War Department, Trenton, September 20. 1799. Sir, I have received your letter dated the 22^d inst. informing that several Officers have drawn double Rations in the vicinity of Charlestown South Carolina, and requesting to be furnished with a list of the separate posts in that quarter and the names of the Officers commanding, who are respectively entitled to the double Rations, allowed by the fourth Section of the Act of the 3.^d of March 1797, entitled "An Act to amend and repeal in part the Act entitled an Act to ascertain and fix the Military Establishment of the United States." In answer I have to observe, that the Stations of Military Officers have of late on the Sea-board, been exclusively committed to the Generals, commanding the Great Military circles, that transpositions are understood to have taken place, which have changed the Commandants of posts, and that new posts of which I am not apprised, may have been established also by the Generals, consequently that it is utterly impossible for me to say, who are the Commandants of posts, and furnish a list of their names. And with respect to another question implied in your letter — What posts are to be considered separate posts, so as to entitle the respective Commandants of the same under the Act of the 3.^d of March 1797, to double Rations? I have also to observe, that this Question depends entirely upon the law itself, the construction of which, I do not consider in any manner to lie with me. My conception is — that when Officers who suppose themselves entitled to double Rations under the law in question, make application to you for settlement for the same, it is incumbent upon them, to exhibit satisfactory proofs that they were Commandants of posts — That it is incumbent upon you to settle or refuse their accounts — that from your decision an appeal lies to the Comptroller, who must finally and determinately, decide all questions, relative to such claims, and give an equitable or more restricted construction to the law, as to him shall seem proper upon the Questions, as the same shall arise. — Is this particular post within the purview of the Act of the 3.^d of March 1797? And under that Act, is the Officer proved to have been the Commandant, entitled to double Rations for the period he demands a settlement for? I am Sir, Your ob^t. Servant, James McHenry William Simmons Esq^r.