producing a Man and having him mustered was sufficient to intitle the Officer to the Bounty of twenty Dollars and the premium for inlisting him then the same rule must consequently be applied to this Claim. But I beleive Sir That very different was the practice. The officer was required to produce the inlistments with the receipt of the recruit for his full bounty. In cases of the accidental loss of those inlistments and receipts recurrence was had to the Muster Rolls which with the officers deposition to the truth of his several charges was considered as sufficient to the passage of his account. I am not sure that General Hazen has declared his having paid the Bounty charg'd on his account But if he does. The papers filed herewith mark'd N^o 3 contains such a weight of evidence to the contrary as must in the opinion of every impartial and disinterested person intirely invalidate his testimony. The method adopted by M^r Pierce in ascertaining the bounty paid by Gen^l Hazen is shewn by the paper N^o 4. He had in possession five accounts of Gen^l Hazen's Officers exhibiting the actual disbursements in recruiting 129 men these amounted to Nine hundred & fourteen Dollars averaging little more than seven dollars for each recruit and would produce thirteen hundred and eighteen dollars for 186 men calculating at the same rate. Altho this cannot be positive for more than the 129 men Yet the testimony of the Officers affords the strongest presumptive evidence that no greater than a proportionate sum was paid for the remainder. There appears a charge against Col^r Hazen of Twenty six Thousand Six hundred & ninety two 90 Doll^rs Old Emissions concluded in the account of M^r Chinn Pay M^r to the regiment a receipt of Gen^l Hazen's appears for Fifteen thousand two hundred & forty nine Dollars dated in Oct^r 1779 a part of the above sum and the other payments are stated by M^r Chinn to have been made in 1778. This sum I am of opinion remains to be debited to Gen^l Hazen as they do not appear to have been introduced into the Account Consolidated by M^r Pierce they are [undecipherable] on the file. It appears from the proceedings of Congress of 26^th April 1785 that the accounts of Gen^l Hazen were referr'd for final adjustment to the Board of Treasury. Altho they did not formally report their decision upon the charges. Yet I believe upon inquiry 'twill be found there was an entire coincidence of opinion between that honorable Board & M^r Pierce. The foregoing is a reference to papers and evidence I suppose most essential to the honorable Comptroller in his reexamination of the account and the following is perhaps sufficiently descriptive of the contents of the remainder. N^o 2 To Joseph Howell Esq^r Comm^t of Army Acco^ts Sir, I have carefully examined the account of General Moses Hazen against The United States as stated and reported by the late M^r Pierce and find in that statement every allowance which the Acts of Congress and the rules of Office will admit and I might add all that Equity and good Conscience requires. The first material objection I understand made by Gen^l Hazen to the transit of his account in its present form is the reduction of a balance unaccounted for in the Old Emissions of Continental Currency at the rate of 20 for 1 the exchange in June 1779 instead of a Depreciation of 40 for 1 in January 1780. The inclosed paper N^o 1 is an arrangement of the sums received by Gen^l Hazen in Old Emiss^ns and their subsequent appropriation and shews that the adoption of the scale in June 1779 is going as far in favor of the Claimant as Justice to the United States will admit and proves that considerable sums remain in his possession at the time of his demands for further supplies. The next objection of consequence to the Statement is the liquidation of a payment made by him into the hands of the D.P.M^r in the year 1780 insisting that it should be opposed to the charges for old emissions he received. If this had been a payment of money and I would appear scarcely possible that it was a proportion of the Sums received from the Treasury of the United States then Justice might give her sanction to the demand. But the inclosed paper N^o 2 will shew that no part of it was in money but on the contrary were Warrants drawn by the Commander in Chief in favor of sundry Officers for extra Services in 1780 and those Warrants dated nearly at the same time in which they were received by the D.P.M^r. Gen^l Hazen also insists upon the propriety of opposing to the Sums in the Old Emissions charg'd him the amount of a certificate granted by Clement Biddle Esq^r in 1780 for Forage due him. Upon this I may add for That M^r Pierce's liquidation of it is in exact conformity with the rules and forms established in all the Offices of the United States. Warrants drawn by the Commander in Chief are reduced to specie by the scale of Depreciation at the date of the Warrant. D.P.M^r and Commissary Certificates are liquidated upon the same principles without inquiry into the time of furnishing the articles or performing the service for which these certificates issued. I will remain for the [strikethrough: honorable] Comptroller of the Treasury to say whether Gen^l Hazen's particular services to his Country will authorise a departure from rules of office so long established and which have received the approbation of so great a variety of Officers. The account in which there is the greatest difference between Gen^l Hazen's expectations and M^r Pierce's admissions is for recruiting. His charging and insisting upon an allowance for 341 men said to be recruited in 1781 & 1782 at twenty Dollars for each. Upon the most exact and critical examination of the Muster Rolls only 186 of the men appear mustered in those years. If Sir the practice of the Army had