"We have not considered the 'Loudoun County claims,' so called. They are numerus; are chiefly for property taken by military necessity under the order of General Sheridan of November 27, 1864. The claims for property taken for the use of the Army are so intermingled with those in which the property was sold and the proceeds put into the Treasury that it is almost impossible to separate them. As large herds of horses, cattle, and sheep were driven off together, the claimants can not trace their property to army use. We have therefore declined examining them, thinking Congress may make some special provision in regard to their examination and settlement." (First general report of the Commissioners of Claims, H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 16, Fortysecond Congress, second session, p. 8.)

The cases of some of the claimants herein were not presented to said Commissioners of Claims, perhaps because of said ruling.

In March, 1872, the Committee on Claims reported to the Senate, recommending the passage of an act for the relief of sufferers of this class (Forty-second Congress, second session, Senate Report No. 80), and January 23, 1873, an act was approved providing for the compensation of many of the sufferers, but in the long list in the act the names of the claimants in the case at bar do not appear, and eleven years afterward their claims were referred here for proceedings in accordance with the "Bowman act." These claims are all exclusively for live stock driven off, and it is impossible to discover in any one instance whether the stock was later consumed by the Army or sold for the Government's benefit.

If all the stock were sold and the proceeds turned into the Treasury, then claimants were given a remedy by the "captured and abandoned property act," and having neglected to pursue it, they are now barred by the limitation of that act, therefore barred by the provisions of a law of the United States, and the claims are excluded from our jurisdiction by the second paragraph in section 3 of the Bowman act. (Vance vs. The U. S., 21 C. Cls. R., 448; Payne vs. The U. S., 22 C. Cls. R., 144; Nelson vs. The U. S., 22 C. Cls. R, 159.)

If all the stock were taken under such circumstances that the seizure might be; construed as a proper taking and appropriation of supplies for the use of the Army, then the remedy was to be found in the Southern Claims Commission, and as some of the claimants have not availed themselves of this remedy, their claims are also, by virtue of the same provisions, excluded from our jurisdiction. (Dodd vs. The U. S., 21 C. Cls. R., 117; Dyer vs. The U. S., 23 C. Cls. R., 418, Burwell vs. The U. S., 22 C. Cls. R., 92.) The fact that it is impossible to separate the stock sold from the stock eaten can not aid claimants, for jurisdiction of claims for loss in either event is excluded by the Bowman act.

Some of the claimants did present their claims to the Southern Claims Commission, and as to them the Commission said:

"The claims for property taken for the use of the Army are so intermingled with those in which the property was sold and the proceeds put into the Treasury that it is almost impossible to separate them."

The proof in the cases here stops at the taking That taking was not primarily intended for army supply, but for the injury and weakening of the enemy; the raid was not made to obtain food, but for destruction; and the presumption, therefore, is not the same as in cases where under orders the Army subsisted upon the country. The object was not to feed the soldiers, but to starve the guerrillas, and was similar in nature and spirit to the destruction of barns, mills, and their contents which was directed in the same order.

Claims for destruction or damage to property during the late war are excluded from our jurisdiction (Heflebower vs. The U.S., 21 C. Cls. R., 231; Myers' Admr. vs. The U. S., 22 C. Cls. R., 80; Madison Female Institute vs. The U. S., 23 C. Cls. R., 188), and it becomes incumbent upon claimants to show whether their stock was killed and wasted on the march when driven before troops supplied with rations, or whether they died by the way, or were afterwards by proper direction applied to army use, or whether they were sold and the proceeds of the sale turned into the Treasury. This has not been done; from the nature of the occurrence it can not be done. The petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Filed June 9, 1890.

A true copy. Test, this 8th day of December, A. D. 1890.

BY THE COURT.

JOHN RANDOLPH, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.

2d Session.

No. 18.

PHILIP RAIFORD, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MRS. MARGARET B. RAIFORD, DECEASED, VS. THE UNITED STATES.

Letter from the assistant clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting a copy of the finding of the court in the case of Philip Raiford, adminis trator of the estate of Mrs. Margaret B. Kaiford, deceased, against the United States.

DECEMBER 9, 1890.-Referred to the Committee on War Claims.

COURT OF CLAIMS, CLERK'S OFFICE,

Washington, December 8, 1890.

SIR: Pursuant to the order of the court I transmit herewith a certified copy of the opinion of the court in the aforesaid cause, which case was referred to this court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, under the act of March 3, 1883.

I am, very respectfully, yours, etc.,

Hon. THOMAS B. REED,

JOHN RANDOLPH, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

[Court of Claims, Congressional, No. 1632. Philip Raiford, administrator of estate of Mrs. Margaret B. Raiford, deceased, v. The United States.]

MOTION BY DEFENDANTS TO DISMISS FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

Richardson, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for stores and supplies alleged to have been taken for the use of the Army during the rebellion, transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives under the Bowman act, February 20, 1887.

It appears by the order of transmission that the claim is that of the "heirs of Robert Raiford, deceased."

With the order the committee transmitted the original petition to Congress of “Maggie R. Lofton et al., heirs of Robert Raiford and Margaret B. Raiford," alleging that they were citizens and residents of Marshall County, Miss., and when the claim accrned were residing in that county, and asking compensation for stores and supplies taken by and for the use of the Army of the United States, for which a claim had been filed, in the name of "Margaret B. Raiford," before the QuartermasterGeneral, under the act of July 4, 1864, and rejected for want of jurisdiction.

The petition to this court is by the admistrator of Margaret B. Raiford, deceased, filed May 2, 1887, and sets out a claim for stores and supplies taken from her in Marshall County, Miss., where she resided during the late war.

Two petitions are returned upon the claimants' call by the War Department from the Quartermaster-General's Office, where they appear to have been filed in May, 1868, and rejected for want of jurisdiction, for the reason that the claims originated in Mississippi, a State declared to be in insurrection during the rebellion.

Those petitions were in the name of Margaret B. Raiford, who therein set out that she was a citizen of Shelby County, Tenn., and that the stores and supplies were taken from her in that county.

The claimant's brief in this court on the question of loyalty proceeds upon the grounds that the property was that of Robert Raiford, husband of Margaret B. Raiford, and that it was taken from his plantation in Mississippi during his lifetime. From the evidence taken on behalf of the claimant and referred to in the brief of the counsel, it appears that at the breaking out of the war Robert Raiford resided with his family on a plantation in Mississippi; that he went to Memphis, Tenn., before the close of the war, and died there in about one year. He left his family in Mississippi, where his widow resided until her death, after the war, and where his children still reside, and where he was himself buried. It is in evidence that he never changed his domicile.

With all the confusion and inconsistency in which the claim has been presented to the Quartermaster-General, to Congress, and to this court, we are called upon, by motion of defendants, to decide whether or not the court has jurisdiction of the case as one which was presented to another tribunal in season to prevent its being forever barred.

The Commissioners of Claims had jurisdiction "to receive, examine, and consider the justice and validity of such claims as shall be brought before them of those citizens who remaired loyal adherents to the cause of the Government of the United States during the war, for stores and supplies taken or furnished during the rebellion for the use of the Army of the United States, in States proclaimed as in insurrection against the United States, including the use and loss of vessels or boats while employed in the military service of the United States" (act of March 3, 1871, ch. 116, 16 Stat. L., 524). All claims not presented on or before March 3, 1873, were declared to be barred forever thereafter (act of March 3, 1873, ch. 236, § 2, 17 Stat. L., 577).

The Quartermaster-General and Commissary-General had jurisdiction "of all claims of loyal citizens in States not in rebellion, for quartermaster stores actually furnished to the Army of the United States, and receipted for by the proper officer receiving the same, or which may have been taken by such officers without giving such receipt," and that jurisdiction was extended to the State of Tennes ee and to the counties of Virginia which became the State of West Virginia (act of 1864, July 4, ch. 13, Stat. L., 381; R. S., second edition, §§ 300 A 300 B; act of 1875, February 18, ch. 80, Supplement to R. S., p. 137, par. 7). All claims not presented and filed prior to January 1, 1880, were declared to be forever barred (act of March 3, 1879, ch. 287, § 3, Supplement to R. S., p. 480, 481).

The petitions and other papers in the case before us leave it doubtful as to whose claim is intended to be pressed in this court.

If it be a claim accrued to Mrs. Margaret B. Raiford for stores and supplies taken in Mississippi, where she resided during the rebellion, as alleged in the petition to this court, it should have been presented to the Commissioners of Claims, and never having been so presented, it is forever barred.

It appears that Mrs. Raiford presented her petition to the Quartermaster-General for the same property, alleging that she resided in Shelby County, Tenn., and that the property was taken from her in that county. The Quartermaster-General found that the claim originated in Mississippi, as now appears to be the fact, and her petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. That presentation to a tribunal without jurisdiction can not avail in this case to take the claim out of the statute bar.

If the claim intended to be presented here is that accrued to the husband, Robert Raiford, as seems to be assumed by the claimant's counsel in his brief on the question of loyalty, in which he asks the court to pass upon the loyalty of Mr. Raiford as the person from whom the stores and supplies were taken, and as the Committee on War Claims by their reference seem to have intended, then the claim is barred, since it was never presented to either the Commissioner of Claims or the Quartermaster-General (McLemore's Case, 21 C. Cls., R. 327; Fowler's Case, 25 C. Cls. R.).

Therefore the claim here presented, whether it be that of the husband or the wife, having been forever barred by the statutes referred to, is not within the jurisdiction of this court, as restricted by the Bowman act of March 3, 1883, ch. 116, § 3 (22 Stat. L., 485).

The motion is allowed and the claim is dismissed.

Filed March 3, 1890.

A true copy.

Test this 8th day of December, A. D. 1×90.

[SEAL.]

BY THE COurt.

JOHN RANDOLPH,

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.

2d Session.

No. 19.

PARMENUS T. TURNLEY VS. THE UNITED STATES.

Letter from the Assistant Clerk of the Court of Claims transmitting a copy of the findings of fact and opinion of the court in the case of Parmenus T. Turnley against the United States.

DECEMBER 9, 1890.-Referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

COURT OF CLAIMS, CLERK'S OFFICE,

Washington, December 8, 1890.

SIR: Pursuant to the order of the court I transmit, herewith a certified copy of the findings of fact and opinion of the court in the aforesaid cause, which case was referred to this court by the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, under the act of March 3, 1883. am, very respectfully, yours, etc.,

Hon. TнOS. B. REED,

JOHN RANDOLPH, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

[In the Court of Claims. No. 300. Congressional case. P. T. Turnley vs. The United States.]

PETITION.-FILED MARCH 24, 1886.-J R.

To the honorable the Court of Claims :

I. Your petitioner, Parmenas T. Turnley, respectfully represents that he is a citizen of the United States; that be entered the military service of the United States as a cadet of the Military Academy of West Point on or about the 1st day of July, 1842, and was graduated therefrom on or about the 1st of July, 1846, and was assigned as a brevet second lieutenant to the second regiment of United States Infantry, and joined said regiment in New Orleans and proceeded with the same to active duty in Mexico, and in October, 1846, was promoted to a full second lieutenant to the first regiment of infantry, then in active service of the war with Mexico, and he so continued till the final close of the said war; that petitioner continued in the active military service of the United States on the western frontiers till about the 17th of September, 1863, at which time your petitioner held the rank of captain and assistant quartermaster in the U. S. Army.

II. Petitioner says: That on said 17th day of September, 1863, having been found by the Army returning board to be physically disqualified for the performance of the active duties of his office, and this finding of said returning board having been approved by the President of the United States, he, said petitioner, was placed upon the retired list of the Army of the class of which disability results from "long and faithful service," or "from some injury incident thereto," by Special Orders No. 417, dated War Department, Adjutant-General's office, Washington, D. C., September 17, 1863.

III. Petitioner says: That about February 1, 1865, he visited Washington for the purpose of expediting the settlement of his accounts, and that while there he was sent for by General Charles Thomas, at that time acting quartermaster-general of the U. S. Army.

Petitioner went to see General Thomas as requested, and General Thomas explained the object of the interview. He (General Thomas) expressed himself dissatisfied with the management of the affairs of the quartermaster's department in Colorado and throughout the district of the plains; he knew of no officer then available who had such knowledge of the western frontier as would enable him to straighten out matters in that department and correct abuses then prevailing.

Petitioner's long and capable service on the western frontier, General Thomas said, had suggested him (petitioner), as a proper person to control and reform the quartermaster's department in the District of the Plains. But the Department had no power to order a retired officer to duty. He, General Thomas, therefore sent for petitioner to ask him if he felt physically able to perform the duties above set forth in this interview, and if he did, to ask him, said petitioner, if he would apply for service as due form of law provided. Petitioner felt that he understood entirely the affairs pertaining to the quartermaster's department in the District of the Plains; that few men, if any, understood the people, resources, climate, and the general needs of the Department in that section as well as he; his health had somewhat improved by rest and travel, and therefore petitioner expressed to General Thomas his appreciation of the confidence reposed in him, as to integrity as well as ability, and represented that he, petitioner, while not feeling able for the regular duties of active service again, he did feel able to perform the duties set forth and explained in this interview as given above, and consented to ask for service, as the technicality of the law required, to the end that he might be sent by General Thomas to the District of the Plains; it being specifically stated by General Thomas that said service should be restricted to the District of the Plains, with his office at Denver City, Colo.; and that petitioner did so tender service, and that the said tender of service was officially accepted by General Charles Thomas, Acting Quartermaster-General, on the 24th day of March, 1865, and petitioner was assigned to duty in Colorado in an official communication, dated War Department, Quartermaster-General's office, Washington, March 24, 1865. IV. Petitioner says: That on the acceptance of the tender of service as aforesaid, it was intended by the Department, and petitioner was definitely instructed to that effect, that he was to be the chief quartermaster at Denver, where (General Thomas expressed the hope), "petitioner's experience, judgment, and integrity would enable him to reduce the affairs of the department to regularity and order," but that on reaching his post of duty he soon found that other and more onerous duties were intended for him by certain commanding officers in the District of the Plains, duties for which his depleted physical condition wholly incapacitated him, that he was both physically and mentally unable to perform said duties; that from overwork and the high electric state of the atmosphere at Denver, Colo., he grew ill and was admonished by his physician, Dr. Hamilton, since deceased, that he must leave Colorado and seek rest and relaxation by the seashore, that being the only means by which said physician could offer any hope of recovery. That he at various times between the 21st day of May, 1865, and the 26th day of September, 1865, represented the sad condition of his health to the proper authorities, and asked to be relieved from duty in Colorado, to all of which appeals no attention was paid, and that on the 26th day of September, 1865, when from his torturous physical suffering his judgment was so impaired as to render him incapable of weighing his language or appreciating the full meaning and application of which his words might be susceptible, and was in fact of unsound mind. He caused to be written and did sign and send to the Adjutant-General of the U. S. Army a communication in words and figures as follows:

General L. THOMAS,

CHIEF QUARTERMASTER'S Office,

DISTRICT OF THE PLAINS, DENVER, C. T., Sept. 26th, 1865.

Adjutant-General, U. S. A., Washington, D. C.: I have the honor to tender hereby and by these presents my resignation from the Army of the United States, to take effect "immediate" and "unconditional." P. T. TURNLEY,

Capt. and Asst. Quartermaster, V S. A.

Petitioner says: That the wording of said letter of resignation was made with especial reference to an Army custom, and he believed and does still believe a regulation which he believed to be then in force and observance, that local commanders could not give immediate relief without instructions from Washington, except when the application for relief was accompanied by resignation to take effect "immediate and unconditional." And as petitioner believed his life depended upon a speedy change of atmosphere and rest from worrying and perplexing cases, he designed to so word his application for relief as to come within the custom, and regulation as he thought (though he had no books or time for reference) then in force and observance for immediate relief, and that he understood and intended said resignation to work his im