On the Claims of George Smith

Sources & Images
Source Name Image(s)
CollectionNational Archives and Records Administration: Manuscript File, RG93 view image
Transcribe this Document
Document Information
Date January 6, 1791
Author Name Joseph Howell (primary) Location: Office of Army Accounts
Recipient Name Oliver Wolcott, Jr. (primary)
Summary The Auditor of the Federal Treasury on the claims of George Smith, late deputy judge advocate of the army. Smith was in fact overpaid.
Document Format Autograph Draft Letter Signed
Document Notes [not available]
Content Notes [not available]
Related Persons/Groups Oliver Wolcott, Jr.; Joseph Howell; George Smith; Army; Paymaster General; Congress; Deputy Judge Advocate; Assistant Deputy Paymaster General; ;
Related Places Office of Army Accounts; United States;
Keywords account; statement; money; warrant; pay and subsistence; book of the paymaster; settlement; ;
Key Phrases [not available]

[Note: Transcriptions are works in progress and maybe partial. Please help us correct any errors or omissions by signing up for a transcription account.]
To Oliver Wolcott Jnr Esr Auditor on the subject of the Claims of George SmithJanuary 6th 1791
Office of (late) Army AccountsJany 6 1791
In pursuance of your request of the 14th Ulto I have stated the account of Geo Smith late Dy Judge Advocate to the Army which I have the Honor to enclose from this Statement is [apiece?], that Mr. Smith has received either in Money or Warrant on the paymaster Genl the sum of One hundred & fifty nine & 49/90 dollars old Emissions more than his active pay and subsistence for the period for which he acted. I have mentioned Warrants Recd by him, the last of which was Issued for the amount of his account of pay & subsistence to the 1 April 80 settled Certifyed by Mr. A D Pitts which warrant does not appear by the Book of the pay mastr Genl to have been paid. the probability then arises that it is still in his possession and therefore liable to be paid by the United States on demand.
I know of no resolution of Congress that will justify a settlement with Mr. Smith further than has been done, for it does not appear that by any evidence that he [undecipherable] was in Service after after the 1 of April 1780.
I have further to observe that if Mr. Smith had considered himself an officer of the United States after that period he would with [undecipherable] propriety it is presumed he would have charged for the [undecipherable of [undecipherable] accordingly
I am with respect Sir Yr Ob St J Howell
O. Wolcott Esqr