Summary: Hemp's claim for horses and farm products was rejected because the Commissioners did not believe there was sufficient proof of his loyalty. He appealed this decision to the Court of Claims in 1900 and again in 1902.
Items Claimed:
| Item Claimed: | Amount Claimed: | Amount Allowed: | Amount Disallowed: |
| Total | 484.00 | 0 | 484.00 |
Claims Summary:
Claimant was within conscription ages he served some months in the militia and was discharged on account of sickness. How he kept out of the Confederate Army, don't appear. He says he did not vote for secession His witnesses testify that he was loyal but there is nothing appears in the evidence in regard to his conduct during the war. We could infer it. He does testify but to all appearance since we learnt of peace and good terms with his neighbors during the war. We are not satisifed with sufficiency of the evidence in support of loyalty and we therefore reject the claim.
AO Aldis, JB Howell, O. Ferriss Com. of Claims
Testimony: William D. Hemp
Ques. 2 Ans I resided near Middlebrook, in Augusta Co. Va. I had rented land, and was engaged at farming-did not change my residence or business.
Ques. 3 Ans. I did not pass the military lines of the United States.
Ques. 4 Ans. I never took an oath of any description to the Confederate States.
Ques. 5. Ans. I took the Amnesty oath in 1865, at Staunton, Va. after the close of the War.
Ques. 6 Ans. I never was connected with the Civil service of the Confederate States.
Ques. 7 Ans. I never held any office, place of trust or honor, in the Confederate States, at all.
Ques. 8 Ans. I held no clerkship, agency or employment of any kind.
Ques. 9 Ans. I was not.
Ques. 10 Ans. I never was an officer or soldier.
Ques. 11 Ans. I was called out as a state malitia and reported in Staunton in 1861. I was released and again in 1862, was called out and was in the Valley. I remained in the Malitia over two months. I then left, on sick list, and then was discharged.
Ques. 12 Ans. I never belonged to any home guard or Committee of any kind for any purpose.
Ques. 13 Ans. I never was conscripted.
Ques. 14 Ans. I furnished no substitute.
Ques. 15 Ans. I never was employed in any branch or department of the Confederate Government Army or Navy
Ques. 16 Ans. I never was in the employ of any Railroad, nor aided in the transportation of any thing whatever for the rebel cause
Ques. 17 Ans. I had no charge of anything.
Ques. 18 Ans. I never was in the Service of the Confederate States, its Army or Navy. I never furnished any aid, or supplies, stores or property to any branch of the goverment, Army or Navy. And I never did give any information.
Ques. 19 Ans. I never was engaged in the manufacture of any article whatsoever, for the use and benefit of the Confederacy.
Ques. 20 Ans. I had nothing to do with any employment, for the benefit of the government or for the rebellion.
Ques. 21 Ans. I never run the blockade, and was not engaged in illicit traffic, or had any share or interest in any species of goods brought into or sent from the Confederate States.
Ques. 22 Ans. I never left the Confederate states during the entire War.
Ques. 23 Ans. I had no interest in Any vessel for any purpose.
Ques. 24 Ans. I never was arrested by the Confederate Government. Nor by the United States.
Ques. 25 Ans. I had about two ton of hay taken and some Corn, I never was paid.
Ques. 26 Ans. I never was threatened except by hearsay.
Ques. 27 Ans. I never was molested.
Ques. 28 Ans. I never had any opportunity to contribute anything.
Ques. 29 Ans. I did nothing except to feed Union soldiers.
Ques. 30 Ans. I had no near relatives in the Confederate Army.
Ques. 31 Ans. I never owned any Confederate bonds and did nothing to support the credit of the Confederate Government or cause.
Ques. 32 Ans. I give no aid and comfort to the rebellion.
Ques. 33 Ans. I never was in Canada.
Ques. 34 Ans. I never was engaged in holding any prisoners of War, or other persons, for any purpose or cause.
Ques. 35 Ans. I never belonged to any society or association for the punishment of any one for any cause.
Ques. 36 Ans. I never was a paroled prisoner.
Ques. 37 Ans. I never held an office of any kind.
Ques. 38 Ans. I never had a pass.
Ques. 39 Ans. I was under no disabilities. I have held no office since the war.
Ques. 40 Ans. I sympathized with the Union. I told the rebels, that the North would whip. I voted for the Union Candidates to the Convention. I did not vote for the Ordinance of Secession. Afterwards I went for the Union.
Ques. 41 Ans. I do solemnly say that from the beginning of hostilities against the United States to the end thereof, my sympathies were constantly with the cause of the United States and that I never of my own free will and accord did anything, or offered, or sought or attempted to do anything by word or deed to injure said cause or retard its success, and was at all times ready and willing when called upon to aid and assist the cause of the Union or its supporters, so far as my means and power and the circumstances would permit.
Ques. 1 Ans. I was not present and did not see the property taken. The property was taken about the 11th of June 1864. I was told there were three soldiers, one of whom said he was a Seargeant Quartermaster. Mrs. Bosserman was present when the property was taken I heard that one of the Soldiers present said he was a Quarter Master. I do not know where the property was removed, as the Army was then Marching. I never saw the property after being taken. I made no complaint as I never saw any officer or soldier. I got no receipt. There was no Camp nearer than Staunton, about 9 miles distant. There had been no fight, by Genl. Crooks Army, who got my property. Genl. Hunter had had a fight at Piedmont Crooks & Hunter united at Staunton. My two horses were in fine order, one was 4 years old, large and well formed a good work animal, I think she was worth $175. The other was 7 years old. She was a good medium size, well broke to the harness. The Wheat had not been harvested. There were between 12 or 13 Acres in Wheat, and was good. Genl. Crook's camped over night, near the field, and pastured the Wheat. Flour was selling at $10 in good money. The bridles were good as also the halters.
William D. Hemp
Testimony: Sarah Bosserman
Deposition of Sarah Bosserman
My name is Sarah Bosserman my age is 47 years. I am a sister of the claimant, but have no benefit in the claim. I was present and saw the property taken.
Ques. 3 Ans. The two horses were in the stable. The soldiers went to the stable and opened the doors and took them out. When we asked them to leave the horses, the one who said he was a Quarter Master replied that they needed horses and could not leave them.
Ques. 4 Ans. I do not recollect the time. There were three in all. The Officer and one soldier went to the stable and the other remained in the house yard, holding bread which we had given them. They were only a few minutes at the stable.
Ques. 5 Ans. Lucy Myers, Lizzie Sansabaugh, Jane Cale, were present.
Ques. 6 Ans. One of the men said he was a Quarter Master, he did not give his name. I have forgotten the name of the Commanding Officer of the Army. They had crossed the mountain from the West. The Quarter Master said that they needed the horses. The Quarter Master, & both soldiers were mounted when they came. They led claimants horses away. I did not see them pasturing the Wheat.
Ques. 9 Ans. The Quarter Master said they were going to take the horses to Staunton. I did not follow.
Ques. 10 Ans. I do not know what use they made of the horses. The Officer said there were some soldiers, who had none. I never saw them after they left the house.
Ques. 11 Ans. There was no complaint, except asking them to leave the horses, but the Quarter Master replied they needed them.
Ques. 12 Ans. There was no receipt asked for.
Ques. 13 Ans. It was day time, about 9 o'clock A.M.
Ques. 14 Ans. The Army camped about one mile off, the night previous. I dont remember the name of the General Commanding They only remained in Camp one night they said they were on their way to Staunton to meet Genl. Hunter. There had been a battle at Piedmont. I do not know how long they staid at Staunton. I knew no officer.
Ques. 15 Ans. The horses were very nice, in good order, and large sized. If they had belonged to me, I would not have taken less than two hundred dollars a piece for them. I know nothing about the Wheat, as the field was a mile off.
Sarah Bosserman her mark
Testimony: Henry Mish
Loyalty
Deposition of Henry Mish
Answer to 1st Genl. qestion. My name is Henry Mish, my age is 60 years. I am a farmer and reside near Middlebrook Augusta Co. Va. I have known the claimant for 15 years. I am not related to him and have no benefit in his claim. During the war, the claimant lived on my land for a part of the time and the balance very near me. I saw him very often, more than once a week, and he always told me that he was in favor of the Union, he complained very much of being forced into the rebel Army. He was out in the Militia about two months, he was taken sick, and he told me he would rather die than fight. I think most of his Union neighbors regarded him as a Union man. He knew that my sympathies were with the Union. I never knew him to do anything for the Union cause, he was a very poor man. The two mares taken from him, was given to him by a brother who had died. The claimant was a very quiet man, and talked but little, on any subject. I do not believe from what I have heard him say repeatedly that he could have proven loyalty to the South, if they had succeeded in gaining an independence.
Henry Mish
Testimony: John Engleman
Deposition of John Engleman
Answer to first general question. My name is John Engleman, my age is 62 years. My residence near Middlebrook, Augusta Co. my occupation is a farmer. I am not related to the claimant, and have no interest in his claim. I have known the claimant about 30 years. I lived about two miles from him during the War. We were intimate during that time. I saw him very often, upon on average once a week. I hauled a load of wheat to his house and he hid it for me and kept it until the close of the War. We talked about the War, every time we met & he was always opposed to the War and in favor of the Union. I know that he exerted himself to help me to keep out of the rebel army. I have heard him talk in presence of others, and he was invariable in his opposition to the War. He was regarded byas a Union man, by all his neighbors. He done nothing in favor of the Confederacy except what he was compelled to do.
I do not suppose he could have shown any loyalty to the South, if he had tried.
John Engleman
Testimony: Claimant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1899-1900.
WILLIAM D. HEMP VS. THE UNITED STATES. No. 8635 Congressional.
STATEMENT.
The claim originated in Augusta County, Virginia, where the claimant resided during the war. It was presented to the Commissioners and by them disallowed because not satisfied with the proof of loyalty. The claim was referred to the Court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives March 1, 1892, under the provisions of the Bowman Act.
CLAIMANT'S BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
The following testitmony was taken while the claim was pending before the Commissioners of Claims, in March, 1873:
WILLIAM D. HEMP, the claimant, testifies: Age 45. Residence Middlebrook, Va. Farmer Resided during the war near Middlebrook, Augusta County, Va. Had rented land and was engaged in farming. Did not change my business or residence. Never passed beyond the military lines of the United States. Never took any oath to the Confederate States. Took the amnesty oath in 1865 at Staunton, Va. after the close of the war. (Interrogatories 6 to 10 answered favorably to loyalty). Was called out as a state militia and reported at Staunton in 1861. Was released and again in 1862 was called out and was then left on sick list and was then discharged. (Answers to interrogatories 12 to 24 favorable to loyalty) (pp. 1-2). Had about two tons of hay and some corn taken by the Confederates. Was never paid. Was never threatened except by hearsay. Never was molested. Never had an opportunity to contribute anything to the Union cause. Did nothing except to feed Union soldiers. (Questions 30 to 39 inclusive answered favorably to loyalty) (p. 3). At the beginning of the rebellion I sympathized with the union. Told the rebels that the North would whip. Voted for Union candidates to the convention. Did not vote for the ordinance of secession. Afterwards went for the Union and did not go out with my state. I do solemnly say that from the beginning to the end of the war my sympathies were constantly with the cause of the United States; that I never did anything to injure said cause, and was at all times ready aid willing to aid it as far as the circumstances permitted. (p. 4).
HENRY MISH testifies: Age 60. Farmer. Residence near Middlebrook, Va. Have known claimant fifteen years. Not interested or related. During the war claimant lived on my land for a part of the time and the balance very near me. Saw him very often, more than once a week, and he always told me that he was in favor of the Union. He complained very much of being forced into the rebel army. He was out in the militia about two months. He was taken sick and told me he would rather die than fight. I think most of his Union neighbors regarded him as a Union man. He knew that my sympathies were with the Union. I never know him to do anything for the Union cause; he was a very poor man (p. 8). The two mares taken from him was given to him by a brother who had died. Claimant was a very quiet man and talked but little on any subject. Do not believe from what I have heard him say repeatedly that he could have proven loyalty to the South, if they had succeeded in winning their independence.
JOHN ENGLEMAN testifies: Age 62. Residence near Middlebrook, Va. Farmer. Not interested or related. Have known claimant about 30 years. Lived about two miles from him during the war. We were intimate during that time. I saw him very often, on an average once a week. I hauled a load of wheat to his house and he hid it for me and kept it until the close of the war. We talked about the war every time we met and he was always opposed to the war and in favor of the Union. I know that he exerted himself to help men to keep out of the rebel army (p. 9). Have heard him talk in presence of others and he was invariable in his opposition to the war. He was regarded as a Union man by all his neighbors. He did nothing in favor of the Confederacy except what he was compelled to do. I do not suppose he could have shown any loyalty to the South if he had tried (p. 10).
The following testimony was taken at Staunton, Va. commencing Oct. 3, 1900:
JACOB AREHART testifies: Age 69. Residence Middlebrook, Augusta County, Va. Resided before and during the war about a Mile and a half from Middlebrook, and was a farmer. Was acquainted with claimant; have been living beside him for forty years and knew him intimately (p. 1); resided about half a mile from him. Met him during the war and talked about it. He always stuck to his own side of the question, that is, the Union side. He always talked for the Union side to me. Could not say how he voted, never saw him vote. Think I have heard him express himself on the question of secession. His views were always that the secession side would never gain. I was not a Union Man. Think claimant was just as loyal as any man could be. I lived beside him all that time and he never said anything any other way that I know of. Know he was commonly spoken of and regarded by his neighbors and those who knew him as a loyal Union man (p. 2). Don't know of his doing anything in favor of the Union cause. He did not aid the Confederates that I know of. I saw him frequently during the war.
Cross-examination.
Claimant always voted at Middlebrook. I was well acquainted with the Hemp family; don't knew the name of his father; his brother was John Hemp. There was no other family by the name of Hemp in the neighborhood of Middlebrook that I know of during the war. Don't know of claimant's doing anything to aid the Union cause. When the ordinance of secession was voted upon there was another William C. Hemp living in the neighborhood of Middlebrook, a son of claimant. Expect he is forty-five or fifty year old now (p. 3). I think that the conduct of claimant duiring the war was such that he could have established his loyalty to the Confederacy. He always talked like a loyal Union man. He was a Union man and stuck to his side; never heard him talk in any other way. He did not that I know of have any brothers or sons in the Confederate Army. I was at home during the entire war except about three weeks, when I was in the reserves. Don't think claimant wes ever in the service of the Confederacy. There were not a great many Union men in my neighborhood during the war. Claimant was never molested or threatened.
Redirect-examination.
When I stated on cross-examination that claimant could have established his loyalty to the Confederacy I understood it of the Union; never heard him say anything about the Confederacy, that is, I never heard him say anything in favor of it (p. 4). (In answer to the question whether claimant could have established his loyalty to the Confederacy) He was always a Union man; he had nothing to say about the Confederacy.
Re-cross-exami nation.
Have heard claimant say a good many times that the Confederacy would never be successful and so on; don't know exactly what he said now. Never heard him say whether he desired the Confederacy to succeed (p. 5).
JOHN W. MISH testifies: Age 51. Farmer. No interest or relation. Resided before and during the war near Middlebrook, and was a farmer. Was acquainted with claimant; acquaintance intimate. At the commencement of the war resided about three miles from him, and the latter part a mile and a half. Saw him frequently during the war. He and my father conversed about the war frequently in my presence, and both condemned the war and predicted the results. I know claimant was regarded as a Union man. Don't know how he voted. Don't think I ever heard him express his opinion on secession (p. 6). The impression of everybody was that he was a Union man and what I heard myself led me to believe that he was a Union man. He was commonly spoken of and regarded as a Union man by his neighbors. He gave no aid to the Confederacy that I know of and was regarded during and since the war as a Union man. Don't know of his having done anything in favor of the Union cause. He was never in the Confederate service that I know of; if he was there he was under compulsion. The only way that people in my neighborhood had chance to to render any aid or assistnace to the Union cause would be in helping deserters through. We were in the Confederate lines except on the occasion of Hunters raid up the valley, which was a few days (p. 7).
Cross-examination.
I an the son of Henry Mish, who is the owner of a war claim. I was born Oct. 1, 1849. Claimant lived on my father's place the first two years of the war. They had frequent talks in regard to the war and the conversation was always in favor of the Union; don't know the exact words of it. Don't know of any man living in Augusta County by the name of Wm. C. Hemp, but there are a good many Hemps in the county. Claimant did not that I know of furnish any supplies to the Confederate Army. Every time that I heard claimant's loyalty spoken of the impression of everyone was that he was a Union man (p.8).
G.L. AREHART testifies: Retired farmer. Age 72. Residence near Middlebrook, Va. Not interested or related. Resied before and during the war about two miles from Middlebrook, Va.; was a farmer. Have known claimant about fifty years. Knew him intimately before and during the war. We talked right smart together. Resided about three miles from him during the war. Met him a good many times. We talked about the war. He and I were opposed to it (p. 9). I was a Union man and am today. Claimant was always a Union man. Could not tell whether he voted at all or not. I think he wes opposed to secession all the time. Think his public reputation among his neighbors and in the community in which he resided was all right as a Union man; people looked upon him as a Union man. Don't know of his having done anything in favor of the Union cause. He didn not do anything to helpe Confederate cause; they came and took his property by force, just as they did me and never paid him a cent for it. Don't recollect of his being in the Confederate service; if he was he was forced in and did not go in of his own account (p. 10). My section was in the Confederate lines most of the time, and we had no chance of helping the Union people. I can state positively, as far as I knew, Mr. Hemp was a Union man.
Cross-examination.
I was away from home from Jan. 20, 1864 till July 7, 1864. Could not tell anything claimant did to aid the Union, words or actions. I was acquainted with most of the people living in and around and if there was any man living there named Wm. C. Hemp, I have forgot him. Did not see any of the Union soldiers around claimant's house during the war (p. 11).
J. R. CALE testifies: Farmer. Age 62. Residence Arbor Hill, Va. No interest or relation Resided before and during the war in Augusta County, Va.; was a farmer. Knew claimant intimately before and during the war. As near as I can recollect I resided about a mile from him (p. 13). Don't recollect meeting him very often; talked with him sometimes, can not say how often. As far as I know, he always talked in favor of the Union. He was opposed to the war. He was on the Union side as far as he had any influence. He did not vote at all. Don't believe they allowed the Union people to vote. Don't recollect any particular expression upon secession, but when he did express himself it was against secession. I was not a Union man. I was in the Confederate Army a little while. Did not hear much of claimant's public reputation, but when I did hear it spoken of he was spoken of as a Union man. He did not that I know of do anything for the Confederacy. Don't know of his being threatened or abused on account of his being a Union man (p. 14) The section in which claimant resided was throughout the war within the Confederate lines. Don't think the Union people residing in that section had any opportunity for rendering aid or assistance to the Union cause.
Cross-examination.
It has been so long that I cannot recollect who I heard speak of Mr. Hemp as a Union man. There were not many Union men in this neighborhood during the war. (Names several Union men in that neighhorhood during the war). Had the Confederacy been successful I could have established my loyalty to it. Don't think claimant could have established his loyalty to the Confederacy. I was at claimant's house frequently the war. Don't recollect being there when the Union soldiers were there (p. 15).. Don't recollect seeing any Union soldiers in or around his house. I have never testified before in this case. W. D. Hemp was in the Confederate Army a little while; he was forced in; they drafted him.
Redirect-examination.
I don't know of any Union soldiers being about claimant's neighborhood during the war, except on the occasion of Hunter's raid up the valley in 1864 (p. 16).
SUMMARY.
William D. Hemp, the claimant, was a poor man during the war, and lived during the entire time within the Confederate lines, the Federals not being in that neighhorhood except on one occasion, in 1864, when Hunter made a short raid of a few days. In consequence of this claimant had no opportunity of directly aiding the Union cause. He voted against secession and was at all times in sympathy with the Union. He was forced into the rebel army but only remained two months. All of the witnesses testify that his reputation was that of loyal man and that his Union neighbors regarded him as one of them. They all agree that in conversation he always strongly upheld the Union and opposed secession and that whatever service he may have rendered the Confederacy was compulsory, and not willingly performed. Although he was only able to aid the Union troops by feeding a few of their number, it is urged that this, together with the other facts in his favor, is amply sufficient to justify a finding of loyalty.
Respectfully submitted, Ida M. Moyers of Counsel. Gilbert Moyers Attorney for Claimant.
Testimony: Defendant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
William D. Hemp -vs- The United States. No. 8635, Congressional.
Defendant's Brief on Loyalty.
This is a claim for stores and supplies alleged to have been taken by the United States troops from William D. Hemp; the claimant, in Augusta County, Virginia, during the civil war. It was originally presented to the Commissioners of Claims and rejected by them on the ground of the claimant's disloyalty. The claim was referred to the Court of Claims, under the Bowman Act, March 1, 1892, by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives.
The claimant in his brief appears to have correctly abstracted the testimony.
The depositions of the following witnesses were taken while the claim was pending before the Commissioners of Claims, in March, 1873:
WILLIAM D. HEMP (the claimant) testifies: Was engaged in farming,- rented land during the war. Took the amnesty oath in 1865 at Staunton, Virginia. The claimant was called out as a state militia man and reported at Staunton in 1861; was released and again in 1862 was called out and served in the valley in the militia for over two months, when he left on sick list and was discharged. He had about two tons of hay and some corn taken by the Confederates, for which he was never paid. Was never threatened, except by hearsay, and never molested. He never had an opportunity to contribute anything to the Union cause. At the beginning of the rebellion he sympathized with the Union; told the rebels that the North would whip. (pp. 1 & 2, Claimant's Brief).
HENRY MISH (who has a claim pending) testifies: claimant complained very much about being forced into the rebel army. Never knew him to do anything for the Union cause, as he was a very poor man. (p. 3, Claimant's Brief).
JOHN ENGLEMAN testifies: He did nothing in favor of the Confederacy except what he was compelled to do. (p. 3, Claimant's Brief).
The attention of the court is called to the fact that the claimant in his testimony makes no excuse whatever for his services upon two occasions in the Confederate army. His two witnesses pretend that he was forced into the Confederate service but there is nothing whatever to substantiate theire contention. They do not state by whom or in what manner he was forced to do service; and their testimony, moreover, in this respect is in direct conflict with the testimony of claimant himself.
The claimant served in the Confederate army for over two months; and that fact alone, without a valid and sufficient excuse for so doing, is enough to render him disloyal within the purview of the Bowman Act.
After the foregoing testimony had been taken, the Commissioners of Claims rejected the said claim in the following finding:
Claimant was within the conscript age; he served some months in the militia, and was discharged on account of sickness,- how he kept out of the Confederate army don't appear. He says he did not vote for secession. His witnesses testify that he was loyal, but there is nothing that appears in the evidence in regard to his conduct or career from which we could infer it. He don't seem to have been threatened or molested, but to all appearances lived on terms of peace and good fellowship with his neighbors during the war.
We are not satisfied with the sufficiency of the evidence in respect to loyalty, and we therefore reject the claim.
After the reference of the claim to the Court of Claims, the depositions of four witnesses were taken on behalf of claimant at Staunton, Va., on the 8th of October, 1900.
JACOB AREHART testifies: Residence Middlebrook. Witness thinks that he has heard claimant express himself on the question of secession,- his views were that the secession side would never win. Don't know of his doing anything in favor of the Union cause. He did not aid the Confederates that witness knows of.
On cross-examination: Claimant always voted at Middlebrook. Witness was well acquainted with the Hemp family. There was noanother family by the name of Hemp in the neighborhood of Middlebrook that witness knows of during the war. When the ordinance of secession was voted upon there was a William C. Hemp living in the neighborhood of Middlebrook, a son of claimant, who is forty-five or fifty years of age (October 8, 1900). Witness thinks that the conduct of claimant during the war was such that he could have established his loyalty to the Confederacy. Never heard claimant say whether he desired the Confederacy to succeed. (pp. 4 & 5, Claimant's Brief).
JOHN W. MISH testifies: Age 51. Residence Middlebrook, Va. Claimant and witness' father conversed about the war frequently in witness' presence, and both condemned the war and predicted the results. Don't know how claimant voted, and witness don't think he ever heard him express his opinion on secession. Don't know of claimant having done anything in favor of the Union cause, and he was never in the Confederate service that witness knows of, and if he was there he was under compulsion. "We were in the Con-federate lines except on the occasion of Hunter''s raid up the valley, which was only for a few days."
On cross-examination witness says that he is the son of Henry Mish, who is owner of the war claim, and was born October 1, 1849. Claimant lived on the farm of witness' father the first two years of the way. Don't know of any man living in Augusta County by the name of William C. Hemp. (pp. 6 & 7, Claimant's Brief).
G. L. AREHART testifies: Residence Middlebrook, Va. Don't recollect of claimant being in the Confederate service, if he was he was forced in and did not go in of his own account. Don't know of his having done anything in favor of the Union cause. Witness' section was in the Confederate lines most of the time, and they had no chance of helping the Union people.
On cross-examination witness could not tell anything the claimant did to aid the Union, either by words or actions. Was acquainted with most of the people living in and around Middlebrook, and if there was any man named William C. Hemp living there witness has forgotten him. Did not see any of the Union soldiers around claimant's house during the war. (pp. 7 & 8, Claimant's Brief).
J. B. CALE testifies: Was not a Union man. Was in the Confederate army a little while. Did not hear much of claimant's public reputation. He did not, that witness knows of, do anything for the Confederacy. Don't know of his being threatened or abused on account of his being a Union man.
On cross-examination the witness says it has been so long that he can not recollect whom he heard speak of Mr. Hemp as a Union man. There were not many Union men in this neighborhood during the war. Was at claimant's house frequently during the war. Don't recollect being there when Union soldiers were there, or seeing any Union soldiers in or around his house. W. D. Hemp was in the Confederate army a little while,- they drafted him. (p. 9, Claimant's Brief).
The following report, dated May 4, 1901, was received from the War Department:
There is on file in the Confederate archives of this office, one voucher dated Augusta County, December 23, 1864, signed William D. Hemp, for $500 for hay furnished the Confederate States Government.
The following report was received from the Treasury Department, dated April 27, 1892:
I have the honor to state that the name of William C. Hemp appears in a copy of a list of those voting for ordinance of secession in Augusta County, Virginia.
The claimant states in his deposition that he never received payment for any supplies furnished the Confederate army. This statement has been proven to be untrue by the above quoted report from the War Department, for according to that report he undoubtedly received at least $500 from that source. His contention that he feed Union soldiers is also flatly contradicted by the testimony of several of the witnesses who lived a short distance from him - one of them only a mile - and who state positively that they never saw any Union soldiers in or around claimant's house. There can be no doubt that claimant was the man referred to in the report from the Treasury Department as having voted for the ordinance of secession. His witnesses state that he voted at Middlebrook; and they also state, with the exception of one witness, that they knew of no man around Middlebrook by the name of William C. Hemp. One witness testifies that he knew of no one by the name of William C. Hemp in Augusta County, Va., and one witness testifies that he knew of one William C. Hemp, a son of claimant, whose age was forty-five or fifty on the 8th of October, 1900. This man (if his name was William C. Hemp) would have been far below the voting age at the time the ordinance of secession was passed.
In the confusion of taking down the names of voters nothing would have been more natural than to have written a C for a D when claimant's name was called out at the polls.
This man was so clearly disloyal that it is a waste of time to argue the case further.
Respectfully submitted, George M. Anderson, Special Attorney.
Testimony: Claimant's Reply Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1900-1901.
WILLIAM D. HEMP VS. THE UNITED STATES. No. 8635 Congressional.
CLAIMANT'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
On page 2 of defendants' brief we find claimant quoted as saying that "At the beginning of the rebellion he sympathized with the Union." Counsel for the defense has underscored the word "beginning." Therefore it becomes necessary, on account of the erroneous impression this might make, to call the Court's attention to the fact that this was given in reply to the printed form of questions asked by the Commissioners. "At the beginning of the rebellion did you sympathize with the Union cause or with the rebellion?" In reply to said question claimant does not even use the word "beginning."
He testifies that he told the rebels that the North would whip; voted for Union candidates to the convention, but did not vote for the ordinance of secession. Afterwards went for the Union and did not go out with his state.
Another fales impression created by defendants' abstract of testimony occurs on page 5, where Jacob Arehart is quoted as saying that he thought the conduct of claimant during the war was such that he could have established his loyalty to the Confederacy. The testimony on this matter is as follows:
Cross-examination.
Q. "Was the conduct of the claimant during the civil war such that he could have established his loyalty to the C.S.A. had they been successful."
A. "I think so."
Redirect-examination.
Q. "In answer to the 6th question on cross-examination you have stated that the claimant, W.D. Hemp, could have established his loyalty to the Confederacy in the event that it had been successful, did you understand this question when you answered it?"
A. "I understood it of the Union, I never heard him say anything about the Confederacy."
Q. "When you say you never heard him say anything about the Confederacy do you mean that you never heard him say anything in favor of it?"
A. "Yes Sir."
Q. "Now that you understand the 6th question above referred to, which the notary will now read to you, what answer do you make to it??"
A. "He was always a Union man; he had nothing to say about the Confederacy."
On page 6 of defendant's brief we find J.B. Cale as testifying that he did not hear much of claimant's public reputation. In his testimony he does make the statement, but, as quoted by the defense, it is only a partial statement, the completed sentence reading, "But when I did hear it spoken of he was spoken of as a Union man."
Claimant states that he had about 2 tons of hay and some corn taken by the Confederates and was never paid. He was undoubtedly correct in his statement and there is nothing in the Confederate archives indicating that he was paid for 2 tons of hay and some corn. The Court, on examination of the original voucher referred to by the defense, will find that a mistake has been made by the War Department in its report and that this should have read 500 pounds of hay and not $500. These small transactions involving supplies of this nature speak for themselves and bear evidence of said supplies being taken by a passing command to meet the immediate needs of said command.
It is denied that there is any proof that claimant voted for secession. His own statement regarding his vote is clearly and well given and in this he is borne out by the very report from the Treasury Department itself in the difference appearing in the initial of the middle name, and further by the fact that John W. Mish testifies that there were a good many Hemps in that county.
Another question raised is claimant's service in the Confederate Army. He belonged to the state militia and was twice called into service. He evidently was connected with said militia prior to the war and was therefore subject to orders which as a soldier under the strictest discipline he was compelled to obey or suffer arrest for disobedience. His connection with the militia was the reason for this service, which can therefore be regarded in no way as voluntary, and is thus relieved from the stigma of willing service. All of the witnesses testifying on this point state that if claimant was in any way connected with the Confederate service it was because he was forced.
All of the witnesses state that claimant bore the reputation among every one of being a Union man and many of them met and conversed with him often and found him always in speech loyal to the Union. Further than this he was powerless to show his loyalty, being all the time within the Confederate lines and coming very little in contact with Union soldiers. These, however, he fed when opportunity offered.
It is reasonably insisted that the entire evidence shows that claimant gave no voluntary aid to the Confederacy, but was a true Union man in sentiment and so acted and expressed himself whenever occasion offered.
Respectfully submitted, Gilbert Moyers Attorney for Claimant. Ida M. Moyers Of counsel.
Testimony: Claimant's Motion for a New Trial on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1901-1902.
WILLIAM D. HEMP, vs. THE UNITED STATES. No. 8635 Congressional.
CLAIMANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ON LOYALTY.
Comes now the claimant in this cause, and moves that this Honorable Court do grant a new trial upon the issue of his loyalty, and as grounds for this motion, alleges that in its decision of December 2, 1901, holding that loyalty had not been proven, this Honorable Court erred, as follows, to-wit:-
1. Said decision is contrary to the evidence and to the weight of the evidence submitted in this cause.
2. Said decision is contrary to law in that it must have been predicated upon the hypothesis that claimant either voted for Secession or voluntarily served in the Confederate army, neither of which facts have been proven in this case.
3. It is conclusively shown by the affidavits filed herewith that the claimant William D. Hemp is not the person who under the name of William C. Hemp voted for Secession and volunteered in the Confederate service.
A brief in support of this motion is filed herewith.
Respectfully submitted, Gilbert Moyers Attorney for Claimant. Chas F Consaul, I.M. Moyers Of Counsel.
Testimony: Claimant's Brief for a New Trial on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1901-1902.
WILLIAM D. HEMP, vs. THE UNITED STATES. No. 8635 Congressional.
CLAIMANT'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ON LOYALTY.
The testimony in this case, condensed and summarized, is substantially, as follows:-
WILLIAM D. HEMP testified: Resided during the war near Middlebrook, Augusta County, Va. Did not change my business or residence. Never took any oath to the Confederate States. Took the Amnesty Oath in 1865 at Staunton, Virginia. Was called out as a state militia and reported at Staunton in 1861. Was released and again in 1862 was called out and was then left on sick list and was then discharged. Had some hay and corn taken by the Confederates. Was never paid for it. Was never threatened except by hearsay. Never was molested on account of Union sentiments. Did nothing for Union cause except to feed Union soldiers; never had the opportunity to contribute otherwise. Had no near relatives in the Confederate army. Never owned Confederate bonds and never assisted the Confederacy. Never took a pass. I sympathized with the Union and told the Rebels that the North would whip. I voted for Union candidates to the convention. Did not vote for the Ordinance of Secession but went for the Union. I do solemnly say that from the beginning to the end of hostilities, my sympathies were constantly with the Union cause, and I never sought or attempted to injure said cause, etc.
HENRY MISH testified: Age 60. Farmer. Residance near Middlebrook, Virginia. Have known claimant since 1856. Not interested or related. During the war, claimant lived on my land for a part of the time. Saw him very often, more than once a week, and he always told me that he was in favor of the Union; he complained very much of being forced into the Rebel army; he was in the militia about two months; told me he would rather die than fight; think that most of his Union neighbors regarded him as a Union man; never knew him to do anything for the Union cause; he was a very poor man; he was very quiet and talked but little on any subject. Do not believe from what I have heard him say repeatedly that he could have proven loyalty to the South.
JOHN ENGLEMAN testified: Age 62. Residence near Middlebrook, Virginia. Not interested or related. Have known claimant about 30 years; lived about two miles from him during the war; we were intimate during that time. I saw him very often, on an average once a week. He hid a load of wheat for me. We talked about the war every time we met; he was always opposed to the war and in favor of the Union. I know that he exerted himself to help men to keep out of the Rebel army. Have heard him talk in presence of others always in opposition to war. All his neighbors regarded him as a Union man. He did nothing for the Confederacy except under compulsion. Don't think that he could have shown any loyalty to the South if he had tried.
JACOB R. HART testified: Age 69 years. Residence: Middlebrook, Virginia. During the war, resided one and half miles from Middlebrook. Was intimately acquainted with claimant before and during the war. Lived about one-half mile from him. Talked to him about the war, and he always stuck to his own side, the Union side. He always talked that side to me. Could not say how he voted; did not see him vote. His views were that the Secession side would never win. I was not a Union man. Think he was as loyal as a man could be. He was commonly spoken of and regarded as a Union man. Don't know of his doing anything for the Union cause. He gave the Confederacy no aid that I know of. Claimant voted at Middlebrook. Know of no other Hemp family in this neighborhood. His son William C. Hemp, lives above Middlebrook; I suppose he is 45 or 50 years old now (in 1900), and he always talked for the Union and never said anything in favor of the Confederacy. He had no brothers or sons in the Confederate army that I know of. Don't think he was in the service. There were not many Union men in this neighborhood. Heard him say many times the South would not be successful.
JOHN W. MISH testified: Resided near Middlebrook before and during the war. Intimately acquainted with claimant. At beginning of war, lived about three miles from him and later about one and one-half miles from him. Saw him frequently during the war. He and my father conversed frequently during the war; both condemned it; know that claimant was regarded as a Union man; don't know how he voted; impression of everybody was that claimant was a Union man. He was commonly so spoken of and regarded by his neighbors. He gave no aid to the Confederacy that I know of. Don't know of his aiding the Union cause. He was not in the Confederate service that I know of. If he was, it was done under compulsion. Union people here had no chance to aid the Union except helping deserters through, as we were in Confederate lines except for a few days. Claimant lived on my father's place the first two years of the war, and they had frequent talks about the war. Don't know any William C. Hemp here, but there are a good many Hemps in the county. Claimant never furnished supplies to the Confederacy that I know of. Every time I heard claimant spoken of it was the impression of everybody that he was a Union man.
G.L. R. HART testified: Age 72 years old. Residence near Middlebrook, Virginia. Not interested or related. Have known claimant intimately about 50 years; we talked together during the war; lived about three miles apart. Met him many times; he was opposed to the war and so was I. He was always a Union man but I could not say whether he voted at all. I think that he was opposed to Secession all the time. Think his public reputation was that of a Union man; the people so looked upon him. Don't know of his aiding the Union cause, nor the Confederate cause. Confederates took his property and never paid him. Don't recollect of his being in the Confederate service; if he was he was forced in. This section of the country was in Confederate lines most of the time, and we had no chance to help Union people. I can state positively that claimant throughout the war was a loyal Union man, so far as I know. I was away from January to July, 1864. If there was a William C. Hemp living at Middlebrook during the war, I have forgotten him. Never saw Union soldiers at claimant's home.
J.B. CALE testified: Age: 62 years. Residence: Arbor Hill, Virginia. Not interested or related. Lived in Augusta county, Virginia, during the war. Intimate with claimant before and during the war. Lived about one mile apart. Talked with him some times; can't tell how often. So far as I know he always talked in favor of the Union; he was opposed to the war. He was on the Union side so far as he had any influence. He did not vote at all; I don't believe they allowed Union people to vote. When he did express himself he was against Secession. I was not a Union man. Did not hear much said about claimant, but when I did hear him spoken of it was as a Union man. He did nothing for the Confederacy that I know of. This section was throughout the war in the Confederate lines. Don't think Union people here had any opportunity to aid the Union cause. Not many Union men here. Don't think that claimant could have established loyalty to the Confederacy. Was at claimant's house some times. Don't recollect seeing Union soldiers there. Claimant was in Confederate army but a little while. He was forced in; they drafted him. No Union soldiers in the vicinity during the war except on the occasion of Hunter's Raid.
The affidavits, filed herewith in support of this motion, read as follows:-
I, H.T. SWARTZEL, of the County of Augusta, in the State of Virginia, do solemnly swear that I am well acquainted with William D. Hemp; that I have known him since long before the Civil War; that I have resided in the same community with him continuously ever since; that at the time the question of Secession was first agitated he was a strong Union man, and remained loyal to the Union during the entire war, being outspoken in his views on the subject; that he was impressed into the Confederate service sometime during the second year of the war, but remained only a short time, when he came home and was never afterwards put into service. I also knew one, William C. Hemp quite well; William C. Hemp was a son of Peter Hemp and an old school-mate of mine before the war. William C. Hemp and William D. Hemp were separate and distinct persons, and William C. Hemp has been dead for many years, according to my best recollection, since some time about the close of the war.
I, J.P. CALE, of the County of Augusta, in the State of Virginia, do solemnly swear that I am well acquainted with William D. Hemp, having known him since long before the war, and having resided continuously ever since in the neighborhood and community of which he is a member. I know that from the time the question of secession was first agitated until the close of the war, he was a strong Union man, and outspoken on all occasions in his convictions and views on the subject. He was impressed, against his earnest protest and despite every effort to escape, into the Confederate Militia Service sometime during the second year of the war, and remained therein for about two months, when he came home on account of sickness, and was never again molested or forced into service, but managed to keep out and stayed in and about his home for the rest of the war. I also know that William C. Hemp who was in the Confederate service, as a volunteer, was a separate and distinct person from William D. Hemp. William C. Hemp died some time about the close of the war and now lies buried in Mt. Tabor Church grave-yard in Augusta County.
It will be seen that it is in evidence:-
1. That claimant used what influence he had against Secession and voted for the Union candidates, and that he did not vote for Secession.
2. That from the beginning to the end of the war, he uniformly expressed himself in opposition to Secession and to the war.
3. That during the war, he was always confident that the Union cause would win.
4. That his general reputation in the vicinity in which he lived, both among Union men and Confederate sympathizers was that of a loyal Union man.
5. That he never voluntarily aided the Confederate army but that he was forced to serve about two months in the State Militia in 1861 and 1862 and had some property taken from him by the Confederate forces.
The above are the facts which we have proven by legal evidence and concerning which there is no room for any possibility of doubt. What, if anything, has the defense adduced in this case unfavorable to claimant's loyalty? Counsel for the defendant in his brief upon loyalty, after stating that claimant had correctly abstracted the testimony, proceeded to place before the Court a very much garbled abstract of his own, which is exceedingly unfair upon several points as indicated in our reply brief. Practically, however, he brings forth but two points in his brief, which are as follows:-
1. That claimant is shown by evidence in the Confederate Archives to have sold $500.00 worth of hay to the Confederate Government.
2. That one William C. Hemp voted for Secession in Augusta County, Virginia.
As pointed out in our reply brief, the report of the War Department concerning the voucher for hay is entirely erroneous and is exceedingly misleading, the fact being that said voucher was for 500 pounds of hay and not for $500.00 worth-a decided difference to say the least. Nothing can be made out of said voucher by the defense as it was testified in this case by claimant before he knew of such a voucher that the Confederates took about two tons of hay, and also some corn, for which he was not paid.
Now as to the allegation of the defense that claimant voted for Secession. Claimant's name is shown throughout the record as William D. Hemp. The report of the Treasury Department discloses the fact that one William C. Hemp voted at Middlebrook, Virginia, for Secession. The learned counsel for the defense states:-
"There can be no doubt that claimant was the man referred to in the report from the Treasury Department as having voted for the Ordinance of Secession."
When the testimony was taken in this case in 1900, it was sought by the defense to bring out on cross-examination the identity of claimant with said William C. Hemp. In this the defense signally failed. We did not at the time regard it as at all incumbent upon us to show by evidence that William D. Hemp and William C. Hemp were different persons. We did not consider that we were at all concerned with the loyalty or disloyalty of any William C. Hemp, as we were trying the issue of loyalty of William D. Hemp. Certainly no presumption could arise that William D. Hemp, the claimant, voted for Secession under the name of William C. Hemp. The defense took no testimony for the purpose of showing any such identity, and on the face of the record William D. Hemp was not William C. Hemp any more than he was William Jones or William Smith-the names being different, no presumption of identity can obtain; on the contrary, if there is any presumption whatever, it is that of diverse personality.
In view of the fact that this Honorable Court has seen fit, however, to declare that claimant has not proven his loyalty, we are forced to the conclusion that the Court regarded claimant disloyal by reason of a vote in favor of Secession. We think that our conclusion in this regard is reasonalbe as it would seem to be the only hypothesis upon which to base the finding of the Court. In order to show to the Court, however, by affirmative evidence that the claimant William D. Hemp is not the person William C. Hemp, we have submitted herewith the affidavits of H.T. Swartzell and J.P. Cale.
We are perfectly willing to submit the evidence of these affiants should the Court so require. We think that the record as it now stands shows with all reasonable certainty that this claimant was loyal and that this Court would be fully warranted in making a finding of loyalty upon the present record instead of remanding the case for a new trial with all the delay incident to such a proceeding.
We maintain with the utmost respect to this Honorable Court that an injustice-a great injustice has been done in this case, and we pray that a finding be made upon the present record in favor of claimant's loyalty.
Respectfully submited, Gilbert Moyers Attorney for Claimant. Chas F Consaul, I.M. Moyers Of Counsel.
Testimony: Claimant's Supplemental Brief for a New Trial on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1902-1903.
WILLIAM D. HEMP, vs. THE UNITED STATES. No. 8635 Congressional.
CLAIMANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON LOYALTY.
Since the filing of previous briefs in this case upon the motion for a new trial on loyalty, two further affidavits have been secured, which are below abstracted as follows:-
JACOB B. CALE deposes and says: I reside in Augusta County, Virginia. Age :63 years. Am well acquainted with William D. Hemp. Have known him since and long before the Civil war and lived continuously in the same neighborhood with him. I know that he was loyal to the United States before and during the war and was outspoken in his sentiments from the time Secession was first mooted until the close of the war. I know that he was drafted into the Confederate Militia in March, 1862. I was drafted with him and am familiar with all the facts as to his service in the Confederate army. I remained until June, 1862, and he left before I did, so he was in less than 90 days. I also solemnly swear that I knew one William C. Hemp, who was a cousin of William D. Hemp. William C. Hemp and I were at school together as boys and I knew him well. He favored Secession and was in the Confederate army. He died some time about the close of the war, either shortly before or shortly afterwards.
JACOB S. ENGLEMAN deposes and says:- Residence: Augusta County, Virginia. I am well acquainted with William D. Hemp; have known him all my life and lived in the sane community with him. I know that he was loyal to the Union before and during the war and outspoken in his sentiments during the whole time. He was drafted into the Confederate Militia in March, 1862, and remained in the Confederate service under compulsion for about 60 days, when he came home sick and never returned. I also swear that I knew one William C. Hemp, who was a cousin of William D. Hemp. I know that William C. Hemp and William D. Hemp were separate and distinct persons. William C. Hemp has been dead a long time according to my recollection, ever since about the close of the war.
The above affidavits are filed primarily for the purpose of showing beyond any possible doubt or question that the William C. Hemp who was shown to have voted for Secession was not the Claimant in this case, whose name is William D. Hemp. Affidavits previously filed also fully cover this point.
Respectfully submitted, Moyers & Consaul Attorneys for Claimant.
Testimony: Defendant's Brief for a New Trial on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
William D. Hemp v. The United States. No. 8635 Cong.
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF ON CLAIMANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ON LOYALTY.
The ground upon which this motion is made is that the court decided the question of loyalty contrary to the evidence. The claimant's attorney has laid no foundation for the introduction of newly discovered evidence and therefore the court is barred from considering the two affidavits which have been filed by him since the finding of the court. The claimant's attorney has made motions for new trials in a large number of cases, in the great majority of which there does not appear to have been much excuse for the trouble caused in going over the same ground and again thrashing out the old straw.
In any event, the effect is the same, as it compels the defendant to practically enter into the trial of each one of these cases twice, and, if a new trial should be granted, three times. Even if the court should determine to re-open this case and consider the motion upon the evidence, there is no reason whatever for a reversal of the finding of the court. Let us consider the evidence of the claimant himself as to his loyalty. In his original deposition, page 1, (the deposition is taken instead of claimant's brief because an important statement is therein omitted):
Q. 11. Answer:- I was called out as a State militia and reported at Staunton in 1861. I was released and again in 1862 was called out and was in the Valley. I remained in the militia over two months. I then left on sick list and than was discharged.
Q. 13. Answer:- I never was conscripted.
(Page 1, claimant's deposition before Commissioners.)
The claimant states positively and emphatically that his services in the Confederate army were voluntary, and that he was discharged on account of disability. Such being the case, he was clearly disloyal under the provisions of the Bowman act. A number of witnesses were afterwards produced in his behalf who show either remarkable ignorance as to his services in the Confederate army or else they have failed to testify as to what they really know of the claimant's enlistment..
Henry Mish testifies that claimant was in the militia about two months, was taken sick and and told him that he would rather die than fight. (P. 3 claimant's original brief). Claimant himself does not make any such statement in his testimony. This witness Mish also had a claim before the court, No. 8618 Cong.. The case was tried and his loyalty was not found.
John Engleman testifies that he did nothing in favor of the Confederates except what he was compelled to do. (P. 3 claimant's brief).
The following testimony was taken under the rules of court October 8, 1900:
Jacob Arehart testifies that claimant did not aid the Confederacy that he knows of (p. 4 claimant's brief); don't think he was ever in Confederate service; there were not a great many Union men in neighborhood during war; claimant was never molested or threatened. (P. 5 claimant's brief).
John W. Mish, a son of Henry Mish, testifies that claimant was never in Confederate service that he knows of, and that if he was he was under compulsion. (P. 6).
G.L. Arehart testifies that he does not recollect of claimant being in Confederate service; if he was there he was forced in and did not go of his own accord. (P. 7).
J.B. Clae testifies that W. D. Hemp was in the Confederate army a little while; he was forced in. (P. 9).
It is rather peculiar that the witnesses produced on behalf of the claimant know more about claimant's services in the Confederate army than he knew himself. Nearly all of then testify that they do not know whether he was in the Confederate army or not, but that if he was he was forced in. He himself testifies that he was not conscripted. In fact in regard to his service in 1861 it was impossible for him to have been conscripted. It is hardly possible that the court will consider the two affidavits filed in this case when no foundation has been learnedlaid for the introduction of newly discovered evidence. However, an inspection of them will disclose the fact that they are of no value whatever so far as this case is concerned. They were evidently prepared before hand for the signatures of the two witnesses, H. T. Swartzel and John P. Cale. They recite the fact that there was another William C. Hemp in Augusta county, Virginia, but they do not recite the fact that this William C. Hemp resided in Middlebrook District of Augusta county, whereas the testimony of the witnesses previously examined in this case state that the only William C. Hemp near Middlebrook was a William C. Hemp, son of William D. Hemp, claimant, and that he was 45 or 50 years of age when his testimony was taken on October 8, 1900. The claimant himself has testified that he did not vote for the ordinance of secession (p. 2 claimant's brief. Jacob Erehart (who, by the way, states that he himself was not a Union man) testifies that he cannot say how claimant voted. Never saw him vote, but on cross-examination states that claimant always voted at Middlebrook. There was no other family by the name of Hemp in the neighborhood of Middlebrook that witness knows of during the war. (P. 4 claimant's brief). John W. Mish testifies that he don't know how claimant voted; don't think he ever heard him express any opinion on secession (p. 6 claimant's brief). G.L. Erehart testified that he could not tell whether claimant voted at all or not (p. 7 claimant's brief). J.B. Cale testified that claimant did not vote at all on secession (p. 8 claimant's brief). Claimant testifies that he was never molested on account of his Union sentiments, and that the only thing he did for the Union was to feed soldiers. (p. 2 claimant's brief). Nearly all of his witness testify that the neighborhood in which claimant lived was in possession of the Confederates all the time, with the exception of a raid up the valley by General Hunter. G.L. Erehart, who lived only two miles from the claimant, testifies that he did not see any of the Union soldiers around claimant's house during the war (pp. 7 and 8 claimants brief).
Since this claim was dismissed by the Commissioners of Claims on the ground of disloyalty of claimant, it is respectfully submitted that this motion ought to be dismissed.
Geo. M. Anderson, Special Attorney.
Testimony: Claimant's Reply Brief for a New Trial on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1901-1902.
WILLIAM D. HEMP, vs. THE UNITED STATES. No. 8635 Congressional.
CLAIMANT'S REPLY BRIEF ON MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON LOYALTY.
This reply is addressed to the brief filed herein by the defense on November 28, 1902.
Referring to the statements of defendant's attorney made on page 1 of his brief, we have only to state that we do not feel in any way called upon to apologize either to this Honorable Court or to the learned counsel for the defense for taking what to us seems a necessary step to secure justice for our client.
Referring to the matter of claimant's service in the Virginia Militia, referred to on page 2 of defendant's brief, we have only to state that it appears on the face of claimant's testimony that his service in this State Militia was anything but voluntary. Claimant states: "I was called out" in the State Militia in 1861. He then states that he was "released" and that he again was "called out" in 1862, and was in the militia about two months. In face of this statement, Counsel for the defense still insists that the claimant has emphatically testified that his services in the Confederate army were voluntary. We submit that this statement by defendant's counsel is not borne out in any way by the testimony in this case.
Counsel for the defense says that it is very peculiar that a number of claimant's witnesses were ignorant of the fact that claimant was ever in the Confederate service, but, in view of the fact that he never was in the Confederate service but was simply serving in the State Militia, we see no occasion for surprise with regard to this matter. The witnesses did not know that claimant was in the Confederate service for the very good reason that he was not in said service. We concede that claimant was not conscripted in 1861 under the general conscript laws of the Confederacy, but it is a fact well known to this Court that many men were forced to perform service in the Confederate State Militia during the Year of 1861; as claimant states, he was "called out" into this service.
Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, we are confident that this Honorable Court will accord consideration to the affidavits filed in support of this motion, even though it is not sworn that the evidence is newly discovered, for the reason that the facts set forth in said affidavits were not such as came properly within the scope of claimant's testimony when the same was taken in this case. At the previous taking of testimony we did not consider it incumbent upon us to prove affirmatively that William D. Hemp was not William C. Hemp.
As it is our desire to present this case more fully to this Honorable Court on oral argument, we do not deem it necessary to extend this brief further.
Respectfully submitted, Gilbert Moyers Attorney for Claimant. Chas F Consaul, IM Moyers Of Counsel.
Bibliographic Information : Southern Claims Commission: Claim of William D. Hemp, March, 1873, Claim No. 1385, Source copy consulted: National Archives, Washington, D.C., RG 123, Congressional Jurisdiction #8635.
