Philadelphia April 29 1784 Sir, On the 25 of January last I laid before Congress, [two?] [some] questions which respected my department, and [requested directions necessary] — the two first were [eminently?] answered, the [last?] — [?] was, "[Unanswered under the?]" "whether the Resolve of [September?] 2^d 1781 are [entitled?] to cover the half pay or not?" was answered by [affirming?] resolution of January 2^d [1785?], wherein it is determined that the half pay or commutation shall be [never?] [beyond?] to now but when it was improperly [promised?] — [my reason for doubting?] — the [member?] of [Finance?] will I conclude very soon lay before Congress, a representation in favor of [some?] [invalid?] Officers on the subject to the [?] [built on two points.] The first that the [relative?] [clause in the resolve of Dean & plainly refers?] [back?] to some former resolution, in which Congress supposed that the half pay was granted to all Officers when discharged and the second [who?] he if it is reasonable to grant it to Officers [already?] [in January 1784?] it is much more so to [those?] continued in the [rest?] [four?] years [afterwards?] — Congress these reasons appear [forcible?] and [just?] — but in [continuing?] the resolution under question, were [instantly?] by the [following?] [principles?] [benefit of the?] that the [practice?] [granting?] the half pay or commutation in [?] to those Officers only who [return?] in service to the end of the war and as all the [possible?] [discrepancies?] except [them?], [then?] has been a particular promise which has [given?] it — [on the earlier?] [terms?] — [absence?] in the [context?] the negative [lines?], which, and grants [not having?] had what was before [given?], I cannot [construe?] now by other [former?] resolutions, I [conclude?] — and [therefore?] [probably?] [place?] the Officers in a [little?] situation than they [previously?] [before?] Congress might also suppose when the resolution [dated?] [in?] was [considered?], [that?] by it [many?] world life [should?] [Man?] [discharged?] not so [well?] be [turned?] [professionally?], when [Officers?] [will?] of [misuse?], could not [call?] them to any consideration from the public — I might enumerate [several?] doubtful [discernments?] per Colonel [Donald?] [Campbell?], Col [Ethan?] Allen [Col?] [?] law, Col [Talbott?], Count [?] de [Havre?- cont?] and Others, who [know?] and were [both?] [left?] of any recourse since the year 1780 — but at the same time I must [confess?]: that there [seems?] [accurately?] good officers [there?] [decried?], and whose merits and services appear to [entitle?] them to the consideration of the public — I [was?] [grateful?] for these Officers to [?] now it; [yet?] [thought?] it not [inappropriate?] to [send?] [you?] my [plan?] on the subject to [prevent?] any [?] [resolve?], which [would?] [?] [manner?] who do not merit more than what they have, already received from government.