"_Second._ In the cases of claims for services done and supplies furnished during the war, when the demand, though originating under the authority of this state, is properly against the United States, the opinion of the commissioners is against the allowance of any recompense, because those claims should more properly be preferred to Congress; and for that this state can have no credit with the United States for payment or assumptions after the 1st day of October, 1788.
"And that, therefore, the claimants having neglected to exhibit their demands within the period during which this state could without loss have assumed them, cannot complain if they are now referred to the proper tribunal. Payments by the state were in such cases, at all times, of favour, and not of right.
"_Third._ All claims for the subsistence and services of the levies and militia, or other troops, composing a part of the continental army, or destined to join the army, and moving to such places of destination, or under the command or orders of a continental officer, and all claims for supplies and services beforehand for such troops, are considered as proper against the United States only, and are classed accordingly; the commissioners have been led to a more strict attention to this distinction by the reasons just before mentioned, and are warranted by the practice of the continental commissioners for settling accounts, in declaring that such accounts and demands were proper against the United States.
"Principles of more limited operation, and other remarks, will appear in those parts of the report to which they apply.
"Explanatory of particular parts, and of the general form of the report, it may be proper to observe,
"That where the claim or account appears, upon the face of it, to be evidently against the United States only, or for other reasons palpably inadmissible, the commissioners have thought it would have been superfluous to state the proof, and have therefore, in those cases only, given such abstracts of the claim or account as suffice to render the exception apparent.
"In giving their opinion, the commissioners have not detailed all the reasons which led to it, but have given a summary of such as appeared to them most conclusive; and, as well in this as in stating the facts, have aimed at as much brevity as appeared to them to consist with perspicuity. If they shall be found in any instances obscure, a reference to the claim and proofs will probably elucidate them. When the claim is provided for by existing laws, the opinion of the commissioners refers the claimant to the mode pointed out by such law.