Office of Army Accounts

New York

December 19th, 1926

Sir

Having examined Mr Scarborough Gridley’s claim upon the United States for pay as Assistant Engineer I find that his Father certifies that he appointed him as his assistant in constructing the works near Boston, that the commander in chief approved of his receiving a proper compensation for these services which was made him in February 1777 ______ That he was most probably out of imploy after this as the works were so nearly completed and as the commanding officer of the department did not pay (undecipherable)until in 1778 when his Father certifies that he went a volunteer to Rhodes Island and he drew pay from Apil 1778 to August 1779 how far a volunreer is entitled to pay it is unnecessary to determine as he has received it but on his return to Boston - he was either not employed by the public or the Continental Generals thought themselves not justified in paying him or it was considered that he was to be paid by the state on whose service he evidently went to Talmouth for we find that he drew no more pay from the United States as his original appointment was contrary to the established method of (undecipherable) officers out the letter produced from the Commander in Chief only directs a payment of his part services without confirming his appointment as the Continental Generals have only paid him when actually employed and as congress have never recognised him in any arrangement or entry in the public offices of the Engineer Officers. I am of opinion that he cannot be considered as a regular officer of the United States or received any further compensation than what - has been given to him already unless the applies to and obtains the approbation of Congress for it.

I am Yc P Pierce

Doct Wm Eustis