Southern Claims Commission: Claim of Jonas Wampler, August 7, 1871, Claim No. 2561

I W.G. Riley a commissioner selected and designated by the Commissioner of Claims appointed under the act of Congress of March 3, 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 Jonas Wampler vs. the United States of America and the witness herein named being material and necessary, being first duly sworn deposeth as follows,

Ques 1^st Witness says, I resided in Augusta Co Va. that he was at home. My occupation was farming.

Ques 2^d Witness Says, I resided in Augusta Co. Va. I was at home all that time, farming. I did not change my residence from Augusta Co. Va.

Ques. 3^d Witness Says, That he never passed beyond the military or naval lines of the United States to enter the rebel lines.

Ques 4^th Witness says, He never took an oath or affirmation to the so called Confederate States.

Ques 5^th Witness says, I have never taken any amnesty oath

Ques. 6^th Witness says, No.

Ques. 33. Witness says, At the beginning of the rebellion I was a Union man and continued so all the time. I did not vote for the ordinance of Secession.

Ques. 34^th Witness says, I was, from the beginning of the hostilities against the United States to the end thereof, constantly with the cause of the United States, and never of his own free will, do anything to injure said cause or retard its success, and was at all times ready to aid and assist the cause of the Union so far as his means and power and the circumstances of the case admitted.

Question by the Commissioner Ques. How old are you, Where do you reside, and what is your occupation?

Ans. I am 57 years, reside in Augusta Co Va. A farmer.

August 7^th 1871

Jonas Wampler

Martha A. Myers, a witness introduced by Jonas Wampler, being duly sworn answereth as follows,

How old are you, Where do you reside, and your occupation-

Ans. I am 38 years of age, reside in Augusta Co. Va. Housekeeper.

1 Ques: Witness says I did see the horse taken and know that all the articles named in the claimants petition were taken.

Ques 6^th. Witness says, Says that the property was taken by the Union Soldiers, under command of Gen^l. Hunter.

Ques. 7^th Witness says, I saw the horse rode off, but do not know how the other articles were taken off.

Ques. 9^th Witness says The horse was taken to Staunton, Va.

Ques 10^th Witness Says, They told me they took the horse, because he needed him, his horse was broken down.

Ques. 11^th Witness says There was complaint at the time and the officer said that he thought if he would go to Staunton he could get it, but he did not get it back.

Ques. 12^th Witness says No receipt was given.

Ques 13^th Witness says, The property was taken in the day time between 10 & 12 o'clock

Ques 14^th Witness says The army were not encamped near. The day before the battle was fought at Piedmont.

Ques. 15^th Witness says, The horse was in good condition, and I think well worth the price charged by the Claimant. And all the articles at reasonable and fair prices.

Ques 22^d Witness says, I think it was taken for some purpose so necessary that the Government ought to pay for it.

Ques. 23^d Witness says I believe it was taken by the order of some officer, who was justified in ordering it to be taken.

Questions by the Comm^r. Ques. How long have you known the Claimant?

Ans. I have known him about 12 years and he was loyal all the War to the U. States Government, and was so regarded by his neighbors. I have heard him frequently speak for the Union cause during the War. If all were as loyal as he was, it would be well for them in the day of Judgment.

Ques 2^d Do you know of any act done or languaged used by the Claimant which would have prevented him from establishing his loyalty to the Confederacy if it had been maintained as a separate Government. If so state the same particularly?

Ans. He was too good a Union man, and said he would not remain in the south if it succeeded.

Further this witness saith not. August 7^th 1871

Martha A. Myers

Sarah J. Clarke a witness introduced by Jonas Wampler being duly sworn answereth as follows.

Question by the Commissioner. How old are you, Where do you reside

Ans. I am 31 years old, I reside in Augusta Co. Va. Housekeeper.

Ques 2 How long have you known the claimant?

Ans. I have known him all my life. He was a loyal all the war to the United States Government, and so regarded by all his neighbors. He did nothing in any way to aid the rebels.

Ques 3. Did you see the property mentioned in the claimants petition taken. If so, what was its condition and value?

Ans. The horse was in good condition, and fully worth what he has charged. I also saw the other articles taken and believe the charges to be low enough.

Ques 4^th Do you know of any act done or language used by the claimant which would have prevented him from establishing his loyalty to the Confederacy, if it had been maintained as a seperate Government. If so, state the same particularly.

Ans. He could not have established any claim of loyalty to the Confederacy.

Witness further saith not. August 7^th 1871.

Sallie J. Clark

Sworn to & subscribed before me this 7th day of Aug. 1871

WG Riley United States Commissioner and Special Com. for State of V^a

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, December Term, 1891-1892

Jonas Wampler vs. the United States, No. 8808 Cong.

STATEMENT

The claimant in this case resided in Augusta County, Virginia during the late war; he presented his claim to the Commissioners of Claims, amounting to $162.00. Claim was disallowed by the said Commissioners and reported to Congress.

In their report, the Commissioners state that the "loyalty of the claimant is established by his own testimony and the testimony of Martha A. Myers, Silas Church and Sarah J. Clark". The Commissioners rejected the claim, because, as they state, the claim is not sustained by the testimony. This claim was referred to the Court of Claims by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives, on March 23, 1892, under the provisions of the Bowman Act.

BRIEF ON LOYALTY

The testimony in this case while pending before the Commissioners, was taken before a Special Commissioner, in 1871, at Staunton Augusta, County, Virginia.

JONAS WAMPLER, the claimant, testifies; residence, Augusta County, Virginia, during the war; occupation, farmer.

Was at home all the time; did not change my residence never passed beyond the military or naval lines of the United States into the rebel lines; never took any oath to the Confederate States; never took the Amnesty Oath. (p. 1).

Never held any office under the Confederate States; never served the Confederacy in any manner; never gave any information to the Confederacy; never aided the Confederacy in any shape or form; was not arrested by the Confederate or the United States Government.

Says the Confederates took his grain for which he received nothing. (p. 2).

That he nor his family were ever threatened by the Confederate Government on account of his Union sentiments; never contributed any thing to the Union army; had no near realtions in either the Union or Confederate army; contributed nothing to them; never did any thing for the Confederate cause.

Questions 26 to 31, inclusive, answered in the negative, favorable to loyalty. (p. 3).

At the beginning I was a Union man; continued so all the time; did not vote for the ordinance of secession; was from the beginning of hostilities against the United States to the end, never did any thing to injure said cause; was at all times ready to aid and assist the cause of the Union, so far as in my means and power.

I am fifty seven years of age; reside in Augusta County, Virginia. (p. 4).

MARTHA D. MYERS testifies, age 38; reside in Augusta County, Virginia; occupation, housekeeper.

Testifies as to property. (p. 5).

I have known claimant about twelve years; he was loyal all the war to the United States Government; so regarded by his neighbors; have heard him frequently speak for the Union cause during the war. If all were as loyal as he was, it would be well for them in the day of Judgment.

He was too good a Union man to establish his loyalty to the Confederate Government, if it had been maintained. Said he would not have remained in the South, if the Confederacy had succeeded. (p. 7).

SARAH J. CLARK testifies: Age, 31; residence, Augusta County, Virginia occupation, housekeeper.

Have known claimant all my life; he was loyal to the United States Government all of the war; so regarded by all of his neighbors; did nothing in any way to aid the rebellion. (p. 8).

He could not have established a claim to loyalty to the Confederacy, had it been maintained as a Separate Government. (p. 9).

SUMMARY.

The loyalty of this claimant seems to have been conceded by the Commissioners of Claims and the proof would seem to be ample on that branch of the case, and the claimant should be found to have been a loyal adherent of the United States Government throughout the entire war.

Respectfully submitted, Gilbert Moyers Attorney for claimant

COURT OF CLAIMS

Jonas Wampler v. The United States-No. 8808-Cong.

LOYALTY. DEFENDANTS' BRIEF.

The claimant resided at or near Staunton Va, and presented his claim to the Commissioners of Claims who rejected it because of the failure of the proofs on the merits of the claim. They seem to have been satisfied upon the question of Loyalty and the claimant has not offered any further evidence upon that question since it came into this court here from Congress under the Bowman Act.

With all due deference to the Commissioners of Claims I cannot agree with them in their Finding that the loyalty of Mr. Jonas Wampler is established. He offers two2 good old women who at the very best only swear to an opinion that Mr. Wampler was loyal. The only fact sworn to was by the last witness and he says he claimant, said if the Confederacy was established he would go North and live. But not one act is testified to that showed his loyalty, without it was the vicarious one of his son who, he says,, fought in the Union army.

But the most difficult thing to believe is that this man could have remained a loud-mouthed Union man in that part of Old Virginia. This makes too much of a draft on my credulity.

The Court's attention is called to the report from the Confederate Archives. There are 2 vouchers mentioned-I have examined both. I think the one for hire of wagon $3.15 was signed by claimant-the signatures to the receipt bears a striking resemblance to that made by the claimant to his petition.

Respectfully submitted, Wm. J. Rannells, Assistant Attorney.

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1892-93

JONAS WAMPLER VS THE UNITED STATES, No. 8808 Cong.

STATEMENT OF CASE

The claimant in this case resided in Augusta Co. Virginia, during the war; he presented his claim to the Commissioners of Claims amounting to one hundred and sixty two dollars. The claim was disallowed by the Commissioners and reported to Congress, for the reason that the Commissioners were not convinced of the taking of the property.

The claim was transmitted to the Court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, under the provisions of the Bowman act.

Claimant has been found loyal by the court.

BRIEF ON MERITS:

1 barrel of flour, $6.00; 1 bay horse, 150.00; 10 bushels of oats and corn, at 60 cts, 6.00; $162.00

Taken by General Hunter, on or about June 1864.

The following testimony was taken while the claim was pending before the Commissioners of Claims.

This testimony was taken in August 1871 before a Special Commissioner of the Commissioners of Claims.

JONAS WAMPLER Testifies resided in Augusta Co. Va. during the war; occupation farmer; Did not change my residence from Augusta Co. Virginia during the war.

Testifies as to loyalty. Page 1.

Claimant does not testify as to the taking of his property.

MARTHA A. MYERS Testifies age 38; residence Augusta Co. Virginia. Occupation housekeeper; Saw the horse taken and know all the articles named in claimants petition were taken. The property was taken by the union soldiers under command of Gen. Hunter; saw the horse ridden away Do not know how the other articles were taken off. The horse was taken to Stanton; told me they took the horse because they needed him.

His horse was broken down; was complaint made at the time,and the officer said if he would go to Stanton he could get it; did not get it. Page 5.

No receipt was given. The property was taken in the day time between ten and twelve o'clock; the army was not camped near there; the horse was in good condition; well worth the price charged by claimant and the articles are at reasonably fair prices. Thought if it was taken for some purpose necessary,the government ought to pay for it. Think it was taken under order of some officer.

Questioned by Commissioner as to loyalty. Pages 6 and 7.

SARAH J. CLARK Testifies age 31; residence Augusta Co. Virginia; Housekeeper. Known claimant all my life. The horse charged for was in good condition and fully worth what claimant has charged. Also saw the other articles taken, and the prices charged are low.

The balance of this deposition relates to loyalty. Page 8

The following testimony has been taken since the reference of the claim to the Court. This testimony was taken on Feb. 18th, 1895.

JONAS WAMPLER testifies: farmer; age 81; residence Augusta Co., Va. This property was taken by the Federal army the 8th of June, I think, '64, the second day after the battle of Piedmont. The soldiers that took my horse went to Staunton after the battle, and then returned towards Piedmont, passing my house. My horses were in the field in sight of my house, about one hundred and fifty yards from my barn. They went into the field and took the horse named, and took it off with them. I saw them take it, and watched them take it away as long as they were in sight. One of the soldiers rode the horse off. A whole company, or a number of soldiers of the Federal army, were passing along the road, and one of them left the road, and went into the field and took the horse as I have stated. (P. 1). It was a bay mare, I called doll, about six years old, in good condition, and worth at least $150.00, in silver at that time. The flour was taken at the same time by the soldiers of the same army, from my house,--a barrel of flour, I was given a receipt for it at the time, which I still have, and will file it with this deposition,and mark it exhibit "A". It is somewhat mutilated, but that is the condition it was in when given to me. It was worth $6.00 That is that Flour was selling for at that time. I got that for other flour that I sold about that time. The oats and corn they took at the same time out of my granery. They gathered it up and put it in sacks, and the size of the sacks, they took about ten bushels. Ten bushels of oats and corn were wort at least $6 at that time in that neighborhood.. I asked Gen. Hunter who commanded at the battle of Piedmont, which was fought about five miles from my house, and with whom I was in conversation about the time these things were taken, if I could not get some protection against the soldiers taking my things, and property. He asked me if I was not a member of the Dunkard Church. I told him I was. He said he believed all the members of the Dunkard Church were Union men. I told him I was a Union man. He sent me a guard to protect my property after that. I never got any of this property back. Nor never got any pay for any of it.

CROSS-EXAMINATION. I can't tell at this time how many sacks of oats and corn I saw taken, it has been so long. I just have to guess at the amount and value as I can remember it now. (P. 2).

JOS. NISEWANDER testifies: carpenter; age 77; residence Augusta Co., Va Not interested or related. On June 6th, '64 I lived in not a quarter of a mile from where I live now, and about 3/4 of a mile from Jonas Wamplers. I have seen the mare that the Federals took from the claimant several times. She was a fine mare, and worth about $160 or $150.

CROSS-EXAMINATION WAIVED. (P. 3).

THOS. R. MYERS testifies: Farmer; age 44; residence Augusta Co., Va. Not interested or related. On June 6th, '64 I lived in Augusta Co., Va., and about a quarter of a mile from Mr. Wamplers. I did not see them take the mare from claimant's premises, but saw Gen. Hunter's men with her. I saw one of the men riding her, I recognized her as Jonas Wampler's mare. He rode her to my father's house. My mother recognized her too, and told the man he ought not have taken her; that Mr. Wampler was a good Union man. The soldier remarked that he would get well paid for her. That he had taken her because he needed her. There was a large body of soldiers at the time passing my father's house--several hundred, I should suppose, from whom the man in possession of the mare rode off and came to the house. I saw officers among them, whom I recognized by their uniforms as such. This was as they returned from Staunton towards Piedmont, the second day after the battle. She was in good order, and a good mare. I don't know her exact age, but know she was a young mare. From the way horses were rating at that time she was worth from $150 to $175. (P. 4).

CROSS-EXAMINATION WAIVED

Exhibit "A" is to the following effect: "Curtin Creek, Va., June 6th, 1864. This is to certify that I have taken from Jonas Wampler one barrel of flour by order of Maj. Gen. Hunter, for the use of the U.S. Govt."

This receipt os so badly mutilated that it is impossible to make out the name signed to same.

SUMMARY

The barrel of flour charged for is shown to have been taken and appropriated to the use of the army, not only by the testimony of the witnesses, but by the receipt on file.

That the horse charged for was taken and used by the army is shown by the testimony of Martha A. Myers, who also details the circumstances under which the horse was taken, that is to supply, the place of one broken down in service.

Also by the testimony of Sarah J. Clark.

The testimony of the claimant shows that the Federal soldiers took the horse from the claimant's field one of the soldiers riding the horse off with the command describes the animal, as about six years old, in good condition, and worth at least $150.00

Mr. Nisewander testifies that he saw the mare taken by the Federals by the claimant, that she was fine, and worth about $150 or $160.

Thos. H. Myers saw the mare in the use of the Federals, and recognized her, says whe was in good order young, good animal, and from the way horses were rating at that time was worth from $150 to $175.00

The ten bushels of oats and corn is proven by the testimony of Sarah J. Clark, who saw the corn and oats taken, by the testimony of the claimant, who estimates the quantity by the size of the sack, says there was ten bus., worth at that time 60 cts. per bu.

It is submitted that the proof justifies a finding for 1 barrel flour, $6.00; 1 bay horse, 150.00; 10 bus. oats and corn, 6.00; Total $162.00

Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers ATTY FOR CL'M'T

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS

Jonas Wampler v. The United States, No 8808 Cong.

DEFENDANTS' BRIEF ON MERITS.

The brief of claimant's counsel compiles the evidence fairly.

The case is this: While General Hunter's army was passing along the road near claimant's farm, some of the soldiers left the ranks, to steal a horse, and at the same time stole a barrel of flour and ten bushels of corn and oats they found in the barn.

Claimant produced a mutilated receipt given for the flour, and states that it is now in the same condition it was when he received it in 1864. It will be noticed that the soldier was careful to tear his name off the receipt. This circumstance, taken in connection with the fact that claimant states that the corn and oats were taken off "in sacks," and does not suggest that the flour was not also carried away in sacks, forces the conviction that he was visited by stragglers, and suffered the usual depredations incident to living along the line of a marching army. This was the view taken by the commissioners, who say:

"It seems that the person who took the horse, promised that he would return it, if he could get another. This does not seem very much like the taking was with due authority for the use of the army."

(The claimant had not then, himself, testified respecting his loss of property, when the claim was before the Commission.)

It is submitted that the proof is not sufficient to sustain a finding that any property of the claimant was "taken for the use of the army."

Respy Sub. Charles W. Russell

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, DECEMBER TERM 1894-1895

Jonas Wampler, vs. The United States No. 8808 Cong.

CLAIMANT'S REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS OF FACT

The claimant, considering the facts hereafter set forth to be proven, and deeming them material to the due presentation of this claim in the finding of fact, requests the Court to find the same as follows:

I. That the claimant, Jonas Wampler, 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 war loyal to the Government of the United States:

II. That during the said period there was taken from him by the military forces of the United States for their use, the following stores and supplies, of the values stated, to wit: 1 barrel of flour, $6.00; 1 bay horse, 150.00; 10 bus. oats and corn, 6.00; Total $162.00

III. That no payment has ever been made for said stores and supplies or any portion thereof.

Gilbert Moyers, Atty. for Claimant

COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1896-97.

Jonas Wampler, vs The United states No. 8808 Cong.

REPLY TO DEFT'S BRIEF ON MERITS

The position of defendant's attorney that the stores and supplies in this case were stolen, that the taking of the same was merely a matter of depredation is totaly at varience with the facts. On the contrary the proof shows that the property charged for was regularly taken in the usual way in which property was appropriated by an army on the march. The horse is traced to actual use, being rode by a soldier in the ranks. How could evidence be more conclusive?

The other items are flour, corn and oats, what the army actually needed and the presumption is that they were taken for the use of the army.

To devote further time to the discussion of this question would seem absolutely useless and unnecessary

There is no defense, and no one knows this better than the attorney for the Govt.

Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers ATTY. FOR C'L'M'T.

COURT OF CLAIMS (Congressional Case No. 8808.)

Jonas Wampler, 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 23rd day of March 1892.

On a preliminary inquiry the Court, on the 3rd day of January 1893, 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 8th day of February 1897. Gilbert Moyers Esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney General, by Charles W. Russell 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 Annex, 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 quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $162.00, and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows:

By command of Major General Hunter, June 1864. 1 barrel flour, $6.00; 1 light bay mare 5 or 6 years old No.1, 150.00; 10 bus. oats and corn and chop, 6.00; Aggregating in value $162.00

The Court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following Finding of Fact.

There were taken from the claimant's farm in Augusta County, State of Virginia, in June 1864, 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 ($135) one hundred and thirty five dollars.

It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof.