Summary: Stickley's claim for the value of one horse was disallowed by the Commission for insufficient proof of loyalty. His daughters appealed this decision to the Court of Claims in 1903.
Items Claimed:
| Item Claimed: | Amount Claimed: | Amount Allowed: | Amount Disallowed: |
| One Horse | 125.00 | 0 | 125.00 |
Claims Summary:
We are not satisfied with the sufficiency of the evidence of loyalty of Claimant. There are no answers to printed questions bewteen 7 and 17. Claimant voted he says neither for nor against the Ordinance of Secession, but his sympathies were with the Union. He calls only one witness to his loyalty, and that wintess, who "thinks Claimant was loyal to the United States Government, he was so regarded by his neighbors."
This is very weak testimony for loyalty, and utterly unsatisfactory. We reject the Claim.
Testimony: William Stickley
United States of America State of Virginia
I, W.G. Riley a commissioner selected and designated by the commissioners of claims appointed under the Act of Congress of March 3d 1871, to take and record testimony do hereby certify that the reason for taking the following depositions is and the fact is the matter of claim of William Stickley vs the United States of America and the witness herein named being first duly sworn answereth as follows:
Ques. 1 Witness says: I am 59 years old, reside in Augusta Co. Va. & by occupation a farmer. I have lived where I now am for 20 years.
Ques. 3 Witness says: I never passed the military or naval lines of the U. States & entered the rebel lines.
4 Witness says: I never took an oath to support the Confederate States
5 Witness says: I have taken the amnesty oath. I took it after the war, in Staunton everybody was required to take it. I have never been pardoned.
6 Witness says: I never was directly nor indirectly connected with the civil service of the Confederate States.
7 Witness Says: I never held any office nor any position of honor, profit or trust under the Confederate States, never aided nor assisted them in any way whatsoever.
17 Witness says: I never was arrested by the Confederate States, nor the U. States
18 Witness says: The rebels took pay from me & four or five of my horses. I was paid for part, but not for all
19 Witness says: I never was threatened nor molested on account of my Union sentiments.
22 Witness says: I never did anything for the U. States Govt. during the war.
23 Witness says: I had no near relations in either the Union or Confederate armies
24 Witness says: I owned no Confederate bond
29 Witness says: I never was a paroled prisoner of the United States
30 Witness says, I have never held any office in the navy or army of the United States. Was not educated at either West Point or the Naval Academy.
33 Witness says: I was with the Union cause at the beginning of the war and not with the Confederacy. I voted neither for nor against the ordinance of secession. I was with the Union all the time
34 Witness says: I was from the begining of the war in favor of the Union Cause, & was ready & willing at all times to do what I could for the Union Cause, & further deponent sayeth not.
Sept. 5th 1871
William Stickley
Testimony: John Bumgardner
John Bumgardner a witness introduced to prove the loyalty of the claimant to the U. States Govt. being duly sworn, answers as follows,
Ques. 1 Witness says: I am 61 years old, reside in Augusta Co. Va. & am by occupation a farmer. Have known the claimant for 14 years, reside one mile from him. Saw him often during the war, talked with him repeatedly, & think he was loyal to the U.S. Govt. he was so regarded by his neighbors. Neve knew him to do anything for the U.S. soldiers, but he fed the Union soldiers whenever they came to his house. Never knew him to do anything for the rebel Govt. I think he was too loyal to the U.S. Govt. to have been true to the rebel Govt. had it been successful, & further this deponent sayeth not. Sept 5th 1871
Jno. Bumgardner his mark
Testimony: James T. Stickley
James T. Stickley a witness introduced by the claimant to prove the taking & furnishing of the property charged in the claimants petition, being duly sowrn, answers as follows.
Ques. 1 Witness says: I am 22 years old, reside in Augusta Co. Va & am by occupation a farmer. I saw the horse mentioned in claimants petition taken
Ques. 4 Witness says: The horse was taken in 1864, from claimants farm, by soldiers of the Union Army. Who said they were from N. York, & were under command of Genl. Hunter
10 Witness says: The officer who took the horse said his horse had given out, & he wanted him to ride in the army
12 Witness says: There was no receipt asked for & none given
13 Witness says: The horse was taken in the day time, about 12 O'clock M.
14 Witness says: When the horse was taken, the army was encamped near by
15 Witness says: The horse was in good condition when taken, was 4 years old, & worth One Hundred & twenty five dollars.
19 Witness says: I think the horse, mentioned in the claimants petition, was taken I believe for the actual use of the army, & not for private use.
22 Witness says: The property mentioned in claimants petition having been taken for the use of the Govt. I think the Govt. should pay for it, & further deponent sayeth not.
Sept. 5th 1871
James T Stickley
Sworn to & subscribed before me this 5th day of Sept. 1871
WG Riley United States Commissioner and Special Com. for State of Va
Testimony: Claimant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, December Term, 1902-1903.
William Stickley, vs The United States. No. 8,747 Congressional.
STATEMENT.
The claimant in this case resided in Augusta County, Virginia, during the war, where his claim originated. The claim is for one horse valued at $125.00, and was disallowed by the Commissioners of Claims because they were not satisfied with the proof as to loyalty. Claim is now before the court under the Bowman Act.
BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
The following testimony was taken in 1871 while the case was pending before the Commissioners of Claims:
Mr. Stickley, the claimant, testifies: Age 59; residence Augusta Co., Va.; have lived there for 20 years. Never took an oath to the Confederate States nor passed the military lines of the United States into the rebel lines. Took the amnesty oath after the war (p. 1). Never was in the service of the Confederate States, civil or military. Never arrested by the Confederate States nor the United States. Rebels took hay and four or five horses from me. Was paid for part. Never threatened or molested. Never did anything for the United States. Had no near relatives in either army. Owned no Confederate bonds. Was with the Union cause from the beginning and not with the Confederacy. Voted neither for nor against the ordinance of secession; was with the Union all the time (p. 2). Was ready and willing at all times to do what I could for the Union cause (p. 3).
John Bumgardner, testifies: Age 61; known claimant 14 years; reside one mile from him. Talked with his repeatedly during the war. Think he was loyal to the United States, so regarded by his neighbors. Never knew him to do anything for the U.S. soldiers. He fed Union soldiers whenever they came to his house. Never knew him to do anything for the rebel movement. Think he was too loyal to the United States to have been true to the rebel government had it been successful (p. 4).
The following testimony has been taken since the reference of the claim to the court, in February, 1903:
Mrs. R.S. Dinkle, testifies: Age 59; daughter of claimant. I lived in Augusta County, Va., with my father during the Civil War. He was a Union man and continued to be throughout the war (p. 1). In conversation with Union people he always expressed himself as favorable to the Union side; he was generally known by the people of the neighborhood to be one of their number. He belonged to the German Baptist or Dunkards. He was a man of quiet habits; was not safe for a man to take a very active part on the Union side at that time. He always threw his influence on the Union side so far as it was safe to do so.
Cross-examination.
He could not do much to help the Union cause. He was there penned down and could not say much or do much. I don't know especially anything he did for the Union cause. He was there between the Union and Confederate sides. Did nothing for the Confederate side except what he was forced to do. (p. 2).
Sarah M. Evars, testifies: Age 61; daughter of claimant. I was living and working in Rockingham County during the Civil War. I was back and forth at the house of claimant and saw him frequently. In talking with me and the other members of his family he always expressed himself favorable to the Union cause. He continued to be loyal to the Union cause throughout the war. He belonged to the Dunkard church and the members of that church were generally opposed to secession (p. 3). It was not safe for a Union man to be active in that neighborhood. He was surrounded by secessionists. He was a Union man in all his talk, as well as I know. He was known by the Union people of the community as a Union man. Don't know of his doing anything to help the Confederate side.
Cross-examination.
Don't know of his doing anything to aid the Union side. Don't know of his taking part on either side. He was surrounded by secessionists and never could express himself. I lived about ten miles from father during the war. Don't know of his contributing any money to the Confederate States or owning bonds (p. 4).
Mrs. Susanna Stickley, testifies: Age 65; no interest except as wife of claimant's son. I lived on the adjoining farm to the claimant and saw him often during the war. He always talked in favor of the Union, was a Union man all the time. All the neighbors knew he was a Union man. It was not safe to be active on the Union side there then.
Q. "Is it not a fact that the Confederates were very bitter towards Union people and it was necessary for them to keep quiet?"
A. "Well, they were around there, but I don't know whether they did anything so powerful mean or not (p. 5)."
I reckon the Union man had to keep their Union sentiments to themselves in order to be safe. I don't know of anyone on the Union side that took any active part in that neighborhood. Claimant stayed at home and attended to his own business. From my knowledge of the claimant and the way he expressed himself and his family, he was always a Union man.
Cross-examination.
I can't tell whether father helped the Union side or not during the war. Never heard of any other Mr. Stickley in this section during the war. Never heard of father depositing any money in the Bank of Rockingham during the war. Father had no substitute in the Confederate army (p. 6).
Mr. A.P. Anderson, testifies: Age 60; no interest. The claimant's and our farm adjoined during the war; was well acquainted with him. He was regarded as a Union man in that neighborhood. I was in the Confederate army, and when I would be at home on furloughs, my father, Alexander Anderson, who was an uncompromising Union man always told me that William Stickley was true to the Union side and was sticking to him. The claimant belonged to the Dunkard church and was a quiet man. From his reputation in that community, I looked on him as a Union man throughout the war (p. 6 1/2). They considered it the safest by Union men not to be too conspicuous in taking a part on the Union side, except my father, who never considered that way.
Cross-examination.
I was in the army four years. I saw Mr. Stickney often at my father's house during the war. He was a blacksmith and did father's blacksmithing. I was not at home enough to state what Mr. Stickney did during the war to lead me to believe that he was a Union man. My father would tell me that he was a Union man (p. 7).
SUMMARY.
William Stickley, the claimant in this case, was 49 years of age at the commencement of the war, consequently he was about conscript age during the entire war. He never served in the Confederate army or militia; had no near relatives in either army; was with the Union cause from the beginning, not with the Confederacy; with the Union all the time; voted neither for nor against the ordinance of secession, but was willing at all times to aid the Union cause.
John Bumgardner testifies, talked with the claimant repeatedly during the war and he was loyal to the United States; so regarded by his neighbors.
Mrs. R.S. Dinkle, testifies that she lived with her father during the war, that he in conversation with Union people always expressed himself favorable to the Union. (ps. 1 & 2). He was generally known by the Union people to be one of their number. He was a man of quiet habits, always threw his sentiments on the Union side.
Sarah M. Evars testifies, also daughter of claimant; father was a Union man in all his talk. He was known in the community as a Union man (p. 3).
Mrs. Susanna Stickley says, the claimant always talked in favor of the Union with her and Union men all the time; all the neighbors knew him to be a Union man (p. 3). From my knowledge of the claimant and the way he expressed himself and his family he was always a Union man (p. 4).
A.P. Anderson testifies, well acquainted with claimant during the war. He was regarded as a Union man in the neighborhood. Looked upon him as a Union man throughout the war. He was a blacksmith and did father's blacksmithing. Saw him often at my father's house. (p. 5).
This testimony is all favorable to loyalty. It shows loyal expressions throughout the war, no change in sentiment and that he bore the reputation of a Union man. The decision of the Court should be favorable.
Respectfully submitted, Gilbert Moyers Attorney for Claimant.
Testimony: Defendant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
William Stickley, v. The United States. No. 8747 Cong.
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
This claim is for certain supplies alleged to have been taken from claimant in Staunton Co., Va., in June 1864.
The claim was presented to the Southern Claims Commission and by it disallowed on the ground that claimant was not shown to have been loyal.
The claim was subsequently presented to the House of Representatives and by it referred to this court pursuant to the provisions of the Bowman Act.
The Confederate Archives of the War Department show that one William Stickley purchased a wagon at public auction at Staunton, Va. for which he paid $135. There are also five other vouchers signed by William Stickley for forage at various other places in the state of Virginia.
The Miscellaneous Division of the Treasury Department shows the name of claimant on p.8 of a list of certificate, issued by the Bank of Rockingham, Confederate States Depositary.
Argument.
While the claim was pending before the Southern Claims Commission claimant testified that he took the amnesty oath at Staunton; that he was never arrested by the Confederates or the Federals; that he was never threatened or molested on account of his Union sentiments; that he was with the Union cause at the beginning of the war but voted neither way.
Baumgardner testifies that he thinks claimant was loyal and that he was so regarded by his neighbors; never knew of him doing anything for the Federal soldiers except feed them whenever they came to his house.
Since the reference of this claim to this court Mrs. R. S. Dinkle testified that she is a daughter of claimant; that her father was a Union man and continued so throughout the war; that he was regarded as a Union man; that he was a Dunkard; that he threw his influence on the Union side so far as it was safe; does not know that he did anything for the Union cause; that he didn't do anything for the Confederate side except what he was forced to do.
Sarah M. Evans testifies that she is a daughter of claimant and substantially reiterates the testimony of her sister; that she does not know that he took part on either side; doesn't know whether her father contributed any money to the Confederate States Loans or bought bonds.
Susanna Stickley testifies that she is a daughter-in-law of claimant; that claimant always spoke in favor of the Union; never heard of claimant depositing money in the Bank of Rockingham.
A. P. Anderson testifies that claimant was regarded as a Union man; that witness was in the Confederate Army and that when at home his father told him that claimant was true to the Union; that his reputation was that of a Union man.
Conclusion.
There is certainly nothing whatever in the evidence submitted in this case that would prove claimant loyal to the Union cause. Certainly his inactivity is not evidence of loyalty and can not be so construed. In addition to this fact it is more than evident that William Stickley who was a depositor at the Bank of Rockingham is the claimant as well as the same party who purchased the wagon from the Confederate authorities at Staunton, Va.
A tracing has been obtained from the archives of the War Department of the signature of William Stickley to the various vouchers and is it quite evident that the claimant is the party who signed these various vouchers.
It is respectfully submitted that the claimant was not loyal to the Government of the United States, and the petition should be dismissed.
Edwin C. Brandenburg Assistant Attorney.
Testimony: Reply to Defendant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term, 1902-1903.
William Stickley, vs. The United States. No. 8747 Congressional.
REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
The reference to the Confederate Archives by defendant's counsels as showing that the William Stickley, referred to in all these vouchers, locating transactions at remote distances from where he resided, is without the slightest justification. He must know that William Stickley, claimant in this case, could not have signed all those vouchers. Furthermore the signatures are different, showing that the five signatures were not all written by the same man, and none of them so strongly resembles the signature of the claimant as to justify the conclusion that he signed them. But supposing he did, supposing he signed some of them, could not have signed all, they are for trifling amounts and just what would necessarily be taken by a small scouting party of Confederates, to which no disloyalty can attach. There is nothing to show that William Stickley went into the market, offered his produce, offered whatever he had to the Confederates, at the market value or any other value. The conclusion is irresistable, that what they appropriated, was taken without his approval. There is nothing in the report of the War Department to show when these vouchers were made, or the various places in Virginia, where forage, etc., was paid for, in Confederate vouchers to one Willaim Stickley, hence these vouchers, until they are brought into Court, otherwise proven to have been signed by this claimant, can have no weight and are not entitled to the slightest consideration.
Again, we have the expressionassertion of Defendant's counsel, which is as usual, and quite as logical, as in all his briefs, that there is "Nothing whatever in the evidence that would prove the claimant's loyalty to the Union cause." Nothing in the proof in this case to show loyalty! What lack of comprehension of the force of testimony is illustrated in this remark. The proof shows, and shows conclusivelv that this claimant was for the Union cause from the beginning to the end of the war. He never did favor the cause of the Confederacy, but was for the Union all the time. No less than five witnesses have been called, all of whom were familiar with the claimant's life during the war period, and testify that they conversed with him repeatedly aboutduring the war and before the war and that in all his conversations he expressed himself favorable to the Union and was opposed to secession, and that he was generally known by the Union people to be one of their number. Who, pray, could you find who were more reliable judges of the loyalty of their neighbors than those who themselves were Union men? It is safe to say, and proper to urge upon the attention of the Court that where-ever you find a man in an insurrectionary territory who stood well with his loyal neighbors, was considered by them as one of them, one whom they could trust and confideingin during the insurrection, that such a man should he found loyal by the Court. Active loyalty has never been required, and very seldom can you prove active loyalty, no matter how devoted a man was to the Union, because he had no opportunity, living midst the surroundings that he did, to aid the Union cause, except by his voice, influence, and General conduct. The claimant did all this. He could not have been more loyal, living where he did and midst the surroundings. I can see no reason, in again carefully reviewing this testimony, why the decision of the Court should not be favorable on the question of loyalty. Certainly there is nothing in the defence that deserves the slightest consideration, as I have endeavored to show.
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers Attorney for Claimant.
Bibliographic Information : Southern Claims Commission: Claim of William Stickley, September 5, 1871, Claim No. 977, Source copy consulted: National Archives, Washington, D.C., RG 123, Congressional Jurisdiction #8747.
