1. Ward, commissary general of musters, is referring to a letter from Massachusetts delegate George Partridge to him written at Philadelphia and erroneously dated 31 November. That letter reads: “Yours of the 18th instant is come to hand. I am very sorry that the Business to which you refer has not been acted upon before this time, as a state of suspense is very disagreeable & perhaps injurious, there are two Reasons which have occasioned the Delay, the one is the variety of publick Matters which in our present fluctuating State arrests the Attention of Congress; the other is, the Oppinion of Some Gentlemen in Congress that the Department is an unnecessary Expence, and that the Business would be done as well by the Inspectors of the Army. …

“P.S. The oppinion of Gentlemen to discontinue the Department of Musters does not in the least arise from want of confidence in the Integrity and Ability of the Officers on the Contrary I think of no Department in the Army, except yours, against which I have not heard many Complaints” (Smith, Letters of Delegates, description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds. Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789. 26 vols. Washington, D.C., 1976–2000. description ends 14:243–44; see also Partridge to Ward, 19 Oct., in Smith, Letters of Delegates, description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds. Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789. 26 vols. Washington, D.C., 1976–2000. description ends 14:99). Ward’s letter to Partridge of 18 Nov. has not been identified, but it probably presented information similar to that found in Ward’s letter to Samuel Huntington, president of Congress, written from “Camp at West Point” on 26 Nov.: “As the Army can no longer be mustered for want of Subsistence for the Officers of Musters; I conceive it to be my duty to acquaint your Excellency with the circumstances attending this Department.

“No addition hath been made to the pay or subsistence of these Officers since early in the Campaign of 1777, and which were then small in proportion to their expences. This circumstance, is perhaps unexampled, in any other Department, civil or military.

“The vast increase of expences in living, from that period to the present, is perfectly known to your Excellency. By the resignation of several Officers, the duty of those who remain has increased almost in proportion to the increase of their expences; and these causes have eventually increased each other until it hath become impracticable any longer to execute the duties of the Department.

“The magnitude and multiplicity of national concerns which are ever pressing for the attention of Congress, and a confidence in their impartial justice and wisdom, for a long time prevented applications, and imposed silence. Many months since, I received information that this subject was under consideration, and that I might encourage the Officers to persevere in their duty with an assurance of a speedy decision. This they expected, with the more confidence, as they had seen the subsistence of other Officers increased ten fold. They have persevered in the service to the present time; without receiving any farther support, or any certainty that they ever may. Having been so often disappointed, during the long period of hope and expectation, and expended so much of their private interest in public service, they now notify me they can serve no longer in present circumstances. I could not have prevailed on them to continue their services so long, had I not in some instances, made myself answerable for their extra expences, when they were obliged to travel to muster distant detachments; and were at some times under the necessity of expending in a few days, their pay of a month.

“I humbly conceive it will be impracticable in future, to have the business of this Department executed agreeable to the intentions of Congress, unless the Office⟨rs⟩ are put on an establishment equal to thos⟨e⟩ in the Line, (in all respects excepting the article of rank) and are allowed their extra expences, incurred in performing extra duty: such as travelling to muster distant detachments. The necessary allowance for such extra expence, might be determined by the Commander in Chief.

“Knowing it to be impossible to superintend any Department with honour that is not well executed, and equally impracticable to execute it well unless the Officers are supported, I am anxious for the determination of Congress in this matter; that I may not add the sacrifice of reputation to that of fortune.

“Lest I might appear to have neglected my duty in not having made a representation of this matter at an earlier period, I beg leave to inform your Excellency, that many weeks since I addressed a letter to the Honorable the Congress on this subject, but have not learnt whether it has been received” (DNA:PCC, item 78). Congress read Ward’s letter on 11 Dec. (JCC, description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds. Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. 34 vols. Washington, D.C., 1904–37. description ends 15:1368). For earlier correspondence on mustering officer pay and subsistence, see Joseph Spencer to Ward, 23 Aug., in Smith, Letters of Delegates, description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds. Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789. 26 vols. Washington, D.C., 1976–2000. description ends 13:402; and Ward to Elbridge Gerry, 25 Oct., to Henry Laurens, 30 Oct., and to Jesse Root, 19 Nov., all three in DNA:PCC, item 78.

2. When a congressional committee had asked GW whether the mustering department should be continued or abolished, he had recommended the transfer of its duties to the inspector general (see GW to the Continental Congress Committee on the Mustering Department, 20 Aug., and the source note to that document). Congress followed GW’s recommendation when it discontinued the mustering department on 12 Jan. 1780 (see JCC, description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds. Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. 34 vols. Washington, D.C., 1904–37. description ends 16:47, and Huntington to Ward, 14 Jan., in Smith, Letters of Delegates, description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds. Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789. 26 vols. Washington, D.C., 1976–2000. description ends 14:345; see also Partridge to Ward, 3 Jan., in Smith, Letters of Delegates, description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds. Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789. 26 vols. Washington, D.C., 1976–2000. description ends 14:315).

Dissatisfied that Congress still overlooked the subsistence expenses of his officers “during the last Campaign,” Ward wrote Huntington from Morristown on 19 Jan. seeking reimbursement (DNA:PCC, item 78). According to the docket of that letter, Congress read Ward’s communication on 24 Jan. and referred it to the Board of War. The board reported on 4 Feb. that the mustering officers deserved additional subsistence, prompting Congress to adopt a resolution on 7 Feb.: “That the commissary general of musters, his deputies and muster masters, be allowed one hundred dollars per month for each detained ration, from the 18 of August last to the 12 of January last, when the department was discontinued, in like manner as officers in the line” (JCC, description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds. Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. 34 vols. Washington, D.C., 1904–37. description ends 16:133).