W.D Accountant's Office Sir July 25^th 1794 I have made an examination into the facts stated by M^r James Blanchard on behalf of Cap^t Alex Pratt, the result of which I beg leave to lay before you, it is as follows — M^r Blanchard affirms that Cap^t Pratt's claim for Commutation is founded on the same principles which governed in the settlements and allowances made to Col Allen, L^t Col Livingston, Cap^t Patton, Stratton, Crawford and others, this merits particular enquiry — the time of Col Allen's exchange does not appear on the return in my possession, but this circumstance is immaterial as Congress by their Act of the 22^d September 1779 (see paper A) continued him in service during their pleasure. As the Colonel did not belong to any particular Line or State he retired under the Act of the 28^th December 1794. Col Livingston was deranged under the said Act (see paper B). Cap^t Patton retired under the Act of the 3^d and 21^st October 1790, as per Certificate (see paper C) Cap^t Stratton was deranged under the same acts as appears by an extract of a letter from General Lincoln to M^r Clerez (paper D) the evidence on which was founded the claim of Cap^t Crawford and Lieu^t Torer is not now to be found, but I am confident the late Commissioner of Army Accounts had sufficient evidence before him of their being entitled to the Commutation. Captain Pratt was exchanged agreeably to a return of Officer prisoners in my possession the 26^th August 1779, the Officers alluded to who received Commutation were exchanged between the 26^th of October and the 21^st December 1780 it being subsequent to the Act of the 22^d May 1779 the similarity of the cases does not apply, for those officers who received the Commutation were considered by their States or by the Secretary of war as retiring from service under the Acts of the 3^d and 21^st October 1780 and probably by the act of Congress of the 1^st January 1781. Those Officers who were exchanged previous to the 22 May 1779 and did not join their respective Regiments and who were not again in service, were considered under that act as Supernumerary, a few of which are mentioned in paper E and received the Years pay some in specie, others on the Old Emissions — a number of those Officers who were exchanged between the 25^th October 80 and the 1^st January 81 have only received the years pay paper F. it is therefore evident that commissioner of Accounts did not conceive himself authorized to grant the Commutation without the necessary Certificates from the State or Secretary of War, that these Officers were deranged under the Acts of 80 as mentioned. the many applications on this head induced the Commissioner to address himself on the Subject, and which produced the Resolve of February 1^st 1792 and June 30^th 1796. M^r Blanchard quotes the 13^th Article of section the 11^th of the Articles of War. I am at a loss to know the purpose of bringing this forward as I conceive that Section operates against him — Congress being express in their declaration of dismissing Officers. Captain Pratt in his Memorial to Congress of the 3^d February last affirms that the act of Congress of the 11^th of February 1782 entitles officers in his situation to half pay or the a commutation of half pray for life, on which resolution all the Officers who were in like circumstances with him have been settled with excepting himself and one more who was a Lieutenant in his Company at Fort Washington and was there "captured by the Enemy". I have before observed that those Officers who were exchanged previous to the 22^d May 1779 and did not join the Army were considered under that Act as supernumerary. the assertion that all Officers in his situation were allowed the Commutation is not fact, so far from it, that I do not after a full investigation of the accounts settled by the late Commissioner of Army Accounts or by myself find one instance where an Officer has been allowed Commutation who was exchanged on 1778 & 1779 unless such Officer was afterwards in actual service and continued to the 1^st Jan^y 1781 — This statement added to your two reports to Congress will I conceive fully show that Cap^t Pratt's claim is not founded either upon Law or custom — The Secretary of War — I am Sir &c Joseph Howell