Summary: Mary Baker filed her claim in 1872, but it was rejected for having insufficient evidence. She appealed to the Congressional Court of Claims during the years 1892-1901.
Items Claimed:
| Item Claimed: | Amount Claimed: | Amount Allowed: | Amount Disallowed: |
| 4 Cattle at $40. | 160.00 | 0 | 160.00 |
| 16 Tons of Hay $15. | 240.00 | 0 | 240.00 |
| 125 bushels Wheat $1.25 | 156.25 | 0 | 156.25 |
| 30 Cords of Wood $3. | 90.00 | 0 | 90.00 |
| Total | $646.25 | 0 | $646.25 |
Claims Summary:
Claim rejected
The proof of the taking of the property is Entirely insufficient. -The only witness is one Walker-a former slave of the claimant, who says he was not present when the property was taken, but saw it afterwards in the possession of the Army. -How could he identify hay, wood & wheat? Plainly he could not. -He does not tell when & where he saw the Cattle afterwards, or how he could identify them. -From examining the whole of his evidence we think it wholly unreliable & reject the claim.
It is therefore unnecessary to decide upon her loyalty.
Claim rejected.
A.O. Aldis Commrs of Claims
Testimony: Mary Baker
Deposition of Mary Baker
Question 1st Answer. Witness Says, I am 52 years old. I reside in Augusta Co. Va. I am a house keeper and manage my farm. I resided in Augusta Co for years before the War and all the time of the war.
4 Witness Says, I never took any oath to the Confederate Government. I took no Amnesty Oath. I never asked for any pardon.
6th Witness Says I never was in any manner connected with the civil service of the Confederate States, Clerkship or agency of any kind.
9 Witness Says, I never was engaged in blockade running or illict traffick or intercourse between the lines. I did not leave the Confederate States during the War.
17 Witness Says, I never was arrested by the Confederates, but was threatened with arrest, because of my sympathies for Union men. I never was arrested by the U.S. Government.
18 Witness Says I had no property taken by the Confederates. I was threatened with arrest. My son was arrested and taken to the Army. I went about 200 miles to get him released.
21 Witness Says, I never contributed any thing for the support of the United States.
23 Witness Says I had a brother in the Confederate Army. I had no relatives in the Union Army that I know of. I did not furnish my brother with anything at all.
24 Witness Says, I never owned a Confederate Bond, Nor done anything to support the Credit of the Confederacy.
25 Witness Says, I never give aid or done anything directly or indirectly for the use or benefit of the Confederate Government, its Army or Navy
31 Witness Says, I went to Winchester Va and had to get a pass to return to my house in Augusta Co. I took no oath to obtain it.
33 Witness Says, At the beginning of the war, my sympathies were with the Union, and continued so all the time. I did nothing of my own free will and accord to aid the Confederacy or against the Union or its cause, and I was willing and ready at all times to assist the Union and its supporters so far as my means power and the circumstances would present.
Further this deponent saith not.
Mary Baker
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 16th day of September 1871.
Wm G Riley US Comr And Special Comr for Virginia
Testimony: Michael Carwell
Deposition of Michael Carwell to prove the loyalty of the claimant.
Question 1st. Answer. Witness Says, I am 60 years old I reside in Augusta Co. Va. by occupation a farmer. I have known the claimant Mrs. Baker, about 30 years. I lived near her during the War, and heard her often express herself very bitterly against the rebellion. I had no doubt about her loyalty. She was regarded so by her neighbors, and she was talked about, a good deal on account of her opposition to the South. I never knew her to do anything for either of the Armies. If the Confederate States had succeeded, She could not shown any loyalty to it. She was too strong a Union woman to have even tried.
Further this deponent saith not.
Michael Carwell
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 16th day of September 1871.
Wm G Riley US Comr And Special Comr for Virginia
Testimony: Joseph Walker
Deposition of Joseph Walker to prove the taking of the property mentioned in the petition.
Ques. 1 Witness Says, I am 55 years old. I reside in Augusta Co. Va. by trade a blacksmith. I was not present when the property was taken but saw it in the possession of the Army.
4 Witness Says The property was taken in June 1864, from the farm of the Claimant, Mrs. Baker, by Genl. Crook's Army.
6th Witness Says-The property was taken by Officers and soldiers belonging to Genl. Crooks command I did not know any names of the officers or their rank.
12 Witness Says, There was not any receipt given or asked for, that I know of
13 Witness Says, The property was taken in the day time, in the Afternoon-and publicly
15 Witness Says, The Cattle were fat, and I suppose worth not less than $35 a head. I do not know the quanitity of Hay taken, but it a great deal. The Hay was good, and I think worth about $15. a Ton. The Wheat was standing on the ground and very fine. The Army Camped in the field and destroyed entirely, I think the Wheat was worth $1.50 a bushel. I suppose there was at least 30 Cords of Wood used by the Army. Wood at that time was selling at $4.00 a Cord. The wood was not measured but supposed to be the quantity charged.
19th Witness Says, The property was taken for the use of the Army. The Cattle were killed on the ground. The Hay fed and the Wood burnt and the Wheat eaten and tramped by the Horses and Soldiers of the Army. I suppose it was needed, as it was certainly used.
21 Witness Says, I do not know what their necessities were, but they certainly took it.
22 Witness Says, I do think that as the Claimant is a widow and all the time for the Union she ought to be paid for her property.
23 Witness Says, I think the Officers and Soldiers taking the property were acting under orders as Genl. Crook, had his head quarters in the field.
General Interrogatory
Do you know of other matter about this claim? If so, state it fully.
Answer, I know that Butter and other articles were taken from the house. I am a Colered man and will bear testimony to her uniform kindness to myself and family and to my race. She is a good woman and strong Union.
Further this deponent saith not.
Joseph Walker his mark
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 16th day of September 1871.
Wm G Riley US Comr And Special Comr for Virginia
Testimony: Claimant's Brief on Loyalty
COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1897-1898.
Mary Baker, vs. The United States No. 8560 Cong.
STATEMENT
The claimant in this case resided in Augusta Co., Va., during the late war.
The Commissioners rejected the claim because they were not convinced of the taking of the property.
The claim was transmitted to the Court by the Committee on War Claims, Feb. 17, 1892.
BRIEF ON LOYALTY
Testimony taken in Sept. '71.
MARY BAKER testifies: age 52; residence Augusta Co., Va.; housekeeper; Resided here for years before the war, and all the time of the war. Never took any oath to the Confederate Govt. or amnesty oath, or never asked for pardon. Never connected with the civil service of the Conf. states. Never engaged in blockade running. Never arrested by the Confederates, but was threatened with arrest because of my sympathies for Union men. Never arrested by U.S. Govt. No property taken by Confederates. My son was arrested and taken to the army. (P.1). I went about 200 miles to get him released. Never contributed anything for the support of the U.S. Had a brother in the Conf. army. No relatives in Union army that I knew of. Did not furnish my brother with anything at all. Never owned a Confederate bond,or did anything to support the credit of the Confederacy. Never gave aid or done anything direct or indirect for the use or benefit of the Confederate Government, its army or navy. I went to Winchester., Va., and had to get a pass to return to my home in Augusta County. Took no oath to obtain it. At the beginning of the war sympathies were with the Union and continued so all the time. I did nothing of my own free will or accord to aid the Confederacy, or against the Union or its cause, and I was willing and ready at all times to assist the Union and its supporters so far as my means, power and the circumstances would permit. (P.2).
MICHAEL CARWELL testifies: Age 60; residence Augusta Co., Va.,; farmer; Known the claimant about 30 years. Lived near her during the war and heard her often express herself very bitterly against the rebellion. I had no doubt about her loyalty She was regarded so by her neighbors and talked about a good deal on account of her opposition to the South. Never knew her to do anything for either of the armies. If the Confederate states had succeeded, she could not have shown any loyalty to it. (P.3). She was too strong a Union woman to have ever tried. (P.4).
The following testimony was taken in Feb. 1898.
J. W. ENGLEMAN testifies: farmer; age 54; residence Augusta Co., Va. not interested or related. Acquainted with the claimant, known her for 34 or 35 years. (P. 1). She resided one mile of me during the war. She was loyal to the United States Government. Heard her express opinions about the war so far as to satisfy me that her sympathies were with the United States. of '63 remained in Indiana until after the war closed. (P.2). Had conversations with the claimant prior to going North, don't recollect just what she said, but she advised me to go. I suppose her sympathies were with the Union, she knew mine were that way. Don't think I had any conversation with her relative to my entering the Confederate army. (P.3). Don't recollect language she used, but recollect she advised me to go. She had one son W. H. H. Frenzer. Had two others which I regarded as not grown. Claimant was married twice. She kept Jas. A. Frenzer home during the war. (P.4). He was just a boy about 10 years old probably, not old enough to go in the army. Don't know ages of the others, but they were old enough to go in the army. They went North. They did not want to go in the Southern army. Her reputation was good as to loyalty to the U.S. Govt. She was regarded loyal to the U.S. Govt. (P.5).
CROSS-EXAMINED
Became acquainted with the claimant before the war. Her first husband John Frenzer was living the first of the war. Think he died about the second year of the war. He was not in the army. His sympathies were on the U.S. side. Claimant's two sons went north hecause they did not want to go in the Southern army. (P.6). Because their sympathies were with the U.S. Heard them speak of it. Don't know just what they said to me it has been too long a time to remember. My supposition is Wm. H. Frenzer done the most of the talking as he was the oldest. (P.7). I have heard claimant in conversation with my father and myself, which satisfied me that her sympathies were entirely with the Union. Can't give exactly what was said. Have heard her speak her sentiments pretty freely in regard to the war. She did not think it ought to be, and if my memory serves me right she did not want any of her children in it. (P.8). Don't know that I can recollect any particular remark she made. Can't say anything as to her loyalty after the fall of '63, I was not at home. (P.9)
MICHAEL CARWELL testifies: farmer; age 88; residence Augusta Co., Va.; not interested or related. Knew claimant not less than 65 years. Lived about 6 miles apart. Do not know anything to the contrary, always heard her say she was in favor of the Union. (P.10). Can't say when her sons left, but I was at her house when they left and saw them start, to go North. I had a conversation with her then. She sent for me that night to see them start. Conversation principally about the war and that she wanted them to go North as she was raised in the north. As near as I can remember claimant's first husband died the second year of the war. (P.11). So far as I know she was Union during the war, and is yet I reckon.
CROSS-EXAMINED.
She said so long as we were united together we might stand, but divided we might fall. Saw claimant maybe 100 times during the war. Often. Claimant was raised at Frederick Co. Md., near Winchester, Va. (P. 12). Think she was raised in Frederick Co., Ma., not certain. (P. 13).
ALEX GIBSON testifies: farmer; age 68; residence Augusta Co., Va. Not interested or related. Knew the claimant before the war. Resided about 2-1/2 miles apart. She was loyal so far as I know, and always appeared to be. Think she Union. (P. 14).
CROSS-EXAMINED.
Know claimant was regarded as loyal to the Union by several conversations I had with her. Don't know that I can just recollect any particular conversation I had with her at that time. Have heard her express hersepf frequently on the side of the Union cause. Left Va. about March '65. (P.5). In Augusta Co. up to this time except when in the army, Conf. Was in a volunteer company of militia before the war and was ordered out with them., in the early part of '61. Served about 18 months. Belonged to Greenville Co., 5th Va. Inft. I was at the hospital at Staunton during that time. (P. 16). And frequently at home on furlough.
RE-DIRECT.
Heard claimant express herself during the war. Think before Crook and Averil camped near Mrs. Baker. Heard her so express herself before and after June '64. (P.17).
J. B. CARWELL testifies: farmer; age 53; residence Augusta Co., Va. Not related or interested. Known claimant from my childhood. Lived about 3 miles from her during the war, I suppose. Have heard her express herself as favorable to the Federal side. Think she was recognized by those who knew her as a Union woman. Think that was her general reputation. (P.18).
CROSS-EXAMINED. (P.21).
Don't recall any particular thing she said. She advised her boys to leave, and they did, and I had letters from them when they were on the other side. Don't recollect any one being present in any of our her expressions. (P.22).
JOHN A FRENZER testifies: farmer; age 52; residence Augusta Co., Va. Interested; son. Claimant's first husband, John Frenzer died Nov. 19, '61. (P. 24).
SUMMARY
The Commissioners of Claims did not seem to doubt the loyalty of Mrs. Baker. The testimony justifies the conclusion that she was at all times loyal to the United States. She was threatened on account of her Union sentiments. Her son was arrested and taken to the army. She did all she could to get him released. Never aided the Confederacy. For the Union all through.
Her witnesses testify to loyal expressions and loyal reputation throughout the war.
Mr. Engleman says she advised him to go North.
There can be no question as to her loyalty.
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers ATTY FOR C'L'M'T.
Testimony: Defendant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES
MARY BAKER vs. THE UNITED STATES. #8560, Cong.
DEFENDANTS' BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
The claimant in this case lived in Augusta County, Virginia. She seeks to recover for cattle, hay, wheat and wood to the value of $646.25 alleged to have been taken from her by Federal troops in June, 1864. The claim was presented to the Commissioners of Claims. They did not pass upon the question of her loyalty because the proof of the taking was deemed by them insufficient. The counsel for the claimant has carefully abstracted the testimony submitted. The witnesses testify mostly of conversation, which they claim to have had with Mrs. Baker. There are vouchers which indicate that one Mary Baker received pay from the Confederates for certain supplies; but the vouchers are dated one at Abingdon and one at Crockett, Virginia, which are a long distance from claimant's place of abode.
There is, however, some resemblance in the signatures of the vouchers to that of the claimant in this case.
Respectfully submitted, Geo. H. Walker, Assistant Attorney.
Testimony: Claimant's Brief on Merits
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1899-1900.
MARY BAKER, VS. THE UNITED STATES. No. 8560 Congressional.
STATEMENT.
The claimant in this case resided during the war of the rebellion in Augusta County, Virginia, where her claim originated. The Commissioners of Claims disallowed it because they were not convinced of the taking of the property. It was referred to the Court by the Committee on War Claims Feb. 16, 1892. The claimant was held loyal March 5, 1899.
BRIEF ON MERITS.
In her petition the claimant alleges that the following property was taken from her by Gen. Crook's command about June 11, 1864, near Greenville, Va.: 4 head Cattle at $40, $160.00; 16 tons Hay at $15, 240.00; 125 bus. Wheat at $1.25, 156.25; 30 cords Wood at $3 per cord, 90.00; Total $646.25.
The following testimony was taken while the claim was pending before the Commissioners of Claims, in September, 1871:
JOSEPH WALKER testifies: Age 55; residence Augusta County, Va.; blacksmith. Was not present when the property was taken but saw it in the possession of the army. Was taken in June 1864 from the farm of the claimant, Mrs. Baker, by Gen. Crook's army. I did not know the names of any of the officers who mere present or their rank. There was no receipt given or aksed for that I know of. The property was taken in the afternoon and publicly. The cattle were fat and worth, I suppose, not less than $35 a head. I do not know the quantity of hay taken but it was a great deal. It was good hay and worth, I think, about $15 a ton (p.5). The wheat was standing on the ground and very fine. The army camped in the field and destroyed it entirely, I think the wheat was worth $1.50 a bushel. I suppose there was at least 30 cords of wood used by the army. Wood at that time was selling at $4 a cord. The wood was not measured but supposed to be the quantity charged. The property was taken for the use of the army. The cattle were killed on the ground, the hay fed, the wood burned and the wheat eaten and tramped by the horses and soldiers of the army. I suppose it was needed as it was certainly used. I do not know what their necessities were but they certainly took it. I think that as the claimant is a widow and all the time for the Union she ought to be paid for her property (p.6). I think the officers and soldiers taking the property were acting under orders as Gen. Crook had his head-quarters in the field. I know that butter and other articles were taken from the house (p. 7).
The following testimony was taken at Middlebrook, Va. in February 1898:
J. W. ENGLEMAN testifies: Farmer; age 54; residence Augusta County, Va.; no interest or relationship. I think claimant's first husband, John Frenger, died about the second year of the war (p.6).
MICHAEL CARWELL testifies: Farmer; age 88; residence Augusta County, Va.; no interest or relation (p .10). Have known claimant not less than 65 years. John Frenger, claimant's first husband, as near as I can remember, died the firstsecond year of the war (p.11).
JOHN A. FRENGER testifies: Age 52; farmer; residence Augusta County, Va.; no interest; son of claimant. John Frenger, the first husband of claimant died Nov. 19, 1861 (p.24).
The following testimony was taken commencing August 28, 1900:
MRS. MARY BAKER testifies: Widow of John Frenger: Age 81; Residence Staunton, Va.; claimant. Resided during the war about 1 1/2 miles north of Greenville, Augusta County, Va. on my farm. I had property taken by the U. S. Army in harvest time, in June or July, the third year of the war, I think (p. l); the wheat was beginning to turn. This property consisted of 4 improved head of cattle; 20 acres of fine wheat; ten-acre field of fine clover; a large meadow ready to mow; twenty-acre field of corn plowed once; about 60,000 rails, I think, all that was on the place; my entire garden; all my chickens; all cooking utensils in my house destroyed; everything in spring house; 25 bushels shelled corn. Do not remember anything else. I lost all the dry hay that was in my barn. This property was taken by Generals Crook, Averill and Hunter, I suppose, for the benefit of the army This property was on my farm when it was taken. I was given no receipts, but Gen. Crook told me to put my claim in. There were three fine heifers and one bull, improved stock and fat (p.2). I can not tell what they were worth; did not know the prices. Three were butchered on the farm and the other was driven off. Can not state how much dry hay was taken; all was carried out of the barn. One very large mow was full. Some of the old pens are standing now. I can not state what hay was worth per ton. Do not know the value of wheat, but it was very high (p.3). Could not state exactly how many bushels of wheat the 20 acres would have amounted to, but not less than 400 or 500 bushels. Can not state how many cords of wood the rails which I have stated were taken would have made. Do not know what it was worth per cord.
Cross-examination
I did not see or hear any officer but Gen. Crook give direction for the taking of my property (p.4). I went to Con. Crook and told him his men were destroying everything I had. He told me to take an account of everything, which I did. The next morning as he was about to leave he rode up to my house, and told me to put my claim in and I would be paid for it after the war. I do not know under whose direction the soldiers were; I only talked to Gen. Crook and Dr. Wormick (p. 5).
JOHN A. FRENGER testifies: Farmer; age 53; residence near Greenville, Augusta County, Va.; no interest; son of claimant. I have been present at the taking of my mother's deposition and heard the same. I am acquainted with the farm upon which she lived during the third year of the war and was acquainted with it at that time. Remember the barn that was there; a portion of it is there now. This barn was capable of holding 14 to 16 tons of Day according to the way it was packed (p.6).
Cross-examination.
I do not know of my owm knowledge of the loss of my mother's property. I was at Cumberland, Md. at that time (p. 7).
MARY E. ENGLEMAN testifies: Age 59; residence near Greenville, Va.; no interest or relation. I have known the claimant in this case ever since I can remember. She resided during the war on the Frenger home place. I resided where I now live, about a mile from claimant. I knew that Gen. Crook's army was on part of claimant's farm; I was on part of the camp ground. I am not sure whether I was on Mrs. Baker's farm about that time. The camp ground was about 200 or 300 yards from Mrs. Baker's house. I could have seen her house if the ground had been level, but under the circumstances I could not (p.8). I saw evidences of the slaughter of cattle on the camp ground. I saw piles of raw beef thown out as if from some kind of vessel (Objected to by the attorney for the government). I do not know whose cattle the soldiers had slaughtered there. I did not notice the fencing on Mrs. Baker's farm.
Cross-examination.
I do not know anything of my own knowledge of the losses Mrs. Baker alleges to have suffered from the Union troops (p 9).
SUSAN M. HAYS testifies: Age 73; residence near Greenville, Ca.; no interest or relation. Have known the claimant since a short time before the war. During June of the third year of the war she lived on the Frenger farm, about a mile from where I lived. I know Gen. Crook's army was in the neighborhood of her farm but do not know whether it was on her farm or not. I was not on her farm; was on the camp ground. I saw where cattle had been butchered on the camp ground but do not know whose they were.
Cross-examination.
I have no personal knowledge of the losses said to have been sustained by claimant at that time (p. 10).
S. H. BURNETT testifies: Age 66; residence near Greenville, Va.; no interest or rela-tion. I lived during the third year of the war, in June, in Rockbridge County, Va. The value of cattle where I lived at that time was from $35 to $60 accordig to quality (p. 11). I traveled through Augusta, Albemarle and Nelson counties and bought some cattle in Albemarle County about that time. I could not see any difference in the prices in the several counties named. Wheat was worth about that time $1.25 a bushel. Hay sold for $15 per ton. Wood was worth $5 per cord; I sold a good deal and never got less than that (p.12). A rail is 11 feet long and on an average 4 inches square. I do not know how much cord wood they would make per thousand (p. 13).
The following testimony was taken at Staunton, Va. commencing Nov. 24, 1900:
H. F. WISEMAN testifies: Hospital attendant and nurse. Age 50. Residence Staunton, Va. No interest or relation. Have known claimant ever since before the war (p. 1). She resided during the war on her farm, the old Frenger home place, in Augusta County, Va., about two miles, I think, from Greenville. In June, 1864, I resided on the adjoinin farm; don't suppose it was over a quarter of a mile from where claimant lived. The U. S. Army was encamped on her farm in June, 1864. I was there the next morning after they left. I know she had four head of cattle at that time. Did not see the soldiers kill them. Never saw them on the place after that time. I saw some pieces of cattle and blood near her barn when I went there the next morning; the hides and most of the meat had been taken away. The soldiers destroyed the whole of her growing crop of wheat; they encamped right in the field and it was tramped down as flat as it could be. On the side of the farm opposite to the side which adjoined the farm on which I lived all the fences were destroyed, both the inside and outside fences. The main part of the army camped on that side of her farm and burned the rails for camp fires. (p. 2):
Cross-examination
It was Crook's army that was here at that time and Generals Hunter and Averill also, I think. They came about three o'clock in the afternoon and stayed, I think, until about ten o'clock the next morning. Most of them were infantry; there may have been some cavalry, but I think most of them were infantry. Could not say exactly how many rails were taken. At a rough estimate I would suppose there was something like 35,000 or 40,000 rails. Think there were about 200 acres of land in the farm and it was fenced into fields that were small. They were used for regular camp fires by the soldiers for cooking. A good many of the pieces were still burning when I was there. The fences were worm stake and rider rail fences. Mrs. Mary Baker owned this farm at that time.
Redirect-examination.
Claimant had about ten acres of growing corn that was destroyed, and I suppose about 16 acres of grass that had not been reaped (p. 3).
Testimony: Defendant's Brief on Merits
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
Mary Baker v. The United States. No. 8560 Cong.
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF ON MERITS.
This is a claim for $646.25, the value of stores and supplies in the shape of cattle, hay, wheat and wood alleged to have been taken from the home of the claimant in Augusta County, Virginia, during the year 1864, by soldiers of Gen. Crook's army. Counsel for the claimant has made a fair abstract of the testimony. There is no evidence from any of the witnesses that they saw the property taken. Amounts are approximated. So far as the wheat is concerned the testimony is positive that the soldiers came in the field and camped, and trampled down the said wheat which was growing in the field. According to claimant's own witnesses, the Union troops never derived the slightest benefit from the wheat.
It will be noted that the prices for cattle, $40 each, is very high. Claimant has charged for hay to the amount of almost the utmost capacity of her barn.
The testimony as to quantities is very indefinite. The only definite statement as to number, or amounts is relative to the cattle, witnesses testifying that claimant had four cattle. In regard to all the other items the witnesses approximate in every case. While objecting to the request of counsel for the claimant, because of the indefinite character of the testimony, it is almost impossible to suggest what amounts, if any, should be found respecting the various items embraced in claimant's second request.
There is no objection to claimant's first and third requests.
Respectfull submitted, Geo. H. Walker, Assistant Attorney.
Testimony: Reply to Defendant's Brief on Merits
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1900-1901.
MARY BAKER VS. THE UNITED STATES. No. 8560 Congressional.
REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' BRIEF ON MERITS.
While it is true, as defendants' counsel states, that the witnesses did not see the property taken, their testimony is quite as conclusive as if they saw it taken. For instance, Joseph Walker testifies that while he was not present when the property was taken, he saw the property, in possession of the army when it was taken, in June 1864, and gives the command.
Counsel is not quite correct when he states that none of the witnesses saw the property taken. Mrs. Mary Baker, the claimant, certainly was present, as indicated on her examination when she says that she went to Gen. Crook, who commanded the forces that took her property, and told him his men were destroying everything she had, and he told her to take an account of everything, which she did. This shows that she was there when the property was taken and made complaint to the officer and also that she made out an account at the time, from which account she doubtless made her claim.
The other witnesses testify very clearly that they were there soon after the army left and saw that the property had been taken. Some of them testify that they know she had this property before the army came and that it was gone after they left. Now, as there was no one else to take it, the presumption is irresistible that the Federal forces did get the property that is charged for.
Notwithstanding the contention of defendants' counsel to the contrary, I think the quantity, of hay is very definitely proven as charged. The claimant states the the mow in her barn was full of hay at the time the Federals came and that they took it all; that besides this they took the hay from a ten-acre field of fine clover.
It will be observed that this was taken in June 1864, about the time that hay was matured in the field and ready for harvesting. In fact the claimant testifies that it was ready to mow.
Mr. Frenger, who was familiar with claimant's property and knew about her barn, states that the barn was capable of holding from 14 to 16 tons of hay.
So, taking the standing hay, which was ready to mow, and the amount that was in the barn, it is proven conclusively that they took much more hay than is charged for.
Now as to the wheat:
This wheat was taken at a time when it was ready for harvesting, in June 1864. There were 20 acres of it and it would yield from 400 to 500 bushels to the acre. While the proof shows that the stock trampled down this wheat to a large extent, it is not unreasonable to believe that out of 400 or 500 bushels that they used 125 bushels, that is, got the benefit of that number of bushels by feeding their stock.
So the quantity of wheat, notwithstanding defendants' counsel to the contrary, is a reasonable charge and is fully supported by the proof.
Again, as to the wood, Mr. Walker testifies that the claimant had at least 30 cords of wood used by the army, which was selling at that time at $4 a cord. The proof shows that they took about 60,000 rails. That would make at least 30 cords of wood.
Mr. Wiseman testifies that the claimant had in her farm about 200 acres and it was fenced in small fields; that they burned the fence on one side of the farm. He, being a farmer, could properly make an estimate and he says there were something like 35,000 or 40,000 rails taken.
So there can be no doubt as to the quantity of wood. There should have been more charged for. $3 a cord is reasonable. The finding should therefore be as requested, that is, 30 cords of wood at $3 per cord.
It is very evident therefore that this claim is just for the property charged for and that the prices requested to be found are very reasonable. The finding of the Court should be as requested in the original petition.
Respectfully submitted, Gilbert Moyers Attorney for Claimant.
Testimony: Findings
COURT OF CLAIMS. (Congressional Case No. 8560)
Mary Baker vs. The United States
STATEMENT OF CASE
The claim in the above-titled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the Court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 16th day of February 1892.
On a preliminary inquiry the Court, on the 5th day of March 1899, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war.
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the fourth day of December 189 1901, Gilbert Moyers, Esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney General, by George H. Walker, Esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States.
The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations:
That she is a citizen of the United states, residing in Augusta County, State of Virginia, where she resided during the late war of the rebellion; that at different times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from her quartermaster stores and commmissary supplies of the value of $646.25, and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows, namely:
Taken by Gen. Crooks' command about June 11, 1864, near Greenville, Va., 4 head Cattle at $40, $160.00; 16 tons Hay at $15, 240.00; 125 bushels Wheat at $1.25, 156.25; 30 cords Wood at $3 per cord, 90.00: $646.25
The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following
FINDING OF FACT
There were taken from the claimant in Augusta County, State of Virginia, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the army, stores and supplies of those above described, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of Four hundred and twenty-six dollars ($426).
It does not appear that payment has been made for any part thereof.
Bibliographic Information : Southern Claims Commission: Claim of Mary Baker, September 16, 1871, Claim No. 7071, Source copy consulted: National Archives, Washington, D.C., RG 123, Congressional Jurisdiction #8560.
