Summary: The Commissioners rejected Quick's claim for one horse because he provided supplies to a Confederate army wagon maker for 5 months in 1863. Quick successfully appealed this decision in 1896.
Items Claimed:
| Item Claimed: | Amount Claimed: | Amount Allowed: | Amount Disallowed: |
| 1 Mare | 150.00 | 0 | 150.00 |
Claims Summary:
Mr Quick is about 43 years of age; a farmer residing in Augusta Co. Va. The testimony relating to his loyalty is far from satisfactory. He opposed secession, but after that there is very little to show that he adhered to the Union cause. He certainly aided the Confederacy. The Confederates had wagon shops at Staunton. Mr Quick was engaged for five months in furnishing materials for these shops.
The claim is disallowed.
AO Aldis, O. Ferriss Commissioners of Claims.
Testimony: James T. Quick
My name is James T. Quick, my age 37 years, my residence Near Staunton, in the State of Virginia, and my occupation a farmer; I am the claimant, and have beneficial interest in the claim.
Ques 2 Ans. I resided in Augusta County, near to my present residence. I lived on rented land during the War. I did not change my residence or business.
Ques. 3 Ans. I did not pass the lines.
Ques. 4 Ans. I never took an oath of any kind to the Confederate States.
Ques. 5 Ans. I took an amnesty oath at Staunton, after the close of the War, in 1865. I never asked for a pardon.
Ques. 6 Ans. I never was connected with the civil service of the Confederate States
Ques. 7 Ans. I never held any office or place of trust, honor or profit under the Confederate Government or any state or territory subordinate thereto.
Ques. 8 Ans. I never held any clerkship or have any Agency or employment in or for the benefit of the Confederacy.
Ques. 9 Ans. I was in the detail service of the Military service for five months in 1863. My detail was to furnish to material for Government Wagon Maker shops in Staunton.
Ques. 10 Ans. I never was an officer or soldier in the Confederate Army.
Ques. 11 Ans. I never was in any state Malitia during the War.
Ques. 12 Ans. I did not belong to any home guard or any Vigilance Committee, or of safety while subject to the Confederate States.
Ques. 13 Ans. I was exempted several times, by the Medical board, and finally was conscripted and obtained the detail referred to in a previous answer.
Ques. 14 Ans. I furnished no substitute.
Ques. 15 Ans. I never was employed in any of service except as a detail to furnish material for the Workshop referred to.
Ques. 16 Ans. I never was employed on any Rail road, or engaged in transportation of soldiers, or any thing at all for the benefit of the Confederate Government.
Ques. 17 Ans. I at no time had charge of anything for the use and benefit of the Confederate Army or Navy.
Ques. 18 Ans. I did nothing for the Confederacy at any time during the War, or for any branch or department of the Army or Navy, and I never give any information to any one connected with the Army or Navy, either directly or indirectly.
Ques. 19 Ans. I never was employed in any way, nor assisted others in the manufacture of any article whatever.
Ques. 20 Ans. I never was in any way employed in collecting, impressing or purchasing or selling any article whatever, for the use or benefit for the Confederate Government or any State in rebellion. Nor had no interest or share.
Ques. 21 Ans. I never run the blockade, nor engaged in any traffic between the lines Nor had no interest or share in goods of any description, brought into or sent out from the so called Confederate States.
Ques. 22 Ans. I did not leave the so called Confederate States at any time during the War.
Ques. 23 Ans. I never owned or had an interest in any vessel used for any purpose.
Ques. 24 Ans. I never was arrested, by the Confederate government or byof the United States.
Ques. 25 Ans. Only small quantities of Corn. I never was paid for any taken.
Ques. 26 Ans. I never was threatened except at the election on ratifying the ordinance of Secession.
Ques. 27 Ans. I never was molested or injured that I know of.
Ques. 28 Ans. I never made a contribution to aid the United States government, Army or Union Cause.
Ques. 29 Ans. I never did anything for the U.S. Government, or its Army, or Union cause except to give information to Union men who were escaping the service of the rebellion.
Ques. 30 Ans. I had two brothers-in-law in the Army of the Confederates, one, Jas. M. Houff, for a short time and then he went through the lines & B.F. Houff. They are both living near Staunton, Va. I furnished them nothing. My brother John S. Quick was in the Union Army, he belonged to a Illinois regiment.
Ques. 31 Ans. I never owned any share or interest in Confederate bonds, and did nothing to support the credit of that Government.
Ques. 32 Ans. I never give any aid or comfort to the rebellion.
Ques. 34 Ans. I never was engaged in holding in custody any prisoners of war, or in punishing any one for political causes.
Ques. 35 Ans. I never belonged to any society or association for the punishment in any way, for their loyalty to the U.S. whatever.
Ques 36 Ans. I never was a parolled prisoner.
Ques. 37 Ans. I never held any office in the Army or Navy of the United States. Nor educated at any Military School of the U.S.
Ques. 38 Ans. I never had a pass.
Ques. 39 Ans. I was under no disabilities.
Ques. 40 Ans. My sympathies at the beginning were with the Union. My feelings were against secession, and I used my influence against it. I voted for Union candidates to the State Convention. I did not vote for the Ordinance of Secession. After its adoption I still supported the Union.
Ques. 41 Ans. In conclusion I do most solemnly declare, that from the beginning of hostilities against the United States to the end thereof, my sympathies were constantly in favor of 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 that I was at all times ready and willing when called upon, or if called upon, to aid and assist the cause of the Union, or its supporters so far as my means and power and the circumstances permitted.
Taking the Poperty.
Ques. 1 Ans. I was not present when my horse was taken.
Ques. 2 Ans. I saw the horse in possession of Soldiers, just after he was taken.
Ques. 3 Ans. I was on one side of the Middle river and they on other side. I had my horse in the grass field. I could not see the field from my house.
Ques. 4 Ans. I suppose the horse was taken from the field, as I had put him in the field that same morning. This was about the 12th of June 1864. I did not know any one engaged. I suppose there were 100 in sight of my house, at the time I saw my horse in their possession. They were riding around in sight they remained about 4 or 5 hours.
Ques. 5 Ans. There was no person with me, when I saw my horse.
Ques. 6 Ans. I do not whether there was an officer present or not.
Ques. 7 Ans. I think they were leading my horse when I saw them first. There was nothing said. I was not in speaking distance.
Ques. 8 Ans. I do not whether the horse was rode or lead off.
Ques. 9 Ans. I do not know where he was removed. I did not follow.
Ques. 10 Ans. I do not know what use they made of my horse. I never saw the horse afterwards.
Ques. 11 Ans. I made no complaint.
Ques. 12 Ans. I got no receipt.
Ques. 13 Ans. The horse was taken in day time, betwixt 10 & 11 A.M.
Ques. 14 Ans. There was no encampment nearer than Staunton, distant about 7 miles. Genl. Hunter's Army was camped there, it had been there 3 or 4 days, and left the day after taking my horse. The battle of Piedmont occured in the Sunday previous. I knew no officer connected with the Army.
Ques. 15 Ans. It was a bay Mare, in very good condition. She was well broken to the saddle and harness. She was six or seven years old, and of medium size, sound every way. I never received any pay, and tried until now.
James T Quick
Testimony: William A. Houff
Ans. to general question.
My name is William A. Houff, my age 50 years. My residence near Staunton, Va. Occupation a farmer. The claimant married my sister. I have no interest in the claim. I was present when the horse was taken.
Ques. 2 Ans. I saw the horse taken.
Ques. 3 Ans. I saw them drive the horse to the bars of the field, and either bridled or haltered him. They said we have got a good one this time.
Ques. 4 Ans. The horse was taken the grass field, on the Thursday after the Piedmont battle, in June 1864. There were a good many soldiers in the field, but only 5 or 6 engaged in catching the horse. They only remained in the field a short time.
Ques. 5 Ans. There was no one present with me.
Ques. 6 Ans. I do not know whether there was an officer present or not.
Ques. 7 Ans. The horse was driven to the bars, and there caught. All I heard said was they "had got a good one this time."
Ques. 8 Ans. The horse was led away, by soldiers whom I supposed were Cavalry men.
Ques. 9 Ans. They started in the direction of Staunton. I did follow after them.
Ques. 10 Ans. I do not know how they used the horse, I never saw the horse after they left.
Ques. 11 Ans. No complaint made that I know of.
Ques. 12 Ans. I knew of no receipt being given.
Ques. 13 Ans. The horse was taken in day time, before 12 Oclock, probably about 11 Oclock A.M. The horse was taken boldly.
Ques. 14 Ans. There was no camp, nearer than Staunton that I know of, which is about 7 miles. I did not know what company or regiment, but the Army was commanded by Genl. Hunter. They had been at Staunton 3 or 4 days, & left I understood the day after taking this horse. The Piedmont battle was fought on the Sunday previous. I did not know any Officer at all.
Ques. 15 Ans. The horse was a light bay Mare, in fine condition. She was young. I suppose five or six years old, in size a good medium. She was well broken and moved finely. I think she was worth from $150 to $175. I never talked with claimant about the value of the Mare.
William A Houff
Testimony: George W. White
Deposition of George W. White
Answer to general question
My name is Geo. W. White, my age 45 years residence near Verona, Augusta Co. Va. occupation a farm laborer. I am not related to the claimant, and have no interest in the claim. I was not present when the Mare of claimant was taken.
Ques. 2 Ans. I did not see them take the Mare from the field, but saw them have her in possession, when I saw the Mare she was about 1/2 mile from the field. There was I suppose 300 or 400 Soldiers together when I saw the Mare. There was a Soldier riding her, he was bare back. I knew the Mare and could not have been deceived. I was by myself at the time, and was not more than 10 or 15 steps from her. The Company did not halt, I said nothing to them about the Mare. It was a little after 12 Oclock in the day. This was in June 1864, and the Thursday after the Piedmont fight. They were officers in command, I think there was one Major, but no Colonel. I did not hear him say anything at all. I suppose they took the Mare to Staunton. They were moving in that direction. I never saw the Mare after they passed me in the road. I never heard of any complaint being made to any one. I never heard of any receipt being given or asked for. There was no camp nearer than Staunton about 7 miles. Genl. Hunter's Army was at Staunton it arrived at Staunton on Monday & left the next Friday. There had been a battle at Piedmont on Sunday before. I knew no officer.
The Mare was a bright bay, about 6 or 7 years old of good size, and well broken. She was a cheap Mare at $150. I never consulted the claimant as to her value.
Geo. W. White his mark
Testimony as to loyalty Deposition of Geo. W. White the same witness, as in the foregoing deposition.
I have known the claimant 12 or 13 years, & was intimate with him during the War. I lived over 1/2 mile from him during the entire War. I saw him at times every day in the week. I often talked with him about the War, he always spoke in favor of the Union and against rebellion. I do not recollect any particular language, but was very against the Confederates. He knew that I was a Union man, I have often heard him speak in the presence of others with reference to the War, and he was always the same thing. His loyal neighbors had full confidence in him as a true Union man, I never knew him to contribute anything to the United States Government or its Army, but I know that he did all he could to keep men out of the Confederate Army, and help those Union men who were out. From what I knew of the Claimant, he could never have produced any testimony in favor of his loyalty to the South, had it gained its independence.
Geo. W White is mark
Testimony: William A. Houff
Deposition of Wm. A. Houff.
This witness is the same examined as to taking of the property.
Ans. to 1 general question
I have known, the claimant for 25 years, and intimately during the War, we lived about 3/4 of a Mile apart during the war. I saw him frequently, part of the time every day, we conversed about the war a great deal, and he always was against rebellion and in favor of the Union, he knew my sympathies were with the Union. Sometimes there would be half dozen or more together and the claimant was invariably the same. I have often heard him wish that the Union Army would be victorious. He was regarded by his Union neighbors, as strictly a Union man. I never knew him to do anything or the United States Government or Army, but he aided the Union men who were hiding to keep out of the Confederate Army. He could not have proven any loyalty to the Confederate Government or cause, in fact I do not think he would have been allowed to stay in the South, had it been successful.
William A Houff
Testimony: Abraham Cline
We the undersigned loyal citizens of Rockingham Augusta County Virginia hereby certify on oath that we have known the Claimant James T. Quick for many years and know him to have been loyal to the Government of the United States before at the time and since the taking of the property in the Claimant's petition mentioned.
William A Houff, Abraham Cline, George W. White, ES Houff
Sworn and subscribed to before me April 14th 1871
Pendleton Bryan N.P.
Testimony: Claimant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1894-95.
James T. Quick, vs. The United States No. 8810 Cong.
STATEMENT:
The claimant in this case resided in Augusta Co., Va., during the war.
The Commissioners of Claims rejected his claim, and in their report to Congress state:--
"Mr Quick is about 43 years of age; a farmer residing in Augusta Co. Va. The testimony relating to his loyalty is far from satisfactory. He opposed secession, but after that there is very little to show that he adhered to the Union cause. He certainly aided the Confederacy. The Confederates had wagon shops at Staunton. Mr Quick was engaged for five months in furnishing materials for these shops.
The claim is disallowed".
The claim was transmitted to the Court by the Committee on War Claims, March 23rd, 1892.
BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
The following testimony was taken in Feb. '73.
CLAIMANT TESTIFIES: Age 37; residence near Staunton, Va., Farmer. (P. 1). Resided in Augusta Co., during the war, lived on rented land, did not change my residence or business. Did not pass the lines. Never took any oath of any kind to the Confederate states. Took the Amnesty oath at Staunton after the close of the war in '65. Never asked for a pardon. Never connected with the civil service of the Confederate states. Never held any office or place of trust, honor or profit under the Confederate Govt. I was in the detail service of the military service for five months in '63. My detail was to furnishh material for Government wagon makers, shops in Staunton. I never was an officer or soldier in the Confederate army. I never was in any state militia during the war. (P. 2). I did not belong to any home guard, or vigilance committee. I was exempted several times by the medical board and finally was conscripted and obtained the detail referred to. Furnished no substitute. I never was employed in any service, except as a detail to furnish material for the workshop referred to. I never was employed on any railroad or engaged in transporting of soldiers or anything at all for the benefit of the Confederate Govt. Had charge of nothing for the use and benefit of the Confederate army or navy. Never gave any information to any one connected with the army or navy of the Confederacy. Never employed in any way or assisted others in the manufacture of any articles whatever. (P. 3). Never employed in collecting, impressing or purchasing articles for the Confederacy. Never engaged in blockade running. I did not leave the Confederate states at any time during the war. Never owned or had interest in any vessel used for any purpose. Never arrested by either Govt. The Confederate took only small quantities of corn. Never paid for any taken. Never threatened, except at the election on ratifying the ordinance of secession. Never molested or injured that I know of.. Never made a contribution to aid the U.S. Govt. or Union cause. (P. 4). I never did anything for the U.S. Govt., or its army, or Union cause, except to give information to Union men who were escaping the service of the Confederate army. I had two brothers-in-law in the Confederate army. Jas. M. Houff for a short time and then he went through the lines, and B.F. Houff. The are both living near Staunton, Va. I furnished them nothing. My brother John S. Quick was in the Union army. He belonged to an Ill. Regt. Owned no Confederate bonds, and did nothing to support the credit of that Govt. Never gave any aid or comfort to the rebellion. Never was in Canada and destroyed nothing belonging to the U.S. Never engaged in holding in custody any prisoners of war. Never belonged to any society or association for the punishment in any way for loyalty to the U.S. (P. 5). Never was a paroled prisoner. Never held any office in the army or navy of the U.S., nor educated at any military school of the U.S. I never had a pass. Under no disabilities. My sympathies at the beginning were with the Union. My feelings were against secession, and I used my influence against it. I voted for Union candidates to state convention. I did not vote for the ordinance of secession. After its adoption I still supported the Union. In conclusion I do most solemnly declare that from the beginning of hostilities against the United States to the end thereof, my sympathies were constantly in favor of the cause of the U.S. and I never of my own free will or accord did anything to injure said cause, but was at all times ready and willing to assist the cause of the Union. (P. 6).
GEO. W. WHITE testifies: Age 45; residence Augusta Co., Va., Farm laborer; not related or interested. (P. 11). Testifies as to property. I have known the claimant 12 or 13 years. Intimate with him during the war. Lived over 1/2 mile from him during the war. Saw him at times ever day in the week. I often talked with him about the war, and he always spoke in favor of the Union and against rebellion. I don't recollect any particular language, but was very against the Confederates. He knew I was a Union man. I have often heard him speak in the presence of others and he was always the same thing His loyal neighbors had all confidence in him as a true Union man. I never knew him to contribute anything to the U.S. Govt. or its army. Know he did all he could to keep out of the Confederate army and help those Union men who were out. From what I know of the claimant he could never have produced any testimony in favor of his loyalty to the South had it gained its independence.
WM. A. HOUFF testifies: I have known the claimant 25 years; intimately during the war. We lived about 3/4 of a mile apart during the war. I saw him frequently. (P. 13). Part of the time every day. We conversed about the war a great deal, and he always was against rebellion and in favor of the Union. He knew my sympathies were with the Union. Sometimes there would be half dozen or more together, and the claimant was invariably the same. I have often heard him wish that the Union army would be victorious. He was regarded by his Union neighbors as strictly a Union man. I knever knew him to do anything for the U.S. Govt. or army, but he aided the Union men who were hiding to keep out of the Confederate army. He could not have proved any loyalty to the Confederate Govt. or cause, In fact I don't think he would have been allowed to stay in the South had it been successful. (P. 14).
The following testimony has been taken since the reference of the claim to the Court. This testimony was taken in Nov. 1895.
M.A. HOLDERMAN testifies: Farmer; age 52; residence Augusta Co., Va. Not interested or related. I have known the claimant since before the war. I lived right near him, and saw him often before the war. I do not remember having conversations with him directly on the war and its causes. He was conceded to be a Union man. I was too young to have any special politics, but was in the Confederate service. He was generally regarded by both his Confederate and Union neighbors as a Union man.. I don't think he made any attempt to conceal his opinions on the subject at all. I don't know whether he voted on secession or not. I am unable to say what he did to aid the Union side, except he knew of persons who were seeking to get out of service and through the Confederate lines, and did not inform on them. (P. 2). His Confederate neighbors regarded him as against the Confederacy. He was generally known as a Union man throughout the war. It is a fact that a man who made himself active on the Union side was not very unpopular in that neighborhood during the war. Claimant couldn't possibly have established his loyalty to the Confederacy had it succeeded.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
I suppose I lived a half mile from claimant. We both lived on farms, and our farms adjoined. I went into service the latter part of the first year of the war. I don't remember of meeting him after my entering the army for the remainder of the war. Those that were liable to military duty avoided us, concealed themselves from us, and in that way I don't remember seeing him after I had gone into the army.. I don't remember how often I saw him during the first year of the war, it has been so long ago. I may have seen him once a week or oftener, or I may have seen him once in two weeks. My recollection is Mr. Quick had a spell of typhoid fever at the breaking out of the war. After recovering from that he did not go into service. Then when he was called into service he would keep out of the wra of the conscript officers: (P. 3). He kept himself out of public places. I never heard of his being away from home during the war. He was a farmer. Mr. Quick was on detail somehwere during the war within the Confederate lines, but I don't know where. I think though, he was detailed and worked in a nursery; but I am not positive. I don't know whether he was conscripted and detailed or not. He was married when the war broke out. There were others in that neighborhood who did leave and cross the lines. Mr. Quick is present in the room. I don't know that the claimant was very unpopular in the neighborhood. I don't think he was very active on the Union side. (P. 4). I don't think a Union man could have been very active, he not only would have made himself very unpopular but would have been liable to arrest. Claimant did not have a brother or uncle in the Confederate army, that I know of. I heard the claimant make the statement, or rather he had a talk with you and the statement as you put was written down and then what was written was read to him and he said ye that was right, except that the volunteer company was formed before the war broke out and not after the war begun. I don't remember that I ever had a talk with the claimant during the war on the subject of secession, the cause of the war, etc.. I don't remember that I ever heard any say particular that claimant was a Union man. We all knew him as such. That was the general reputation. I may have heard some one state so, but I don't know that I ever did.
RE-DIRECT-EXAMINATION.
The men who went through the lines in claimant's neighborhood, were without families, while the claimant had a family to support. (P. 6). There were men there well known to be Union men, but hardly a man took an active part for the Union. (P. 7).
D.W. LANDES testifies: livery man; age 58; residence Staunton, Va. not interested or related. (P. 8). I have known the claimant since 1857. I saw the claimant often prior to and during the war, and he expressed himself as a Union man. I lived within three hundred yards of him.. I was a Union man. Claimant was always regarded by his Union neighbors as in sympathy with and ome of their number. Claimant had no hesitation in expressing his sentiments to those who knew him. Don't know how he voted. We had made arrangements to go through the lines with some neighbors. His wife as I understood was opposed to his going. He then said whatever I would do he would do. I considered the matter, and thought if anything happened to us in going through the lines that I would be to blame for it. I declined to go on that account. Just about that time we were notified that the lines were closed throughout which we were to go to escape. And because of my advice and his wife's opposition he did not go. (P. 9). I think a man was safe in expressing himself on the Union side, but don't think it would have been safe for him to aid the Union side in an active way. Some of our best friends were secessionists. There was a number of Union men in that neighborhood, well known to be Union men who took no active part against the Confederacy. Claimant was one of that number. I was a Union man and before I was liable to military duty, I concealed him for six months. He slept in my house with another deserter. Claimant could not have established his loyalty to the Confederacy had it been successful.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
Just by expressing himself as opposed to the war at the first was was what he did to prevent him from proving his loyalty to the Confederacy. (P. 10). Certainly we were neighbors and would help one another in case of sickness, or anything of the kind. Certainly we would have told a Confederate soldier who happened to be at home on a furlough, that the Federal scouts or army were around. We never had occasion to do it.
RE-DIRECT-EXAMINATION.
Would have done so simply as a neighborly act. Certainly I would have helped a Union neighbor, and I did as a matter of fact warn them in time of danger. (P. 11).
SUMMARY.
The claimant was 25 years old in '61. Resided near Staunton during the war farming. He was conscripted and obtained a detail to furnish material for Government wagon maker shop in staunton. He was threatened at the time of the election on ratifying the ordinance of secession. He gave information to Union men who were escaping the service of the rebellion. Had a brother in the Union army. In '61 he used his influence against secession voted for Union candidates. Did not vote for the ordinance of secession. Adhered to the Union cause after the state seceded.
His witnesses who were intimate with him during the war, and who were themselves Union men testify that the claimant always spoke in favor of the Union and against the rebellion. That his loyal neighbors had full confidence in him as a true Union man. That he did all he could to keep men out of the Confederate army. That he aided Union men who were hiding out. That his Confederate as well as Union neighbors regarded him as against the Confederacy. That he tried to avoid conscription. At one time made arrangements to go through the lines with some neighbors, but his wife was opposed to his going.
These facts justify a favorable decision on loyalty.
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers ATTY FOR C'L'M'T.
Testimony: Defendant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
James T. Quick vs. The United States Cong. 8810.
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
The Report of the commission rejecting this claim is as follows:
Mr Quick is about 43 years of age; a farmer residing in Augusta Co. Va. The testimony relating to his loyalty is far from satisfactory. He opposed secession, but after that there is very little to show that he adhered to the Union cause. He certainly aided the Confederacy. The Confederates had wagon shops at Staunton. Mr Quick was engaged for five months in furnishing materials for these shops.
The claim is disallowed.
A.O. Aldis, O. Ferris, Commissioners of Claims.
The War Department Report shows a voucher signed by claimant for forage.
The claimant had abundant opportunity to go across the lines into the Union lines, as other men in his neighborhood did, but did not do so. He voluntarily remained in the confederate territory and was engaged in furnishing materials to a confederate wagon factory. This bars the claim under the Bowman Act and under the decision of this court in Watson's case 25 Ct. Cls. 119.
Two witnesses testify to a little talk which is abstracted on pages 6-9 of claimants brief. One of them was a young confederate soldier who never saw clmt. after the first year of the war and who never conversed with him about the war.
The other one says claimant could have gone into Union country but his wife persuaded him not to do so. Says if confederate soldiers had been about witness and claimant would have apprized them of the approach of the federals, "of course."
GH Gorman Assistant Attorney.
Testimony: Reply to Defendant's Brief on Loyalty
COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1895-96.
James T. Quick, vs. The United States No. 8810 Cong.
REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
Defendant's attorney advances no substantial reasons why the claimant in this case should be held disloyal. On the other hand his brief is without point or force. He garbles extracts from one or two witnesses and this is about all there is of the defense.
Now the facts are that Mr. Quick was a young man in the time of the war, only 25 years of age and yet he avoided in the main serving the Confederacy in any way. He was finally conscripted, however, in '63 and was retained in the service for some five months. This was compulsory. He cannot be held responsible for this service. He was active, however, in aiding the Union cause. He gave information to Union men who were escaping the service of the rebellion. He had a brother in the Union army. He voted for the Union in '61. His influence was for the Union. His witnesses corroborate his statement as to aiding Union men, and keeping out of the Confederate army. He was known and respected in the community where he lived as a union man by the loyal element; also was regarded by the disloyal as loyal to the U.S. Govt., such was his general reputation. He arranged at one time with some of his neighbors to go into the Union lines, but was persuaded not to accompany them by the influence of his wife.
Now certainly these facts justify a favorable finding on loyalty. If not, the Bowman act is fruitless in its results so far as securing justice to those who lived in the South and were loyal adherents to the Union cause during the war.
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers ATTY FOR C'L'M'T.
Testimony: Claimant's Brief on Merits
COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1896-97.
James T. Quick, vs. The United States No. 8810 Cong.
CLAIMANT'S REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS OF FACT.
The claimant considering the facts hereinafter set forth to be proven, and deeming them material to the due presentation of this claim in the findings of fact, requests the Court to find the same as follows:
I. That the claimant James T. Quick, a citizen of the United States residing in Augusta Co., Va., did not give any aid or comfort to the rebellion during the late war, but was throughout that period loyal to the Goverment of the United States.
II. That during the said war the United States forces by proper authority took from him for their use 1 horse, $150.00.
III. That no payment has ever been made for said horse.
Gilbert Moyers, Atty. for claimant
STATEMENT.
The claimant in this case resided in Augusta Co. Va., during the late war.
The Commissioners of Claims rejected the claim because they were not convinced of loyalty.
The claim was transmitted to the Court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Rep.
The claimant was found loyal by the Court June 14, 1897.
BRIEF ON MERITS.
The claimant alleges in his petition that there was taken from him about the 1st part of the month of June '64, by U.S. troops commanded by Maj. Gen'l. Hunter: 1 mare, in good condition, about 6 yrs old..$150.00
The following testimony was taken while the claim was pending before the Southern Claims Commission, in Feb. 1873.
JAMES T. QUICK testifies: age 37; residence near Staunton, Va., farmer. Claimant. (P. 1). Testifies as to loyalty. I was not present when my horse was taken. I saw the horse in possession of soldiers just after he was taken. I was on one side of middle river, and they on other side. I had my horse in the grass field. I could not see the field from my house. Suppose the horse was taken from the field, as I put him in the field the same morning. This was about the 12th of June '64. I did not know any one engaged. I suppose there were 100 in sight of my house, at the time I saw my horse in their possession. They were riding around in sight. They remained about 4 or 5 hours. There was no person with me when I saw my horse. Don't know whether there was an officer present or not. I think they were leading my horse when I saw them first. There was nothing said. I was not in speaking distance. (P. 7). I don't know whether the horse was rode or led off. I don't know where he was removed. I did not follow. I don't know what use they made of my horse. Never saw the horse afterwards. Made no complaint. Got no receipt. Horse taken in day time, between 10 and 11 A.M. There was no encampment nearer than Staunton, distant about 7 miles. Gen'l. Hunter's Army was camped there. It had been there three or four days, and left the day after taking my horse. The battle of Piedmont occurred on the Sunday previous. I knew no Officer connected with the army. It was a bay mare in very good condition. She was well broken to the saddle and harness. 6 or 7 years old. Medium size, sound in every way. Never received any pay, and tried until now. (P. 8).
WM. A. HOUFF testifies: age 50; residence near Staunton, Va., farmer. Claimant married my sister. Not interested. Was present when the horse was taken. Saw the horse taken. Saw them drive the horse to the bars of the field, and either bridled or haltered him, They said, we have got a good one this time. The horse was taken in the grass field on Thursday after the Piedmont battle, in June 1864. There were a good many soldiers in the field, but only 5 or 6 engaged in catching the horse. They only remained in the field a short time. There was no one present with me. I don't know whether there was an officer present or not. The horse was driven to the bars, and there caught. All I heard said was they "had got a good one this time". Horse led away by soldiers, whom I supposed were Cav. men. (P. 9). They started in the direction of Staunton I followed after them. I do not know how they used the horse. Never saw the horse after they left. No complaint made that I know of. I knew of no receipt being given. Horse taken in day time, before 12 o'clock, probably about 11 o'clock A.M. Taken boldly. There was no camp nearer than Staunton that I know of, which is about 7 miles. I did not know what company or Regt., but the army was commanded by Gen'l. Hunter. They had been at Staunton 3 or 4 days and left I understood the day after taking the horse. The Piedmont battle was fought on the Sunday previous. I did not know any officer at all. The horse was a light bay mare, in fine condition, young, suppose 5 or 6 years old, good medium size, well broke, moved finely, think she was worth $150 to $175. Never talked with claimant about the value of the mare. (P. 10).
GEO. W. WHITE testifies: age 45; residence Augusta Co., Va., farm laborer. Not related or interested. Not present when the claimant's mare was taken. I did not see them take the Mare from the field, but saw them have her in possession, when I saw the Mare she was about 1/2 mile from the field. There was I suppose 300 or 400 Soldiers together when I saw the Mare. There was a Soldier riding her, he was bare back. I knew the Mare and could not have been deceived. I was by myself at the time, and was not more than 10 or 15 steps from her. The Company did not halt, I said nothing to them about the Mare. It was a little after 12 o'clock in the day. This was in June '64, and the Thursday after the Piedmont fight. They were officers in command, I think there was one Major, but no Col. I did not hear him say anything at all. I suppose they took the Mare to Staunton. They were moving in that direction. (P. 11). I never saw the Mare after they passed me in the road. I never heard of any complaint being made to any one. I never heard of any receipt being given or asked for. There was no camp nearer than Staunton about 7 miles. Gen'l. Hunter's Army was at Staunton. It arrived at Staunton on Monday and left the next Friday. There had been a battle at Piedmont on Sunday before. I knew no officer. The Mare was a bright bay, about 6 or 7 years old of good size, and well broken. She was a cheap Mare at $150. I never consulted the claimant as to her value. (P. 12).
SUMMARY.
This claim is for only one horse taken by the Federal forces for their use in June '64 for which there is charged $150.00. The claimant saw this horse in the possession of the Federal forces. and in their use.
Mr. W.A. Houff, saw the horse taken. Describes how he was taken, good many soldiers present. (P. 5). He never saw the horse afterwards. Describes the horse as in good condition, 5 or 6 years old, medium size, well broke worth $150 to $175. (P. 4).
Mr. White did not see the animal taken but saw her being rode in the command of 300 or 400 soldiers. Says this was in June '64.
The Government was paying $150 for horses at that time. Upon this testimony there should certainly be an allowance for 1 serviceable horse, $150.00.
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers ATTY FOR C'L'M'T.
Testimony: Defendant's Brief on Merits
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
James T. Quick, vs. The United States. No. 8810 Cong.
Defendants' Brief on Merits.
Claimant in this case resided in Augusta county, Virginia, during the late war, and presented his claim to the Commissioners of Claims, who rejected it on the grounds of loyalty. The claim was transmitted to this court by the House Committee on War Claims, and the claimant was found loyal June 14, 1897.
The charge in the petition is for one mare, six years old, valued at $150.00. No testimony whatever has been taken on the subject of merits since the reference of the case to this court, and the testimony on that subject consists solely of the depositions of James T. Quick, the claimant, William A. Houff and George W. White, taken before an agent of the Southern Claims Commission in February, 1872. The claimant says (page 7) that he was not present when his horse was taken, but he saw the horse in the possession of some soldiers. He was on the west side of the Middle river, and they were on the other side. "I had my horse in a grass field. I could not see the field from my house. I suppose my horse was taken from the field, as I had put him in the field that same morning. This was about the 12th of June '64. I did not know any one engaged. I suppose there were 100 in sight of my house, at the time I saw my horse in their possession. They were riding around in sight. They remained about 4 or 5 hours. There was no person with me when I saw my horse. Don't know whether there was an officer present or not." He does not know whether the horse was ridden or led off, nor does he know where he was taken to. He made no complaint; got not receipt. There was no encampment nearer than Staunton, about seven miles off.
William A. Houff says that he saw the horse taken; that he saw them drive the horse to the bars of the field, and either bridle or halter him; that the horse was taken from the grass field on the Thursday after the Piedmont battle in June, 1864; that there were a good many soldiers in the field, but only five or six engaged in catching the horse; that they remained there but a very short while. There was no one present with the witness when he saw this. He does not know whether there was any officer present or not. The horse was led away in the direction of Staunton, but the witness did not follow. Witness never saw the horse afterwards. No complaint was made that witness knows of. He never heard of any receipt being given. He does not know what company or regiment the soldiers belonged to. This witness and his brother, E.L. Houff, both had claims pending before this court under the Bowman act, and both were defeated on the question of loyalty in a manner highly discreditable to their veracity. See cases No. 8,638 and Cong.
George W. White says that he did not see them take the mare from the field, but saw the mare in the possession of some soldiers. "When I saw the mare she was about half a mile from the field. There were 300 or 400 soldiers together when I saw the mare. There was a soldier riding her. She was bare-backed." The witness was by himself when he saw this. The company was moving along and did not halt, and witness was ten or fifteen steps away. Witness said nothing to them about the mare. Witness never saw the mare after that.
This is all the testimony there is in the case. I submit that it is not sufficient to establish the taking of this mare by any proper officer or authority, or that the same was used for the benefit of the United States army. It smacks decidedly of a marauding theft. If, however, the court is of opinion that the evidence is sufficient to warrant a finding of taking of the animal, I submit that the valuation of it should not exceed $100.00.
GH Gorman Assistant Attorney.
Testimony: Findings of Fact
COURT OF CLAIMS. (Congressional Case No. 8810)
James T. Quick 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 24th day of March 1892.
On a preliminary inquiry the Court, on the 14th day of June 1897, 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 brough to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of March 1898. Gilbert Moyers Esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney General, by Geo. H. Gorman, 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 there was taken from him about the first part of June 1864 from the farm of Wm. Link, a neighbor, on Middle River, about 6-1/2 miles from Staunton, Augusta County, Virginia by a Regiment of U.S. Troops commanded by Maj. Gen'l. Hunter 1 mare in good condition, about 6 yrs old, $150.00.
The Court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following Finding of Fact.
There was taken, in June, 1864, in Augusta County, State of Virginia, from the claimant by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, a horse which at the time and place of taking was reasonbly worth the sum of One hundred and thirty-five dollars ($135), for which no payment appears to have been made.
Bibliographic Information : Southern Claims Commission: Claim of James T. Quick, February 25, 1873, Claim No. 7885, Source copy consulted: National Archives, Washington D.C., RG 123, Congressional Jurisdiction #8810.
