and who
was prima facie its owner, renounced any possible claim she might
have had, so that she could not question the title of Topp & Vance.
It seems plain that some one owned this cotton when it was taken.
Presumptively, being personal property, it belonged to the person in
possession; that was Mrs. Butler. However, she expressly stated
that she did not own these 170 bales, but stated that she had sold this
lot to Topp & Vance. Further, she made no claim for these 170 bales,
but made only claim for other cotton taken from her plantation at
the same time. Her express affidavit and her acts constituted declara-
tions against her interest and in derogation of her prima facie title.
The military board considering the matter in March, 18G4, imme-
diately after the seizure, found that the firm of Topp & Vance owned
the cotton. The committee does not believe that the Government
can well deny that title at the present time in view of all these facts.
The matter of title and taking being disposed of. the only remain-
ing question is as to the measure of compensation.
The court reports that similar cotton in the summer of 1864 would
have been worth in New Orleans $51,000 for the 170 bales; that total
expenses of transportation from Vicksburg and incident to sale would
have been $7,139.50, so that the cotton would have brought net
$43,860.50 at New Orleans. The court also reports that the market
value at Vicksburg would have been about 5 per cent less than in
New Orleans, or $41,667. It is this last-mentioned amount that it is
proposed to pay.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
EzEKiAii H. Walker. (H. D. 382-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court February 4, 1908. Court finds claimant loyal; Army supplies
worth $300 taken. Claim filed with Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Jesse A. Wallace. (H. D. 698-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court Ma}?- 19, 1906. Court finds claimant loyal; Army supplies
worth $215 taken. Claim filed with Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Maky E. Walters. (Florence Walters et al., heirs.) (H. D.
966-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 31, 1908. Court
19855— H. Kept. 97, 63-2 12
178 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $490 taken. Tried under
Bowman Act, which means previously presented.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty^second Congresses.
A. J. WiGLESwoRTH. (W. P. Boalcs, administrator.) (H. D.
56-61-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court June 17. 1886. Court finds
decedent loyal ; Army supplies worth $105 taken. Claim filed with
Commissary General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Joseph R. Williams. (Edmund W. Williams, executor.) (S. D.
27-57-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1901, by Senate
resolution. Court finds that decedent was loyal; that United States
forces took for xVrmy use mules, wagons, and harness, near Pine
Bluff, Ark. ; that said forces occupied decedent's real estate in Mem-
phis; that value of personal property taken and of rental of prem-
ises was $12.940 ; that as to certain storehouses the allowance includes
only one-half of rental value, as decedent owned only one-half inter-
est. Xo allowance is made for damages. Claim not previously pre-
sented. From petition it appears that the occupancy began in 1862,
and therefore claim could not have been entertained by court under
Bowman Act, as appears from its decision in Overton Hotel case,
hereinbefore mentioned. Southern Claims Commission had no
jurisdiction of claims for rent, but might have considered claim for
mules, etc.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
George T. Wilson. (H. D. 578-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court April 14, 1908. Court finds claimant loyal; Army supplies
worth $60 taken. Claim rejected by Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses,
William S. Wilson. (W. M. Wilson, administrator.) (H. D.
661-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court April 10, 1890. Court
finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $315 taken. Claim re-
jected by Commissary General.
Passed House in Sixty -first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Nancy Wright. (J. R. Wright, administrator.) (H. D. 662-
61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 23, 1889. Court finds
decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $225 taken. Claim rejected
by Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Missionary Baptist Church. Antioch. Tenn. (S. D. 382-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied
a brick church building, at intervals from spring of 1862 till close of
war, as quarters; reasonable rental value, with damages in excess of
ordinary wear and tear, was $600. This claim was rejected by
Quartermaster General when presented in 1867.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-
second Congresses.
Church of Christ, Bledsoe County, Tenn. (S. D. 130-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN" AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 179
Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces tore down church
building and used materials : building worth $520.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
second Congresses.
Baptist Church, Bolivak, Tenn. (S. D. 181-59-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court March 12, 1903, by Senate resolution. Court
reports claimant loyal ; United States forces used church building for
about two years as smallpox hospital, when it was accidentally burned
while in their possession. Rental value and value building amount
to $3,400.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
HiAWASSE Masonic Lodge, No. 188, Calhoun, Tenn. (S. D.
173-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate res-
olution. Court reports claimant loyal; United States forces occupied
buildings and ground; reasonable rental value, with damages in ex-
cess of ordinary' wear and tear, was $620.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Shiloh Presbyterian Church, Calhoun, Tenn. ( S. D. 595-60-2. )
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906. Court reports claimant
loyal; United States forces tore down church building and used mate-
rials in constructing quarters and bridges; building worth $825.
Claim Avas made twice to Southern Claims Commission, but rejected
for want of jurisdiction; claim referred to court August 6, 1888,
under Bowman Act, but was dismissed ; later referred under Tucker
Act and tried under that act.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
second Congresses.
Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Charleston, Tenn. (S. D.
261-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate res-
olution. Court reports claimant loyal; United States forces occu-
pied church as hospital and storehouse ; rental value, with damages in
excess of ordinary w^ear and tear, was $530. Claim rejected by Quar-
termaster General.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Charleston, Tenn, ( S. D.
161-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces occu-
pied building and grounds as commissary depot and for other pur-
poses; rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear,
was $960.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Chattanooga, Tenn. (S.
D. 141-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; that United States forces
occupied church property from about September, 1863, till end of
war ; rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear,
180 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
was $1,800. Claim originally presented to Quartermaster General,
but rejected.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
St. Paul's Protestant Episcopal Church, Chattanooga, Tenn.
(S. D. 91-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Sen-
ate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; United States forces
occupied building for hospital and damaged same to extent of $3,640,
which damages were paid through Quartermaster's Department; that
rental value was $1,500, which is amount now allowed.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Clarksville, Tenn. (S. D.
281-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces occu-
pied church building; rental value, including repairs necessary to
restore building to former condition, was $1,200. Claim originally
presented to Quartermaster General and rejected ; was later presented
to Treasury Department and rejected for lack of jurisdiction.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Cleveland Masonic Lodge, No. 134, CLE^^LAND, Tenn. (S. D.
194-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; United States forces occu-
pied lodge building as guardhouse and for other purposes; rental
value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $940.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Cleveland, Tenn. (S. D.
73-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court rejjorts claimant loyal; United States forces first
used the brick church building as a hospital and later as a grain
depot; thereafter the bricks of the building were removed and used
by troops in camp ; building worth $3,000. Claim presented to
Quartermaster General, but rejected in 1866.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses,
Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Clifton, Tenn. (S. D.
272-59-1.) Tucker Act, Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces occu-
})ied church building for military ])urposes; rental value, with re-
pairs rendered necessary by said occujDancy, was $980.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
St. Peter's Protestant Episcopal Church, Columbia, Tenn.
(H. D. 636-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 6, 1906, by
House resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; that United States
forces occupied church property as hospital and for barracks; use
and occupation, with damages in excess of ordinary Avear and tear,
was $3,120.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 181
BoiLixG Fork Baptist Chirch, Coavan, Tenn. (S. D. 138-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1006, by Senate resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal; United States forces tore down its
building and used the bricks for building chimneys and ovens; the
bricks so used were worth $1,310.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixtieth and Sixty-second Congresses.
Mill Creek Baptist Church, DAyIDS0^' Coujs^ty, Tenx. (S. D.
176-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; that church was occu-
pied for commissary and other purposes about 31 months; that
rental, with incidental damages, was worth $1,650.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Hemneoar's Chapel, Methodist Episcopal Church South, Dun-
lap, Tekx. (S. D. 399-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13,
1906. by Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; United
States forces tore down church building and used materials in con-
structing quarters; building worth $900.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
second Congres.ses.
Christian Church, Franklin, Tenn. (S. D. 264-60-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court re-
ports claimant loyal ; United States forces occupied building for
hospital and other purposes; rental value, with damages in excess
of ordinary wear and tear, was $620.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Hiram Lodge, No. 7, Free and Accepted Masons, Franklin,
Tenn. (S. D. 139-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27,
1904, by Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; United
States forces occupied lodge building for military purposes: rental
value, with repairs rendered necessary by occupation, was $2,120.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-firet
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Franklin, Tenn. (S. D.
36-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; church property occupied
about two years for hospital and barracks; rental value, with dam-
ages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $875.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Missionary Baptist Church, Franklin, Tenn. (S. D. 12-61-
1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal ; United States forces occupied church
building for hospital and other purposes; rental, with damages in
excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $660.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Presbyterian Church, Franklin, Tenn. (S. D. 40-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution.
182 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Court reports claimant loyal ; church building used for hospital pur-
poses; rental, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was
$800.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Clifton Lodge, No. 173, Free and Accepted Masons, (S. D. o3-
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds claimant loyal; United States forces occupied
lodge building for hospital and commissary depot for about eight
months, and when they abandoned the building they destroyed it.
Reasonable rental, with damage caused, Avas $1,500.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Harpeth Academy. Franklin, Tenn. (S. D. 481-60-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court re-
ports claimant loyal; while United States forces were occupying
building as barracks it was burned; evidence does not show origin
of fire; reasonable value of building was $4,500. The burning seems
to have been what may be called an accident incidental to its occu-
pancy, and it is believed that under these conditions the Government
should compensate the owner.
Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress.
St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Franklin, Tenn. (S. D. 4-58-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 12, 1902, by Senate resolution-
Court reports that last official act of wardens and vestrymen ])rior to
war was in 1859, apparently no official action having been taken dur-
ing war. United States forces occupied church building; occupa-
tion, with repairs rendered necessary thereby, was worth $2,450.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Howard Lodge No. 13, Independent Order or Odd Fellows, Gal-
latin, Tenn. (S. D. 239-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April
27, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United
States forces occupied lodge building for hospital ; rental value, with
damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $2,300. Claim first
sent to court by House under Bowman Act, March 1, 1889.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Germantown Baptist Church, Shelby County, Tenn. (S. D.
275-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces oc-
cupied church building as hospital and later tore it down and used
materials therefrom; building worth $1,250.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixtj^-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Germantown, Tenn.
(S. D. 322-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by
Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States
forces occupied church building and later tore it down and used ma-
terials for military purposes. Rental value, with value of materials,
was $1,350.
Passed Senate in Sixty-second and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 183
Humboldt Female College. (G. S. Lannom, receiver.) (S. D.
118-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1901, by Senate
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; that United States forces
occupied college buildings for a hospital, and that buildings were
burned. The findings not being explicit the committee examined the
papers in this case for purpose of supplementing the findings. The
testimony shows that the main building was being used as a hospital
by the Army; that some smallpox patients had been treated therein;
that the building was being disinfected by burning sulphur in open
pans upon the floor, and while this was being done the building
caught fire and was totally destroyed. Under these circumstances it
is believed the claimant should be recompensed.
Claim apparently presented as early as January, 1892, as subject
matter of H. R. 1920 (52d Cong.), but was never sent to court till
1904, or 12 years later.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House m Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Lynn Creek Baptist Church, Tenn. (S. D. 237-60-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court re-
ports claimant loyal; United States forces tore down building and
used materials in erection of quarters ; building worth $600.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses
and House in Sixty-second Congress.
Unity Church, Giles County, Tenn. (H. D. 709-62-2.).
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 18, 1910, by House resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal ; troops by proper authority took church
building and used materials thereof for building shelters; building
worth $350. Court reports claim is equitable.
Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill.
Baptist Church, Grand Junction, Tenn. (S. D. 137-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court August 7, 1890, under Bowman Act; that
reference conferring no jurisdiction claim against sent to court
March 3, 1905. under Tucker Act by Senate resolution. Court re-
ports claimant loyal; that about November, 1862, United States
forces took possession of building; later building torn down and
materials used for Army purposes; building worth $980. Claim pre-
sented hj petition to Congress in 1874 and referred to court August
7, 1890, under Bowman Act, Avhich reference failed to confer juris-
diction on court.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
second Congresses.
Mountain Creek Baptist Church, Tenn. (S. D. 287-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal. On property the findings are not ex-^
plicit. and it becomes necessary to refer to the allegations in the
petition in order to arrive at the facts. This means that the commit-
tee is compelled to do what the court should have done. Tt appears
that the United States forces took possession of the church building
apparently for a military prison and that later the building was
torn down and materials used for building quarters. The court
reports that the reasonable compensation for the use of the building
184 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
and its destniction was $500. Under these circumstances it is be-
lieved that payment should be n-ade for the building.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixtj'-seccmd and House in Sixty-
second Congresses,
First Baptist Church, Jp^ffiirsox City. Texx. (H. D. 2-25-58-3.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 12, 1904. Court reports claim-
ant loyal ; that United States forces " took '' and destroyed the
church building, worth $015. This is another illustration of an im-
properly drawn finding. The fact that the term " took '" is used by
the court indicates, though does not state, that the materials were
taken for military purposes. With that understanding of the find-
ings the claim is included in the bill.
Passed Senate in Sixty-second and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Laoraxoe Syxodical Coixege. (S. D. 234-62-2.) Tucker Act.
Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution. Court reports the
claimant loyal: that United States forces occupied the college build-
ing for hospital purposes and damaged same ; they later tore down
the building and used material therefrom in constructing winter
quarters. Reasonable rental value, with damages in excess of or-
dinary wear and tear, and value of building when torn down was
$18,000. Coiu't reports its conclusion that claim is an equitable (me
in that the Government received the benefit of the use of the prop-
erty.
Passed Senate and House in Sixty -second Congress.
Ciix'RCH OF Christ, La Vergxe, Texx. (S. D. 49-60-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court June 15. 1906, by Senate resolution. Court re-
ports claimant loyal; United States forces tore down church build-
ing and used materials in constructing commissaty storehouses and
quarters l)uilding, worth $2,200.
Passed Senate in vSixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
.second Congresses.
Cumherlaxi) UxivERSi'ii', Lebaxox, Texx. (S. D. 288-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903. by Senate resolution.
Court re]:)orts claimant loyal ; United States forces occupied uni-
versity buildings and grounds for military purposes: rental value,
with damages solely incident to such occupancy, was $8,000.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and II(mse in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses,
Presbyteriax' Church, LouDOux, Texx. (S. D. 179-60-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution. Court re-
ports claimant loyal; United States forces tore dow^n church building
and used materials in construction of quarters, after having used the
building; occupation and materials reasonabh' worth $1,200.
Passed vSenate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixty-second Congresses.
Presbyteriax- Church. Lyxxville, Tex^x. (S. D. 37-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal; that the present organization is the suc-
cessor of the Presbyterian Church of Old Lvnnville and of the Pres-
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC, 185
byterian Church of Hopewell, present church being formed by union
of the other two. United States forces removed the church building
of the Presbyterian Church of Hopewell, appropriating materials
therefrom in building quarters ; also occupied the church building of
the Presbyterian Church of Old Lynnville for about six months, and
thereafter destroyed the church by fire. Eeasonable compensation
for use of said building and destruction of both buildings mentioned
is $3,300. The committee is inclined to take the vieAV that after
having been used as a hospital the presumption is that if the build-
ing was burned it was done as a sanitary measure, so that the de-
struction of the building ma}^ be deemed reasonably an incident to
the occupation.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
second Congresses.
Grand Lodge. Independent Order or Odd Fellows, Tennessee.
(S. D. 238-60-1. ) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court reports that Grand Lodge, Independent Order of
Odd Fellows, is the successor to the Odd Fellows Lodge at Lynnville
which was lo3'al; United States forces took possession of building
owned jointly by Odd Fellows Lodge of Lynnville and by the Pres-
byterian Church of that place and occupied it for hospital about six
months; thereafter the military forces, under orders, set fire to a
number of buildings in the town, among which was this one, the Odd
Fellows Lodge owning one-third interest, the court reporting that
resonable compensation for use and destruction would be $700 for
that one-third interest.
Reverting to the statement of case, it would appear that the build-
ing was used as a smallpox hospital from September, 1863, till March,
1864; that a smallpox flag was kept on the building until fall of 1864,
when the building was destroyed. "With this explanation it would
appear that the building was burned as a precaution to prevent the
spread of smallpox; therefore the destruction was an incident follow-
ing its use as a smallpox hospital, and the claim should be paid. The
rental value can not be separated from the value of the building on
these findings.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
First Baptist Church of Memphis, Tenn. (S. D. 224-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court originally on March 2. 1891, under Bow-
man Act; some testimony taken under that reference, but court was
without jurisdiction under that act, occupation in question having
commenced prior to January 1, 1863; claim referred under Tucker
Act, March 3, 1905, by Senate resolution. Court reports claimant
loyal ; that United States forces occupied church building about 12
months; rental value $1,200.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Union Uni\tersity, Murfreesboro. Tenn. (S. D. 150-59-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 28, 1904, by Senate resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal; United States forces used university
building for hospital; rental value, including necessary repairs in-
cident to occupation, was $5,474.
186 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN" AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Court also reports that at time occupation began there was a
library in said building, belonging; to the university, reasonably
worth $6,500; also philosophical and chemical apparatus, worth
$1,750 ; that during occupation $500 worth of the books disappeared ;
that about the time the buildings were being vacated by the military
forces the contents of the buildings, embracing books worth $6,000
and apparatus Avorth $1,750. were depredated upon and taken away
by an loAva Cavalry regiment, the furniture being also taken by that
regiment. The furniture taken away is included in the finding of
$5,474, The court reports that it is not satisfactorily established
what disposition was made of the $6,000 worth of books or of the
apparatus worth $1,750, their taking being a matter of depredation.
The only question in this case is whether or not full compensation
ought to be made by the Government not only for use and occupation
and incidental damages, but also for the theft of the university
library and scientific apparatus. However, as the claim has been
previouslj^ passed in the sum of only $5,474, thus covering only
occupation and incidental damages, the committee has resolved its
doubts in this instance in favor of the Government, and has reported
the claim in that amount only.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
First Presbti-erian Church, Nashville, Tenn. (S. D. 562-
62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court reports claimant loyal; troops occupied church building
from October. 1863. to April. 1865; the Government paid this claim-
ant rent up to April 30, 1864. and also paid for damages inflicted
upon building. Rent from April 30. 1864. to April 27. 1865. was not
paid, this amounting to $1,200. Court reports claim equitable.
Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill.
University of Nashville, Tenn. (S. D. 339-60-1.) Tucker Act.
Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal: that from February 12. 1862. to September 11, 1865,
United States forces occupied claimant's buildings and grounds;
that reasonable rental, with damages occasioned by its occupation,
in addition to ordinary wear and tear, was $7,300.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses,
Mount Olivet Methodist Episcopal Church South, Nolensville,
Tenn. (S, D. 9-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908,
by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States
forces occupied church building ; rental value, with damages in excess
of ordinary wear and tear, was $390.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses,
Primitht: Baptist Church, Pelham. Tenn. (S. D. 110-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13. 1906, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces tore down
church buildinsf and used material therefrom in erection of quarters;
building worth $200.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
second Conarresses.
claims under the bowman and tucker acts, etc. 187
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Prospect, Tenn. (S. D.
22-59-1.) Tucker Act. 8ent to court April 27, 1904-. by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces, by
proper authority, tore down church building and appropriated tl^'.e
materials to Army use; building worth $900."
Passed Senate m Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixty-second Congresses.
Cumbekla:nd Presbyterian Church, Pulaski, Tenx. (H. D.
751-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 190G, by House
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that from November, 1863,
till summer of 1864 United States forces used church building for
military purposes; rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary
wear and tear, was $700.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church, Saulsbury, Tenn. (S. D. 229-
58-2.) Sent to court March 3, 1903. by Senate resolution. Court
finds claimant loyal; court finds that church building was used by
United States forces as quarters for one year; that rental value was
$240 for this period. Later a Federal regiment burned the church
building, though it does not appear whether it was done by orders;
church building worth $2,200. Heretofore this claim has been re-
garded as a proper one for payment as to the rental of $240, but not
as to the value of the church building in the sum of $2,200. As to
the rental item this claim was included in the claims appropriation
act approved February 24. 1905 (33 Stats., 769). This church ex-
pressly declined to receive the sum of $240 in satisfaction of its claim,
evidently thinking that acceptance of that sum would preclude any
further consideration of the other item.
As to the item of rent, this claim has passed the Senate in the Sixty-
first CongTess and the House in the Sixty-first and Sixtj'-second Con-
gresses.
McDaniel's Chapel, Methodist Episcopal Church South, Shell-
mound, Tenn. (S. D. 357-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
March 3, 1903, b}' Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; that
United States forces tore down church building and used materials in
constructing bunks and horse sheds ; building worth $520.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
second Congresses.
Presbyterian Church, Smyrna, Tenn. (S. D. 175-58-3.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27. 1904, b}^ Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces tore down
church building and used materials for building winter quarters, etc. ;
church building worth $1,250.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in SixtA^-second Congresses.
Presbyterian Church, Strawberry Plains, Tenn. (S. D. 34-
59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces removed
its church building, using materials therefrom; building worth $1,600.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses
and House in Sixty-second Congress.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Triune, Tenn. (H. D.
714_59_o.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906, by House
188 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; United States forces occu-
pied building and camped around it ; during such occupation the
building was burned, the evidence not showing Avhether by accident
or otherwise. After the fire the bricks and stone used in construction
of building were appropriated to military use ; the building was worth
$3,800. These facts seem to be such as to remove the claim from
what may be termed the class of claims for destruction of church
property. It would appear that the destruction was an incident or
result of the occupation. It appears from the statement of case that
the church was a large brick building and the court expressly reports
that after the fire the bricks were used by the military forces. On
these facts the claim is included in the bill.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second
Congresses.
Baptist Church, Tullahoma, Texn. (S. D. 23-58-2.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal ; that United States forces tore down church building
and used material thereof; building worth $1,200.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixty-second CongTesses.
Christian Church, Union City, Tenn. (S. D. 262-GO-l.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces occujoied church
building and then tore it down and used material in erection of bar-
racks, etc.; value of building, with rental, $850. Claim first i:)re-
sented to Quartermaster General and rejected for lack of jurisdiction.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixty-second Congresses.
Washington College, Washington, Tenn. (H. D. 635-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 20, J 903, by House resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied
premises for military purposes; rental value, with sum necessary to
restore property to its former condition, was $4,200.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Waverly, Tenn. (S. D.
159-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces occu-
pied property as quarters, etc. ; rental value, Avith damages in ex-
cess of ordinary wear and tear, $1,040.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
EuDORA Baptist Church, White Station, Tenn. f S. D. 97-61-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court
finds claimant loyal. This church owned two buildings, one a new
building, used by the white congregation, the other an older build-
ing, then used by the colored congregation. United States forces
occupied the new church building about a year and a half for hospital
and other purposes and greatly damaged same. They completely
tore down the old church building and used materials therefrom.
Rental value of the new building so occupied, with damages in ex-
CLAIMS UNDEB THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 189
cess of ordinary wear and tear, and the value of the old building
torn down, agijregate $1,295. Claim presented to Quartermaster
General in 1865; referred to court in 1887 under Bowman Act, and
later referred under Tucker Act.
Passed Senate in Sixty -first and House in Sixtj'^-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
MouKT Ziox Church, Williamson County, Tenn. (S. D. 48-
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds clamiant loyal ; that United States forces occupied
church property and used some of the material from the building in
construction of quarters for troops ; said use and occupation and ma-
terial were reasonably worth $1,300.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixty-second Congresses.
TEXAS.
Mrs. Gertrltde O'Bannon. (S. D. 223-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent
to court April 26, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
(formerly Miss Gertrude Whitley) loj^al because of her tender years
during war; also that Army supplies worth $1,350 were taken from
her. Court further says she was an infant of tender years at time
her property was taken, though of age during existence of Claims
Commission. Her petition alleges she was born in 1850, which would
show she attained majority about the time the commission was estab-
lished.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Mary A. Shaw. (S. D. 221-58-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
Jime 27. 1902, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal;
that United States forces took possession of her dwelling in Corpus
Christi, Tex., and tore it down and used the materials, worth $700.
Also that claim was not presented save to Congress; that " claimant
is a woman of very limited education, not possessing sufficient knowl-
edge of business to conduct a correspondence to protect her inter-
ests " ; that she placed her claim in the hands of her Congressman in
1894.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
aiid Sixty-second Congresses.
Egbert M. Williams. (Eobert E. Williams et al., heirs.) (H. D.
535_60-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906, by House
resolution. Court finds that decedent was loyal; that Army sup-
plies worth $1,140 were taken fi^om him in Missouri.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
VERMONT.
John J. Dale. (Henrietta V. Dale, widow.) (H. D. 569-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $124.06.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
190 CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
VIRGINIA.
Alfred Anderson. (Thomas R. Hardaway, administrator.) (H.
D. 1472-G0-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court Februarj^ 16. 1887.
Court finds decedent loyal ; that Army supplies worth' $783 were
taken. Claim presented to Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Mary Anderson. (Edward iVnderson, administrator.) (S. D.
83-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 4, 1903, by Senate reso-
lution. Court reports that decedent lived in Maryland during war
and was loyal ; the other facts are somewhat complicated, being prac-
tically as follows :
Col. George Minor was owner of a farm in Virginia, about 5 miles
from Washington City, on which were 300 acres of timbered land.
In fall of 1861 United States forces took possession of the farm and
occupied it the remainder of the war.
June 1, 1862, Col. Minor died, devising all this property to his
daughter, Mary Anderson. Some timber was cut by the troops from
the land during lifetime of Col. Minor. He has been found not loyal,
and for that reason the court has made no allowance for any timber
taken during his lifetime nor for any damages done the place by its
occupancy by the troops.
The court further reports that " after Mrs. Anderson became owner
of the premises " timber worth $7,150 was taken, and that damages
done the place bv said occupancy after death of Col. Minor amounted
to $700, thus making a total of $7,850.
The court further reports that the claim was presented to the
Quartermaster General, but was not acted upon by him, evidently
because claim arose in Virginia, and he had no jurisdiction of the
claim. She did not file it with Claims Commission. It is more than
doubtful whether that commission had jurisdiction, however. The
court reports, however, that owing to litigation as to validity of her
father's will it was not until 1875 that the validity of the will was
established ; it was then too late to file with the commission.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Robert G. Griffin, Catharine H. Harris, and Hannah T. Crom-
well. (S. D. 420-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1903,
by Senate resolution. Court reports that these three claimants were
negroes and minors and were loyal during the war. Hannah T.
Cromwell is evidently deceased, her estate being represented by ad-
ministrators, apparently. Court further reports that United States
forces occupied claimants' premises in York County, Va., about two
years, that place not being seat of war at the time; that rental value
was $1,500.
Also that the troops took for Army use timber from claimants'
land worth $16,975, making a total of $18,475 for rent and timber.
The court also finds that the claim for rent was filed with Claims
Commission and was found not to be within its jurisdiction; that as
early as 1888 the claim was placed in hands of an attorney in Rich-
mond.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 191
In view of the wording of the court's findings, it is believed appro-
priation should be made as follows:
To Robert G. Griffin, Catharine H. Harris, and the estate of Hannah T. Crom-
well, late of York County, in equal shares, $18,475.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
John H. Baker. (S. D. 217-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
June 27, 1902, by Senate resolution. The facts reported are these :
Baker is found loyal. During the war the Twenty-eighth New
York Infantry, under command of Col. Dudley Donnelly, took to-
bacco worth $790 from Baker. Baker filed his claim with the Claims
Commission, which found him loyal and allowed him for certain other
items of supplies taken, but rejected the item of tobacco.
It has been suggested previously that the court does not expressly
report that the property was taken by proper authority or that it
was used by the troops. Technically this is correct, but the commit-
tee deems the finding practically equivalent to saying the property
was taken by orders of the commanding officer, and from the nature
of the property it would naturally be used by the troops.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
KoBEET N. Blake. (G. B, Wallace, administrator.) (S. D. 198-
59-2.) Tucker act. Sent to court April 26, 1901, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds decedent loyal; that Army supplies worth $1,790
were taken; that claim was not filed with Claims Commission, but
presented to Congress as early as Fiftieth Congress, which means
between March 1, 1887, and March 4, 1889, or immediately after pas-
sage of the Tucker Act.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Mary S. Armistead, Anna Gee, and Sue P. Temple (children
of Theodoric Bland.) (H. D. 429-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
February 15, 1899, by House resolution. The facts are not stated
as explicitly as they should have been in the findings of the court,
but examining the findings with the statement of the case the facts
appear to be as follows:
Army supplies were taken from five owners, i. e.. Theodoric Bland,
jr., Sallie Russell Bland, Mary S. Bland, Anna Bland, and Sue P.
Bland, Theodoric Bland jr., and Sallie Russell Bland are found
not loyal, but the other three owners are found loyal. It would
appear that Mary S. Bland is now Mary S. Armistead; that Anna
Bland is now Anna Gee; and that Sue P. Bland is now Sue P.
Temple.
The court finds that the value of the supplies taken by proper
authority from the five owners was $6,000, the interest of each being
one-fifth, or $1,200; that the interests of the three owners found loyal
aggregate $3,600.
It is believed that appropriation should be made as follows :
To Mary S. Armistead, Anna Gee, and Sue P. Temple, of Prince George
County, children of Theodoric Bland, deceased, in equal shares, in their own
right, three thousand six hundred dollars.
192 CLAIMS UKDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC.
An appropriation in this langnaffe will show plainly the intent
of Congress that the sum appropriated shall be paid to the three
owners who were found loyal.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Lemuel J. Bowden. (Rosa M. BoAvden, Zenobia Porter, Maiy E.
Bowden, and Mary Bowden Gustin, heirs.) (S. D. 63-59-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court March 3, 1905. by Senate resohition. It is noted
that the finding of decedent's loyalty was filed in Case No. 11134, in
the Court of Claims, while the findings on property were filed in
Case No. 11881. Reference to Senate Document 26 (58th Cong., 3d
sess.) in connection with the present case explains this fact. It
appears that by Senate resolution of March 2, 1903. a claim of the
heirs of Lemuel Bowden was sent to the court. A fayorable report
was made by the court in 1901 on loyalty and on the items of ordi-
nary supplies, but the court held that it could make no allowance
for use and occupation of real estate because the bill referred did not
coyer that item of claim. In that case the sum of $4,815 was allowed
for supplies taken. That sum was paid in the claims appropriation
act of February 24, 1905 (33 Stat, 774).
In order to confer jurisdiction on the court to consider the rent
claim another bill was introduced and sent to the court by Senate
resolution of March 3. 1905. Under this later reference the court
reports decedent loyal and that United States forces occupied de-
cedent's premises and that rental yalue, with damages incident to the
occupany, is $3,540. This forms the present claim.
This rent claim could not have been presented to any officer or tri-
bunal having jurisdiction. The claim for Army supplies might have
been filed Avith the Claims Commission, but that was paid in 1905.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and SixtA^-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Francis M. Brabham. (H. D. 695-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent
10 court March 14. 1902. Court reports claimant Wal; that Army
supplies worth $500 were taken from him for Army use. Claim
found on page 30 of index of Southern Claims Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Solomon P. Brockway. (H. D. 281-60-1.) Bowman Act. Offi-
cer's claim for difference in pay. $92.64.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Heirs or John B. Brown. (Harriet A. Mills, Addison M. Brown,
Willis A. Law, and Maye C. Law, heirs.) (S. D. 359-G1-2.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court re-
ports decedent loyal; that real estate belonging to decedent was occu-
pied for military purposes ; that rental value, with damages in excess
of ordinar}' wear and tear, was $800.
The court further fixes the shares of the various parties interested
as follows:
Harriet A. Mills. $355.55; Addison M. Brown. $88.89; Willis A.
Law, $177.78 ; Maye C. Law, $177.78.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AXD, TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 193
A claim was presented to the Claims Commission, but did not cover
rent or damages, evidently foi- the reason suirgested in the finding of
the court, that there was no jurisdiction to enterta'in such items of the
claim.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
William Burley. (Mariah McDermott. administratrix.) (H. D.
nV)l-m-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 29. IDOd. Court
finds decedent loyal: that Army supplies worth $470 were taken by
proper authority. Claim is found on page 38 of index of Southern
Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Caroline Carter. (S. D. (>T-o7-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
March 21, 1900. by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal;
Army supplies worth $375 taken.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Francis F. Curtis. (H. D. 707-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court March 2. 1891. Court finds claimant loyal ; that sui)piies worth
$603.75 were taken for Army u-<e. Claim appears on page 61 of
Claims Commission index.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John C. Davis. (Alice E. Davis, sole heir.) (H. D. 202-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court February 12. 1895. Court finds de-
cedent loyal. The facts as to property are different from those found
in any other case.
As reported by the court they are as follows :
John C. Davis during the war held a deed of trust on certain
land. United States troops took for Army use timber, buildings,
and fences from the premises, all of the value of $875. Later, Davis
sold the place and realized enough from the sale to pay off a prior
deed of trust, and had left the sum of $362 to apply on his own deed
of trust. That left a deficiency of $934.27 on his deed of trust.
Hence, Davis lost that much. The taking of timber, buildings, and
fences by the troops Avas an injury to the estate, and imder the
peculiar facts the loss arising from their being taken fell on Davis,
the holder of this second deed of trust.
The Government evidently owes some one for the sujiplies so taken.
It would appear that in equity the compensation should be paid to
the heir of Davis, the man avIio suffered the loss. Of course, the
compensation can cover onh' the value of the supplies taken, i. e.,
$875, and even this payment will still leave Davis a loser.
While the case is unusual it clearly possesses merit. The claim
was presented to the Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Edavard W. Donnelly. (Margaret M. Donnelly, widow.) (H. D.
385-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court April 1.' 1902. Court finds
decedent loyal; that Army supplies worth $360 Avere taken. Claim
found on page 69 of Claims Commission index. Was originally re-
jected on ground decedent was not a citizen.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses. ^
19855— H. Rept. 97, 63-2 13
194 CLAIMS UKDER THE BOWMAN AXD TUCKER ACTS^ ETC.
Lewis Ellison. (Lewis Ellison and Helen L(juise Crafford,
heirs.) S. D. 249-50-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court by Senate reso-
lution in Fifty-seventh Congress. Court finds decedent loj^al; that
Army supplies worth $-),120 were taken; that claim Avas not pre-
sented save by petition to Congress; that decedent was declared a
bankrupt in 18G9. As shown by the reports of the Claims Commis-
sion, bankruptcy of a claimant was deemed by the commission an
insurmountable obstacle to allowance of a claim. Therefore the
commission would not have allowed the claim had it been filed
with it.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixtj'-firht and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Robert Embrey, (Hezekiah T. Embrev. administrator.) (H. D.
197-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May U, 1902. Court finds
decedent lo3^al; that Army supplies Avorth $82G were taken. Claim
found on page TO of index of Claims Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixtj'^-second Congresses.
Henry Fitzhugh. (Samuel Fitzhiigh. administrator.) (S. D.
116-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court first under Bowman Act and
favorably reported by the c(mrt on loyalty and property, except that
the court stated that no allowance was made on items of tobacco and
rent and damages. To confer jurisdiction of those items, claim was
sent to court under Tucker Act by Senate resolution April 26, 1904.
Under this reference court finds decedent loyal; on property the
court reports as follows :
On item of rent and damages, that the premises of decedent Avere
used by United States forces for hospital and camping purposes and
damaged by tearing cloAvn buildings, etc., the rental and incidental
damages amounting to $1,800.
On item of tobacco, the finding is that Avhile their officers were
present the troops took for their use tobacco reasonabl}- Avorth $1,500;
some of the tobacco was taken away in Avagons.
The only question in this case seems to be as to Avhether compensa-
tion ought to be made for the tobacco, there being no question as to
the other item of rent and incidental damages. The tobacco must
have been taken either under the orders or with the assent of the
officers commanding the troops, as the officers Avere jjresent at the
taking. There would seem to be, tlierefore, some authority for the
taking. The property was used b}^ the troops, and under the condi-
tions stated by the court it has seemed only fair that payment be
made covering both items of the claim.
In the Sixtieth Congress the item of rent passed the Senate;
passed House as to both items in Sixty-second Congress.
John Flo aver. (Margaret E. Shipley, administratrix.) (S. D.
216-57-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 11, 1900, by Senate
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal: that Army supplies worth
$3,510 were taken for Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Noah Foltz. (H. D. 149-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
February 26, 1892. Court finds claimant loyal : that Army supplies
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 195
worth $300 were taken from him. CLiim appears on page 82 of
Clauns Commission index.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixtv-second Congresses.
Nathaniel Fox. (Richard Fox, heir.) (H. D. 168-55-3.) Bow-
man Act. Sent to court January 28, 1896. This is an unusual cLaim,
arising from the War of the Revohition. The findings are numerous
and the facts complicated. Stated as briefly as possible the facts
are as follows :
Nathaniel Fox was a captain in Virginia Continental troops; he
was severely wounded at Brandj'^wine ; being unfit for service on ac-
count of his wounds, he tendered his resignation, which was refused
by Gen. George Washington, who gave him permission to '" retire
till called for." In 1778 Capt, Fox was left out of active service on
account of wounds received. Thereby he became what was then
called a " supernumerary officer.'' entitled, under resolutions of the
Continental ('ongress and statutes of Virginia, to half pay for life
if he remained such till end of the war.
At close of the Eevolution Capt. Fox presented his claim for half
pay to the State auditor of Virginia, and the claim was rejected. He
then sued in the Richmond district court and secured a decree that
he receive five years' full pay in lieu of half pay, with interest at 6
per cent from April 22, 1783. That decree was never satisfied, save
in part, however. In part settlement, however, the State of Vir-
ginia paid Capt. Fox interest on $2,400 (five years' pay of a captain)
from April 22. 1783. to July 1, 1796, and issued to him a certificate
stating the $2,400 to be still due to him.
It inay be asked where the liability of the United States arises
under these facts. It is under the third section of an act of July 5,
1832 (4 Stats., 563), quoted in the report of the Court of Claims in
this case, that section reading as follows :
Sec. a. And he it further enacted. Tliat the Secretary of tlie Treasury be,
and he is hereby, directed and required to adjust and settle those claims for
half pay of the officers of the aforesaid regiments and corps which have not
been paid or prosecuted to judgments against the State of Virginia and for
which said State would be bound on tke principles of the half-pay cases
already decided in the supreme court of appeals of said State; which several
sums of money, herein directed to be settled or paid, shall be paid out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated by law.
As expressly reported by the Court of Claims, this claim was one
of the cases or claims referred to in the statute quoted. For that
reason this statute recognized a liability of the Tlnited States to pay
this claim.
As this claim was not presented to the Treasury Department when
it might have been presented, July 5, 1832, when the statute was
approved, the Court of Claims has allowed to the claimant only the
$2,400 principal, and interest from July 1, 1796, to July 5, 1832,
making a total sum of $5,185. As above stated, interest for the
previous period was paid by Virginia.
It seems plain that the Government owes some one this sum men-
tioned. The only further question is as to the payee.
From the facts reported it appears that the will of Capt. Fox and
the record of probate thereof have been destroyed. The present
claimant is Richard Fox, or rather his heirs or representatives.
Richard Fox was a son of Capt. Fox by second marriage. Grand-
196 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAjST AXD TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
children by Capt. Fox's first marriage have testified in this case to
the effect that no claim is made by descendants by the first marriage.
The court reports continuous claim to have been made by the
second wife during her widowhood, and by said Richard Fox, her
son, as sole owners of the claim under the will of Capt. Fox.
Under all these circumstances, the committee has concluded to
follow the action of the Committee on War Claims in the Sixty-
second Congress, to recommend an appropriation in the name of
llichard Fox as heir of Capt. Nathaniel Fox in the sum of $5,185.
It appears that Richard Fox is now dead, but the appropriation
jnade to him will be available to his legal representatives.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Joseph E. Funkhouser. (New^ton E. and Charles E. Funkhouser,
executors.) (S. D. 565-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2,
1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal ; that Army
supplies worth $1,514 were taken; claim first presented to Fifty-
seA'Cnth Congress.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixtj'-second Congresses.
Mary A. Gough. (T. F. Gough, administrator.) (S. D.
643-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 27, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court reports decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $703
taken.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Isaac Haynes. (J. R. Allison, administrator.) (S. D. 356-61-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907. by Senate resolution.
Court finds decedent loyal ; Army supj^lies worth $1,720 taken ; claim
]"ejected by Southern Claims Commission ; previously sent to court
under Bowman Act.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Mary Lutholtz. (John C. Lutholtz, sole heir.) (H. D. 440-59-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court March 31, 1902. Court finds decedent
loyal; Army supplies worth $359 taken. Claim appears page 148
index of Claims Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Joiix McKiMMY. (William F. McKimmv, administrator.) (S. D.
31-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 29, 1908, by Senate reso-
lution. Court reports decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $1,240
taken.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
ITexry McWilliams. (Eleanor McWilliams, administratrix.)
(H. D. 236-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 1, 1888. Court
finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $575 taken. Claim found
on page 155, index of Claims Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Lewis W. Mann. (R. G. Johnson, administrator.) (S. D. 433-
61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate resolu-
tion. Findings are entitled John S. Mann et al., but interest of John
S. Mann need not be considered, nothing being reported in his favor.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 197
As to Lewis W. Mann, court reports decedent loyal; that Army sup-
plies ATorth $500 were taken from him.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Samuel Marsh. (Robert M. Wilkinson, administrator.) (S. D.
153-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $830
taken. From statement of case it would seem this man was given an
official receipt for the property taken. Claim not presented to
Claims Commission; first presented to Fiftieth Congress, also to
Fifty-first. Fifty-second. Fifty-third, and Fifty-eighth Congresses.
Was sent to court first under Bowman Act at an early date, but it
was held by court in 1888 that it had no jurisdiction under Bowman
Act. Has been pending about 25 years.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
BLA^^D Massie. (H. D. 64-63-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court by
House resolution February 3, 1911. Court finds claimant loyal, and
that Army supplies worth $1,900 were taken for Army use. Claim
not presented to Southern Claims Commission because claimant was
fi minor during time allowed for such presentation. Court reports
the claim is an equitable one.
Case tried too late for inclusion in prior bills.
Alexander Myers. (John B. Myers, administrator.) (H. D. 201-
€0-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 6, 1906, by House resolu-
tion. Court finds decedent loj^al; that troops occupied decedent's
real estate and took supplies; rental value with damages in excess
of ordinary Avear and tear, and value of supplies taken aggregate
$2,682.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth and Sixty-second
Congresses.
Elijah P. Myers. (H. D. 217-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court February 28, 1887. Court finds claimant loyal; Army supplies
taken worth $1,190. Claim appears on page 172 of Claims Commis-
sion index.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John S. Pendletox. (P. L. Williams, administrator.) (H. D.
226-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court December 9, 1896. Court
finds decedent loyal; Army supplies taken worth $6,120. Claim ap-
pears on page 184 of Claims Commission index.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Alexander Poland. (George W. Z. Black, administrator.) (S. D.
450-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate
resolution. Court reports decedent loyal ; Army supplies taken worth
$4,200. Claim first presented to Congress as early as 1874; first sent
to court under Bowman Act, but that conferred no jurisdiction,
claim not having been filed with Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixtv-second Congress.
198 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Samuel K. Proctor. (Margaret A. Proctor, administratrix.)
(H. D. 455-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 19, 189G.
Court finds decedent loyal ; Army supplies taken worth $520. Claim
found on page 191, index of Claims Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
John Poland. (William H. Poland, administrator.) (S. D. 152-
58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March, 1903, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds decedent loyal; Army supplies taken, worth
$2,017. Claim not previously presented.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Eliza J. Kicketts. (John W. Kellar. administrator.) (H. D.
629-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 14, 190(). Court
finds decedent loyal; Army supplies taken, worth" $645. Claim ap-
pears on page 198 of index of Claims Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Joseph W. Roberson. (Joseph Roberson, administrator.) (H. D.
956-GO-l.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 12, 1907. Court
finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $420 taken. Claim ap-
pears on page 200 of index of Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Felix Richards. (Amelia A. H. Richards, administratrix.)
(S. D. 150-50-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 11, 1900, by
Senate resolution. Court reports decedent loyal; that Army sup-
plies were taken, worth $5,300; claim not filed with Claims Com-
mission. The principal items of the claim are timber and fencing
and four years' rent of land. While no allowance is made for rent,
it would seem that timber and fences were taken while land was
being occupied by troops. If so, then the Claims Commission
Avould probably have rejected these items, at least, as it did in case of
Thomas Faliey, considered as a District of Columbia claim in this
report. The commission rejected that claim ap]5arently because
troops wore occuj^ying the land from ^liich buildings were removed.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Lewis A. Sherwood. (Joshua Sherwood, heir.) (S. D. 33-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26. 1904. by Senate resolution.
Had been previously sent under Bowman Act. Court reports de-
cedent loyal ; that Army supplies worth $400 were taken. Claim not
filed with Claims Commission, so Bowman Act reference gave the
court no jurisdiction. From statement of case it woulcl appear
claim was presented to Congress as early as 1877.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Sarah G. Smith. (Sarah Lou Smith et al., heirs.) (S. D. 122-
59-1.) Sent to court April. 1900, by Senate resolution. Court finda
decedent loyal; that Army supplies worth $2,762 were taken from
her: that Sarah Lou Smith. Mary Pollen Smith, and Susan Virginia
Smith are only heirs. Claim not filed with Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AXD TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 199
James G. Taliafekro. (William H. Taliaferro, administrator.)
(S. D. 69-57-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court Februaiy 13, 1901,
by Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that Army sup-
plies worth $8,910 were taken for Army use.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses.
John R. Taylor and Charles F. Taylor. (S. D. 105-57-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 11, 1900, by Senate resolution.
Court reports these two claimants loyal. The claim is for timber
taken from land in which their mother had a life interest as to one-
third. The remainder^ subject to her life estate, was vested in these
two claimants and their brother. That brother's interest is not con-
sidered as he was not held loyal. The interest of these two claimants
in the timber taken is found to be $4,323, the taking being for Army
use.
The cutting of timber from the land would be an injury to the
estate, for which the reniaindennen might properly make claim.
Claim was not filed with Claims Commission, though placed in
hands of an attornej^ for that purpose.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Robert Waters. (H. D. 121-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court
August 6, 1890. Court finds claimant loyal; Army supplies worth
$558 taken. Claim appears on page 246 of index of Claims Com-
mission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty- first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Edward O. Watkins. (W. C. Gill, administrator.) (H. D.
231-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 6, 1899, by House
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal ; Army supplies worth $4,912
were taken for Army use, no allowance being made far use and
occupation of decedent's farm. The last finding shows decedent died
in 1865; that claim was first presented to Congress in 1875; that at
the time some members of the family were not of age and Avere
ignorant of the procedure in such cases.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
William G. Webber. (Addie L. Bailev, sole heir.) (H. D.
30-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court April 23, 1898. Court finds
decedent loyal ; Army supplies worth $450 taken. Appear^ on page
248 of Claims Commission index.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Joshua White. (Mary E. White et al., heirs.) (H. D. 697-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 11, 1907. There are five claim-
ants in this case, i. e., Mary E. White, S. W. White, Robert D. White,
Henry K. White, and Laura B. Alexander. Their father. Joshua
White, died before the property was taken, leaving these five children
and a widow, Mrs. Mary White. The widow took one-third his
estate, and the five children took the other two-thirds. Xo adminis-
tration was had till after the Civil War. From the undivided estate
Army supplies were taken; the two-thirds interest of these five
200 CLAIMS UXDER THE BOWMAN AXD TUCKER ACTS^ ETC.
children therein was worth $550. These children were found lo3^al.
No claim is made for the widow's one-third interest. Claim ap-
pears on page 251 index of Claims Commission.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Joseph Williams. (S. D. 29-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
May 16, 1900. by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal;
Army supplies worth $821 were taken. Claim not filed with Claims
Commission; was placed in hands of an attorney as early as 1864,
however.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Michael "Wine. Jr. (Samuel J. Wine, executor.) (H. D.
739_59_2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 2, 1891. Court finds
decedent loyal ; Army supplies worth $750 were taken. Claim found
on page 256 index of Claims Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Mount Zion Old School Baptist Church. Xear Aldie, Va.
(S. D. 14:9-()0-l.) Tucker Act. Sent court February 28, 1905, by
Senate resoluticiL Court finds claiiiiant loyal: church premises used
as barracks; rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear
and tear, $275.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and Hou.se in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Aliked Street Baptist Church. Alexandria, Va. (S. D. 306-
59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court February 28, 1905, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops used building for mili-
tary purposes ; rental with repairs incident to occupation, $900.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
First Baptist Church, Alexandria. Va. (S. D. 98-58-3.)
Tucker Act. Sent court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court
finds claimant loyal; troops used building for hospital from May,
1862, till close of war; rental value with incidental damages, $3,900.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
St. Paul's Episcopal Church. Alexandria, Va. (S. D. 285-61-
2.) Tucker Act. Sent court May 22. 1908, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied premises for hospital
purposes: rental value, $2,000. No claim for damages, as Govern-
ment repaired the building itself.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Second Presbyterian Chit^rch, Alexandria, Va. (S. D. 218-61-
2.) Tucker Act. Sent court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied church building for hos-
pital purposes: rental with damages in excess of ordinarj^ wear and
tear, $4,300.
Passed Senate in Sixty-fir.st and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
claims under the bowman" and tucker acts, etc. 201
Washington Street Methodist Episcopal Church South, Alex-
andria, Va. (S. D. 97-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent court April 27,
1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occu-
pied building from January G, 18Gi2, till end of war for hospital;
rental value with incidental damages. $4,600.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Mount Olivet Methodist Protestant Church, Alexandria
County, Va. (S. D. 208-59-1.) Sent court May 6. 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; from findings, read in con-
nection wdth statement of the case, it appears troops used building
for hospital and other purposes and then tore building down to get
the timber; rental value and building amount to $3,400.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Grace Episcopal Church, Berryville. Va. (S. D. 11-Gl-l.)
Tucker Act. Sent court June 13, 190G, by Senate resolution. Court
finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building as quarters; rental
value, with damages in excess of wear and tear, $650.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
ZoAR Baptist Church, Bristersburg, Va. (S. D. 291-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court
finds claimant loyal ; troops used building for hospital ; cost of re-
storing building to former condition was $700. No allowance made
for rent.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Centerville, Va. (S. D.
308-G2-2.) Tucker Act. Sent court June 13, 1906, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building as
hospital and later tore out the flooring, pews, and woodwork gen-
erally for military use. Reasonable rental value, with damages in
excess of ordinary wear and tear, and including articles torn out and
used, was $650. Court reports its conclusion that claim is e(iuitable.
Case tried too late for inclusion in any previous bill.
Westover Church, Charles City County, Va. (H. D. 315-59-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent court March 31, 1906, b}' House resolution. Court
finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied building about 1 month and tore
out pews, floor, and other Avoodwork; rental value with repairs inci-
dent to the use, $750.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Salem Baptist Church, Clarke County, Va. (S. D. 330-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent court January 22, 1904, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; troops took materials from building to
use in making winter quarters ; cost of making repairs was $600. At
one time it was suggested that the fact that apparently there was only
one trustee raised a suspicion that there might be no such church at
present and that any appropriation might benefit only the one appear-
202 CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AISTD TUCKEE ACTS, ETC.
ing as trustee. While this suggestion was onlj^ a suspicion, not based
upon the findings, affidavits have been filed showing the church to be
an existing organization with a pastor, and that the suspicion noted
was wholly unfounded.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Union Presbyterian Church, Cross Keys, Va. (S. D. 323-61-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal and that United States troops by
proper authority occupied premises for hospital purposes, the rental
value with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear being $100.
This claim is identical with many others, but appears to have been
inadvertently overlooked in preparation of prior bills.
Baptist Church, Culpeper, Va. (S. D. 391-59-1.) Tucker Act.
Sent court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal; troops occupied and damaged building; rental and incidental
damages amount to $1,750.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixtj^-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Fairfax Lodge No. 43, F. A. A. M.. Culpeper County, Va. (S. D.
475-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court February 28, 1905, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant IojslI ; troops used building for mili-
tarv purposes: rental value with repairs necessary to restore building
found to be $700.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Citlpeper, Va. (S. D.
460-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court April 27, 1904, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops used building for mili-
tary ]Hirposes; rental with cost of repairing building after its use
was $1,850.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Presbyterian Chirch, Culpeper, Va. (S. D. 290-62-2.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal; troops occupied church for hospital: rental vahie,
with damages incident to this use, was $760. Court reports claim is
equitable.
Claim certified too late for inclusion in previous bills.
St. Stephen's Protestant Episcopal Church. Culpepkr, Va.
(S. D. 32-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court April 27, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occu})ied building;
rental value with incidental damages, $1,000.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Calvary Proti:stant Episcopal Church, Culpeper County, Va.
(S. D. 47-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court April 27, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops tore down church
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 203
building and used materials bv proper authority; building worth
$1,650.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Cedar Grove Church, Culpeper County, Va. (S. D. 348-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court
finds claimant loyal: troops tore down church and used materials to
erect quarters; building worth $390.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Cedar Run Baptist Church, Culpeper County. Va. (S. D,
41-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops tore down church by
proper authority and used materials; building worth $900.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congi-esses.
Chestnut Fork Old School Baptist Church. Culpeper County,
Va. (S.D. 414-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27. 1904, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops b}^ proper au-
thority tore down church building and used materials in building
winter quarters; building worth $1,180. As this claim is identical
with many others repeatedly passed by both Houses, failure to include
it in various bills must be ascribed to oversight.
Passed Senate in Sixty-second Congress.
Ebenezer jMethodist Episcopal Church, Culpeper County, Va,
( S. D. 45-59-1. ) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loj^al; troops tore down church and
used materials by proper authority; building worth $900.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
New Salem Baptist Church, Culpeper County, Va. (S. D.
30-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27. 1904. by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops tore down church ; value
of materials taken was $1,000.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Culpeper County, Va. (S. D.
27-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied building, and as
an incident destroyed the building; building worth $700. This seems
to be a case of destruction as an incident to use and occupation.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Deep Creek, Va. (S. D.
268-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops tore down church by
proper authority, and used materials in erection of barracks; building
worth $900.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
204 claims under the bowman and tucker acts, etc.
Smiths Grove Methodist Episcopal Church, Dinwiddie County,
Va. (S. D. 151-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1004. by
Senate resolutic^n. Court finds clainuint loyal. Reading findings
with statement of case, it appeai-s troops removed the building and
appropriated the materials bv proper authority. Building worth
$600.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Calvary Episcopal Church, Dinwiddie Courthouse, Va. (S. D.
24P>-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court bj' Senate resolution. Court
finds claimant loyal; church used by troops as hospital: rental value,
with incidental damages, $520.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Liberty Church. Dranesville, Va. (S. D. 240-59-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate resolution. Court
finds claimant loyal: troops occupied church: rental value, with
repairs incident to the use, was $700.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Majcemie Presbyterian Church, Drummondtown, Va. (S. D.
60-GO-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1903, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops used church as quarters;
rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, found
to be $400. " _
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church, Drummondtown, Va. ( S. D.
139-60-1.) Tucker act. Sent to court March 3. 1903, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building; rental
value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, found
to be $300.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixtj^-second Congresses.
Forest Hill Methodist Episcopal Church, Dumfiuks. Va.
(S. D. 200-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Sen-
ate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops tore down building
by proper authority and used materials; building worth $1,000.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church, Falls Church, Va. (S. D. 623-
60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds claimant loyal; that troops tore down the building
and used the materials in building chimneys and other structures in
their camps; that it was done without authority; building worth
$1,600. The only question is whether payment should be made in
view of statement that the taking was without authority. The very.
fact that the materials wei'e used by the troops for legitimae purposes
in their camps would seem to prove that the taking was done at least
with assent of the responsible officers. This view was evidently
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 203
taken in previous Congresses, as the claim passed the Senate twice
and passed the House twice.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Union Church, Falmouth, Va. (S. D. 31-59-1.) Tucker Act,
Sent to court April 27, 1004, by Senate resolution. Court finds claim-
ant loyal ; troops occupied building about four months and damaged
it; rental value (evidently including cost of repairs) found to be
$750.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
ZiON Protestant Episcopal Church, Fairfax, Va. (S. D. 222-
59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building and
finally tore it down by authority and used materials ; building worth
$1,200.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Andrew Chapel, Methodist Episcopal Church South, Fairfax,
County, Va. (S. D. 334-GO-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13,
1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occu-
pied church as quarters; rental value, with damages in excess of or-
dinary wear and tear, found to be $450.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty- Second Congresses.
Jerusalem Baptist Church and Zion Protestant Episcopal
Church, Fairfax, Va. (S. D. 335-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds both claimants
loyal; troops tore down house of worship and used materials; build-
ing worth $1,500. The court goes into details as to matter of title,
it appearing that the Baptist Church erected a new building on site
of the one torn down, but that the Episcopal Church may have some
rights in the land ; that the two organizations have entered into an
agreement as to division of any sum appropriated in payment of the
claim. Under these facts no objection is made to the payment being
made.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixtj'-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Broad Kun Baptist Church, Fauquier County, Va. (S. D.
290-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops destroyed building
worth $800. Examining the findings with statement of case, it ap-
pears the materials were used by the troops in building winter quar-
ters.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Carters Run Baptist Church, Fauquier County, Va. (S. D.
148-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court February 28, 1905, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops tore down church
building and used materials in erecting quarters; building Avorth $900.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
206 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC.
Grove Baptist CiirRCH, Fauquier Coukty, Va. (S. D. 463-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent court February 28, 1905, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building; rental value,
including incidental damages, $600.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Moi NT HoREB Methodist Episcopal Church South, Fauquier
County, Va. (S. D. 85-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent court April 27,
1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops
occupied building, necessitating making repairs costing $150. No
allowance for rent included.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixtj^-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Fox Hill, Va. (S. D.
101-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent court April 27, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops under command of
Gen. Wool tore down building and used materials for Army use.
Building worth $540.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Protestant Church, Fox Hill, Va. (S. D. 271-
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds claimant loj'al; that troops, by proper authority,
tore down building and hauled materials away; building worth $625.
Court says it does not appear what use was made of the materials,
but that is immaterial, the taking being by authorit3^ It could not
become duty of claimant to follow the lumber away to see what was
done with it.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Macedonia Methodist Episcopal Church South, Frederick
County, Va. (S. D. 291-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22,
1908, by Senate resolutioiL Court reports claimant loyal ; troops, by
proper authority, tore down church building and used materials in
erecting quarters; materials worth $75. Court reports claim is
equitable.
Claim certified too late for inclusion in any previous bills.
Mot NT Zton Cpiurch of United Brethren, Frederick County,
Va. (S. D. 126-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court April 27, 1904, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied build-
ing for military purposes; rental value, with incidental damages,
$800.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in vSixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Christian Church, Fredericksburg, Va. (S. D. 38-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court
reports claimant loyal: trooi)s occupied building about two years;
rental value, including damages beyond ordinary wear, $2,125.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 207
Fredericksbukg Baptist Church, Fredericksburg, Va. (S. D.
28^-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court February 28. 1905. by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops "occupied building for
military purposes; rental value, including cost of restoring build-
ing after the use. was $3,000.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Fredericksburg Lodge, No. 4, A. F. and A. M. (S. D, 558-G0-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court
finds claimant loyal ; troops used lodge building for hospital ; rental
value, including incidental damages from the use. was $610.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Presbyterian Church, Fredericksburg, Va. (S. D. 459-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building for hospital;
rental value, with repairs necessary to thereafter restore building to
former condition, was $2,625.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty -first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
St. George's Episcopal Church, Fredericksburg, Va. (S. D.
244-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant gave no aid to Confederacy, which
amounts, in case of a church, to a finding of loyalty. If the organi-
zation gave no aid to Confederacy, then as an organization it was
loyal. Troops occupied building; rental value, with incidental re-
pairs, was $900.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
St. Mary's Catholic Church, Fredericksburg, Va. (S. D. 314-
59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building
for hospital ; rental, with damages bevond ordinary wear and tear,
was $500.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Shiloh (Old Site) Baptist Church, Fredericksburg, Va.
(S. D. 33-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops used building;
rental value, with repairs incident to that use, was $1,500.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
PRiMiTnrE Baptist Church, Front Eoyal, Va. (S. D. 126-
62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court reports claimant loyal; troops occupied church as hos-
pital; rental value, with damages incident to this use, was $300.
Court reports claim equitable.
Findings not certified until December 6, 1911, and not considered
in connection with previous bill.
208 claims under the bowman and tucker acts, etc.
Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal Church South, Garrison ville,
Va. (S. D. 331-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28,
1905, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occu-
pied buildinu:; rental value, ^vith repairs made necessary by this use,
Avas $600.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Conoresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church, Garys, Va. (S. D. 149-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; troops, b}^ authority, tore down building
and used materials in makins: winter quarters; materials worth
$1,000.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Abingdon Protestant Episcopal Church, Gloucester County,
Va. (S. D. 217-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903,
by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied
church building for military purposes; rental value, with damages
beyond ordinary wear and tear, was $650.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Muhlenberg Evangelical Lutheran Church, Harrisonburg, Va.
(S. D. 104-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building for
hospital and other purposes; rental, with damages incident to this
use, was $925.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
St. Paul's Protestant Episcopal Church, Haymarket, Va.
(S. D. 201-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905,
% Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied
building for military purposes; rental value, with necessary repairs
following the use, was $1,000.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-Second Congresses.
Four Mile Creek Baptist Church, Henrico Coltnty, Va. (H. D.
319-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent tx> court ^Nlarch 31, 1906, by House
resolution, (^ourt finds claimant loyal. Finding on property is to
effect that troops took possession of building and destroyed it for
use of Army. Reading this statement Avith statement of the case it
appears that materials Avere hauled aAvay. Building worth $800.
Passed Senate in Sixty-second and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second (^ongresses.
Olive Branch Christian Church, James City County, Va.
(S. D. 460-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 29. 1908, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied build-
ing for military purposes: rental value, with damages beyond ordi-
nar}'^ Avear and tear, was $410.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
claims undek the bowman axd tucker acts, etc. 209
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Jeffersonton, Va. (S. D.
27T-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Sen-
ate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops used church build-
in<i:; rental, with damages beyond ordinary wear and tear, was $325.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Kernstoavn, Va. (S. D.
271-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops, by authority, tore
down church buildinc^ and appropriated materials therefrom; build-
ino- worth $1,600.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Opequon Presbyterian Church, Kernstow^n, Va. (S. D.
37-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops used building for
hospital, 1802-1864; rental value, with incidental repairs, was $1,750.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Fletcher Chapel, King George County, Va. (S. D. 81-58-3.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolutioiL
Court finds claimant loj^al; the facts on property are reported as
follows :
During tlie fall of 1862 the military forces of the United States, by proper
authority, took possession of the church building of Fletcher Chapel, of King
George County, State of Virginia, and used and occupied the same for a small-
pox hospital for a period of six months. At the termination of said occu-
pancy the said military forces of the United States destroyed said church
building by fire to prevent the spread of contagion. The reasonable rental
value of said building during the period of said occupancy, including the cost
to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the military
forces of the United States took possession thereof, was the sum of one thousand
five hundred dollars ($1,500), for which no payment appears to have been
made.
This claim is identical with that of the Catholic Church of Dal-
ton, Ga. The destruction of the building did not arise from any
act of warfare, but was evidently deemed by the military authorities
a necessary sanitary measure to protect the health of the troops.
This necessity for burning the building was the direct result of the
use thereof for a smallpox hospital. The use itself was a necessary
a^nd proper one. Having been once tised as a pesthouse the build-
ing's value as a house of worship was destroyed. It would seem,
therefore, that in reason the use of the building practically meant
destruction of its value, just as wood taken for fuel is destroyed
in its use.
For reasons stated and also mentioned under the Catholic Church
of Dalton the claim is included in this bill.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Lambs Creek Protestant Episcopal Church, King George
County, Va. (S. D. 224-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April
19855— H. R.ept. 97, 63-2 14
210 CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAIST AIS^D TUCKER ACTS/ ETC.
27, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops
occupied building for military purposes; rental, with damages inci-
dent to this use, was $800.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church, Lamberts Point, Va. (H. D. 170-
58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 3, 1903. Court finds
claimant loyal; troops occupied building for military purposes;
rental, with incidental damages, was $780,
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixtj^-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Lebanon Union Church, Lincolnia, Fairfax County, Va.
(S. D. 228-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops tore down
building and used materials to build winter quarters; building
worth $850.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixi3''-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty -second Congresses.
Presbyi'erian Church, Lovettsville, Va. (S. D. 273-59-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal ; Army occupied building three months for
hospital; rental value, Avith damages beyond ordinary wear and tear,
was $425.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Presbyterian Chltrch, McDoAyELL, Highland County, Va.
(S. D. 170^59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904. by Sen-
ate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; Army used building as
hospital about four weeks; the damages incident to this use amounted
to $150.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and Honse in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Marshall, Va. (S. D.
22(5-59-1. ) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal ; Army used building for military
purposes; rental yalue, with cost of making repairs made necessary
by the use, w^as $G00.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Presbyterian Church or Marshall, Va, (S. D. 282-59-1,)
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; Army used building for military pur-
poses; rental value, with cost of restoring building to former condi-
tion, w^as $300.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Massaponax Baptist Church, Virginia. ( S. D, 312-59-2. ) Tucker
Act. Sent to court June 13, 190G, by Senate resolution. Court finds
elaimant loyal ; xVrmy used building as hospital ; rental, with damages
in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $195.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
claims under the bowman and tucker acts, etc. 211
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Middleburg. Va. (S. D.
12T-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal ; Army used building for hospital
and other purposes; rental value, including damages in excess of
ordinary wear and tear, was $195. Court further reports its con-
clusion under terms of act of June 2.5. 1910 (36 Stat, 837, 838), that
claim — ■
is equitable only iu the sense that the Army of the United States received the
benefit of the use and occupation of the buildintr and damaged the same to the
value of the amount found, as set forth.
This conclusion shows that, as a matter of fact, the court allowed
a sum only sufficient to repair the building.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress.
Methodist Episcopal Church, Middletown, Va. (S. D.
225-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops used building as hospital
«nd as commissary depot: rental, with damages incident to this use,
was $851.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Mount Zion Methodist Episcopal Chcrch, Colored, Middle-
town, Va. (S. D. 280-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27,
1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops took
possession of church building, by proper authority, removed flooring
and furniture, and damaged building so it was practically a total
loss; building with furnishings worth $300.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
St. Thomas Episcopal Church, Middletown, Va. (S. D.
124-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; Army took possession of
building, by authority, and used it about three years for various
pui'i^oses; rental, with damages incident to use, w^as $600.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixtj^-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Grove Presbyterian Church, Morrisville, Va. (S. D. 43-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; that troops, by proper authority, occu-
pied building for indefinite period, and later tore down part of build-
ing and used material for fuel; value of material taken by troops
is found to be $1,100. No allowance made for rent.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Morrisville. Va. (S. D.
19-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops under authority tore
down the church building, and appropriated materials to Army use ;
building worth $750.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
212 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
Episcopal Church South, Mount Crawford, Va. (S. D.
413-01-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1006, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops, by authority, took
possession of church building and tore down part of it, and used
materials for fuel; value of part so used Avas $375.
Passed Senate in Sixty-second and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Liberty Baptist Church, New Kent County, Va. (H. D.
1273-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906, by House
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops by proper authority-
took possession of church building, tore up floor and sleepers with
which to build a bridge, also destroying or taking the windows, doors,
blinds, and pews all reasonably with $200.
Passed Senate in Sixty-second and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Roper Church, New Kent County, Va, (S. D. 35-61-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1008. by Senate resolution. Court
finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building for military purposes;
rental value, with damages beyond ordinary wear and tear, $250.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Oak Grove Methodist Episcopal Church, Norfolk County, Va.
(S. D. 24-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied build-
ing for military purposes and cut timber from premises; rental, in-
cluding repairs necessary to restore building to former condition,
$1,290.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Downing Methodist Episcopal Church South, Oak Hill, Va.
(S. D. 265-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1006, by Sen-
ate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied church
building and damaged same ; rental, with damages in excess of ordi-
nary wear and tear, $235.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
New Hope Baptist Church, Orange County, Va. (S. D.
364-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1005, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant lo^yal ; troops occupied building as
hospital; rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and
tear, $150.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Paris, Va. (S. D. 280-60-
1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1007, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building as hospital;
rental, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, $200.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
claims under the bowman and tuckee acts, etc. 213
Merchant's Hope Protestant Episcopal Church, Prince George
County, Va. (S. D. 29-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27,
1901, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occu-
pied buildings from October 1, 1861, till close of war; rental value,
including the repairs necessary to restore buildings to former condi-
tion, was $1,150.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South. Pungoteague, Va. (S. D.
621-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied church building
as quarters ; rental value, with damage in excess of ordinary wear and
tear, $780.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixt}^-
second Congresses.
St. George Episcopal Church, Pungoteague. Ya. (S. D. 473-
59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1903, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied church building
and removed interior fittings and walls and used material ; reasonable
rental value and damages incident thereto, $2,800.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
, and Sixty-second Congresses.
Old School Baptist Church and Eegul.vr Baptist Church.
(Known as Thorntons Gap Baptist Church.) (S. D. 51-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903. by Senate resolution.
Court finds Thorntons Gap Baptist Church was loyal. To arrive at
the facts it is necessary to examine findings in connection with state-
ment of case, and it is thereby seen that the church building was
practically torn down in order to remove material, the damages
amounting to $1,455. It would appear that the two present church
claimants are successors in interest of the Thorntons Gap Baptist
Church in existence during war; that about 1890 a division occurred
in the church; and that the present organizations jointly own this
■claim.
Passed Senate in Sixty-second and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Oak Grove Methodist Episcopal Church, Reams Station, Va.
(S. D. 23-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied
church building as hospital. Rental value, with repairs rendered
necessary by this use, $800.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Rectortown, Va. (S. D.
363-60-1.) Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court
finds claimant loyal ; troops, by authority, tore down church building
and used material in constructing quarters; building worth $1,300.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Conoresses.
214 claims under the bowman and tucker acts, etc.
St. Luke's Episcopal Church, Remington, Va. (S. D. 529-50-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; troops by proper authority used and
damaged church building and parsonage and took lumber intended
for building a new church; all of the value of $050. It appears that
the church building and parsonage were later destroyed by fire, but
it is left in doubt whether that was occasioned by Confederates or
Federals, so no payment can be made on that account. The only sum
recommended to be paid is the $650 mentioned.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
St. Paul's Free Church, Routts Hills, Ya. (S. I). 149-5<)-l>.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court February -28, 1905, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied church building for
military purposes; rental value, with damages other than ordinary
wear and tear, $600.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
St. Stephen's Lutheran Church, Shenandoah County. Va.
(S. D. 607-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops took posses-
sion of church building then in cou.rse of construction and used
materials therefrom in construction of a signal tower; building being
worth $575.
Passed Senate in Sixty-second and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Wilderness Baptist Church, Spotsylvania Cox'nty, Va. (S. D.
227-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied church build-
ing as hospital. By such occupancy repairs were made necessary to
restore building to former conclition, costing $300.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Andreav Chapel, Stafford County, Va. (S. D. 82-58-3.) Sent
to court April 27. 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal : troops removed the church building, appropriating material
to Army use; building worth $2,000.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and Hou'-e in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Aquia Protestant Episcopal Church, Stafford County, Va.
(S. D. 43-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Sen-
ate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied building;
rental value, Avith repairs incident to this use, $1,500.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and Plouse in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congi-esses.
Berea Baptist Church, Stafford County, Va. (S. D. 26-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied church building; such
use and occupation and incidental damage amounted to $600.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 215
Hartavood Presbyterian Church, Stafford County, Va. (S. D.
239-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied buildina: for
military purposes; rental value, with repairs incident to this use.
was $800.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congi^esses.
Macedonia Methodist Episcopal Church, Stafford County, Va.
(S. D. 31f;-.59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied
church property from fall or winter of 1862 till following spring
for military purposes; rental value, with damages in excess of ordi-
nary wear and tear, was $310.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixtj^-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Stephens City, Va. (S. D.
305-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February, 1905, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; that troops occupied church
building as hospital three or four months; rental value, with dam-
ages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $500. Later church
building and parsonage were burned, but the circumstances of the
burning are not shown, so no payment can be made on that account.
The proposed appropriation is restricted to the item of $500, rent
and damages.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Trinity Lutheran Church, Stephens City, Va. (S. D. 274—
59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February, 1905, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal : troops occupied church building
for military purposes; rental, with repairs incident to occupation,
was $500.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Presbyterian Church, Strasburg, Va. (S. D. 329-59-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court April 27. 1904. by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal; troops occupied church building for hospital pur-
poses; rental value, with repairs incident to this occupation, was
$730.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
First Baptist Church, Suffolk, Va. (S. D. 416-60-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal ; troops occupied church building as hospital and bar-
racks; rental value, with damages incident to occupation, $550.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Suffolk, Va. (S. D. 273-
59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied for military
216 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
purposes two church buildings belonging to claimant; rental value,
with repairs incident to this use, was $2,100.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Providexce Methodist Episcopal Church, jStear Suffolk, Va.
(S. D. 176-00-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied church
building as quarters; rental, with damages incident to this use, was
$800.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Plains Episcopal Church, The Plains, Va. (S. D. 508-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28. 1905, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied church building as gen-
eral quarters; rental, with damages incident to this use, Avas $550.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Lutheran Church or Toms Brook and Reformed Church or
Toms Brook. (Successors to Union Church of Toms Brook, Va.)
(S. D. 272-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; during war these
claimants owned a house of worship in common, commonly called
the Union Church; troops occupied building for military' purposes;
rental, with incidental damages, was $250.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Unison, Va. (S. D. 356-
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied church building as
hospital : rental. Avith damages incident to occupation, was $150.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-llrst and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Upperville, Va. (S. D.
288-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied building for
military purposes; rental, with damages incident to use, was $210.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Old-School Baptist Church, Upperville, Va. (S. D. 34-61-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1007, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied building as hospital and
for other purposes; rental, Avith damages incident to use, was $250.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, AVarrenton, Va. (S. D.
147_59_1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building for
military purposes; rental value, with repairs necessary to restore
building, was $1,190.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 217
Presbyteriax Church, Warrenton, Va. (S. D, 474-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied building for military pur-
poses; rental value, with repairs necessary to restore building, was
$890.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Baptist Church, Waterford, Va. (S. D. 276-59-2.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal; troops occupied building as hospital; rental, with
damages incident to use. was $525.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Primitive Baptist Church, Waterlick, Va. (S. D. 134-62-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal; troops occupied church for military
purposes; rental value, with damages incident to this use, is $100.
Court reports claim equitable.
Findings certified December 6, 1911. and not considered in connec-
tion with previous bill.
Baptist Church, "\Villia:\isburg, Va. (S. D. 148-59-1.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds
claimant loyal; troops occupied building for military purposes;
rental, with repairs incident to this use. was $1,540.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixtj^-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Williamsburcj, Va. ( S. D.
38-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1900, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied building as hos-
pital for three years; rental, with damages incident to use. was $1,300.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church, AYinchester, Va. (S. D.
219-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1909, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building as
hospital; rental, with damages incident to use, was $810.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
John Mann Methodist Episcopal Chcrch (Colored), Win-
chester, Va. (S. D. 442-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court Feb-
ruary 28, 1905, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal;
troops occupied church building; rental, with damages incident to
use, was $600. This church presented a claim to Quartermaster Gen-
eral- in 1866 for repairs, but claim was rejected for Avant of juris-
diction.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixtj^-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Kent Street Presbyterian Church, Winchester, Va. (S. D.
47-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate reso-
218 CLAIMS UKDER THE BOWMAN AXD TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building as hos-
pital ; rental, Avith damages incident to use. was $-2,750.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Loudoun Street Presbyterian Church, Winchester, Va. (S. D.
328-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13. 190G. by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troo]3s occupied building as
hospital about two years and removed furniture. Rental value, with
damages incident to use. was $2.(>00.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Market Street Methodist Episcopal Church, Winchester, Va.
(S. D. 424-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court P>bruary 28, 1905. by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied build-
ing for militarv purposes; rental, with repairs incident to this use.
was $1,740.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
St. Paul Refor^med Church, Woodstock, Va. (S. D. 258-59-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building; rental, with
damages to building and fencing, was $325.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
WASHINGTON.
Joseph Hinson. (H. D. 284-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's
claim for difference in pay. $115.41.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
AVEST VIRGINIA.
William H. Bodkin. (Sarah A. Bodkin, widow.) (H. D. 47-
62-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 12, 1910. Court finds
decedent loyal ; that decedent rendered services as blacksmith to Fed-
eral Army, aggregating in value $278.50.
Passed House in Sixty-second Congi^ess.
:\rARY E. BucKEY. (S. D. 467-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
July 17, 1897, by Senate resolution. Court finds clainu\nt loyal;
that Army supplies worth $115 w^ere taken. It w'ould appear that
this w'oman nursed sick and wounded Federal soldiers and furnished
them food, but the court makes no allowance for this service nor for
the meals, on the ground that they were voluntarily given. This
claimant would ajJj^ear to be entitled to everv possible consideration.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses.
John Cook. (Charles Cook, administrator.) (H. D. 204-60-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 7, 1907. Court finds decedent
loyal: that Armv supplies worth $550 were taken. Claim presented
to Commissary (leneral.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixtv-second Confesses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 219
William Corrick. (Lorenzo D. Corrick, administrator.) (S. D.
33-61-1.) Tncker Act. Claim first sent to court March 27. 1900,
under Bowman Act, and decedent found loyal under that reference,
hut claim later dismissed; afterwards sent to court March 2. 1907, by
Senate resolution, under Tucker Act. and has been tried under that
reference. Court finds decedent loyal : that his dwelline: was used
as a hospital and that his team Avas employed to haul wounded sol-
diers; that rails were taken and used; all of the worth of $150. No
alloAvance is made for destruction of i^rojjerty as a military neces-
sity. Claim filed with Quartermaster General in 1865.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
George W. Craig. (Edward M. Craig, administrator.) (S. D.
183-58-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court F^ebruary 4, 1901, by Senate
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $2,114
taken, exclusive of item of hay, for which claimant received pny.
Passed Senate in Sixty-second Congress.
Jacob Crouch. (Andrew Crouch et al., administrators.) (H. D.
344-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 8, 1887. Court
finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $3,710 taken. Claim tried
under BoAvman Act. so it must have been previously presented to
Quartermaster General and Commissary General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Estates of John Sharp, deceased, and George Dickson, deceased.
(John T. Sharp, administrator.) (S. D. 455-60-1.) Tucker Act.
Claim first sent to court in 1892, under BoAvman Act, and decedent
found loyal under that reference; on March 2, 1907. sent to court
under Tucker Act by Senate resolution. Court finds both decedents
loyal.
This case seems to invoh^e tAvo separate claims, as the court finds
that Army supplies Avorth $340 Avere taken from John Sharp, one of
the decedents; and that Army supplies Avorth $99 Avere taken from
George Dickson, the other decedent. Claim presented to Quarter-
master General. Avho rejected it in 1878.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixtj^-second Congresses as tAvo
separate claims.
Samuel Fitz. (John Fitz. executor.) (S. D. 298-61-2.) Tucker
Act. Sent to court March 3, 1909, by Senate resolution. Court finds
decedent loyal. On property the material fact reported is that Fed-
eral forces occupied decedent's foundry for about one year; that
rental value was $1,200. This claim could not have been successfully
l^rosecuted before Claims Commission, being for occupation of real
estate.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Jacob J. Foreman. (Mary Foreman, AvidoAv.) (H. D. 324-62-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 18. 1910, by House resolution.
Court finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $816 taken. Court
reports its conclusion that claim is an equitable one.
Passed House in Sixtv-second Congress.
220 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
George Fout. (John H. Font, administrator.) (H. D. 36-61-1.)
Bowman Act. Sent to court August 26. 1888. Court finds decedent
loyal; Army supplies worth $780 taken. Tried under Bowman Act,
so must have been j^reviously presented.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Lydia a. Hockensmith. (INIarv V. Chambers, administratrix.)
<S. D. 620-60-2.) Tucker Act. Claim first sent to court March 11,
1902, under Bowman Act, but dismissed foi- want of jurisdiction.
May 22, 1908, sent to court by Senate resolution, under Tucker Act.
Court finds decedent loyal: that United States troops occupied de-
cedent's dwelling for hospital purposes; rental A-alue, with damages
in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $.395. Claim presented to
Quartermaster General and rejected for want of jurisdiction; later
presented to the Treasury Department and disallowed in 1880 for
lack of jurisdiction; sent to court first under Bowman Act and later
under Tucker Act.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Jacob W. Hudson. (T. J. Hudson, administrator.) (H. D.
297-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 27. 1906, by House reso-
lution. Court finds decedent loyal ; hay worth $15 taken from dece-
dent.
Passed House in Sixt^'-first and Sixtj^-second Congresses.
Estates OF John McH. Kelly AND Allie V. Kelly. (L.H.Kelly,
administrator.) (H. D. 1198-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
February 6, 1906, by House resolution. Court finds tAvo decedents
loyal. On property the case seems to involve two separate claims.
United States forces occupied dwelling of John McH. Kelly and
took lumber from the premises for builcling bunks, etc. Rental
value, including damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, and
valine of lumber taken aagregate $485, due the estate of John McH.
Kelly.
From the other decedent, Allie V. Kelly, a buggy worth $50 was
taken, evidently by proper authority, to be used as an ambulance.
An official receipt Avas given for the buggy. Under these conditions
it is believed the buggy should be paid for.
Claims first presented as early as Fiftieth Congress, or about 25
years ago. As the claims of two separate estates are involved, ap-
propriation should lie made as follows:
To L. H. Kelly, adniiiiistriitoi- of estate of John McH. Kelly, deceased, of
Braxton Connty, $48'). and to L. H. Kelly, administrator of estate of Allie V.
Kelly, deceased, of Braxton County, $50.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Joseph LouDERanLiv. (H. D. 1146-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court January 23, 1906, by House resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal; Army supplies worth $530 taken. Claim covering some items
filed with Southern Claiuis Commission, but too late.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixt,y-second Congresses.
Catherine S. Lucas. (James S. Lucas, administrator.) (H. D.
229-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court June 4, 1896. Court finds
decedent loyal; Army supplies Avorth $710 taken. Claim rejected
by Quartermaster General.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAIST AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 221
Oliver Milbourx. (Ruth Milbourn, Louise V. Milbourn, and
Henry W. Milbourn, sole heirs.) (S. D. 340-60-1.) Tucker Act.
Sent to court March 2, 1907. by Senate resolution. Court finds dece-
dent loyal ; Army supplies worth $430 taken. Presented to Quarter-
master General, and rejected. First sent to court under Bowman
Act in 1902.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Sarah Miller. (S. D. 459-G1-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court
May 22, 1908, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal;
Army supplies worth $G20 taken; not presented to Claims Commis-
sion; claimant testifies to ignorance of that commission.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
James W. Myers. (William W. Myers, executor.) (H. D.
304-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 23, 1892. Court
reports decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $650 taken. Careful
examination of statement of case would indicate that claim had been
previously tried and that the Government had made a motion for
new trial, which motion M-as allowed, and that on the new trial the
sum above mentioned was allowed. Claim was filed with Southern
Claims Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Alfred O'Baxxon. (Henry O'Bannon and William A. O'Ban-
non, heirs.) (H. D. 31-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March
2, 1887. Court reports decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $304
taken. Claim tried under Bowman Act. so must have been previously
presented : is found on printed index of claims presented to Quarter-
master General.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
F. A. Boeder. (J. W. Gardner, administrator.) (S. D. 122-59-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1905, by Senate resolution.
Court reports decedent loyal: United States forces occupied certain
buildings belonging to decedent at Harpers Ferry ; rental value dur-
ing occupancy, with necessary repairs, was $320. Claim could not
have been collected before Claims Commission.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congi'esses.
John Sharp, (John T. Sharp, administrator.) (S. D. 455-60-1.)
Tucker Act. This is the same claim previously considered under the
Title of George Dickson, John T. Sharp, administrator. As men-
tioned under that other case the findings really cover two separate
and distinct claims. The decedent, John Sharp, is found loyal, and
it is reported that Army supplies worth $340 were taken from him;
that claim was presented to Quartermaster General.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Maria Shirley. (H. L. Briscoe, sole heir.) (H. D. 209-59-1.)
Sent to court January 13, 1903. Court finds decedent loyal; Army
222 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC.
supplies worth $2G0 taken. Claim tried under Bowman Act, which
shows previous presentation.
Passed House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
Joseph C. Smith. (H. D. 403-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to
court March 18, 1900. Court finds decedent loyal; Army supplies
worth $G20 taken ; claim tried under Bowman Act, which means it
must have been previously presented.
Passed House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses.
Archeles Stanley. (Wilbur H. Thomas, administrator.) (S. D.
170-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 21. 1910, by Senate reso-
lution. Court finds decedent loyal ; Army supplies worth $-130 taken.
Court conclude? that claim is equitable.
Findings certified too late for inclusion in previous bill.
James M. Stephenson. (S. D. 91-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court April 26, 1901:, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal ; corn worth $214 taken for Army use. Claimant states he did
not know any method of obtaining compensation.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses,
Beverley Tompkins. (AY. N. Talley, administrator.) (H. D.
567-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 8, 1895. Court
finds decedent loyal; Ai*my supplies worth $1,645 taken; claim
presented to Quartermaster General and Commissary General.
Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill,
David Tuckwiller and Sarah Bettie "Wilson. (S. D. 621-60-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. This
claim is somewhat peculiar. It appears that David Tuckwiller,
owner of an estate, died before any property in question was taken.
The estate was in possession of Samuel Tuckwiller, as executor.
Under the will of David Tuckwiller. deceased, David Tuckwiller, jr.,
and Sarah Bettie AVilson were to take between them a one-fourth
interest.
The property was taken before the estate was divided and the
reasonable value of the one-fourth interest of these tAvo claimants
in that property Avas $600.
The court finds that these two claimants were loyal by reason of
tender years.
Claim was first presented to the Commissary General in 1873 by
said Samuel Tuckwiller, the executor; it was rejected and in 1887
was sent to court under Bowman Act in the name of said executor;
that executor was found not loyal and his petition for that reason
was dismissed, without regard to the interests of these two bene-
ficiaries. In considering these claims it has always been the intention
of Congress to comi)ensate the persons upon whom the losses actu-
ally fell. While the executor of this estate may be deemed to have
been vested with the legal title to the ]>roperty the title of an execu-
tor is necessarily in trust for the beneficiaries of the estate or will.
.Therefore, on the face of these facts, the loss as to their undivided
interest in the supplies taken fell upon these two ])resent claimants,
who were evidently small children during the war. The disloyalty
of the executor should not prevent infant beneficiaries from receiving
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN" AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 223
compensation for supplies taken. They could not have been responsi-
ble for the lo^yalty or disloyalty of the executor; they evidently did
not appoint him, and, being minors, could not control him or his
actions.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
IVfETHODiST Episcopal Church South, Barboursvili.e, W. Va.
(S. D. 39-GO-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Sen-
ate resolution. Coui't finds claimant loyal; United States forces oc-
cupied church property as winter quarters; rental value, with dam-
ages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $500.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Presbyterian Church, Beverly, W. Va. (S. D. 141-58-3.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27. 1904. by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; United States forces occupied church
building for military purposes from 1861 to 1863; rental value, in-
cluding necessarv repairs to restore building to former condition,
was $1,500.
Passed Senate m Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixtj'-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
jVIethodist Episcopal Church, Bunker Hill, W. Va. (S. D.
304-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces occu-
pied church property at various times from July 15, 1861. to April
1, 1865; rental value, including repairs necessary to restore build-
ing to former condition, was $1,000.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Presbyterian Church, Bunker Hill, W. Va. (S. D. 189-62-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate resolution. The
finding in this case is printed as Presbyterian Church, BunhervUle^
but the body of the findings shows the proper name to be Bimker
Hill.
Court reports claimant loyal ; troops occupied church property for
hospital purposes: value, with damages incident to this use, was
$790. Court concludes claim is equitable.
Findings certified too late for inclusion in previous bill.
Free Church or Burlington, W. Va. (H. D. 178-58-3.) Bow-
man Act. Sent to court March 17, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal;
United States forces occupied church building for hospital purposes;
according to allegations of petition the occupation lasted about three
and a half years; rental value, including necessary repairs incident
to the occupation, was $895.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Charlestown, "W. Va.
(S. D. 293-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; United States forces
occupied church building about three months; rental value, with
224 CLAIMS UXDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC.
damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, reported at $600. In
1874 claim for cost of repairs was filed with Quartermaster General,
and rejected for lack of appropriation or jurisdiction.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
St. Johns Episcopal Church. Charleston, W. Va. (S. D.
326-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 18. 1906, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; United States forces occu-
pied church building as barracks and as quartermaster supply depot
from July, 1861, till spring of 1865, remoA'ing pews, pulpit, etc.;
rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, re-
ported at $1.S50. A claim for $1,021. representing merely the cost of
replacing pews, repairing organ, etc., was presented to Quartermaster
General in 1880. and disallowed for want of jurisdiction.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixtj'^-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Ziox Protestant Episcopal Church, Charlestoavn. W. Va.
(S. D. 315-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Sen-
ate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; United States forces oc-
cupied building for hospital purposes; rental value, with damages
incident to occupation in excess of ordinary wear and tear, reported
at $540. According to petition, the occupation lasted from fall of
1863 till end of war.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Clarksburg, W. Va. (S. D/
17-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate reso-
lution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces occupied
church building for hospital and other purposes from spring of 1862
till close of war; rental value, with damages incident to occupation,
found to be $1,400.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Presbyterian Church, Clarksburg, W. Va. (S. D. 252-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces occupied church
building at different times for quarters; rental value, with damages
in excess of ordinary Avear and tear, found to be $525.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Elk Branch Presbyterian Church, Duffields, W. Va, (S. D.
48-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; United States forces occu-
pied building as quarters and hospital ; rental value, including repairs
necessary to restore building to former condition. $600.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Baptist Church or Fayette County, W. Va. (S. D. 44-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal; United States forces occupied church
CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 225
building for hospital, and later tore it down and used material in
erection of winter quarters: building worth $475.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church, Flatavoods, AV. Ya. (S. D. 679-
GO-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolu-
tion. Court finds claimant loyal ; United States forces occupied
church building for hospital and general quarters: rental value,
including damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, $390.
Paased Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixt\'-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Presbtteriax Chi r( h. French Creek. W. Va. (S. D. 133-59-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13. 1906, by Senate resolution.
Court finds claimant loyal : United States forces occupied church
building, and during occupation as barracks the building was acci-
dentally burned ; building worth $1,100. Applying the same rule
followed in similar cases where a building was destroyed practically
as an incident to its occupation for Army purposes, this claim has
been included in this bill, as it was included in the previous bill.
The destruction was not an act of Avarfare, but evidently resulted
from occupation of the building for Army quarters.
Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress.
IVIethodist Episcopal Chi rch Soith. Glenville. W. Va. (S. D.
131-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate reso-
lution. Court reports claimant loyal: United States forces used the
church building as a military storehouse, and while so occupying it
the building was burned and destroyed, the evidence not showing the
cause of the fire ; building worth $800. Under same rule applied in
some similar cases, it would ajjpear that it should be considered that
the destruction of the building arose from its occupation for mili-
tary purposes, and for that reason the claim is included in tliis bill.
Passed Senate in Sixty-second Congress.
Fetterman (now West Main Street) Methodist Episcopal
Church, Grafton, W. Va. (S. D. 188-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent
to court March 2. 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal ; United States forces occupied premises for hospital and other
purposes: rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and
tear, $490.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Gkeat Cacapon, W. Va.
(S. D. 328-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; United States forces
tore down church building and used material in constructing stables ;
building worth $530.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congresses.
St. John's Protestant Episcopal Church, Harpers Ferry,
W. Va. (S. D. 49-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27,
19855— H. Kept. 97, 63-2 1 5
226 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC.
1904, by Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; United
States forces occupied church building; rental value, with cost of
repairs incident to its use, found to be $1,700.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Presbyterian Church, Huttonsville, W. Va. (S. D. 15-58-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution.
Court reports no evidence offered on the subject of loyalty. In most
instances this might be considered a fatal defect in the proof, but as
this claim comes from West Virginia, which should be considered a
loyal State, it is believed that this omission should not preclude
payment. On property court reports that United States forces tore
down the- church building and used materials therefrom, which
materials were worth $791.
The judgment of the present committee is the same as that of
previous committees in this case.
Passed Senate in Sixtj'^-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
.second Congresses.
Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church, Martinsburg. W. Va.
(S. D. 365-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by
Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States
forces occupied church building as hospital and barracks about three
years; rental value, with damages in excess of ordinar}^ Avear and
tear, found to be $1,340. A claim for these damages was presented to
Treasury Department and disallowed in 1880 for lack of jurisdiction.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
jand Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Protestant Church, Middle way, W. Va. (S. D.
95-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904. by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; United States forces occu-
pied church building as hospital, quarters, and for other purposes;
rental value, including incidental repairs, $825.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Presbyterian Church, Moorefield, W. Va. (S. D. 46-59-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal; United States forces occupied church
building for military purposes from September, 1862, till about the
close of war; rental value, with repairs necessary to restore building,
$1,430.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church, Paw Paw, W. Va. (S, D.
373_C0-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court reports claiuiant loyal; United States troops tore
down church building and used material in erecting shanties for
troops; previously had used building for a brief period; value of
building, including any prior use, $400.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixtv-second Congresses.
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 227
Presbyterian Church, Petersburg, W. Va. (S. D. 100-58-3.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces occupied and tore
down church building, worth $2,000.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church, Philippi, W. Va. (S. T).
250-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces occu-
pied church building as hospital. In 1865 church was paid $498.50
in full for damages sustained by church building and the parsonage;
the rental value of church property during occupancy was $600,
which is all that it is proposed to pay.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Mount Olive Primitive Baptist Church. Philippi, W. Va.
(S. D. 381-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by
Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces
occupied church building as quarters; rental value, w^ith damages in
excess of ordinary wear and tear, $250. Claim for damages was filed
before 1877 and was disallowed by Quartermaster General.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Point Pleasant, W. Va.
(S. D. 178-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by
Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces
used church building for hospital and as barracks. Rental value,
with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, $1,090.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
County Court of Randolph County, W. Va. (S. D. 142-62-2.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution.
Court reports that Randolph County, W. Va., was one of original
counties comprising that State admitted into the Union June 20,
1863, and was loyal. United States troops, by authority, occupied
county buildings from latter part of 1861 or very early in 1862 until
early part of 1865 ; rental value of these buildings, with damages inci-
dent to use, was $2,000. It is this sum which it is now proposed to
appropriate to the county.
Another item of the claim is for a certain bridge belonging to the
county which was destroyed as an act of warfare in active prosecution
of the war. The bridge was worth $2,000. The committee does not
propose payment for the bridge.
The county made claim with the War Department in 1866 for com-
pensation of the buildings occupied and damaged, that claim being
for $2,500.
The court concludes that the claim for rent and damages is an
equitable one, but as to the bridge destroyed it is neither legal nor
equitable. _*!
Findings were certified too late for inclusion in previous bill.
228 claims under the bowman and tucker acts, etc.
Methodist Episcopal Church South. Ravensavood, W. Va. (S.
D. 561-f)2--2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied church as
barracks: rental value, with damages incident to this use, was $250.
This claim was presented as early as 1867 and again in 1904.
Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill.
Methodist Episcopal Church South. St. Albans, ^Y. Va. (S. D.
134-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; church building occupied
for military ])urposes ; rental value, with repairs necessary to restore
building to former condition, $1,400.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
St. Mark's Protestant Episcopal Church, St. Albans. W. Va.
(S. D. 139-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27. 1904, by
Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces
occupied church buildings for military purposes about three 3'ears;
rental value, including damages incident to occupation, $2,400.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Caledonia Lodge, No. 4, Independent Order of Odd Fellows.
Shepherdstown, W. Va. (S. D. 294-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to
court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant
loyal; United States forces occupied lodge room as a guardhouse;
rental value, Avith damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, $115.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-
second Congresses.
Presbyterian Church, Springfield, W. Va. (S. D. 236-60-1.)
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal ; troops occupied church building for
hospital and other purposes ; rental value, with damages in excess of
ordinary wear and tear, $600.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
St. John's Catholic Chcijch, Sum3Iersville, W. Va. (S. D.
241-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal: troops occupied church
building about two years; rental value, including repairs necessary
to restore building to former condition, $1,050.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
Methodist Episcopal Church South, Summit Point, "VY. Va.
(S. D. 18-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by
Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; United States
forces tore down brick church building and used material for build-
ing winter quarters ; building worth $2,500.
Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty-
first and Sixty-second Congi'esses.
Baptist Church, Sutton, W. Va. (S. D. 354-62-2.) Sent to
court under provisions of section 151 of Judicial Code by Senate reso-
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 229
lution February 14, 1912. Claim had previously been referred by
House resolution under Tucker Act.
Court reports claimant loyal; troops, by proper authority, occu-
pied church building three months and then tore it down and used
materials in building picket houses, etc. ; rental value, with value of
materials taken, was $775. Court concludes that claim is equitable.
Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill.
Methodist Episcopal Church, Webster, W. Va. (S. D. 271-59-
2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution.
Court reports claimant loyal: troops occupied church building for
military purposes; rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary
wear and tear. $450.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first
and Sixty-second Congresses.
AVISCOXSTX.
Irving V. Bliss. (H. D. 251-00-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim
for difference in pay, $334.22.
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-sec-
ond Congresses.
Ole Jacobson. (H. D. 574-00-1.) Bowman iVct. Officer's claim
for difference in pay, $138.78.
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses.
Hiram F. Lyke. (H. D. 407-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim
for difference in ])ay, $188. 5().
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and
Sixty-second Congresses.
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
1. On page 15. after line 4, in.sert :
To Mary A. Ganiiiion. O. B. Whatley, and D. A. Whitehead, .<o\e surviving
heirs of Wilson O. R. Whatley. decea.sed. late of Pope County, $l,01t^.
2. On page 22. after line 8, insert :
To Lucy C. Lee. atlministratrix of the estate of .Jane T. L-ee. deceasetl. of
Mason County. JfJOin.
3. On page 24, after line 15, insert:
To the vestry of Christ Protestant Episcopal Church, i.f Bowling- Green. .$30().
4. On page 28, after line 7, insert;
To the heirs or succession of Selzer Bass, deceased, late of West Carroll Par-
ish. 13.407.50, representing- his interest in property taken from him and his co-
owners.
5. On page 54, after line 13, insert :
To the deacons of the First Presbyterian Church of Newberu. $3..300.
6. On page 50, after line 13, insert :
To the consistory of the Trinity German Reformed Church, of Gettysburg, $70.
7. On page 78, after line 20, insert:
To the trustees of Union Presbyterian Church, of Cross Keys. $liK).
o
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
ill III I
0 013 701 635 7
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11