From George Washington to Samuel Huntington, 5 November 1780
To Samuel Huntington
Head Quarters Passaic Falls 5th Novemr 1780
Sir
Whenever a representation from any department of the Army is made to me, and it is not in my power to resolve their questions, or relieve their complaints, I have ever conceived it a part of my duty to refer the matter to Congress. This will be my apology for troubling them with the inclosed Memorial of the Hospital Department,1 and requesting to know at the same time, how far the Resolves of the 3d and 21st ulto are to be construed in favor of the Regimental Surgeons who are to be reduced; the ascertaining of which, previous to the arrangement, is become interesting to them, and the subject of a variety of applications to me.
As I do not know, even, that Congress have it in contemplation to exclude these Gentlemen from the half pay establishment, much less the principle (if it should take place) upon which their determination is founded, I shall take the liberty of observing, that in the British Army, from whence most of our rules and customs are derived, and in which, long experience and improvement has brought their System as near perfection as in any other service, the Surgeons of the Hospital and Regimental Surgeons are, upon reduction, intitled to Half pay. The Mates, in both, I believe are not—Whether a discrimination therefore in the present instance, prejudicial to them, may not work a greater evil than the saving will produce good, remains with Congress to consider.
The opinion I have given to these Gentlemen particularly the Memorialists2 is—that though I would wish to see no discrimination which can hurt their feelings, yet upon a scale of equal justice, I do not conceive that their pretensions to half of their present pay is well supported by comparison with the Officers of the Line.
In the British service, the pay of a regimental Surgeon and Lieutenant are the same or nearly so. In ours, at the commencement of the War, a Lieutenants pay was 13⅓ dollars ⅌ month—and the Surgeons 25 dollars—Whence this difference I shall not undertake to determine, but presume it arose from two causes, a difficulty of getting men of abilities to serve for Lieutenant’s pay—and because no perquisites were drawn by the Surgeons in our Army, while those in the British service increased theirs by emoluments to a further sum equal to the amount of their pay. What the pay of the Hospital Surgeons in the British service is, I am not quite certain; but I believe it to be equal to that of the Captains. In ours it was double, and hav[in]g progressed since, I should, as I have observed to these Gentlemen, think it unreasonable that they should, at a reduction, receive half their present pay. I therefore gave it as my opinion, that a Half pay allowance, proportioned to that of the Officers of the Line, would be consistent with the practice in other Armies, and with the principles of justice and policy.3
These being the Sentiments delivered the Memorialists, I take the liberty of annexing them to the Memorial, and with due deference to the decision of Congress4 I remain With much Respect and Esteem Your Excellency’s Most obt Servant
Go: Washington
LS, in Tench Tilghman’s writing, DNA:PCC, item 152; ADfS, DLC:GW; copy, DNA:PCC, item 169; Varick transcript, DLC:GW. Congress read GW’s letter on 11 Nov. and referred it to a committee (, 18:1048). For acknowledgement of GW’s letter, see Huntington to GW, 12 Nov., postscript.
1. GW enclosed a memorial to him from John Cochran, James Craik, Henry Latimer, and Francis Hagan, written at Totowa on 4 Nov., seeking the same half-pay pension provisions for themselves as was given to regimental officers in “the new establishment of the Army. … In the British service where the half pay establishment prevails—the Medical department is included. We ask for nothing more than is customary in those services which resemble our own.” The failure of Congress to “redress our grievances and satisfy our reasonable expectations” threatened morale (DS, DNA:PCC, item 152; copy, DNA:PCC, item 169). For the congressional arrangement that upset the medical personnel, see , 18:878–88.
GW wrote Cochran from headquarters at Preakness on 6 Nov.: “I have thrown my sentiments, upon the subject of the representation made by yourself and other Gentlemen of the Hospital, into the form of a letter to Congress. If you can reconcile my plan to your own feelings, you will be pleased to seal and forward the letter by Docr Craik. If not, you will return it to me again, that I may transmit as much only as relates to the Regimental Surgeons” (Df, in Tench Tilghman’s writing, DLC:GW; Varick transcript, DLC:GW; the addressee comes from the draft’s docket).
Cochran had used stronger language when he wrote New York delegate James Duane from Totowa on 20 Oct. about the unwillingess of Congress to provide half-pay pensions for surgeons: “I cannot conceive why such Discrimination between us officers and the L[ine]. Do not surgeons in the Field undergo every sp[ecies] of Fatigue, Hardship and Inconveniency with t[hem], and surely Hospital surgeons run greater risk three to one, by contracting Diseases in attending on the sick. Cutting us off from our half pay in the new arrangement I look upon, to be a very great Hardship and will be attended with bad consequences.” Appropriate congressional action would “obtain Love for Love, but in adopting a different Line of Conduct, you must expect [curses] instead of Prayers” (, 231–33, quotes on 232–33, brackets in source; see also n.4 below).
2. Tilghman interlineated the previous three words on GW’s draft.
3. On GW’s draft, Tilghman wrote this sentence along the left margin after GW struck out his initial composition.
4. Congress adopted a resolution 17 Jan. 1781 granting half-pay pensions to medical personnel largely in accord with GW’s recommendation (see , 19:68–69; see also Huntington to Cochran, 18 Jan., in , 16:614, and Cochran to Huntington, 3 Feb., in , 93).