Summary: Carwell's claim for farm animals was disallowed because he purchased a substitute for Confederate Army service, despite the fact that he left the Confederacy and worked in a U.S. Quartermaster's office in West Virginia. Carwell appealed this decision to the Court of Claims in 1895. Of particular interest is Carwell's brother's testimony, which claims that Carwell also served in the Home Guards of a town near Chambersburg, Pennsylvania.
Items Claimed:
| Item Claimed: | Amount Claimed: | Amount Allowed: | Amount Disallowed: |
| One Horse | 175.00 | 0 | 175.00 |
| One Bull | 50.00 | 0 | 50.00 |
| Total | 225.00 | 0 | 225.00 |
Claims Summary:
Claimant on his Examination before Special Commissioner swore that he served ten days in Confederate Army and then furnished a substitute in order to keep out of the Rebel Service himself.
The act from whatever motives of policy is one inconsistent with loyal adherence to the Government of the United States. It is more important particularly that a Claimant's conduct should be loyal rather than his sentiments. Loyal sympathies and disloyal conduct in a Citizen is of no more force, in political matters than faith without works in Religion.
We reject the Claim.
Testimony: Jacob B. Carwell
United States of America State of Va S.S.
I, W.G. Riley a commissioner selected and designated by the Commrs 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 Jacob B. Carwell vs. the United States of America and the witness herein named being first duly sworn answers as follows.
Ques. 1st. Witness says I resided in Augusta Co Va. Was there all the time farming
Ques. 2d Witness says I resided part of the time in Augusta Co. part in W. Va. and a part in Pennsylvania. I was a farm hand, and a clerk in the U.S. Army.
Ques. 3d Witness says I passed out of the rebel lines to the United States lines, and returned in 1864 to the rebel lines for the purpose of taking my brother and others from the rebel lines, which I did.
Ques. 4th Witness says I never took any oath of any kind whatever.
Ques. 5th Witness Says I did take an Amnesty Oath. I had nothing to be pardoned of.
Ques. 6th Witness says I was conscripted by the Confederates in 1862 and was only in the service about 10 days. I took no oath.
Ques. 7th Witness says I never held any office in the Confederacy whatever. Nor clerkship or employment as agent of any kind for the benefit of the so called Confederate States.
Ques. 9th Witness says I was conscripted and in the Army for about 10 days
Ques 10th. Witness says I did furnish a substitute only because I was compelled to do it or in order to keep out of the Army, myself.
Ques. 11th Witness says I never furnished any supplies, or property of any kind to the Confederate Army, or to any of its branches. I never had charge of any trains, teams, waggons, or vessels.
Ques. 12th Witness Says I never was engaged in the manufacture of any article of any kind whatever for the use of the rebellion.
Ques. 13th. Witness says I never was so engaged.
Ques. 14th. Witness Says I never was engaged in blockade running or illicit traffic. Nor have any interest or share in such business.
Ques. 15th. Witness says I did leave, and went to W. Va. thence to state of Pennsylvania to keep from aiding the Confederacy. I was absent about one year, and labored as a farm hand.
Ques. 16th Witness says I was not an owner of any vessel for any purpose at all.
Ques 17th Witness says I was never arrested by the Confederate Government or its authorities. I never was arrested by the U.S.
Ques 18th Witness says I had no property taken by the Confederate authorities
Ques 19th Witness says I never was threatened with damage for my Union sentiments
Ques. 20th Witness says I never was molested for my Union Sentiments; except to be cursed at.
Ques. 21st Witness Says I never contributed any money in aid of the Union Army, except being employed in the Quarter Masters department in W. Va.
Ques. 22d Witness says I never did anything except to leave myself and help to take 37 men beyond the Confederate lines.
Ques. 23d Witness says I had a cousin in the Union Army and a brother in the Confederate Army.
Ques 24th Witness says No.
Ques 25th Witness says I give no aid to the rebellion
Ques. 26th Witness Says I never was engaged in making raids into the U.S. from Canada, or destroying its commerce on any waters whatever.
Ques. 27th Witness says No.
Ques. 28th Witness say I was not.
Ques 29th. Witness says I never was a paroled prisoner of the U. States.
Ques 30 Witness says I never held any office of any kind, nor educated in any school of the U. States.
Ques. 31st Witness says I never received a pass from any officer of the Confederate Government of any kind or for any purpose.
Ques. 32d Witness says I was not under any disabilities and have held no office since the War.
Ques. 33d Witness says I sympathized with the Union cause from the beginning to the end of the War. I exerted my influence on the side of the Union. I did not vote for the Ordinance of Secession.
Ques 34th Witness Says I do solemnly declare that from the beginning of hostilities against the United States to the end thereof, my sympathies were constantly in favor of the U.S. and I never by 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 ready and willing at all times if called upon to aid and assist in the cause of the Union or its supporters so far as my means and power and the circumstances of the case permitted.
Questions by the Commissioner
How old are you, Where do you reside and what is your occupation?
Answer I am about 30 years old, I reside in Augusta Co. Va. I am by occupation a farmer.
Further this witness saith not. August 17th 1871.
J.B. Carwell
Testimony: Elizabeth Carwell
Elizabeth E. Carwell a witness introduced by Jacob Carwell the Claimant to prove the taking of the property charged in the petition being first duly sworn answers as follows.
Ques. 1st Witness says I was present when the property specified was taken.
Ques 4th Witness says the property was taken in the month of June 1864. They were taken from my fathers farm by U. States soldiers commanded by Genl. Crook. My sister was present.
Ques. 6th Witness says I do not know that there was any officer present at the time of taking, by Col. Allen was there after they were taken. The horse was rode away and the Cow drove by the soldiers.
Ques. 9th Witness says The army was marching in the direction of Staunton Va. The property was not followed.
Ques. 11th Witness says No complaint was made that I know of. There was no voucher or receipt taken that I know of. None asked for I suppose.
Ques 13th Witness says The property was taken in the day time, I think about 12 M. It was not taken secretly. The Army Camped for the night about a mile from the premises. Genl. Hunter had a battle at Piedmont about 22 miles off.
Ques. 15th Witness says The property was in good condition when taken. The horse was young and so was the Cow.
Ques. 19th Witness says I believe it was taken for the use of the Army
Ques. 20th Witness says I believe they needed horses and Cattle.
Ques. 21st Witness says I believe there was a necessity and I think the Government to pay for them.
Ques. 23d Witness says The Soldiers said that there were general orders to take horses and cattle.
Questions by the Commissioner
Ques. 1st How old are you, Where do you reside and how long have you known the claimant?
Answer I am 21 years old, I reside in Augusta Co. I have known the claimant all my life.
Further this witness saith not. August 17th 1871.
Elizabeth E Carwell
Testimony: George Ruebush
George Rubush, Another witness introduced to prove Claimants loyalty, being duly sworn answers as follows.
Questions by the Commissioner
Ques. 1st How old are you, Where do you reside and what is your occupation? and how long have you known the Claimant?
Answer I am 60 years old. I reside in Augusta Co. Va. by occupation a farmer. I have known the claimant 18 years. I knew him well during the War. He was a good Union man, and as far as I know so regarded by his neighbors. I have heard him speak against the War. He went North with a number of others to keep out of the rebel service.
Ques. 2d Do you know any act done or language used by the Claimant, that would have prevented him from establishing his loyalty to the Confederacy had it been maintained as a separate Government?
Answer. He could not have shown any loyalty to the Confederacy.
Further this witness saith not. August 17th 1871.
George Ruebush
Testimony: Claimant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1894-95
Jacob B. Carwell, vs. The United States No. 6836 Cong.
STATEMENT.
The claimant in this case resided in Augusta Co., Va., during the late war of the rebellion.
The Commissioners of Claims rejected his claim, and in their report state:-
"Claimant on his Examination before Special Commissioner swore that he served ten days in Confederate Army and then furnished a substitute in order to keep out of the Rebel Service himself.
The act from whatever motives of policy is one inconsistent with loyal adherence to the Government of the United States. It is more important particularly that a Claimant's conduct should be loyal rather than his sentiments. Loyal sympathies and disloyal conduct in a Citizen is of not more force, in political matters than faith without works in Religion.
We reject the Claim."
The claim was transmitted to the Court by the Committee on War Claims, Feb. 15th, 1889.
BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
The following testimony was taken in Aug. '71.
JACOB B. CARWELL testifies: Residence Augusta Co., Va., farmer. I resided part of my time in Augusta Co., and part in W. Va., part in Pa. I was a farm hand and clerk in the U.S. Army. I passed out of the rebel lines to the U.S. lines, and returned in '64 to the rebel lines for the purpose of taking my brother and others from the rebel lines, which I did. Never took any oath of any kind whatever. Took an amnesty oath. Never pardoned. (P. 2). I was conscripted by the Confederates in '62, only in the service about 10 days. Took no oath. Never held any office in the Confederacy. I furnished a substitute only because I was compelled to in order to keep out of the army myself. I never furnished any supplies or property of any kind to the Confederate army. Never engaged in the manufacture of any articles for the Confederacy. Never engaged in blocakde running. (P. 3). I did leave, and went to W. Va. thence to Pa. to keep from aiding the Confederacy. Was absent about one year, and labored as a farm hand. I was not an owner for any vessel for any purpose at all. Never arrested by the Confederate Govt. Nor by the U.S. Had no property taken by the Confederate authorities I never was threatened with damage for my Union sentiments. Never molested, except to be cursed at. I never contributed any money in aid of the Union army., except being employed in the Q.M. Dept., in W. Va. I never did anything, except to leave myself, and help to take 37 men beyond the Confederate lines. Had a cousin in the Union army, and a brother in the Confederate army. I gave no aid to the rebellion. (P. 4). Never engaged in making raids. Never a paroled prisoner. Never held an office of any kind, nor educated in any school of the U.S. Never received a pass from any officer of the Confederate Govt. Not under any disabilities, and held no office since the war. I sympathized with the Union cause from the beginning to the end of the war. I exerted my influence on the side of the Union. Did not vote for the ordinance of secession. Solemnly declares from the beginning of hostilities to the end sympathies with the U.S., Never did anything to injure said cause, but was always ready and willing to aid it. (P. 5). I am 30 years old, reside in Augusta Co., Farmer. (P. 6).
GEO. RUBUSH testifies: Age 60; residence Augusta Co., Va., farmer. I have known the claimant 18 years. Knew him well during the war. He was a good Union man, and as far as I know so regarded by his neighbors. I have heard him speak against the war, He went North with a number of other men to keep out of the rebel service. He could not have shown any loyalty to the Confederacy. (P. 9).
The following testimony has been taken since the reference of the claim to the Court. In Aug. 1895.
R.A. HELMS testifies: Boot & Shoe dealer; age 56; residence Middlebrook, Va. Not interested or related. (P. 1). My acquaintance with the claimant began in '61. Intimate throughout the war; resided within a half mile of him. Saw him very frequently, nearly every for their mail. He was always opposed to secession and the Confederate cause. . I was an adherent of the Union cause, and known as such to the claimant. (P. 2). He went North shortly after the commencement of the war, and so I did not see much of him for awhile, until he returned. He was regarded by his loyal neighbors as a Union man. At the first of the war, or shortly after he went North. He afterwards returned to the Confederate lines and took other men with him into the Union lines. I know on his second trip through the lines he took fourteen men with him, one of them being his younger brother. Did not do anything to aid the Confederate Govt. that I know of. He did not vote at all in '61., not having yet reached his majority. He was too young to do much but was regarded as a Union man. His views never changed. (P. 3). His father and brother were both loyal man. He was outside the Confederate lines, most of the war. He did not return permanently before the close of the war.. I don't know if he was employed in the Q.M. Dept. of the Union army, in W. Va.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
Some of the deserters he assisted through the lines were acquaintances of his, and some were not. He assisted them both to aid them, and aid the Union army. I have heard you (referring to Govt. Atty.) ask claimant to allow you to cross-examine him, and he firwt refused, and afterwards upon directing the notary to summon him, consented to cross-examination. Names those whom claimant assisted through the Union lines. (P. 4). He assisted them all at the same time. This was when he went the second time. We all went together as far as Beverly, W. Va. there the crowd dispersed, and went to different points. Claimant did not return until after the close of the war. Wm. Letchew, John Harris, James Beard and the others went to Middlebrook. Those of claimants acquaintances were all on good terms with claimant, there was some not intimately acquainted with claimant. They met at Mr. Carwell's house one night, according to the arrangement we had all made together, and started off together. Claimant might have been slightly acquainted with all of them. Claimant was familiar with the road; he was pilot. (P. 5). We were not simply away from the country to keep from fighting, and out of the war. I didn't suppose that was the sentiment of all. They didn't fell any interest in fighting, or rather I did not.
RE-DIRECT.
I would not have fought on either one, if I could have avoided it. (P 6).
J.B. CARWELL testifies: Farmer; age 48; residence Middlebrook, Va. Brother of claimant. (P. 7). I was with the claimant the first and latter part of the war. He was not in for secession at all; he was opposed to that. He did not vote at all, he was not old enough. I don't remember about conversations, but I know he was bitterly opposed to the war: He was regarded as a Union man by his loyal neighbors. He did not do anything for the Confederacy. He took about 15 persons across the lines into the Union lines. He went North and staid until after the war had gone on some time, then came back, and went a second time. (P. 8).
I was with him all the time after he went away the second time, and we didn't come back until after the war was over. I was a Union man. I was one of the men he assisted through the lines. All my family were Union people. He and I were in the Q.M. Dept. of the Union army at Martinsburg. I can't say positively, but I think from his sentiments his service would have been on the Northern side. He took the amnesty oath. Think he lost the certificate.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
Names some of the men claimant took into the Union lines. (P. 9). Geo. Bowers was with us. Don't remember Smith., nor Thos. B. Reed, nor Crisp. There was a man by the name of East. I don't suppose he went to get out of the range of bullits, because he joined the Home Guards in Pa. I couldn't answer whether he took the crowd with him to help the Federals. (P. 10). I know it was very dangerous for a man to go from this country then going through W. Va., to speak of one's doing so in time of war. When claimant took these men, I suppose he wanted company, and he wasn't in sympathy with the Confederate cause. My blood does not grow hot when any body speaks of Confederates as rebels. I was in Pa. when my brother joined the Home Giards. That Home Guards did not do any fighting while we were there. I don't think the company ever left the town where it was organized. It was close to Chambersburg. I don't remember the county. We worked in Chambersburg awhile. I can't exactly tell how long my brother was in Pa. From Pa. we went to Martinsburg, W. Va. (P. 11). My brother and I were in the Commissary Department, in the wood dept. we were engaged to haul wood for whatever troops came in.
We were in Martinsburg the latter part of '61, I think.
RE-DIRECT.
It was more dangerous for a man of Union sentiments to stay in this County, than to go through to W. Va. alone. If the Home Guards at Chambersburg, has been called out, claimant as a member of that company, would have had to serve on the Union side. (P. 12).
The following testimony was taken on behalf of the defense Aug. 15th, 1895.
J.B. CARWELL testifies: Farmer; age 50; residence Middlebrook, Va Am the claimant. (P. 1). When the war broke out I was called out in the Militia. Reported first at Staunton. Then taken to Mt. Jackson, Va. We were divided out to fill up broken companies. Believe I was assigned to Hoge's batallion, Co. A. Was there about two weeks. Then came home. At home a couple of months, then went to New Creek Sta., W. Va., then to Clarksburg, W. Va., where I staid about six months, till the following spring, in '64, or maybe in '63. Then went to my uncles 16 miles West of Clarksburg, there I staid till the next Spring, when I came home, then I staid home and staid about three months near Middlebrook, then I went with fifteen or sixteen men to Beverly, where I staid three or four days, then I went to Franklin Co., in Chambersburg, (P. 2). where I worked as carpenter, pumpmaker, or whatever else I could get to do. There I staid two or three months, I reckon. Then I went to Smoketown, same county, and worked for him on his farm, for a month or two, then I went to Martinsburg, there I worked in the fuel Dept. for maybe a month till the war closed, when I came home. I think I went to Mt. Jackson with the militia in '63 or '64. I was drafted. No one came to Middlebrook for me. There was a general order that all who were over 16 years old were to report at Staunton. I don't remember how I heard of that order. We were all taken to Mt. Jackson and of course, I was with them and had to go along. I was in Staunton two or three days before taken to Mt. Jackson. I did not know the route through W. Va. when in Staunton, or of any one to go with that I could find out. I hired a substitute. (P. 3). When I was in Mt. Jackson I wrote home to my father to hire me a substitute, which he did. My father was not a dunkard,. I did not apply to any officer, some one told me about hiring a substitute. A man that hired a substitute for a short time was exempt from service. After I hired my substitute, and during this time, I staid home. When they passed the new law requiring every man to serve, I left home and as stated. I was a member of Capt. McKnight's company. It never did anything, but it was ready to go. I couldn't tell how long it would have taken me to go back home, or somewhere. That wasn't my intention to skip through. We started down to an engagement once, but were ordered back before we were engaged.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
If the Home Guards had been called out, I would have had to serve on the Union side. I was opposed to the Confederacy from the day it commenced. I thought it unsafe not to go to Mt. Jackson, went under a feeling of intimidation. I left the first opportunity. The sentiments of my father and other members of my family were strongly for the Union. I was about 17 or 18 at that time. My father was a strong Union man, and I was greatly influenced by his views. (P. 5).
SUMMARY.
The Commissioners rejected this claim, because as they allege that the claimant served 10 days in the Confederate army, and then furnished a substitute, while the proof shows that the claimant was conscripted, and he furnished a substitute because he was compelled to in order to get out of the army. His hiring a substitute therefore, was justifiable.
His loyalty is shown by the following facts: He left his home in Augusta Co., Va. to avoid rebel service and went to Pa., where he served as a clerk in the U.S. Army. He returned home in '64 for the purpose of taking his brother and others to the Union lines, which he did. A part of the time during his absence he labored on a farm in Pa.. He was cursed by the Confederates on account of his Union sentiments. He aided 37 men to pass beyond the Confederate lines into the Union lines.
His witnesses in their testimony confirm these facts, also that he was in his expressions a decided opponent of secession and rebellion. He was too young to vote in '61., being only 20 years of age, but his influence was for the Union cause
I do not see how there can be any question as to this man's loyalty throughout the war.
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers, Counsel
Testimony: Claimant's Brief on Merits
COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1895-96.
J.B. Carwell, vs. The United States No: 6836 Cong.
STATEMENT.
The claimant in this case resided in Augusta Co., Va.
The Commissioners of Claims rejected his claim Dec. '72 not convinced of loyalty.
The claim was transmitted to the Court by the Committee on War Claims, Feb. 15th, 1889.
The claimant was held loyal by the Court Nov. 2, 1896
BRIEF ON MERITS.
It is alleged in the petition that there was taken from the claimant June 6th, 1864, by a command of U.S. troops under Gen. Crook, 1 horse $175.00, 1 head cattle (bull) 50.00: Total $225.00
The following testimony was taken while the claim was pending before the Commissioners, in Aug. 1871.
JACOB B. CARWELL testifies: Residence Augusta Co., Va.; farmer. Testifies as to loyalty. (P. 2).
ELIZABETH CARWELL testifies: Was present when the property was taken. Taken in June '64, from my father's farm by U.S. soldiers commanded by Gen. Crook. My sister was present. I don't know that there was any officer present at the time of the taking by Col. Allen was there after they were taken. The horse was rode away and the cow drove by the soldiers. The army was marching in the direction of Staunton, Va. The property was not followed. No complaint made that I know of. No voucher or receipt taken that I know of. None asked for I suppose. Property taken in the day time. I think about 12 M It was not taken secretly. The army camped for a night about a mile from the premises Gen. Hunter had a battle at Piedmont about 22 miles off. (P. 7). Property in good condition when taken. The horse was young, and so was the cow. I believe it was taken for the use of the army. I believe they needed horses and cattle. I believe there was a necessity and the Govt. should pay. The soldiers said that there were general orders to take the horses and cattle. I am 21 years old; residence Augusta Co., I have known the claimant all my life. (P. 8).
The following testimony has been taken since the reference of the claim to the Court in Jan. 1897.
SUSAN E. HEMP testifies: housekeeper-age 57; residence Augusta Co., Va. Not interested or related. (P. 1). I was living at Mr. Carwell's when the property was carried off. I was there the day when it was carried off. Saw the Union troops take off a horse and cow belonging to J.B. Carwell. Horse and cow taken by regularly uniformed soldiers of the Union army. The Union army camped near our house at the time of the taking of the property. I heard the soldiers say they wanted the horse and cow for the use of the army, and to help to break the Confederacy down. They did not pay for the stock, but said it would be paid for. Soldiers claimed to have general orders. They said, I think, that some of the property might be gotten back if the General was seen about it. That is they told J.B. Carwell's father so, whose property was also carried off. I understood that Gen'l. Crook was in command. (P. 2). The horse and cow were young and in fine condition when taken. Claimant never received any pay, nor was the stock returned to him.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
Property taken in '64. It was at the time of the burning. I thought it was Crook's army. I heard them call Gen. Crook's name, and thought it was his command. I always understood it was Crook's command. A dozen or two soldiers took the horse and cow. Couldn't say for certain. There were as much as six or seven, I should think. The men were on horses. Took both the horse and cow at the same time, about noon or a little after. When I saw them with the horse they were out in front of my yard. They must have taken it out of the stable, but I couldn't see the stable from my house. My house and Mr. Carwell's were in the same yard, about 50 yards apart. Couldn't tell the age of the horse. It was about four or five years old. He had been using him for several years. People break horses for use at the age of two or three years. (P. 3). Couldn't tell the age of the cow. It was young. Wasn't old. In fine condition. Before the army came along and took the cow, it would have brought a good price. Of course they would. They were scarce were worth. Witness is asked if it would have brought as much as $10 and says: It would have come nearer ten hundred in such money as we had then. I would think it was worth about $40 or $50. the way cattle was selling about here then. (P. 4).
AGNES A FORSYTH testifies: housekeeper-age 49; residence near Staunton, Va., sister of claimant. (P. 5). I resided with my father M. Carwell, and J.B. Carwell's property was there. I saw the Union troops on the 6th of June '64 ride J.B. Carwell's horse away and drive the cow away. They were regular soldiers, and had on the regular uniform. I said to one of them that J.B. Carwell was away from home, and he said well he would get paid for the stock. Property never returned to him, and he was never paid for it. Horse and cow both young and in good condition when taken. When the property was carried off there was an officer in our house, and my mother gave him his dinner. They said it was their orders from headquarters to take it. The Union army went into camp about a mile from my fathers the evening the property was carried off. (P. 6).
CROSS-EXAMINATION WAIVED.
SUMMARY.
Mrs. Elizabeth Carwell was present when the Horse and cow were taken. The soldiers rode the horse away, and drove the cow. They were taken in the day time. Both the horse and cow were young and in good condition.
Mrs. Hemp also saw the Union troops take a horse and cow. They said they wanted the property for the use of the army. Claimed to have orders for taking the property (P. 3). Taken in '64. The soldiers who took the horse and cow were mounted. The cow was in fine condition. Horse about four or five years old. (P. 4). Think the cow was worth about $40 or $50.
Mrs. Forsyth testifies: That she saw the horse and cow taken in June '64. That they rode the horse away and drove the cow. The soldiers said claimant would get pay for the stock. An officer was in the house at the time, and said it was their orders from headquarters to take the property.
This proof establishes the taking of both these animals. The Govt. at that time paid for serviceable horses. $150 There should be allowed at least $30 for the cow.
The account should therefore he stated: 1 serviceable horse, $150.00; 1 cow, 30.00; Total $180.00
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers ATTY FOR C'L'M'T.
Testimony: Claimant's Request for Findings of Fact
COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1896-97.
J.B. Carwell, vs. The United States No. 6836 Cong.
CLAIMANT'S REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS OF FACT.
The claimant considering the facts herein-after set forth to be proven and deeming them material to the due presentation of this case in the findings of facts, requests the Court to find the same as follows:
I. That the claimant, J.B. Carwell, a citizen of the United States residing in Augusta Co., Va., did not give any aid or comfort to the rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Govt. of the U.S.
II. That during the said period the United States forces by proper authority took from him and appropriated to their use 1 serviceable horse and 1 cow, $180.00
III. That no payment has been made for said property or any portion thereof.
Gilbert Moyers, Atty. for claimant.
Testimony: Defendant's Brief on Merits
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term, 1898.
Jacob B. Carwell v The United States No. 6836, Cong.
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF ON MERITS.
This is a claim for a horse and a bull alleged to have been taken by the Union troops in June, 1864, from the premises of the claimant near Clarksburg, Harrison County, West Virginia.
No objection is offered to the first and third requests of claimant for findings of fact.
Objection is made to the second request on the ground that the testimony is not sufficient to uphold it, and furthermore, because of the variance from the petition in the evidence presented.
Counsel for claimant has made a correct abstract of the testimony submitted.
The evidence of the taking of the property is not satisfactory. It is admitted that no officer was in command of the soldiers alleged to have taken it. The so-called soldiers might have been marauders who were plundering the people upon their own responsibility. There is no evidence that the property was used by the army.
The charge for the horse is certainly excessive, even granting that it was a first class animal and ignoring the testimony of Susan F. Hemp, who could not just tell the age of the horse, but she knew that people broke horses at the age of two or three years, and this particular horse had been in use for several years.
The claimant in this petition alleges that a bull was taken him while the testimony as to the bovine genus regards the animal as one of the female sex, in other words, a plain cow.
Respectfully submitted, Geo. K. Walker Assistant Attorney.
Testimony: Claimant's Reply Brief on Merits
COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1898-99.
Jacob B.Carwell Vs. The United States No. 6836 Cong.
REPLY TO DEFT'S BRIEF ON MERITS.
The contention of defendant's counsel the the proof is not satisfactory as to the taking of the animals charged for for the me of the army is without force or reason. Suppose there was no Officer present, the testimony shows that the soldiers who took this property belonged to a regular command under General Crook which was on the march at the time. It was not customary in the seizure of property under like circumstances for an Officer to leave the column for the seizure of stock. On the contrary a few soldiers were sent out to take what was needed.
It appears that the horse was taken away with the command, also the ox or cow. Furthermore the soldiers said at the time they took these animals that they wanted them for the use of the army. This was just such property as the army needed at the time and there is no earthly reason for supposing for one moment that they were not legitimately appropriated for such use.
Now so far as the value of the horse is concerned counsel says it is certainly excessive. Why excessive? Was not the Government paying as much as $150 for serviceable horses at that time for army use? It must be remembered that this horse was taken in '64, at which time the Government was paying from $150 to $l60 for good horses. This horse is shown to have been in good condition fit for service, hence there should he no scaling of the value. If any allowance is made it should be for $150 as asked.
So far as the cow is concerned the proof shows a value of at least $30, then why not allow it if the proof is to govern? If it is not to control valuations in the slightest then what is the use of taking any testimony. It is insisted that the facts in this case as in others should he based upon the testimony and not upon what we think, suspect or surmise.
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers ATTY FOR C'L'M'T.
Testimony: Findings of Fact
COURT OF CLAIMS. (Congressional Case No. 6835)
J.B. Carwell vs. The United States.
STATEMENT OF CASE:
The claim in the above-entitled 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 15th day of February, 1889.
On a preliminary inquiry the Court, on the 2nd day of November, 1896, 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 29 day of February 1899.
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 his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States residing in Augusta County, State of Virginia where he resided during the late war of the rebellion; that at different times during said period the United States forces by proper authority, took from him and appropriated to their use the following stores and supplies of the values stated, to wit:--1 horse $175.00; Head of cattle (bull) 50.00; Total $225.00
The court, after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following
FINDINGS 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 One hundred and seventy-five dollars ($175.00).
It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof.
Bibliographic Information : Southern Claims Commission: Claim of Jacob B. Carwell, August 17, 1871, Claim No. 1380, Source copy consulted: National Archives, Washington, D.C., RG 123, Congressional Jurisdiction #6836.
