Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File R 9731, for Robert Smith, South Carolina
Page 1

(3 - 1776)
SERVICES. C
Smith, Robert
Ferguson
NUMBER R 9731 
B.L.Wt.84046-160-55
CONTENTS
Born in Ireland son of Hughy Smith, An Irishman, who lived in Charleston, S. C. during Rev. War
Enl. in Fairfield Co S.C.
died in Butts Co. Ga. June 19, 1853 Aged about 100 yrs 
W- Ferguson Wilson
Page 2

Mrs Ferguson Smith widow of Robert 
Act 4th July or 7th July 1838. 
Married in 1780.
Filed by Th Lumpkin Washington DC
Page 3

State of Georgia County of Butts
On this third day of May A.D. 1855, personally appeared before me Hubard Williams an acting Justice of the Peace duly authorized to administer Oaths within and for the County and State aforesaid, Forgison [Ferguson] Smith aged ninety years a resident of said County and State who being duly sworn according to Law declares that she is the widow of Robert Smith who was a private Soldier in the revolutionary War that said Robert Smith Volunteered in Fairfield District South Carolina for a time, afterwords that he was drafted and served in said war as a volunteer and as a drafted Soldier at least for the Term of Four years.
That she was married to the said Robert Smith about the month of June A.D. 1780 in South Carolina Fairfield District, and in South Carolina there is no record kept of marriages. 
She makes this declaration for the purpose of obtaining the pension money to which she is entitled under an act of Congress passed 4th July 1836 or 7th July, 1838, granting pension to the Soldiers widows or Children of the revolutionary War
Fergison her X mark Smith wid
Page 4

Sworn to and subscribed before me the day and year above written and I hereby certify that I believe the statements in the above declaration. I have been acquainted with Forgison [Ferguson] Smith for twenty five years and was acquainted with her husband for more than Twenty years before his death which took place June 19th 1853, during all which time they lived together and was recognized as man and wife. s/ H. Williams J.P.

Know all men by these presents that I Forgison [Ferguson]  for diverse good causes me hereunto moving have and by these do constitute and appoint Thomas Lumpkin of Washington City my true and lawful Attorney for me and in my name, to receive from the United States the pension money which is due me as the widow of Robert Smith Revolutionary Soldier, hereby authorising him to do all things for me and in my name as though I was present did the same in proper person hereby making this power of Attorney Irrevocable, Signed and sealed in presence of
Attest R.K. Coleman
Attest R. P. Coleman
H. Williams J. P.
Forgison her X mark Smith
Page 5

State of Georgia Butts County
I William R. Bankston Clerk of
the Inferior Court for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that Hubbard Williams whose name appears as a witness the foregoing affidavit and power of Attorney is and was at the time of Signing the Same an acting Justice of the peace in & for said County duly commissioned & qualified, and that full faith & credit should be had & given to all his official act as such,
Given under my hand and Seal of office this the 5th day of May AD 1855 s/ William R. Bankston C of C
Page 6

Address
J M Varnen
Indian Springs
Georgia =
Page 7

State of Alabama Chambers County on this the thirty first day of July A. D. Eighteen hundred and Fifty Eight
personally appeared before me John T. Jarrell a Justice of the Peace in and for the County and State aforesaid, William Smith, a resident of said County, who being duly sworn according to law, declares, that he does not know his exact age, and that he was born in Ireland, and was brought by his father to South Carolina, before the beginning of the Revolutionary war and that he was raised in Fairfield District, in the State of South Carolina, near Winnsboro, and moved to Butts County, Georgia about the year Eighteen hundred
and twenty six, and remained there nine years and then came to this County where he now lives -
He further declares that he is the brother of Robert Smith, who died a few years ago in Butts County and State of Georgia, and that the widow of his said deceased brother is named Ferguson Smith. That his said deceased brother Robert, was a volunteer Soldier from Fairfield District, South Carolina, under General {Richard] Winn, Captain Ned [Edward] Martin and Lieutenant [William] Gray, during the Revolutionary War.
He further declares that his said deceased, brother Robert, served in said War, he recollects distinctly for the term of one year, and that he knows said service from the following facts, to wit that his brother Robert, left his fathers for the purpose of joining said company, and that it was known and understood by himself and his family that his brother Robert was serving under the above named officers-- and that his brother
Page 8

Robert would occasionally come home, and stay a night and return - That Captain Ned [Edward] Martin and other soldiers of the company came several times and staid all night at his fathers during said service, and that he knew that Ned Martin was the Captain and that his brother Robert was under his command-- that his brother Robert was with Captain Martin the nights that Captain Martin staid at his fathers, and that he well knew that [William] Gray was the lieutenant  of said company, and that the company was under the command of General [Richard] Winn - that he was not in said service himself, but was old enough and well
remembers the foregoing facts.
He further states that he and his brother David, an older brother, and a negro fellow made and gathered a crop during the time his brother
Robert was in the service referenced, and that he cannot recollect distinctly the date of said service, and thinks that it was before the taking of Charleston by the British
He declares that at times his brother come to his fathers house as alluded to, Captain Martin wore a Sword, and that his brother wore a sword but that he does not know whether his brother was an officer or not
He further declares that his brother served other terms during the war, but that he cannot state any thing about said service of his own knowledge, that it was generally reputed and understood that his brother Robert fought at the battle of Cambridge [Siege of Ninety Six] and that he does not recollect in what year said battle was fought
Page 9

That his father lived at the time referred to near Winnsboro
He declares that he has no interest 
in making this declaration 
William  his X mark Smith

I do hereby certify that William Smith
signed and acknowledged the foregoing declaration in my presence and that he is a credible person and that I have no interest in his declaration - This July 31, 1858
John T. Jarrell Justice of the Peace

Elizabeth the wife of William Smith the foregoing affiant on oath declares that she is Eighty five years old and that her husband is older than she is, and she does not know his age that Robert Smith the husband of Ferguson was reputed to have been a revolutionary soldier and that she has no interest in making the declaration
Elizabeth her X mark Smith

Sworn to & subscribed before me on July 31 1858
John T Jarrell Justice of the Peace
Page 10

State of Alabama Chambers County 
I Elliott H. Morse Clerk of the Circuit Court, in and for said County and State do hereby certify that John T. Jarrell whose name appears to the foregoing certificates is and was at the time of signing the same an acting Justice of the Peace. in and for said County and State and that his signature thereto is genuine.

Given under my hand and seal of office at La Fayette Alabama this 31st July 1858
Elliott H. Morse clerk
Page 11

242.618. Act. Mar. 7. 55 April 22/56
Ferguson Smith wid Robert Smith decd 
kin
Capts N [Edward] & William Martin 
Genl. [Richard] Winn S.C. Mil.

Widow 84. 046 issued Oct 1st/58

Rev. War.

[illegible]
Vol. S1 page 182

J M Varner
Indian Springs

JM Varner Nov 21 1836 - Same Dec 9 1856 = See letter to same written on her application for pension under the acts of 1838 Jany 22 1857
same July 9/57
Same Mch 23/58, Mch 26/58.
Hon Ro P. Trippe Apl 5/28  & 7/58
J. M. Varner Aug: 24/58 Pen Agt

160 Acres admitted From an examination of the claim to pension I am satisfied that the claimant is the widow of the solider who rendered His 100 days services & that her claim to land ought to be admitted but I do not believe he rendered longer service  from that 
Special Geo C Whiting
29 Sept 1858
Page 12

Address J. M. Varner
Indian Springs Butts Co Geo

State of Georgia County of Butts on this 14th the day of April A.D. Eighteen hundred & fifty six,
personally appeared before me J J Chaffin a Justice of the Peace in & for said County, Mrs Ferguson Smith, aged ninety two, one or ninety four years, a resident of said County, who being sworn declares that she is the identical person, who is the widow of Robert Smith - that her said husband died in this County, on the nineteenth day of June A.D. Eighteen hundred & fifty three aged about one hundred years - That he was born in Ireland, and that she was married to said
Robert Smith, about the year Seventeen hundred & Eighty six, near Winnsboro, in Fairfield District in the State of South Carolina by one Esquire John Turner. That her maiden name was Ferguson Wilson. That she cannot prove said marriage by any public or private record evidence, other than a Bible, which she presents, & says contains a record of the age of the children of herself & her husband-
She declares that her said husband was a soldier in the Revolutionary war, a volunteer from Fairfield district in the State of South Carolina, in companies commanded by Captain Ned Martin and Captain William Martin lieutenant William Gray and General Winn that he actually served in said War at times for about three years, and that she does not know of any certificate of discharges that
that he may have had-
She makes this declaration for the purpose of obtaining the Bounty Land to which she may be entitled under the act of Congress
Page 13

approved March 3rd, 1855. That she has not received any bounty Land, under any Land bounty act of Congress, nor did her said husband so for as the knows, nor has she made any other application-
Ferguson her X mark Smith

State of Georgia County of Butts Personally appeared R. P. Coleman aged forty five years, a resident of said county he being sworn says, that he is well acquainted with Mrs Ferguson Smith, & was well acquainted with her husband, Robert Smith. That said Robert Smith died in this County, in the month of June AD. Eighteen Hundred & fifty three, and that deponent was at his burial.
That he knew said Robert Smith & Ferguson Smith, to live together in this County as man wife from the year Eighteen Hundred & thirty
up to the death of Robert Smith-- that he lived [illegible] them was at their house often, and that they were generally reputed to be married, and the fact of their marriage was
not called in question. That Ferguson Smith is the identical person that she represents herself to be, & that she signed & acknowledged
the foregoing declaration in his presence & that he has no interest in her claim to Bounty Land, that she is now unmarried 
s/ Robert P Coleman
Page 14

State of Georgia County of Butts Personally appeared Lee J Waldrup aged thirty four years, a resident of said County who being sworn says that he is well acquainted with Mrs Ferguson Smith, and was well acquainted with her husband Robert Smith, that said Robert Smith died in the County in the month of June AD. Eighteen hundred & fifty three, & that he was at his burial. That said Robert Smith & Ferguson lived together as man & wife for Twenty years  in this County - that he was at their house frequently, and that the fact of their being married was not questioned- That Ferguson Smith signed & acknowledged the foregoing declaration in his presence, & that that she is the identical person she represents herself to be unmarried, and that he has no interest in her bounty land claim s/ Lee J Waldrup

The foregoing declaration & affidavits were sworn to and subscribed before me the day & year above written, & I certify that the affiants and claimant are credible persons & are the persons they represent thereto to be & that I have no interest in this claim. I further certify that the Bible presented by Mrs Ferguson Smith contained the following to wit Hugh Smith, son of Robert Smith & Ferguson Smith was born 27th Nov 1787 together with others, the youngest as follows Margaret  Smith daughter of the above named was born the 10 Decr 1810
s/ J J Chaffin JP
Page 15

L426187

State of Georgia County of Butts
I, William R Bankston Clerk of the Superior Court do hereby certify that J. J. Chaffin whose name appears to the foregoing certificate, is & was at the time of signing the same an acting Justice of the Peace in & for said County duly commissioned & qualified and that signature is genuine
Given under my hand & seal of office this the 15th day of April 1856 -
s/ William R. Bankston C. of C.
Page 16

State of Georgia County of Butts On this the seventeenth day of February  A.D. Eighteen hundred and
Fifty seven, personally appeared before me Edward Varner, one of the Justices of the Inferior Court in and for said County, Ferguson Smith, a resident of said County, who being duly sworn according to Law declares that she is the widow of Robert Smith who died in this County in the year Eighteen hundred and fifty three and she thinks in the month of June - that her maiden name was Ferguson Wilson, and that she was married to her said husband by John Turner a Justice of the Peace, near
Winnsboro in the State of South Carolina, in the year Seventeen hundred and Eighty three or four that she is now ninety two years old, and that she was nineteen years old when she married and the first child of her and her said husband was born on the Twenty seventh day of November seventeen hundred and Eighty seven - that her said husband was older than she was, and he said several years before he died that he was ninety three years old. that she cannot prove her said marriage by any public or private record, besides a Bible which she presents and declares contains the record of the birth of the children of her and her said husband-- that she has never been married to any other person besides her said aforementioned husband and is now a widow. she further declares that her said husband was a volunteer soldier, from Fairfield District in the State of South Carolina, under the command of General Richard Winn, and Captains Ned and William Martin and Lieutenant [William] Gray
Page 17

in the war of the Revolution. that he was in actual service in said War at various times and tours of duty for the aggregate period of two
years. that she cannot state the particular periods of said service, but that she knows of her own knowledge that her said husband was in service in said war as a volunteer Soldier. That her father and the father of her said husband lived close neighbors to each other a few miles above Winnsboro, at the commencement of the Revolution - that after the war began in the State of South Carolina, the father of her said husband, whose name was Hughy Smith, an Irishman, moved with his family, as she then understood to Charleston and remained neutral in the war that his son Robert, who was her husband, did not follow his father - that she knew him then personally, and recollects that he went out into
service under the aforesaid officers, Several times during the war, and that he would be out for three months at a time and probably longer. that she knew General Richard Winn, the Captains Ned and William Martin and
Lieutenant [William] Gray personally, and that her said husband served with them-- that she never saw them in camps or under March, and knows the facts of the service from the common understanding and information in the neighborhood where she and the aforementioned officers then lived. That there
was a Captain John Hollis, Jimmy Johnston, and a Major Moore, in service at the same time that her said husband was but that she does not know whether they were with him or not. That her said husband was
Page 18

at one time stationed at the Fort then called Old ninety Six, and was engaged in the battle fought at that place - that she does not know
what officers were in command there- that he was again stationed at a public house in the country but does not know the locality belonging to a wealthy man, and she thinks
that his name was Zalphin, for the purpose of defending the place from the attacks of the British, but that she does not know under whose command he was at that place. that
her said husband would be in service for several months at a time, and return and remain in the neighborhood where she then
lived untill he was called out again-that she thinks that he served under other officers whose names she does not recollect.
She further declares that her said husband in his lifetime claimed to have performed these alleged services, under said mentioned
officers, and that he said that he was in the battle of the Eutaw Springs, under General Green [Nathanael Greene]. that she knows of no person now in life by whom she can prove the services of her said husband.
She further declares that after the close of the Revolution and she and her said husband married that they settled six miles below Winnsboro in Fairfield District as aforesaid, where they lived up to the year Eighteen Hundred and twenty seven; that they then moved to Georgia to this County, and lived here all of the time up to the death of her husband that Joe Caldwell, Jimmy Harper and Billy Merron were the nearest neighbors in Fairfield, So. Car.
Page 19

She makes this declaration for the purpose of obtaining the pension to which she may be entitled under the act of Congress passed on June 7th 1832, and the subsequent acts making provision for widows, and the Bounty Land. to which she may be entitled under the act approved March 3rd 1855, and a subsequent act amending the same, that she has never received any pension or bounty land under any act of Congress, but has made application which is now suspended. That she hereby appoints Jefferson M Varner of said County her attorney to prosecute this claim
Ferguson her X mark Smith
Test J M Varner
R. P. Coleman

I do hereby certify that Mrs Ferguson Smith, signed and acknowledged the foregoing declaration before me the day and year above written - that she is a credible person and is the identical person that she represents
herself to be that I have no interest in her  claim that the presents to me a Bible and on oath declares that it contains a truthful record of the births of her children from which the following items are transcribed to wit:  Hugh Smith son of Robert & his wife Ferguson
Smith was born 27th Nov 1787. Elizabeth Smith daughter of the above named was born July 1789 Jane Smith daughter of the above named was born the 19th May 1792. Robert Wilson Smith son of the above named was born the 18th March 1794 Ann Odair Smith daughter of the above name was born May 15th 1796 and I certify that births of other named children of the said parties appear recorded in said Bible, and further that the applicant is a decrepit and very old woman and could not well attend a court of Record in the County

Edw Varner J.I.C.
Butts County Geo
Page 20

Isaac Bankston claim
No 221848, answered
Nov 8, 1855
Page 21

Ferguson Smith further declares that her said husband at one time assisted in taking a Fort from the British, and that she thinks the Fort was fort Congaree - that he give in and drew as a revolutionary soldier a tract of Land in the Cherokee Land Lottery in Georgia in the year Eighteen hundred and that her said husband made papers in his life time to obtain his pension and she does not know what was ever done with the papers.
Ferguson her X mark Smith
Test J M Varner
R. P. Coleman

I do certify that the foregoing was sworn to & subscribed before on yesterday the 17th February 1857 that I have since examined a published list of the fortunate drawers of Lots in the Lottery alluded to drawn in 1832 + 3 Robert Smith a Revolutionary Soldier, of Hearns district in County of Butts appears to have been one the fortunate drawers

Edw Varner J. I. C.
Page 22

State of Georgia County of Butts on this the Eighteenth day of February, Eighteen Hundred and fifty seven personally appeared Susanah G McLendon, a resident of Monroe County, aged forty five years, who being sworn declares she is the daughter of John Winn, the son of General Richard Winn of South Carolina - that she was born near Winnsboro in Fairfield District So. Car. and that her father died in Jasper County in Georgia seventeen years ago and that General Richard Winn died in Tennessee. She further declares that she is well acquainted with Mrs Ferguson Smith, the widow of Robert Smith, who lives near the line of Butts and Monroe counties and a neighbor to deponent, that she was well acquainted with Robert Smith her husband who died in said County of Butts in the year Eighteen hundred and fifty 3 that first knew said Robert Smith about twenty years ago and was at his house after when she was a girl and after since she was grown. That often times when she would be at said Robert Smith
house he would talk to her about the Revolutionary war, and particularly about her grandfather General Richard Winn that he often said that he served in said war under General Winn that she has often heard him say that he was in a battle when General Winn was wounded in the shoulder, and that his aide Baker carried him from the field of battle, and that shortly after the General was carried from the field the American gained the victory. that she thinks he said the battle was at the Hanging Rock, that her heard said Robert Smith talk a great deal about the war, the particular facts she does not recollect
Page 23

that she has heard him say that he was out into service three years during said war, and that he was always ready at a minutes warning
during the seven years to go out into service- that it is her opinion from what she has heard him say, that he was a revolutionary Soldier
that it was the common opinion in the neighborhood here when said Robert Smith lived and died that he was a revolutionary solder and that fact was never disputed so far as deponent ever heard
She further declares that she has heard said Robert Smith talk about the officers who were under General [Richard] Winn, has heard him speak of Baker aide to General Winn, and according to the best of her recollection, Lieutenant [William] Gray and that he served under said officers

She further declares that she was often at the house of Robert and Ferguson Smith, that they lived together as man and wife-- had a large family of children some of whom are old persons- that they were generally reputed to be married and that fact was never doubted-- that she has no interest in the Pension or bounty Land claim of Mrs Ferguson Smith
s/ Susanna G McLendon

I do hereby certify that the foregoing declaration was sworn to & subscribed before me the day & year above written that I know the affiant to be the identical person that she represents herself to be and that she is a credible person
Edw Varner J.I.C.
Butts County
Page 24

State of Georgia County of Butts I Benjamin F Ward, one of the Justice of the Peace in and for said County do certify that I knew Robert Smith who died in the County a few years ago, and I am acquainted with his widow Ferguson Smith, and was at their house as far back as Eighteen hundred & twenty Eight, they lived together as man & wife and were generally reputed to be married, and that fact was never disputed so far as I ever heard-- that they had a large family of children - that this Militia district was formerly called Hearns district. that said Robert Smith was generally reputed in his neighborhood to have been a revolutionary soldier and that fact was never disputed so far as I ever heard- I devise my knowledge of this from the common
understanding in the neighborhood and from conversations that I have had with said Robert Smith - It is my opinion that he was a revolutionary soldier-
Robert Smith was reputed to be between ninety six and one hundred years old when he died-
This February 21th 1857
B. F. Ward J.P.
Page 25

Indian Springs. Butts Co. Geo
February 23th 1857.
Dear Sir,
I have had the deposition of Mrs Ferguson Smith for Pension taken before a Justice of the Inferior Court, a Court of record and the Justice certifies that the claimant is a decrepit old woman and could not attend in open Court. This is done to meet the rule  established under the act of June 7th 1832, and I hope that you will give this case your careful attention. 
The claimant in her former declaration, taken before a Justice of the Peace alleged that her husband served three years-- in this she alleges two years, that being sufficient under the act of June 7, 1832. She cannot state the particular periods of her husbands service, but she declares that she knew her said husband at the beginning of the revolution, and knows of her own knowledge, (at various times for three months at a time), he served, under the officers named in her declaration and probably other officers whose names she cannot recollect. With the present declaration of claimant, she brings herself fully up to the rule prescribed under the act of June 7, 1832, granting Pensions with traditionary evidence alone-- Here is a stronger case as to my mind she fully identifies her husband as being the man who served as mentioned in the
record of which you are in possession, and makes prima facie direct evidence of 100 days service, at least untill some other person claims to have performed that service, and I presume there is none. 
She declares that she knows of her own knowledge that he served under those officers, that her husband always claimed to have served under them- William Varner states that he has often heard the
Page 26

husband of claimant say he served under Gen. [Richard] Winn and probably Col [John] Winn - R P Coleman declares that the old man often said he served under Winn, Capt [Edward & William] Martin and an officer named [Lt. William] Gray. Mrs McLendon declares that she has often heard him relate the fact of a battle in which Winn was wounded-- that Smith said he was in that battle that his aide Baker carried him from the field, and that to the best of her recollection he said that lieutenant Gray was in that battle. The evidence of these parties in connection with the statement of claimant, connects her husband with that record beyond any doubt, and it becomes direct testimony-- and I maintain that independent of this corroborating proof, that the record is prima facie direct proof of the service of claimants husband with this direct proof and the traditionary evidence is it not for fair to presume that the husband of claimant was a volunteer soldier in the Revolution for at least
six months. The affiants four in number, besides his son, all declare, that Robert Smith was reputed to be a revolutionary soldier and that they believed it. Claimant says that her husband drew Land in Georgia as a revolutionary soldier, for which fact I refer you to a book page 315. No 182 Entered by Jas F Smith April 1838 "Cherokee Land Lottery; in which it appears that Robert Smith Rev. Soldier, in Hearns District. Butts County, drew Lot no 182. B. F. Ward certifies that the Militia district in which Robert Smith resided, was called Hearn. The fact is established beyond any contention, that the husband of claimant was a revolutionary soldier- the record alluded is direct proof-- claimant says he served two years, then why should she not receive the small bounty at least for six months, the most period provided for by the act of June 7, 1832 - after the passing of that
inasmuch as there were no muster rolls, of the
Page 27

volunteers &c. of the States presumed, and on account of the rapid decrease of the survivors of the revolution, applicants were allowed the benefit of traditionary evidence of service, and I am at a loss to determine why you have taxed upon this case the requirement of direct proof for the full term - the rule alluded to, should be more liberally intended to widows, and especially on account of the greater lapse of time, for here the claimant presents a just and valid claim, and shows that her husband thought he made application in his life time In relation to the bounty Land, the act of March 3, 1855, provides for record evidence which has been construed to include not only "muster rolls", but any public record showing the alleged service for 14 days - Here claimant alleges that her husband served under certain officers-- a record is shown discussing the service of Robert Smith for 100 days-- your predecessors have firmly considered this prima facie proof and issued the warrants; for if after producing a record of the alleged service, if claimants were then compelled to prove the service by living witnesses, what use for the record? Hence this prima facie direct & positive proof, should entitle Claimant to her bounty land, and coupled with the corroborating testimony that her husband served under the mentioned officers, and with the traditionary proof should entitle her to the Pension for six months or two years allowed by the act of June 7, 1832, and subsequent act making provision for widows - 
If you still hesitate to award these claims, it is desired that you ask the opinion of the Attorney General and Sec of the Interior as to the legal body of the testimony presented
Very Respectfully
J M Varner

Geo C Whiting
Commissioner of Pensions
Washington DC
Page 28

Address J M Varner Indian Springs Butts Co Georgia

Additional Evidence for the Pension Claim
of Mrs Ferguson Smith
Page 29

State of Georgia County of Butts on this the 31st day of December A.D. Eighteen hundred & fifty six, personally appeared Robert W Smith, aged sixty two years a resident of said County, who being sworn according to law, declares that he is the son of Robert Smith & Ferguson Smith - that his father died in this County in the year Eighteen Hundred & fifty three, and that his mother Ferguson Smith now lives in the County about two miles from him and that she is very old and cannot get about only a little on crutches and could not attend in open Court of record in the County with any kind of convenience to her person -  that he thinks she is ninety years old - that his father & mother moved from Fairfield District in South Carolina to this county and lived here up to the death of his father that deponent often heard his father in his life time say that he was a volunteer soldier in the revolutionary war - has often heard him say that he was fifteen or sixteen years old when he first went into the service has often heard him say that he was in service in said war at different periods for three years. that deponent has heard his father say that he served under Generals Green [Nathanael Greene] and [Richard] Winn and Captain Ned Martin and probably another Captain [William] Martin. that he recollects no other officers nor does he recollect the particular periods of said service- that his father moved to the County about the year Eighteen hundred & twenty seven - That his father was reputed & believed by his pastor in this
Page 30

neighborhood where he lived & died to have been a revolutionary soldier and there was no doubt of that fact in the public opinion of the neighborhood so far as deponent knows or ever heard nor he ever doubt it- Deponent further declares that he some ten years ago in his fathers lifetime made an effort at the request of his father to obtain a pension for his revolutionary services, and that this deponent did have some papers made out for said purpose and placed in the hands of Rufus McCord of this County, but deponent
does not know whether said papers were ever sent to the Pension office or not, nor what has become of the papers- that deponent was born the tenth day of March, Seventeen Hundred & ninety four, and that his father & mother had their other children older than deponent the oldest of whom is dead-- that deponent has no interest in the Bounty Land or person claim of his mother Ferguson Smith, any farther than the possibility that he might become an heir to some parts if she should get it- s/ Robert W Smith

I do hereby the certify that Robert W Smith signed & acknowledged the foregoing declaration in my presence and that he is a credible person and that I have no interest in his declaration
Signed & sworn to H. Williams JP
Page 31

State of Georgia County of Butts on this the 20th day of December A.D. Eighteen hundred and fifty six personally appeared before me JJ Chaffin a Justice of the Peace in & for said County, Robert P. Coleman aged forty six years, a resident of said County who being duly sworn according to law, declares that he is well acquainted with Mrs Ferguson Smith the widow of Robert Smith deceased, a resident of said County. That he knew said Robert Smith and lived a neighbor to him for about twenty two years up to the death of said Robert Smith, which occurred in the year Eighteen hundred and fifty three in this County. That he repeatedly heard said Robert
Smith in his lifetime say that he was a soldier in the revolutionary war at different periods for three years - has often heard him say that he served under General [Richard] Winn and General [Nathanael Greene] Green and Captain Ned [Edward] Martin and an officer [Lt. William] named Gray has heard him mention the names of other officers that he served under whose names deponent cannot now recollect - has often heard him say that he was engaged in the battle of Eutaw Springs and old Cambridge or old ninety six - Deponent further declares that it is his belief from the statements he has often heard said Robert Smith make, that he was  a volunteer in the Revolution in the State of South Carolina and that it was generally believed here in the neighborhood where said Robert Smith lived and died that he was a revolutionary Soldier, and that no doubt of that fact existed in the public opinion-- that said Robert Smith moved from Fairfield District, and near Winnsboro
about the year Eighteen -
Page 32

hundred and twenty Seven- to this county-- that deponent, also lived at the time stated in Fairfield District as aforesaid, and neighbor (some ten miles from) to said Robert Smith, and that according to the best recollection of Deponent said Robert Smith was generally reputed and believed in his neighborhood in the Fairfield District as aforesaid, to have been a revolutionary Soldier - that for several years previous to the death of said Robert Smith. Deponent has frequently heard him speak of getting his Pension, and has heard him say that Major Moore a resident of Fairfield District South Carolina, was the only person that he knew of then living by whom he could prove his said service - that he is informed and believes that the said Major Moore is dead.  Deponent further states that the said Ferguson Smith is a decrepit old woman, and from old age & bodily infirmity, could not attend in open Court of Record in this County, without great inconvenience and probably damage to her person & health -that he has no interest in making this declaration - he has no interest in the bounty land or Pension claim of Mrs Ferguson Smith
s/  R. B. Coleman

The foregoing declaration was sworn to and subscribed before me the day & year above written. And I certify that the affiant is a credible person and that I have no interest in his declaration - s/  J.J. Chaffin J.P.
Page 33

State of Georgia County of Butts on this the twenty sixth day of December Eighteen hundred and fifty six, personally appeared before me J. J. 
Chaffin a Justice of the Peace in and for said County William Tannen aged forty four years a resident of said County, who being sworn according to law declares that he was well acquainted with Robert Smith, the deceased husband of Mrs Ferguson Smith - That he lived neighbor to said Robert Smith in this County probably Twenty five years, and that he has often heard said Robert Smith in his life time say that he was a Revolutionary Soldier in the State of South Carolina, under Gen. [Richard]
Winn, and think that said Smith has said to him that Winn was his Colonel when he first went out to service. that he recollects no other officer mentioned by him - that it was the general opinion in the neighborhood
 that said Robert Smith was a 
Revolutionary soldier, and that fact was not doubted so far as deponent knows - That he has no interest in the pension or bounty land claim of Ferguson Smith. s/ William H Tannen

Sworn to & subscribed before me on the day & year above written, I certify that I have no interest in the claim of Ferguson Smith. s/ J. J. Chaffin J.P.
Page 34

Indian Springs, Butts Co Geo
Jany 1st 1857
Geo W Whiting Commissioner of Pension
Dear Sir
I forward the affidavits of three persons, affording traditionary evidence of the revolutionary service of Robert Smith the deceased husband of Mrs Ferguson Smith
whose claim for a Pension is submitted to you.
The declarations show that said Robert Smith in his lifetime claimed to have served as a volunteer in the Revolutionary war under Generals Green [Nathanael Greene], [Richard]  Winn and Captains [Edward & William] Martin and officer [Lt. Wm.] Gray in South Carolina. These affidavits establish the the fact beyond question, that the husband of this Claimant was the identical person who received the pay for the one hundred days service shown by the certificates from the Comptroller Generals office of the State of South Carolina which have been filed with the papers in this case. Inasmuch as there are no muster rolls in the war Department of the Militia or volunteers in the revolutionary
war, traditionary evidence is admissible according to the established rule, and I hope that the evidence here furnished together with the certificate referred to will establish this claim-
I forward a copy of the affidavits which you be pleased to certify, for the use of the applicants claim for Bounty Land if necessary and I hope that the Land warrant will be issued without further delay.
Very Respectfully
J. M. Varner
Page 35

State of Georgia County of Butts I, William R Bankston, Clerk of the Inferior Court of said County
hereby certify that JJ. Chaffin and H. Williams whose names appear to the within certificates are & were acting Justices of the Peace in & for said County at the time of signing the same, and that full faith & credit should be given to their acts as such
Given under my hand on seal of Office the 9th day of January AD
s/ William R Bankston C.I.C.
Page 36

State of Georgia County of Butts
on this the first day of September AD `one thousand eight hundred fifty eight Benjamin J Bennet, a resident of said County, who on his oath declared that he is the Executor to the last will & Testament of Robert Smith late of said County deceased. That the said Robert was the husband of Mrs Ferguson Smith, a resident of said County, who is making application for a pension He further declares that according to an order of the Court of Ordinary of the aforesaid County, he, as said Executor, sold at public outcry Lot of Land, No (221) two hundred and twenty one Eight (8) District, and Third (3) section and Lot one hundred & Eighty two (182) Twenty Seventh (27) district, and Third (3) district, on the Cherokee land lottery, as the property of the said Robert Smith, once that he rendered title to the same to the purchaser and delivered the Plots & Grants were issued to the purchaser and that the said Plots & Grant swere issued to the said Robert Smith.
He further declares that he often heard the said Robert Smith, in his life time say that he was a solder in the Revolutionary war under [Gen. Richard] Winn, [Capt. Edward] Martin & [Lt. Wm.] Gray but does not recollect the grade of the officers. 
He further declares that he knew
Page 37

that the said Robert Smith made some effort in his life time to get a Pension and had some papers made out when he thinks he saw, but did not read them, and that he has no interest in the claim of Ferguson Smith- s/ B. J. Bennett

I do hereby certify that Benjamin J Bennett swore & subscribed the foregoing declaration in my presence the day & year above written, and that I know him to be the identical person he represents himself to be and that he is a credible person and that I have no interest in his declaration
s/ Hubbard Williams JP
Page 38

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON September 28, 1934
BA-J/RFL
Robert Smith-R.9731
Honorable George Huddleston
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
My dear Mr. Huddleston;
Reference is made to your request by telephone September 26,1934, for the record of Robert Smith of South Carolina, a Revolutionary War soldier whose wife was Ferguson Smith.
A careful examination of the papers has been made in the Revolutionary War claim on file under R.9731, based upon service of Robert Smith and the following data found.
Robert Smith was born in Ireland, date not shown. He was the son of Hughy Smith, an Irishman, who, during the Revolution, lived in
Charleston, South Carolina. The name of the mother of Robert Smith was not shown.
While residing in Fairfield District, South Carolina, near Winnsboro, Robert Smith enlisted, served at various times amounting in all to one hundred days, as a private with the South Carolina Troops, a part of the time under Lieutenant [William] Gray and in Captains Edward Martin's and William Martin's Companies, Colonel Richard Winn's Regiment and was in the battles of Hanging Rock, Ninety Six, and Eutaw Springs and assisted in taking Fort Congaree. No dates of service are given.
In 1827, he moved from Fairfield District, South Carolina to Butts County, Georgia.
He died in said Butts County, June 19, 1853, at the age of about one hundred years.
The soldier married about June, 1780, or in 1783, 1784 or 1786 all those dates appear near Winnsboro, South Carolina, Ferguson Wilson, of that place. It was stated that at the time of their marriage the father of Robert Smith and the father of Ferguson Wilson were near neighbors.
Page 39

Ferguson Smith was allowed bounty land in full satisfaction for the Revolutionary War services of her husband, Robert Smith, on
her application executed February 17, 1857, at which time she was aged ninety-two years and resided in Butts County, Georgia.
If you desire to obtain information in regard to the location of the land granted by the United States, noted above, you should address The Commissioner of the General Land Office, Interior Department, this city, and cite the following data: Bounty Land Warrant Number 84046 for one hundred sixty acres, issued October 1, 1858, under the Act of March 3, 1855.
In 1857, the widow stated concerning her husband: "He give in and drew as a Revolutionary soldier a tract of land in the Cherokee Land Lottery in Georgia in the year Eighteen Hundred and - - - " sentence incomplete. The lots drawn were numbered 182 and 221. This transaction does not pertain to United States land grants.

The following names of the children of Robert and Ferguson Smith are shown. Hugh (the oldest) born November 27, 1787, deceased in 1856. Elizabeth b. July 4, 1789.
Jane b. May 19, 1792.
Robert Wilson b. March 10, 1794, in 1955, was residing in Butts County, Georgia.
Ann Odair b. August 15, 1796.
Margaret (the youngest) b. December 10, 1810.
It was stated that there were six children between Ann Odair and Margaret; their names and ages were not given.

Soldier's brother, William Smith, was aged eighty-five years in 1858, and was then residing in Chambers County, Alabama. He was born in Ireland, and married Elizabeth Wilson, the sister of Ferguson Wilson Smith. Elizabeth was six years younger than Ferguson, and was living in 1888. David Smith, a brother of the soldier, was also referred to his age was not given, but it was stated that he was an "older brother."
There are no further family data.

Very truly yours
A. D. HILLER
Assistant to Administrator.
Page 40

J. M. Varner
Indian Springs Geo.
Feb. 17, 1858
GA 
Respecting the rejected claim of Ferguson Smith and setting forth reasons for its allowance
Respectfully referred to the Comr of Pensions Dep. Int Feb. 23 /58 
Moses Kelly
Rec'd 22 Feb: '58
Wm. Rhett
Page 41

act 1855 No 242.618
Jefferson M. Varner
Indian Springs Ga.
Jan 15 1858
Ga 
Appeal in the case of Ferguson wid. of Robert Smith for Bounty land

Revy Pens
Respectfully referred to the Commissioner of
Pension for examination and report

Moses Kelly
Dept. Int.
Jan. 27 /58

I understand this to be an appeal given the [illegible] of this office in the [illegible]

Rec'd 26 Jan. '58
Wm. Rhett
Page 42

[Upper right corner of document is torn and missing]

242.618 Act
April
Ferguson Smith - wid. of Robert Smith dec'd Pri
Capts N [Edward] + Wm Martin 
Genl. [Richard] Winn SC Militia.
84046 iss Oct 1/58
Rev. War.
Original Brief Within

J. N. Varner
Indian Springs Ga.
Page 43

840.46
160. Acres
Page 44

1929- Sept. 14, Hist to Miss Bessie Waldrop. mee
1930 - Dec. 17 " " Mrs. E.B. Freeman avf
1934 - Sept 28 = " " Hon Geo. Huddleston eel

No. 9731 Revy
REJECTED
Ferguson Smith widow of Robert Smith S C Service
Page 45

December 17, 1930.
Rev. & 1812 Wars Section
AWF/ILL
R. 9731
Mrs. E. B. Freeman
John Laurens Chapter, D.A.R.
Dublin, Georgia.
Dear Madam:
You are advised that it appears from the Revolutionary War records of this bureau, that Robert Smith was born in Ireland, date not shown. He was the son of Hughy Smith, an Irishman, who, during the Revolution, lived in Charleston, South Carolina.
While residing near Winnsboro, South Carolina, Robert Smith enlisted, served at various times, amounting in all to one hundred days, as a private with the South Carolina troops, a part of the time under Lieutenant [Wm] Gray and in Captains Edward Martin's and William Martin's Companies, Colonel Richard Winn's Regiment, and was in the battles of Hanging Rock, Ninety-Six and Eutaw Springs and assisted in taking Fort Congaree. The dates of his services are not given.
In 1827 he moved from Fairfield District, South Carolina, to Butts County, Georgia, where he died June 19, 1853, at the age of about one hundred years.
The soldier married about June, 1780, or in 1783, 1784 or 1786 all dates appear in the papers near Winnsboro, South Carolina, Ferguson Wilson of that place.
Said Ferguson Smith was allowed bounty land in full satisfaction for the Revolutionary War services of Robert Smith, on her application executed February 17, 1857, at which time she was aged ninety-two years and resided in Butts County, Georgia.
In 1837 she stated concerning her husband: "He give in and drew as a Revolutionary soldier a tract of land in the Cherokee Land Lottery in Georgia in the year eighteen Hundred and - - " sentence incomplete. The lots drawn were numbered 182 and 221.

1
Page 46

The children of Robert and Ferguson Smith were:

Hugh (oldest child) born November 27, 1787, was deceased in 1856
Elizabeth " July 4, 1789
Jane " May 19, 1792
Robert Wilson " March 10, 1794, resided in Butts County Georgia in 1857
Ann Odair " " August 15, 1796

Six other children are referred to, the only other name given in is that of Margaret, the youngest, born December 10, 1810.

Very truly yours,

E. W. MORGAN,
Acting Commissioner.

[Very faint handwriting, illegible]

2
Page 47

mee
Rev. & 1812 Wars Section
B. L. Wt. No. 84046-160-55
September 14, 1929
Miss Bessie Waldrop
Jackson
Georgia
Dear Madam:
I advise you from the Revolutionary War records of this Bureau it appears that Robert Smith was born in Ireland, date not shown. He was the  son of Hughy Smith, an Irishman, who, during the Revolution lived in Charleston, South Carolina.
While residing near Winnsboro, South Carolina, Robert Smith enlisted, served at various times, amounting in all to one hundred days, as a private with the South Carolina Troops, a part of the time under Lieutenant [Wm.] Gray and in Captains Edward Martin's and William Martin's Companies, Colonel Richard Winn's Regiment, and was in the battles of Hanging Rock, Ninety-six and Eutaw Springs and assisted in taking Fort Congaree. The dates of his service are not given.
In 1827 he moved from Fairfield District, South Carolina to Butts County, Georgia, where he died June 19, 1853, at the age of about one hundred years.
The soldier married about June, 1780, or in 1783, 1784 or 1786
Page 48

(all dates appear in the papers) near Winnsboro, South Carolina, Ferguson Wilson of that place. the soldier's mother name not given moved to Ga. at the time her sons Robert & William moved there.
Said Ferguson Smith was allowed bounty land in full satisfaction for the Revolutionary War service of Robert Smith, on her application executed February 17, 1857, at which time she was aged ninety-two and resided in Butts County, Georgia. Iss. Oct 1, 1858
In 1857 she stated concerning her husband: "He give in and drew as a Revolutionary soldier a tract of land in the Cherokee Land Lottery in Georgia in the year eighteen Hundred and  - -  " sentence incomplete. The lots drawn were numbered 182 and 221.
The children of Robert and Ferguson Smith were:
Hugh (oldest child) born November 27, 1787, was deceased in 1856
Elizabeth " July 4, 1789
Jane " May 19, 1792
Robert Wilson " March 10, 1794, resided in Butts County Georgia in 1857
Ann Odair " " August 15, 1796
Six other children are referred to, the only other name given in is that of Margaret, the youngest, born December 10, 1810.
Very truly yours,
E.W. MORGAN
Acting Commissioner.

Sol's brother Wm. 85 in 1858, then residing in Chambers Co. Ala, was born in Ireland & married Ferguson Wilson's sister Elizabeth, who was six years younger than Ferguson. Sol's brother David referred to.
The bible referred to as showing the age of Robert Smith was not in the claim in 1929.
Page 49

Telephone call from Rep. George
Huddleston, House Office Bldg for record of Robert Smith whose widow Ferguson Smith was granted land
in 1857 on service of her husband in Capt. Wm Martins Co. Col. Richard Winn's S.C. Regt
Sept 26, 1934
mmf
(This record was wanted for a Mrs. Green)
Page 50

JOHN LAURENS CHAPTER
Daughters of the American Revolution
Dublin. Georgia
Nov. 26th, 1930
Bureau of Pensions Washington, D.C.
Dear Sirs: -
Will you please send me the full record of the application for and granting of pension to Mrs. Ferguson Smith for the service of her husband Robert Smith in the Revolutionary War.
Please include names of children and all dates, if you have them, also Robert Smith's war record.
Thanking you for this information what will be of great interest to me
I am Yours respectfully,
Mrs. E. B. Freeman, regent John Laurens Chapter, DAR

PENSION A NOV 29 1930 US OFFICE
Page 51

JOHN LAURENS CHAPTER
Daughters of American Revolution
Dublin, Georgia
No. 24th, 1930
Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Pensions
Washington, D.C
Dear Sirs: -
Will you please advise me if application was ever made in your office for a pension for the service of Capt. Richard Johnson of Va, S.C. or Ga. in the Revolutionary War?
If you find such a record, will you please send it to me in full? I especially want to know the names of Richard Johnson's wife and children if you have his information and the record of his service in this war.
Sincerely, 
Mrs. E. Blount Freeman regent
John Lauren Chapter D.A.R.
PENSION U NOV 28 1930 S OFFICE
Page 52

Jackson, Georgia
Aug. 2, 1929
Commissioner of Pensions, Washington D.C.
My dear Sir:
In the Cherokee Land Lottery list of Revolutionary Soldiers (James F. Smith, Harper Bros.1838) Robert Smith Sr.  is listed as having received two lots of land for service in the Revolutionary War
Dis. 27 Sec. 3- Lot 182 in Hearn's Dist. Butts Co. Georgia
" 8- " " " 221 " " " " " was this Robert Smith who came from South Carolina in 1820 to take possession of this land a Revolutionary pensioner? If so, can you furnish his rank regiment and division, and his command in the War of the Revolutionary War?
This information is desired to be used in the marking of the grave of this Revolutionary soldier, by the D.A.R.
Sincerely yours - 
yours-
Miss Bessie Waldrop
U. S. AUG 5 1929 OFFICE]
Page 53

Pension Office
May 14 1855
Sir:
The informal application of Ferguson Smith widow of Robert Smith of Ga has been examined and filed under the act of Feby. 2 1848
She must make a declaration before a Court of Record or show that she is unable by reason of bodily infirmity to do so. She must prove the date of her marriage by Public or private Record or where or then that no such evidence exists, where the testimony of witnesses who can then how they are enabled to fix the time will be considered. She must prove the date of her husbands death by disinterested witnesses. There is not a particle of evidence on file with her husbands  application that he ever served a Day in the war of the Revolution. s/Thomas Lumpkin Ag
Present
Page 54

Thomas Lumpkin May 14/35
Page 55

Geo C Whiting
Commr Pensions
Washington city D.C.
Page 56

Indian Springs, Butts, Co Ga
February 3rd 1856.
Dear Sir.
 Your communication of the 22nd ult in relation to the Pension & Bounty Land claim of Ferguson, widow of Robert Smith is received.
I presume, that at the date of Yours, you had not received the traditionary evidence that I forwarded you about the 10th of January. That evidence consists of the affidavits of William
Tanner, Robert P Coleman, & Robert W Smith. William Tanner states, that he knew Robert Smith the husband of Ferguson that he often heard him in his life time say that he was a soldier in the revolutionary war, under Gen [Richard] Winn, and that he was reputed here in the neighborhood where he lived and died to be a revolutionary soldier, Robert Smith
states the same, with the additional facts that his father always said that he served under General [Nathaniel Greene] Green, Winn and the Captains [Edward & William] Martin, Robert Coleman states the same as to reputation, and that the said Robert Smith, often said that he served under General Greene & Winn-- Captain Martin, and an officer named [Lt. Wm.] Gray, and that he was in the battle of old ninety six or old Cambridge and Eutaw Springs - Mrs Ferguson Smith declares that her husband
Page 57

served under General Green [Nathanael Greene] & [Richard] Winn - Captains [Edward & William] Martin and Lieutenant [Wm.] Gray. The record from the Comptroller General of South Carolina, shows a payment to Robert Smith for 100 days service, by Winn and Lieutenant Gray- thus the identity is established beyond controversy, and the certificates from the Comptroller become direct evidence being the highest order of proof. This direct proof, coupled with the traditionary evidence, comes fully up to the rule Established, under the act of June 7, 1832, for the benefit of the State troops in the Revolution, where the muster rolls are not presented. Liberality is given in such cases, and still greater liberality should be extended to widows of Revolutionary soldiers, and in especial cases, as this one.
For you will note that Robert W Smith, says that his father did make out papers long before he died to get his pension, that claimant is very old, ninety, and of course of infirm memory- that her husband is dead, and of course his service cannot possibly be detailed minutely, and that claimant, at her age, does well to remember the facts stated in her declaration, and is fortunate to have the affidavit of disinterested
persons, who state that they knew her husband for many years, that they, and the community where he lived, believed that he served as a soldier in the Revolution - that he after
Page 58

said that he served under officers mentioned, and that a record is obtained showing a payment to Robert Smith for services, by some of the identical officers, to wit; [Gen. Richard] Winn & [Lt. Wm.] Gray.
As before stated, I infer that at the date of your Communication, you had not examined the affidavit alluded to above; on comparing them together with claimants declaration and the certificates. You will be satisfied that this is a meritorious claim and extending that liberality which this case especially merits you will not hesitate to award the Pension. There can certainly be no obstacle in the right to bounty Land. I think that the Hon. R. P. Trippe M.C. is acquainted with the claimant and the persons whose affidavit I have for'd in the case, and I refer you to him, and on talking with him and reexamining the papers, you will be satisfied that this is a meritorious claim, and you will certainly refuse the rule of direct proof for the full term that you have fixed for this claim, and place it under the beneficent rule laid down under the act of June 7, 1832 of granting
Pensions to those claimants who present strong traditionary evidence of service
Very Respectfully
J M Varner

Hon Geo C Whiting
Commission of Pensions
Washington D.C.
Page 59

address J M Varner
Indian Springs
Butts Co. Geo.
State of Georgia County of Butts On this the 14th day  of April A.D. Eighteen hundred & fifty six, personally appeared before me J. J. Chaffin, a Justice of the Peace in & for said County & State, Ferguson Smith, aged ninety one or ninety four years a resident of said County, who being sworn declares, that she is the identical person who is the widow of Robert Smith deceased. That her said husband died in this County
on the nineteenth day of June A.D. Eighteen hundred & fifty three. That her said husband was born in Ireland. That her maiden name was Ferguson Wilson; and that she was married to said Robert Smith, as well as she can recollect, in the year Seventeen
hundred & Eighty six, by one Esquire John Turner, near Winnsboro, in Fairfield District, in the State of South Carolina. That the first child of her & her said husband was born on the 27th day of November A.D. Seventeen Hundred & Eighty seven. That she cannot prove her said marriage by any public or private record, except by a Bible which she presents, and says is a record of the ages of the children of herself & of her said husband. She declares that her said husband, was a
Soldier in the war of the Revolution, and actually served as an American Soldier in said war, at different periods, for a Term of about three years- That he was a volunteer from Fairfield District in the State of South Carolina, under
Page 60

Captain Ned Martin and Captain William Martin and Lieutenant William Gray and General [Richard] Winn, and she thinks that she has heard her said husband say that he fought with the American soldiers at the Battle of Eutaw Spring and at Cambridge or old ninety six in the State of South Carolina.
She makes this declaration for the purpose of recovering the Pensions that may have been due her said husband, at the time of his death
and the Pension that may be due her since the death of her said husband, from the Government of the United States, for the military services rendered by her said husband in the Revolutionary War.
she further declares that her said husband made application for said Pension in his life time, and never received any and that since his death she has made application and has not received any Pension.
She further declares that she hereby constitutes & appoints Jefferson M Varner of the County of Butts & State of Georgia, her Lawful attorney for her & in her name to prosecute this claim with power to appoint such sub-attornies as he may think proper
and hereby revoking all former power of attorney Ferguson her X mark Smith

State of Georgia County of Butts Personally appeared Robert P
Coleman aged forty five years, a resident of said County & State, who being sworn declares that he is well acquainted with Mrs Ferguson Smith and was well acquainted with her husband Robert Smith-- that he knew
Page 61

them in Fairfield District in the State of South Carolina previous to the year Eighteen hundred and twenty seven that they lived to them there as man & wife, and were generally reputed to be married, and the fact of their marriage was not questioned-- that about the year Eighteen Hundred
twenty seven Robert Smith & Ferguson Smith moved to the State of Georgia that in the year Eighteen Hundred & thirty, deponent moved from Fairfield District, South Carolina to the County of Butts State of Georgia, where he now resides-- That when he came here Robert Smith & Ferguson Smith were living as man & wife & so lived up to the death of Robert Smith. That deponent was at their house often, and lived neighbor to them in this county twenty years, and that they were reputed here to be married, and the fact of their marriage was not questioned.
That said Robert Smith died in the month of June A.D. Eighteen Hundred & fifty three and that deponent was at his burial-- that his widow Ferguson Smith is now unmarried, that Robert Smith was about one hundred years old when he died. that deponent has often heard him speak of being a solder in the Revolution and that he has no interest in the Pension Claim of Mrs Ferguson Smith. That he knows several children of said Robert & Ferguson Smith, who are from forty to sixty years old. That she signed & acknowledged the above declaration in his presence. s/ Robert P. Coleman

State of Georgia County of Butts  Personally appeared Lee Waldrup aged thirty three years, a resident of said County & State who being sworn says that he is well acquainted with Mrs Ferguson Smith, & was well acquainted with her husband
Page 62

Robert Smith. That said Robert Smith died in this County in the month of June A.D. Eighteen Hundred & fifty three- that deponent was at his burial-- that deponent knew Robert Smith & Ferguson Smith to live together in this County, for about twenty years years, was at their house often knows their children some of whom are probably fifty years old, and
that Robert & Ferguson Smith were generally reputed to be married, and that that fact was not questioned, and that he has no interest in the Pension Claims of Mrs Ferguson Smith & that the signed & acknowledged the foregoing declaration in his presence, that she is unmarried. s/ Lee J Waldrup

I do hereby certify that the foregoing declarations & affidavits were signed, sworn to & acknowledged in my presence, and that I know the claimant and the affiants to be credible persons and the identical persons they represent themselves to be and that I have no interest in this Pension Claim
I do further certify that the Bible presented by Mrs Ferguson Smith, bears the following record, to wit; Hugh Smith Son of Robert Smith & his wife Ferguson Smith was born 27th Nov. 1787- Elizabeth Smith daughter of the above named was born 4th July 1789= Jane Smith daughter of the above named was born the 19th May 1792. Robert Wilson Smith son of the above named was born the 10th March 1794, together with the record of the death of seven other children the youngest of which is as follows--"Margaret Smith daughter of the above named was born the 10th Dec. 1810" s/ J J Chaffin J.P.
Page 63

State of Georgia County of Butts
I William R Bankston Clerk of the Inferior Court in & for said County do certify that J.J Chaffin
whose name  appears to the annexed
certificate is & was an acting Justice of the Peace at the time of signing the same, duly commissioned & qualified and that his signature is genuine
Given under my hand & seal of office this the 15th day of April 1856
s/ William R. Bankston CIC
Page 64

Copy of letter
the original of which is in the pension claim of Hannah widow of Robert Smith of S.C. Rejected File No. 9744.

Pension Office
April 5, 1856 -
Sir: 
I have received certain certificates of the Comptroller General of South Carolia respecting the service of Robert Smith in the revolutionary war and agreeably to your request filed there in the case of Hannah Smith alleged widow of Robert in which R. W. Jones is the attorney.
These papers would equally apply to the case of Ferguson Smith, also alleged widow of Robert Smith which you are prosecuting-- They would not however satisfactorily meet the requirements of the office in either of the applications
Very Respectfully
JG

Thomas Lumpkin Esq.
Present
Page 65

Indian Springs Butts Co Geo
April 16th. 1856

Dear Sir.

I forward the petition of Mrs Ferguson Smith widow of Robert Smith decd for Pension. Robert Smith died in this County in 1853, and in his lifetime, filed in the Pension office a declaration for Pension. I think the Hon David I Baily of this County was the attorney of Claimant. Robert Smith was a soldier in the
Revolutionary war, and you are especially
referred to his declaration in file, for particulars of his service length of time, grade, & the officers he served under, as his widow does
not reccollect the full particulars of said service. In a short time I will forward some Record Evidence of said service-

Very Respectfully
J M Varner 

J Minot
Commr Pensions
Washington City
D.C.
Page 66

Comptroller General's Office,
Columbia, S.C. May 1st 1856
Mr. J. M. Varner
Dear Sir:
Enclosed you have copies of the Services of Robt Smith.  I havent copied those for Supplies yet: The fees for copies of lies will be 14.25 more. Ill have them ready in a few days. say by the time you  acknowledge the recpt of the Enclosed.
Y Obt Sert
Wm R Huntt
Page 67

Record Evidence of Service
Robt Smith
"J"
Page 68

No 589 Book Q
Issued the 28th of May 1785 to Mr . Robert. Smith for ten pounds two shillings and ten pence Sterling for 100 days duty in the Militia as pr account  audited
Principal L10.2.10 1/4
Annual Interest L 0.14.2
No 15

589 Q
Mr Robert Smith's Account of 100 days Militia duty amtg to L71. or Stg  L10: 2: 10 1/4

State of South Carolina To Robert. Smith Dr
58 days as foot L29
42 days as Horse L71
Total 71 Stg L10: 2: 10 1/4

Certified by Wm Gray Lieut
Personally appeared Robt. Smith before me and made oath that the above account as it stands stated is just and true, and that no part has been received. Sworn before me 5th day of Decr 1783 s/ [Col.]John Winn
Gentlemen
Please to deliver my Indent unto Mr. Abraham Ott, whom I have authorized to receive the same for me and in my name, and You'll oblige your Humble Servt
Page 69

Signed in the presence of Lewis, Golson J. P}
Robert Smith
To Edward Blake and Peter Boequet Esqrs
Commis of the Treasury of of the "State of South Carolina.

Recd 28th May 1785 full satisfaction for the within acct in an Indent No 589 Lib Q  by virtue of an order for Robt. Smith
Abraham, Ott
Page 70

Comptroller General's Office}
Columbia May 1st 1856}

I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true copy from Indent Book "No. 589 Book Q" and also of the account upon which said Indent was issued.

No Seal of Office

Given Under my hand Wm R Huntt
Dep. Comp Genl
Page 71

Indian Springs Ga
May 8. 1856

Dear Sir

Enclosed you will find a copy of the military service of Robert Smith to be filed as evidence
in the claim of Ferguson Smith wid. of Robert Smith for a Pension  If the certificates are not properly authenticated inform me at once

Very Respectfully
J M Varner

J Minot
Commr. Pensions
Washington City
D.C.
Page 72

Robt. Smith
$2.00
Page 73

No 47
Lib J
Issued the 21st of June 1785 to Mr. Robert.Smith for Seventeen Shillings Sterling for Gun Flints for Militia use as pr account audited in part.
Principal L0.17.0
Annual Interest L0.17.0
No 21
No 21
No 47.T Mr Robert Smith's acct of 2,424 Gun Flints for Militia use in 1780, and for 300 lbs. Beef for State Troops in 1782 the whole amotg to 
Stg. L4:14/

State of South Carolina
 To Robert. Smith Dr
1780 22nd. Aprl.  2424 Gun Flints @ Lp doz L.17
1782 18th Feby | 1 Cow wt 300 N 25/8 3.17 = 4.14.

Personally came Robert Smith and made oath that the above acct. is justly due and no part received.
Sworn before me
Wm. Arther J.P.

Received of Mr. Robert Smith April 22nd 1780, Two Hundred and two dozen of Flints for the use of the Public by order of Col. W. Thomson

John. McCord Captn.
Received of Robt. Smith, one cow for the use of Genl. [Thomas Sumter] Sumpter's Brigade, for which he is entd. to receive pay from the public.
18th Feby 1782 (1 Grown Cow)
Fred. Fetts Compny.
Page 74

Comptroller Gen's, Office
Columbia May 1st. 1856

I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true copy of Indent Book "No 47 Lib T", and also of the account upon which said Indent was issued.

No Seal of Office

Given Under my hand
Wm. R. Huntt
Dep. Comp. Genl.
Page 75

Robt. Smith
$2.00
Page 76

No. 958 
Lib Y
Issued 26th Jany.1786 to Mr. Robt. Smith Two pounds, four shillings, and eleven pence Sterling for 175 lb. Beef supplied for public use in 1783, Acct. audited Principal L 2. 4.11
Interest L0..3..

958 Y No 98 26th Jan. 86
Robert Smith for 175 lbs Beef Supplied Public Service in June 1783 @ 25/8 pc Stg L2:4.11

The State of South Carolina To Robert Smith To one hundred and seventy five Pounds weight of Beef a 5 Dollars and a half 9 pr wt L2.4.11

Personally appeared Robert Smith and being duly sworn on the Holy Evangelist of Almighty God, made oath that the above account is just and true, and that he had received no part thereof. 
Sworn before me this 13th Sept 1785,
Lewis, Golson JP s/ Robert Smith

Pg No 119  June 30th 1783
Mr. Robert Smith has furnished one beef weighing one Hundred and seventy five pounds, at five and half dollars pcr on account of the State of South Carolina 1 Beef 175 lbs
Wm. Hort
St Coming
Page 77

Comptroller Genl's Office}
 Columbia May 1st 1856}

I hereby the foregoing to be a true copy 
from Indent Book "No 958 Lib Y, and also of
the of the account upon which said Indent was issued.

No Seal of Office

Given under my hand
Wm R Huntt
Dep. Comp Genl
Page 78

Robt. Smith
Page 79

No 589
Book Q
Issued the 28th of May 1785 to Mr. Robert Smith for ten pounds two shillings and ten pence Sterling for 100 days duty in the Militia as per account audited
Principal L 10.2.10 1/4
Annual Interest L0..14..2
No 15

589 Q Mr. Robt. Smith's  Account of 100 days Militia Duty amtg to L 71.. Currency or Stg. L10:2:10¼

State of South Carolina To Robert Smith
58 days as foot L29
42 days as Horse 42
Total  71
Stg; L10:2:10¼
Certified by Wm Gray Lt.
Personally appeared Robt Smith before me and made oath that the above account as it stands stated, is just and true, and that no part has been received
Sworn before me 5th day of Decr 1783 [Col] John Winn

Gentlemen
Please to deliver my Indents unto Mr. Abraham Out whom I have authorised to receive the same for me and in my name and you'll oblige your Humble Svt. Sign in the} Robert. Smith
Page 80

presence of Lewis Golson J.P.
To Edward Blake Peter Bocquet Esqrs Commrs of the Treasury of the State of South Carolina

Received 28th May 1785 full satisfaction for the within acct. in an Indent N.589 Lib Q by virtue of an order for Robt. Smith
s/ Abraham Ott OM
Page 81

Comptroller's Genl's Office
Columbia May 1st 1856
I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true copy from Indent Book "No 589 Book Q" and also of the account upon which said Indent was issued

No Seal of Office

Given Under my hand
Wm R Huntt 
Dep. Comp Genl.
Page 82

The Claimant is quite poor, and not able to litigate before the Court of Claims, and the department is solicited to award the claim
Should the Department not be fully satisfied as to the genuineness of the papers filed, the witnesses, and officers before whom the papers were attested and the Clerk who certified are all here, and any reference can be had that may be desired.
There was a separate claim and certificate, of the record from South Carolina, filed for Bounty Land. It is hoped that the Bounty Land claim will be judged in its own merits, and not made dependent on the success of the Pension Claim, and that the warrant will be issued without delay. This is the only case, out of various Bounty Lands claims, which I forwarded to the Department, where the claimant was required to prove the identity of the applicant with the record, by any other than the parties affidavit; and it is believed that none other than the parties sworn declarations would have been required in this case, had the papers not been confounded with the claim papers of Robt Smith of Oglethorpe Ga. some time in January.  I addressed the Department in this matter of these claims, and have received no answer. It is hoped that the claim will be revived without delay,
Very Respectfully
J M Varner

Hon J Minot
Comm of Pensions
Washington City D.C.
Page 83

Pension Office
May 8, 1856
Sir.
I have filed the supplemental declaration of Ferguson Smith, widow of Robt, and ye are informed that if the burden was the party of the name who in November 1832 was a resident of Oglethorpe County Geo. and applied for a pension under the Act of June 1832, no practicable benefit can be had for the further prosecution of the claim for the reason that the claim [illegible] of three months in the matter of Virginia which one of [illegible] is not sufficient to infer consideration & the provision of the Pension laws, [illegible], he says [illegible] employed in [illegible] and driving cattle for the troops which some was not [illegible] within the pro-
Page 84

was of the Pension laws. His occupation [illegible] in 1781 shortly after the capture of Cornwallis, obtained [illegible] however and to expressed [illegible] the case when the Record [illegible] of service referred to in your letter is filed in this office.

J. M. Varner, Esq
Indian Springs
May 8th 1856 Butts Co. Geo.
Page 85

Indian Springs, Geo
May 16th 1856
Dear Sir.
your note of the 8th instant, in regard to the Pension claim of Ferguson Smith, widow of Robert Smith a revolutionary soldier was received to day, and I have to say that claimant alleges that her husband was a soldier from south Carolina, and not from Virginia, and that I am informed, that said Smith in his life time, probably in 1850, made application for a Pension, as a citizen of Butts Co by the Hon David I Baily being his attorney.
I do not know whether the papers filed in the Pension office or not, said Smith was not the person who made application in 1832, as a citizen of Oglethorpe Co. Ga. alleging that he was in the Virginia service - the claim of Ferguson Smith is therefore filed with the wrong papers in the Pens. Office. Robert Smith the husband of Claimant never lived in Virginia or in Oglethorpe Co. Geo and claimant alleges that her husband was in service 3 years, a South Carolina Solder-I have for you some record evidence
Very Respectfully
J M Varner
Hon J Minot
Commis Pensions
Page 86

Indian Springs. Butts Co. GA
May 28th 1856
 Dear,
 I forward two additional certificates as evidence in the Pension claim of Mrs Ferguson Smith, widow of Robert Smith who was a soldier in the Revolution. You will observe that the evidence shows supplies furnished by Robert Smith, from 1780 to 1786 inclusive, to Capt. John McCord by order Col W Thompson to Sumpters [Gen. Thomas Sumter] Brigade, Fred Fitts Company to Wm Hort St Commy; and a reference to those names may enable you to discover additional evidence of his service as it is clear that he had dealings with them. You are especially referred to the declaration of Robert Smith on file as claimant could not state said service more fully than is stated in his declaration, not recollecting the facts as detailed to her by her said husband- I would again remark that said Smith was not, as you had supposed, the person who in 1832 made an application for a Pension as a citizen of Oglethorpe Co-Ga alleging that he was in the Virginia service, but on the Contrary
Page 87

that a few years ago, probably about 1850- he made application as a citizen of Butts Co Geo. Stating that he was of the South Carolina troops- Hon David J Baily Esq was the attorney for said Smith, and not having seen Mr Baily on this subject, I suppose the declaration of said Smith was not withdrawn, and is in file in the Pension office
Very Respectfully
J M Varner

Hon J Minot
Commr. Pensions
Washington D. C.
Page 88

Letters &c
Page 89

Pension Office
June 12, 1856
Sir.
I Filed the cert: of the Comptroller of S.C. which accompanied your letter of the 8th & your explanatory letter of the 16th ult. relative to the claim of Ferguson Smith, widow of Robt. There are no papers referring to the claim of Robt Smith of Butts Co: Ga: upon our suspended files- & it is a little remarkable that if he served as alleged, that he did not apply for a pension. But, even if one admitted that Ferguson Smith's husband was the soldier who received the Indent of L10, S2, & d10 1/4 as shown by the Comptroller Cert: & of which there is no evidence whatever, it shows a service of only three months & ten days - nor is there a particle of testimony in the case which would establish any further service, the whole parol proof going to show reputation as a Revolutionary soldier only.
You are aware that six months is the minimum amount of service for
Page 90

which pensions are granted, & unless that amt. of service is shown to have been rendered by Ferguson's husband, her claim cannot be admitted.
Very Respt Yours
S. Cole For Commr.

J. M. Varner
Indian Springs
Butts Co: Ga

Indian Spring Geo
June 23rd 1856.
Dear Sir.
In reply to the contents of the above I would say that claimant & her friends here, say that Robt Smith her deceased husband did apply for a Pension in his life time, and probably in 1850- and that Hon David J Baily Ex.M.C. of Ga, was her attorney. I will see
Page 91

Mr Baily, and furnish you with all the information he can give me of this matter.

I have this day addressed a note
to M. Thompson atty & Counsellor at Law
Washington City D.C. desiring his cooperation in the prosecution of this claim, & hope that this will be sufficient authority in the premises as a power of attorney is given me in the declaration of claimant, and therefore will you
be pleased to give Mr Thompson access to the papers

Very respectfully
J M Varner

J Minot
Commr of Penson
Washington City D. C.
Page 92

J M Varner
Indian Springs
Ga
Page 93

Pension Office
June 17 1856
I filed the Certificate of the Comptroller Genl which accompanied your letter of the 8th ult & your explanatory letter of the 16th ult relative to the claim of Ferguson Smith Widow of Robert. There are no papers referring to the claim of Robt. Smith of Butts Co Ga upon our suspended files- And it is a little remarkable that, if he received a certificate, he did not apply for a pension. But even if we admitted that Ferguson Smith's husband was the soldier who received the L10. S 2 & 10 1/4 as therein by the Comptrollers certificate and of which there is no evidence whatever it shows a service of only 3 months & 10 days 
Signd S. Cole
for Comm.

J M Varner Esq
Indian Springs Ga
Page 94

Indian Springs Geo
June 18th 1856
Dear Sir. 
In the Pension claim of Mrs Ferguson Smith wid. of Robert Smith. I would state that I could make proof of the service of Robert Smith in the Continental line, from South Carolina and I therefore desire to be informed if said Robert Smith alleged that he was in said line which fact can be ascertained by a reference to his declaration on file he then being a citizen of of Butts Co. Geo. Would you be pleased to furnish me with a copy of his declaration, or give notes from it, as his widow is very old and not being able to remember the service more fully than stated in her declaration
Very Respectfully
J M Varner

Hon J Minot
Comm Pension
Washington DC
Page 95

[text is cut off]
J M Varner
Indian Springs Ga
Page 96

Pension Office
June 25. 1856.
Sir:
I have filed the copies of Indents  opened by the state of South Carolina to a Robert Smith in payment of the accounts for supplies furnished during the war of the Revolution but they do not, in any way strengthen
the claim set up for his services as a soldier or [illegible] the objections stated in my letter of the 12 inst. As stated in that letter there are no papers for the Robert Smith, who was the husband of Ferguson, upon our files.
J.M. Varner Esq
Indian Springs Butts Co Geo.
Page 97

[Stamp] INDIAN SPRINGS GA Dec1
Geo C Whitney
Commissioner of Pensions
Washington City D C.

Ferguson Smith Wid. Robert
Page 98

Indian Springs Geo
Nov 28th 1856
Dear Sir
Your favor of 21st past, in relation to the Bounty Land claim of Mrs Ferguson Smith, widow of Robert Smith is before me. You say that the claim has been "examined and for the character of proof necessary for its completion you  (I) are referred to the correspondence heretofore on hold with you (myself) in relation to her claim for Pension under the act of July 7. 1838
In reply I would remark that I infer from that correspondence that the proof I furnished the Department in support of the Pension claim war deficient only in the length of the time of service proved - 100 days of service having been proved, while the act of July 7, 1838 requires six months 
In support of the Bounty Land Claim of Mrs Ferguson Smith, I would say that I forwarded to the Commissioner of Pension record evidence of the Revolutionary service of Robert Smith, of 100 days, from the State
Department of South Carolina, to be filed with the claim of Mrs Ferguson Smith widow of Robert Smith-- By a reference
Page 99

to that certificate, and to the declaration of Claimant You will find that she alleges that her husband served in the Revolutionary war under certain officers, and that the certificate shows the service under the identical officer- I take this to be a full compliance with the rules in such case, for the case being others made out a reference to that certificate is the same, or if the name of Robert Smith appeared in a muster roll in the Pension office - I for'd two certificates one to be filed with the claim for Pension, the other to be filed with the claim for Bounty Land
I will call your attention especially to the fact that the declaration and the record proof shows the identity of the claimant as fully or has heretofore been [illegible] under the several bounty land acts of Congress -
If the certificates allude to, with of [illegible] can be found with the papers in the case  please to inform me; and if they are on file, after you examine them, I presume the Land warrant will be issued
Very respectfully
J M. Varner

Geo C Whiting
Comm Pensions
Washington D C
Page 100

Indian Springs Geo
Dec. 10, 1856
Dear Sir,
In further reply to your note of 21st Nov. ult concerning the Bounty Land claim of Mrs. Ferguson Smith, widow of Robert Smith, I would say that her case is made out with as full proofs as has ever been required by the pension bureau in such cases - to wit, that she is Ferguson Smith, the widow of Robert Smith - her marriage to and the death of Robert Smith - that her said husband was a soldier in the Revolution under certain officers, which the certificate from the State Dep. of So. Carolina show.  Her declaration is made as completely as has hitherto been required and the record alluded to is the same as if you had found the service on a muster roll in the war department.  If you will examine the papers in the case you will find the facts above alluded to substantiated, and what more is required?  I know no further proof required and your note indicates nothing more.  It has never been required in such cases where there is record evidence of the service that the claimant should bring a witness to prove that he is the identical person who was in the service alleged; but, on the contrary, the sworn declaration of service and then the record to show it.  But if you depart from this rule you change the basis of the investigation of the bounty land claims, and require, not only in this instance, widows generally, as numerous their claimants to prove an impossibility. If you will  examine the declarations on file, you will find that
Page 101

that the Bounty Land Claimants have been required to make out a declaration under oath of service, and then if the record shows the service alleged, the warrant is issued.  for some instances under the Bounty act of March 3. 1855, they (Claimants) have been required to have two witnesses, who will swear that from the statements and the appearances of claimant that he or she is the identical person that he or she represents herself or himself to be. Even this requirement is fully complied with by the affidavits of the two witnesses proving the marriage of this claimant and the death of her husband
you do not say that this claim is suspended but intimate that further evidence will be required for its completion, without indicating
what that proof must be. upon a rexamination, you will doubtless be satisfied. that in this case you are departing from all former usage in
such cases, and you will issue a warrant
Very Respectfully
J M Varner

Geo C Whiting
Commr Pension
Washington City D. C
Page 102

Ga
Indian Springs
Decr 17, 1856
Dear Sir.
You certainly misapprehend the rule of proof under the bounty act of March 3. 1855-  this claimant filed a separate declaration for Bounty Land, in which she alleged that her
husband was a revolutionary soldier under certain officers. The certificate alluded to show that Robert Smith served under said officers - She swears that her husband was in
service and the record alluded to shows it.
If you require any further identity, you depart from the rule in such cases, and require an absurdity and an impossibility in this case. the record evidence here furnished fully corresponds and supports the sworn
declaration, and if you demand any other proof, you should distinctly designate what it is you wish. The certificates show the officers names
Very Respectfully
J M Varner

Geo C whiting
Commr Pension
Washington D. C.
Page 103

Pension Office
Decr 9 1856
Sir
Th enclosed extract from a letter written to you on the 12th of June in the case of Ferguson Smith of Ga in relation to her claim for pension under the Act of 1838 will show that the question as to the length of service performed by a man named Robert Smith was not the only objection to the admission of the case for it is further expressly states that the evidence that the solder was her husband was not satisfactory, which objection must be obviated before she can be allowed Bounty Land.
Very Respectfully Yr obt servant
Geo C Whiting
Commissioner

JM Varner Esq
Indian Springs
Georgia
Page 104

Indian Springs, Butts Co. Geo
January 1st. 1857
Dear Sir.
In support of the Pension and Bounty Land claim of Mrs Ferguson Smith I forward the affidavits of three persons, affording traditionary evidence of the revolutionary
services of Robert Smith, the deceased husband of the claimant, upon an examination of the affidavits, there will certainly be no further doubt of the identity in this case, as the affiants all state that they have heard Robert Smith in his lifetime say that he served in the Revolution under General [Richard] Winn-and one of them William N Tanner states that he thinks that he has heard him say that [John] Winn was his Colonel, when he first went into the service- and Robert P Coleman states that he has heard Smith say that he also served under an officer named [Lt. Wm.] Gray-
These affidavits will clearly show that Robert Smith, the husband of claimant was the identical Robert Smith named in certificates filed in the claim, from the Comptroller Generals Office of South Carolina
If it should be necessary will you be pleased to certify that the foregoing are copies of the affidavit, and have then filed on the Bounty Land claim, as it would save lost time & labor
Very Respectfully
J M Varner

Geo W Whiting
Comm Pens} I sent the originals to the Clerk for his certificate, and they will reach you by the mail with [illegible]
Page 105

State of Georgia County of Butts 
on this the 20th day of December A.D. Eighteen hundred and fifty six, personally appeared before me J. J. Chaffin, a Justice of the Peace in & for said County Robert P Coleman aged forty six years a resident of said County who being duly sworn according to law, declares that he is well acquanted with Mrs Ferguson Smith, the widow of Robert Smith deceased, a resident of said County - That he knew said Robert Smith and lived a neighbor to him for about twenty two years up to the death of said Robert Smith which occurred  in the year Eighteen hundred and fifty in this county-- That he repeatedly heard said Robert Smith in his life time say that he was a Soldier in the Revolutionary war at different periods for three years-- has often heard him say that he served under General [Richard] Winn and General [Nathanael Greene] Green and Captain Ned Martin and an officer
named [Lt. Wm.] Gray - has heard him mention the names of other officers that he served under whose names deponent cannot now recollect - has often heard him say that he was engaged in the battle of Eutaw Springs and old Cambridge or old Ninety six- deponent further declares that it is his belief from the statements that he has often heard said Robert Smith make, that he was a volunteer in the Revolution in the State of South Carolina and that it was generally believed here in the
neighborhood where said Robert Smith lived and died that he was a revolutionary soldier, that no doubt of that fact existed in the public
opinion- that said Robert Smith moved from Fairfield District, and near Winnsboro
Page 106

about the year Eighteen hundred and twenty seven to this county. that deponent also lived at the time stated in Fairfield District as aforesaid and neighbor -some ten miles from- to said Robert Smith, and that according to the best recollection of deponent said Robert Smith was generally reputed and believed in his neighborhood in Fairfield District as aforesaid, to have been a revolutionary soldier - That for several years previous to the death of said Robert Smith, deponent has frequently heard him  speak of getting his pension, and has heard him say that Major Moore, a resident Fairfield District South Carolina was the only person that he know of then living by whom he could prove his said service that he is informed and believes that the said Major Moore is dead - Deponent further states that the said Ferguson Smith is a decrepit old woman and from old age & bodily infirmity could not attend in open Court of Record in this County without great inconvenience and probably damage to her person & health that he has no interest in making the declaration has no interest in the bounty Land or Pension claim of Mrs Ferguson Smith
signed.  R. P. Coleman

The foregoing declaration was sworn to and subscribed before me the day & year above written, and I certify that the affiant is a credible person and that I have no interest in his declaration
signed J. J. Chaffin J P
Page 107

State of Georgia County of Butts
on this day the twenty sixth day of December Eighteen hundred and fifty six, personally appeared before me JJ  Chaffin Justice of the Peace in and for said County William Tanner, aged forty five years, a resident of said County, who being sworn
according to law, declares that he was well acquainted with Robert Smith the deceased husband of Mrs Ferguson - that he lived neighbor to said Robert Smith in this County
probably twenty five years and that he has often heard said Robert Smith in his life time say that he was a revolutionary Soldier in the State of South Carolina under Gen. [Richard] Winn and thinks that said Smith has said to him that [John] Winn was his Colonel when he first went out into service- that he recollects no other
officer mentioned by him-- that it was the general opinion in the neighborhood that said Robert Smith was a revolutionary soldier, and that fact was not doubted so far as deponent knows - that he has no interest in the Pension or bounty Land claim of Ferguson Smith 
Signed William N. Tanner
Copy
Sworn to & subscribed before me the day & year above written- I certify that I have no interest in the claim of Ferguson Smith.
Signed,
J. J. Chaffin J.P.
Page 108

Copy Declaration of Wm N Tanner
Page 109

State of Georgia County of Butts
 on the the 31st day of December A.D. Eighteen Hundred & fifty six personally appeared Robert W Smith aged sixty two Being a resident of said county, who being sworn according to law, that he is the son of Robert Smith & Ferguson Smith, that his father died in the County in the year Eighteen hundred & fifty three and that his mother Ferguson Smith now lives in this County about two miles from him and that she is very old and cannot get about only a little on crutches and could not attend an open Court of record in this county with any kind of convenience to her person- that he thinks she is ninety years old. That his father & mother moved from Fairfield District in South Carolina to to this County and lived here up to the death of his father. That deponent often and often heard his father in his life time say that he was a volunteer solder in the Revolutionary war has often heard him say that he was fifteen or sixteen years old when he first went into to the service has often heard him say that he was in service in said war at different periods for three years that deponent has heard his father say that he served under Generals Green [Nathanael Greene] and [Richard] Winn, and Captain Ned Martin and probably another Captain [Wm.] Martin- that he recollects no other officers no does he recollect the particular periods of said service that his father moved to this County about the year Eighteen hundred & twenty seven that his father was reputed and believed by his neighbors in this in this neighborhood where he lived and
died, to have been a revolutionary soldier
Page 110

Copy
and there was no doubt of that fact in the public opinion of the neighborhoods so far as deponent knows or ever heard nor did he ever doubt it-
Deponent further declares that he some ten years ago in his fathers life time, made an effort at the request of his father to obtain a pension for his revolutionary services, and did have some papers made out for said purpose and placed in the hands of Rufus McCord, but deponent does not know whether said papers were ever sent to the Pension office or not, nor what has become of the papers- That deponent was born the tenth day of March Seventeen hundred & ninety four and that his father & mother had three other children older than deponent, the oldest of whom is dead- That deponent has no interest in the Bounty land or Pension claim of his mother Ferguson Smith any further than the possibility that he might become an heir to some portion of the should get it
Signed Robert W Smith 
I do hereby certify that Robert W. Smith signed & acknowledged the foregoing declaration in my presence and that he is a credible person and that I have no intent in his declaration
Signed & sworn H Williams J.P.
Washington City District of Columbia
I _Commissioner of Pensions do hereby certify that the foregoing is a copy of the affidavits filed in the Pension claim of Mrs Ferguson Smith
Page 111

Pension Office, January 22, 1857
Sir
The case of Ferguson Smith Widow of Robert of Georgia has been again carefully examined, and you are informed that the evidence on file is wholly insufficient, The testimony of no witness has been added who can pretend to have had any personal
knowledge of her husband's service; and nothing short of direct testimony will justify the allowance of a case, the validity of which is to my mind, so doubtful. You have been before reminded that the extremest liberality would only justify the admission of 100 days service by her husband and that pensions can not be allowed for less than six months service. If you could identify her husband as the man who entered this 100 day service, it would, therefore, be useless to prosecute further, the claim for pension. If you can secure in proving this service by competent testimony she will be entitled to Bounty Land under
Page 112

the Act of March 3 1855.

J. M. Varner
Indian Springs Georgia

Jany 22/57
Page 113

Indian Springs. Geo
January 25th 1857
Dear Sir
Some ten days ago & before I received your last note I had for'd to the Commissioner of Pensions, the traditionary evidence to which I alluded in support of the Pension claim of Mrs Ferguson Smith. This consists of the affidavit of three persons two of whom William Tanner and Robert P Coleman, state that they often heard Robert Smith, claimants husband, in his life time say that he was a revolutionary soldier under Gen. [Richard] Winn, and Coleman says an officer named [Lt. Wm.] Gray -[Capt. Edward] Martin &c. These are the identical officers shown in the 100 days evidence in the certificates from Comptroller of South Carolina. After comparing the certificates & affidavits, the identity for the 100 days service is fully established, and the affidavit noting that Smith always said that he served off & on for three years should justly place the claimant on the Pension roll under act of June 7, 1832, at least for the shortest period - 6 months provided for by the act; especially as are no muster of the Militia personnel, save of Virginia & New Hampshire
Page 114

upon your serving as Commissioner and urging these views, he will certainly grant the Pension -
I could get up some other affidavit
probably Benj Wards, & other old citizens to same purport of Tanner, Coleman & Smith if they would be available, but it being troublesome and expensive, I will not do it unless I am informed, that the claim will be
determined by an accumulation of Evidence. I addressed the Court a note by the mail
Very Respectfully
J M Varner

Hon R.P. Trippe
Washington D.C.

Ps. there is an additional claim for Land warrant - urge that also - 
Varner
Page 115

Indian Springs Jany 25th 1857
Dear Sir
I recently forwarded three affidavits of persons as proof (traditionary) of the Revolutionary service of Robert Smith the husband of Ferguson Smith, applicant for Pension. I could
furnish the affidavit of other persons to the same effect, but will not be at the trouble & expense, unless I were informed that an accumulation of the traditionary evidence would be quite available to claimant
This claimant is quite poor, and it to be hoped that the record & traditionary proof furnished will be sufficient to at least place her on the
pension roll for the shortest period provided for by the act of June 7 1832.
If additional affidavit of the purport of those forwarded, would be available, in being informed of this fact, I will endeavor to furnish them.
Very Respectfully
J M Varner

Geo C Whiting
Commr Pensions
Washington D C
Page 116

Indian Springs Butts Co. Ga.
Feb 20 1857
Dear Sir.
I enclose you a note from the Secretary of the Interior. In order to a full understanding of the claim of Ferguson Smith, I refer you to my communication to the Secretary of about the 23rd of February and the additional declaration of claimant the affidavit Mrs McLendon the certificate of B F Ward-- the affidavits R W Smith- R P Coleman - William Tanner and certificate from the public records of South Carolina- If that certificate is not direct evidence itself, claimant is certainly connected with it by those affidavits-- and it then becomes positive proof, attest sufficient to entitle her to bounty land your attention is earnestly requested  to the case because it is already prejudged by the Commission
of Pensions, and it is useless for me to have any more to say to him in the premises - That officer does not understand it or else he taxes it with requirements, not authorized by the County Land act of March 3. 1855, and the Pension act of June 7th 1832 and the liberal rules established under it to which you are referred.  the facts of the case are fully referred to in my letter to the Hon R McLelland-
Secy of the Interior
Washington City D. C.

Very Respectfully
J M Varner
Page 117

City of Washington Feby 10 1857
Sir
at the request of the Hon. M. Trippe M.C. I enclose the within letter of JM Varner, relative to a case Ferguson Smith. as Mr Trippe expects to leave in about ten days he would be glad to have a decision in the case before he goes.
Yours Resp
James J Miller

To George Whiting Esq
Comm Pensions
Page 118

Bounty Land claim of Mrs Ferguson Smith
Page 119

Indian Springs. Butts Co. Geo
Feb 14th 1857.
Dear Sir.
I again call your attention to the bounty Land claim of Mrs Ferguson Smith, because it is clear to my mind that you have established in this case a rule contrary to the uniform practice of the Pension Office in granting Bounty Land under the act of March 3rd 1855, the applicant was required to make application under oath, and if the service appeared of record, it was sufficient and the applicant was not required to go further and prove by witnesses that he was the identical person mentioned in the record
because if that was required there was no use for the record. It was never contemplated that widows should or could state the particulars of their husbands service. Now
this claimant alleges that her husband served in the war of the Revolution under certain officers, and a record is produced showing the
service for 100 days as a soldier, the name of her husband, under some of the identical officers mentioned in the declaration. No further identity was required, and I maintain that this evidence comes directly up to the rule practiced upon by your predecessors. And the further requirement that you have made in this case is supplied as fully as it can be done by the additional affidavits of persons
who state that they have often heard the husband of claimant in his life time say that he served under some of the officers proved
Page 120

in the record and in claimants declaration. 
Bounty Lands have been granted in cases when the applicant could not even state the officers that their husband served under, under the act of March 3rd 1855, a Land warrant was issued to Verlinda Tollison, in right of her first husband William Wallace, when she could not state what officers he served under, merely alleging that he served in the War of 1812. from a certain County-- and giving the names of Captain who commanded companies from that county-- also in another case to Mrs _Clower, where she could not state the officers that her husband
served under. This claimant has presented a stronger claim that either of those alluded to and it is unusually strange that her claim is suspended. In the cases alluded to, there was no other evidence furnished by claimants bonding their declarations.
Upon a reconsideration of the rule in such cases I am fully confident that you will discover that there is error in suspending this claim and that you will issue the Warrant
Very Respectfully
J M Varner

Geo C Whiting
Commissioner of Pensions
Washington City D.C.
Page 121

J. M. Varner Indian Springs Ga, Feb. 14. 1857

To Sectry of the Interior

appeal in the Pension claim of Mrs Ferguson Smith for Bounty Land and pension

Respectfully referred to the Comm of Pension Dept Int Feby 20/57}

Moses Kelly Chf Clk

Rec'd 19 Feb /57
Wm Pritchette
Page 122

Indian Springs Butts Co. Geo.
Feb 14 1857
Dear Sir.
Your attention is respectfully asked to the Bounty land and Pension claim of Mrs Ferguson Smith, widow of Robert Smith, a soldier in the Revolutionary war, which is now suspended by the Commission of Pensions.
The evidence filed in this case consist of the declaration of claimant alleging that her said husband served under certain officers,  together with a certificate from the Comptroller General of South Carolina, the state where claimants husband served as is alleged, showing 100 days service by Robert Smith, under some of the identical officers with the additional affidavits of disinterested persons, who state that they heard Robert Smith repeatedly in his life time say that he served under the officers named in the certificate and that he was reputed to be a revolutionary soldier. It has been the uniform practice at the Pension office in relation to bounty land claims that when the alleged service appeared of record the identity was considered established, and the warrant was issued. But in this case, the Commissioner requested the claimant to go farther and prove directly that the Robert Smith, shown
in the record was the same who was her husband, an unwarrantable departure from the rule and a requisition impossible, as there are no certain persons in service with Robert Smith now known to be living. And even this requirement is supplied as fully as it can be done by the affidavits of the witnesses alluded to, stating Roberts
Page 123

claims while in life. I maintain the evidence is wholly sufficient to entitle claimant to Bounty Land under the act of March 3rd 1855 and it is desired that you give this claim your
supervision, infering as I do, that an appeal sas properly before you.
 In relation to the Pension claim, I would remark that by the act of June 7, 1832. Six months service is the shortest period provided for, and inasmuch, as there are no muster rolls of the State troop pensions, only of Virginia and New Hampshire the rule was established under that act giving pension claimant the benefit of and receiving traditionary evidence of service where the service could not be directly proved, on account of the rapid decrease of the revolution soldiers.
I maintain that the certificate alluded to furnished direct evidence of the service of Robert Smith for 100 days, for the declaration of claimant, with the affidavits on file show
conclusively that that the Robert Smith named in the record was claimants husband is direct proof taken with the traditionary evidence
furnished, should be sufficient to entitle this claimant to her pension, especially when under the rule alluded to, pensions are granted in
traditionary Evidence alone. The Commissioner of Pensions informs me that the validity of this claim is to his "mind doubtful" and therefore
direct proof is refused; thereby request claimant to bring to her support the evidence of person contemporary with her husband, which, as I have stated is now impossible. The only allusion that has yet been made against
Page 124

the validity, of this claim is the fact that as stated, that is surprising, that Robert Smith never made application for a pension in his life time. This allusion is fully met by evidence 
on file that said Robert Smith did, in his life time make out papers in said claim. I am aware of no reason for the stringent rule adopted especially for this case and it is therefore respectfully submitted to your investigation.
Very Respectfully
J M Varner

Hon McLelland
Sec Interior
Washington D C
Page 125

Rob Smith
Georgia
Mr Cole
March 31. 1837
E by Mr. Ellis
April 7 - 51
Page 126

Georgia Butts County
I hereby authorize Vespasian Ellis Esquire of Washington City to examine and control for my benefit and under my direction all the papers filed in the pension Office at Washington connected with the claims for pensions that have been there presented or may be presented hereafter in any and every manner whatsoever and to do and perform any act to establish and secure the allowance of said claim as I myself would or could in any manner do were I personally present aiding and assisting
H. Williams J P  test
Robert his X mark Smith

Signed Sealed & delivered in presence of James R Lyons & H Williams J P
Page 127

Pension Office
February 20 1837
Sir 
The letter of Mr Varner under cover of
your letter of 1st inst has been received and filed with the papers of Ferguson Smith of Georgia. It discloses no new fact and of course
cannot alter the decision of this office, disallowing Mrs Smiths claim for pension.
There is no proof on file to show that her husband performed six months service in the war of the Revolution.
Very respectfully
Your Obt Sert
Geo C Whiting
Commissioner

James J. Miller Esq
Present
Page 128

JM Varner Esq

Dr Sr I could get no answer in yr case before I left Washington. I got J. J. Miller Esq to see to it, & he has just sent me the enclosed-
Yrs truly
R. P. Trippe
Page 129

Department of the Interior
Washington, February 20. 1857

Sir

Your appeal of the 14th instant, from the decision of the Commissioner of Pensions, in the case of Mrs Ferguson Smith, and bounty land, for the Revolutionary services of her said husband has been this day received and referred to that officer for a report.

I am very respectfully
Your Obt Sert
B W McClelland
Secretary

J. M. Varner Esq
Indian Springs
Butts County
Georgia
Page 130

Pension Office
February 20th 1837

Sir

It is true that at the date of my letter of the
at the affidavits of Robert W. Smith. B.B.
Coleman and William Tanner, in support of the
case of Ferguson Smith of Georgia had not been received; but an examination of them would not have induced me to alter a word in said letter, Traditionary evidence of service is not sufficient to justify an allowance for particular service.

Very respectfully
Your Obt Sert
Geo C Whiting
Commissioner

J M Varner
Indian Springs
Georgia
Page 131

Geo C Whiting
Commr of Pensions
Page 132

Feby 23. 1857
Dear Sir.

the incoming administration will produce a change of office, and I therefore urge the request that you give this case your immediate attention, in connection with the joint action of the Secy of the Interior, & the attorney General - I have addressed those officers, stating my argument, and asking them to consult with you. A change of officers doubtless produces some confusion in the investigation of the kind, hence you see the importance of present action on the claim of Ferguson Smith

Very Respectfully
J M Varner

Geo C Whiting
Commsr of Pension
Page 133

Jefferson M Varner Indian Springs Ga, Feb. 23. 1857

Says that an addl. declaration & evidence in the Pension & Bounty Land claim of Ferguson, widow of Robert Smith has been forwarded to the Com Pension & ask that the Secretary examine same &c.

Respectfully referred to the Comm of Pension for appropriate action 
Dept Int
Mar 6 57
Moses Kelly Chf clk

rec'd 6 Mch '57
Mr. Pritchette

Washington
Page 134

Indian Springs, Butts Co. Ga
Feby 23, 1857
Dear Sir
 I have under this date forwarded to the commissioner of pensions additional evidence in the Pension and bounty land claim of Ferguson, widow of Robert Smith, and an additional declaration taken before a Justice of a court of record - your attention has been previously called to this case, and will you be pleased to examine these last papers in connection with those previously filed - this claim is one of some importance and was filed nearly  3 years ago, when Waldo Minot was the commissioner of pensions and a change of offices doubtless produce confusion in such case and I ask that you give it your immediate attention, and have a consultation with the commissioner and the attorney general  in relation to the validity of this claim - I have requested those officers to have an immediate consultation with you.  In a former case you informed me that the opinions of the attorney general was not binding upon your department, still I hope that you will have his opinion of the legal effect of the record evidence  furnished in this case - It is desired that you act on this claim before the expiration of the present administration, because the confusion consequent a change of officers would be about equivalent to killing off the claim.
 The evidence furnished, consists of two declarations of claimant, the last being more in detail, in which she declares that she knew personally that her husband served as a volunteer private soldier for several terms of 3 months, amounting in the aggregate to two years in South Carolina, during the war of Revolution
Page 135

under General Richard Winn, Captains Ned & William Martin, Lieutenant {Wm.] Gray and other officers whose names she cannot recollect - a certificate from the Comp Gen of So. Car, showing a payment to Robert Smith for 100 days since by the order of Winn and Gray - The affidavit of R.P. Coleman who declares that he had often heard Smith say that he served under Winn, Martin and an officer named Gray - of Susannah  McLendon who says  that she often heard him say that he served under Winn, his aid Baker and to the best of her recollection Lt. Gray, and William Tannen who says that he often heard him say that he served under General Winn and probably Colonel [John] Winn - proof that Robert Smith drew a lot of Land as a revolutionary soldier in the Cherokee Land Lottery, and conclusive traditionary evidence that he was regarded then to have been a soldier in the Revolution - 
Claimant alleges that her husband served for 3 months at a time under the identical officers named in the certificate alluded to, and I maintain that the certificate, prima facie, is direct proof of said service - The commissioner requires the claimant to travel out of this public record and prove by witnesses cognizant of the service that her husband was the identical person who done the service - This certificate is as competent evidence as a "muster roll" on file in the war department would be, and if the  service would appear there on a "muster roll" as alleged in the declaration, and claimant should be compelled to travel out of the muster roll, and prove the service by living witnesses, then what use for the "muster roll"?  If claimant could prove the service of her husband by living witnesses
Page 136

which is now impossible, she would have no use for the record, and consequently it becomes premise for direct proof. But even their requirement is supplied as nearly as it can be done by the affidavit of persons stating that they often heard her husband in his life time say that he served three years, and a part of the time under some of the officers mentioned in the certificate, and he is therefore connected with that record.
After the passing of the act of June 7, 1832, under which this application is made, inasmuch as there were no "muster rolls" on file in the war department of the militia Volunteers & of many of the states, the liberal rule was established of granting pensions to claimants singly in traditionary evidence, particularly on account of the rapid decrease of the survivors of the Revolution- this rule should be more liberally extended to widows, because they could not detail the service of their husband is fully as they could do, and especially in this case as it is shown that Robert Smith, in his life time thought he had an application pending and after the great lapse of time-- now I contend that here there is direct proof of 100 day services 3 months +ten days, and that the traditionary evidence, should entitle this claimant, to at least the bounty provided for her of six months, if not for two years, under the act of June 7, 1832- In relation to the bounty land when surveyed by the uniform action of former Commissioners there can be no doubt the act of March 3. 1855. proved for 14 days service, with record evidence is has been construed to mean "muster rolls" public records of any state, or town &c, the declarant had to swear that he (or in case of a widow her husband) performed certain service, and the service appeared of record, that was
Page 137

was deemed sufficient, and the case is yet to be noted before this, when they were found to go by and that record, and prove by living witnesses that they performed the service shown by the records. It was taken as conclusive evidence for if they should go by and that then there is no use for the record -
This is a Just & valid claim, and a charge of officer has doubts produced confusion in its Examination it is requested that you have immediate action upon it, together with the Commissioner of Pension and the attorney General-
Very Respectfully
Jefferson M Varner
att. for Claimant

Hon Robt. McLelland
Secy of the Interior Washington DC

Jefferson M. Varner
Indian Springs Ga.
Feb.23.1857

Says that addl declaration & evidence in Pension and Bounty Land claim of Ferguson widow of Robert Smith has been forwarded and asks that the Secretary examine the same &c.

Respectfully referred to the Comm of Pensions for appropriate action
Dept Int Mch 6 57
Moses Kelly chf Clk

Rec'd 6 Mch '57
Wm Pritchette
Page 138

Ferguson Smith wid Robert Geo.
Act 7 July 32
JM. Varner
Prest
Aug 19/58
Page 139

State of Georgia}
County of Butts}  I, William R Bankston
Clerk of the Inferior Court for said
County, do hereby certify that Edward
Varner, whose name appears to the annexed
certificate is & was at the time of signing
the same, an acting Justice of the Inferior
Court for said County, duly commissioned
qualified, and that his signature thereto are genuine, and that B. F. Ward whose name appears to an annexed certificate, is & was at the time of signing the same, an acting Justice
of the Peace in & for said County, duly
commissioned and qualified and that his signature thereto is genuine-

Given under my hand and seal of office this the 23rd day of February 1857

William R. Bankston C.S.C.

[Image of a seal, illegible]
Page 140

Department of the Interior
Washington, April 28, 1857

Sir,

Your decision in the case of Fergerson Smith widow of Robert Smith claimant for pension under act of June 7 1832, and also for bounty land, under act of March 3 1855, has been fully affirmed for the very satisfactory reasons set forth in your part thereo of the 24th of February last.

The papers nin the case are herewith returned to your office.

I am very Respectfully your Obdt Servt

J. Thompson
Secretary

Geo C Whiting Esq
Comm. of Pensions
Page 141

Pension Office
February 24, 1857.
Sir,
I herewith enclose the papers in the case of Ferguson Smith, Widow of Robert of Georgia, upon the appeal of Mr J. M. Varner, one would suppose that a second reading of his own letter of appeal would have convinced himself of the futility of urging the allowance of the claim for pension. He admits that the record shows but 100 days service and that the minimum amount of service for which a pension can be allowed, is 6 months. Several witnesses have sworn that they have heard her husband say that he served in the war of the Revolution and that he was reputed in his neighborhood to have served, I apprehend I need not combat Mr Varner's notion that such traditionary evidence of service is sufficient to be an allowance upon the his claims that her husband served over two years; the tradition is that he did serve, How should I act upon his theory? should I admit the whole two years or give the 100 days and admit that the traditionary evidence is strong enough to prove as much more services as will amount to six months? The evidence must stand or fall as a whole. It is good for the whole claim if it is good for a day. My impression. however, is that it is not good for the last mentioned pension, Traditionary evidence may, sometimes, be received as suffi-
Page 142

cient to connect a soldier with a record of service, but being that it is simply absurd to claim for it any such force as Varner seem to think attached to it.-

And I am free to say that in this case, the evidence is insufficient to shew that her husband saved the 100 days. Robert Smith is not so uncommon a name as to lead, inevitably to the conviction that her husband was the soldier of his name, as found upon the record, and there is certainly nothing in the testimony of the witnesses to induce such a belief, for this incredible that such a
meritorious Soldier, as they would have us believe he was should make out his account against the State of S. Carolina in 1785, and only credit himself with 100 days service. But so far as the claim for pension is concerned, it does not matter whether he and that soldier or not, for no pension can be allowed for a time of so short a duration. The application for B Land is also entered, as coming under the same course of reasoning-

 I have the honor to be Very Respectfully Yr Obt servant

Geo C Whiting
Commissioner

Hon R. McLelland
Secy Interior

Triplett
Page 143

City of Washington Feby 25/57

My dear sir

I enclose decision of Com in case Ferguson Smith. If he will remand me 10$. fee I will examine the case & tell him what to do.

Yrs truly
James J Miller
P.O. Box 107
Page 144

61. 520
Commissioner of Pensions
Feby 24. 1857

Report in the case of Ferguson Smith Widow of Robert Smith, applicant for Pension and Bounty Land for his services in the War of the Revolution.

Decision affirmed per letter to Commr of Pensions of April 28. 1857.
K.P.
Clk

Recd 27 Feb: 57
Wm Pritchette
Page 145

The Secretary affirms the decision of this office. disallowing this claim.
Triplett
Page 146

Indian Springs, Butts Co. Ga.
March 4 1857
Dear Sir
About the 23d February I forwarded to Hon R McLelland, Sec. of the Interior, an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Pension in the Pension & bounty Land Claim of Mrs Ferguson widow of Robert Smith, and presuming that there has been no action on the appeal, your attention is therefore called to the case.
The evidence furnished consists of two declarations of claimant, one made before a Justice of the Peace and the other made before a Justice of a Court of Record in which she alleges that her husband served two and three years as a private volunteer Soldier in the Revolutionary war in the State of South Carolina under Gen Richard Winn, Captain [Edward] Martin and Lieutenant [Wm.] Gray, and other officers whose names she could not recollect, a certificate from the Comptroller General office of So. Car. Showing a payment made to Robert Smith by Winn & Gray for 100 days service. The act of March 3rd 1855. granting County Land refers Record proof of 14 days service which proof has been construed to mean not only muster rolls, but proof from any public record of any State County or town-- It has been the practice of the Commissioner of Pensions to require claimant to make a declaration under oath of the service and of the alleged service should appear on record to issue the Land Warrant. The Commissioner in this case requires the claimant to prove by living witnesses that her husband was the identical person who performed the service as shown by the certificate the claimant alleges that her husband performed
Page 147

certain service under named officers in the war of the revolution. the certificate shows a part of that service, and if she should be compelled to prove the service of her husband by living witnesses, then she would have no use for the certificate
The act of March 3. 1855, first provided for only record evidence and has subsequently been amended by allowing partial; proof where there is no record of the service the evidence furnished by the claimant fully met
that act and the rules established under The additional requirement of the Commissioner in this case has been complied with as fully as can be done Claimant declares that she knows of no person in life by whom she can prove the service; and the affidavit of four persons, beside her son is furnished, in which the affiants declare that they have heard Robert Smith in his life time often say that he served under the Winns, Martins & Gray.
For the Pension claimant relies on the act of June 7. 1832, and subsequent acts providing for widows after that act was passed the Sec. of War statement as a rule of claims under under it, that the service of Continental soldier must appear on the muster rolls, and if it did not so appear that the claimant must prove the service by witness-- This was done because the muster rolls of the Regular army were presented and if the name of claimant did not appear on the muster rolls, presumption was raised against him. But there
being no muster rolls in the war department of the Militia Volunteers &c of the States, only of Virginia & New Hampshire, no presumption was raised against a volunteer Militiamen [illegible] Pensions were granted to those classes of Claimants, on traditionary evidence alone-- I maintain that here is direct proof of [illegible]
Page 148

service and traditionary evidence as her as such proof can be. The claimant here cannot state the particular periods of the service but that should be no objection to her claim, when the record she presents bears truth upon its face -- In the first instance she declares that she lived close to her said husband when the war began in South Carolina - that she recollects & knows that her husband was in volunteer services several times for 3 months at a time under [Gen.] Richard Winn, Captain [Edward] Martin & Lieutenant [Wm.] Gray and probably other names mentioned, and other officers whose namse she has forgotten, & she relates in both -on two -that he was in. William Tanner one of the affiants States that he knew her husband many years, and has often heard him say that he served under General & probably Colonel [John] Winn, R. J. Coleman declare that he often heard him say that he served under General
Winn, Captain Ned Martin and an officer named Gray. Mrs McLendon that she often heard him speak of being in a battle under General Richard Winn, his aid Baker and to the best of her recollection Lieutenant Gray. These affiants also give proof that Robert Smith for 20 - 30 years, was reputed here to have been a soldier in the Revolution as alleged by claimant - there is also evidence that Claimants husband drew a Lot of Land as a revolutionary soldier in Georgia, in the Cherokee Land Lottery in 1831 or 2 - Claimant and her son also state that Robert Smith made out papers in his life time for a Pension, and that they do not know what has become of the papers-
The act of June 7, 1832, gives a pension for service from two years to six months direct proof by volunteer is not required, here is direct proof of 100 days and as alleged, connect this with the statements of the affiants
Page 149

and the Traditionary proof and is it not fair to presume that her husband served as she alleges for at least six months? if not for two years. This claimant is 93 years old, her memory is infirm and much liberality should therefore be extended to the imperfection of the statements in regard to periods, names &c. and upon an examination of her two affidavits [illegible] of William Tanner R. P. Coleman, Mrs McLendon-Robert W Smith & B. F. Ward, and the certificate it is evident that her husband served as she alleged

this case has been pending over a year and it is therefore desired that you give if a full
investigation at your earliest opportune


Very Respectfully
J M Varner

Sec. of the Interior
Washington City D.C.
Page 150

J. M. Varner
Indian Spring Ga
March 4th 1857

In regard to the Bounty Land
claim of Ferguson Smith widow of Robt Smith &
enclosing letter from Comr Pension

Rec'd 9 Mch '57
Wm Pritchette
Page 151

Indian Springs Ga
March 4th 1857.

Dear Sir

since writing the enclosed note of this date I received from the Commissioner the communication here forwarded-- you will
observe that at the time of his former communication, the affidavits of Coleman Tanner and Smith had not been examined, and that at the date of this, the affidavit of Mrs McLendon, the certificate of B F Ward, & the additional declaration of claimant had not being received-

The Commissioner here says that traditionary evidence of service is not sufficient to justify an allowance for particular service; I do not understand what he means by particular service. I say that the rule was established and is now of force to receive traditionary proof of the service of volunteers in the Revolution and upon that alone Pensions are allowed. In this claim there is direct evidence of 100 days service and the affidavits of the witness connect claimants husband beyond a doubt with the certificate-- with this direct proof
and the strong traditionary evidence the Pension should be allowed & why the Commissioner puts on this claimant the Extraordinary requirement of direct proof for the full term I cannot determine, and why he should make the more extraordinary
requirement that claimant must prove by having witness that her husband was the identical person mentioned in the certificate I cannot imagine. I maintain that the certificate is prima facie direct proof of the service, and should be so deemed and taken untill the contrary is proven -
Page 152

Does any other person claim for the same service? if not, then the evidence is prima facie - direct Evidence in her favor- she swears that her husband served under certain officers - a certificate is produced showing the service of
Robert Smith the name of her husband serving under two of those officers - Untill the contrary is shown the Commissioner is bound to presume that her husband performed that service - Suppose that service appeared in a muster roll in the war department she would not have to travel out of the muster roll to prove the service, because there is no use for the muster roll, his certificate is evidence of an order as high as a muster roll. suppose a certificate of marriage is produced. would the claimant then be driven to prove by living witness that she and her husband were the persons mentioned in the marriage certificate? she could with the same propriety be compelled to the one as the other. This case was suspended before Mr Whiting came into office, during his ministration the second declaration and the various affidavits alluded have been furnished and just where he found the case be leaves it, without seeming to understand it. He either misconstrued the evidence filed, or else he puts the case on grounds unwarranted by any proven practice of the department, and on grounds that could only be warranted, by a case evidently fraudulent- If this is not a fair, just, Equitable & valid claim, I have no other means of moving that forward then by a reference to the papers
I contend that in the bounty Land claim that the evidence here furnished comes directly
Page 153

up the the act of March 3rd 1855-I would refer you to my communication to Hon Mr McLelland asking his consideration of this claim, and after a fair & impartial
investigation of all the evidence, and the rules regulating such cases particularly the rule under act of June 7, 1832 giving to claimants the liberal benefit of traditionary evidence on account of the rapid decrease of the survivors of the Revolution, I am confident that this claim will be awarded. The Commissioner puts the success of the bounty Land Claim on that of the Pension, which of itself is quite unfair. If this claim is put on its own merits, there will be no difficulty about

Very Respectfully JM Varner

Secy of the Interior
Washington DC
Page 154

Indian Springs Butts Co Ga
March 4th 1857

Dear Sir 

I have received your communication of the 20th Feb. in relation to the claim of Ferguson
Smith, and have forwarded it to the Secretary of the Interior.

You seem not to understand the character of the evidence filed and to misconstrue the acts of Congress under which this applicant claims. The Land Bounty act of March 3rd 1855 allowed of none other besides record proof, which has been construed to mean Muster rolls the public records of any State City or town &c. By a subsequent amendment parol proof is received where no record proof, Exists-- that amendment was not passed for the benefit of the Government as your position in the case would show, but was intended for the benefit of Claimants - here this claimant alleges that her husband served in the Revolutionary war under certain officers-- a certificate from the public records, of South Carolina is presented showing a part of that service, and you now request claimant to prove by living witnesses and other proof besides her own affidavit that her husband performed the service mentioned in that certificate a requirement which the act under which she claims neither demands nor authorise and is not justified by any rule previously established in such case. If she is compelled to make other proof, what use has she for "record proof"? a widow in making application must prove her marriage in the first instance of a public record if possible
suppose a marriage Certificate is presented, she would not then have to go on and prove by living witnesses that she was married as mentioned in the certificate-
Page 155

you could with equal propriety refer her to do that as to now refer her to prove that her husband performed the service mentioned in the certificate. That certificate is made record proof, especially by the act of March 3 1855
which looks to that as being higher than any other kind of evidence, and is the identical proof demanded by the act for the prevention of frauds. But to meet your extraordinary
requirement, this claimant has connected herself with that certificate and shown by the affidavits in your possession that her husband doubtless served under Winn & Gray.

In relation to the Pension you say that Traditionary proof will not be received to make an allowance for particular service. Particular service, is a vague expression and I do not understand the sense in which you use it, and would be pleased to know what is particular service, as distinct from any other service in relation to traditionary proof. you ignore the liberal rule, under the act of June 7, 1832 of receiving such evidence and require this claimant to produce direct proof of service for six months, and give no other reason for this unusual demand than that the claim is to your mind exceedingly doubtful. Here there is record proof of 100 days service, strong traditionary evidence that Robert Smith was a revolutionary soldier, evidence that he drew a Lot of Land as a Revolutionary soldier in Georgia and if required, the irresistable conclusion from the affidavits of the witnesses that Claimants husband was the identical man who performed the service as stated by the record evidence.

It is desired that you place this letter with my former letter, the two declarations of Claimant, the certificate and the affidavits of Coleman Tanner, Smith, McLendon & Ward before the Secretary of the Interior.

Very Respectfully- 
JM Varner

Geo Whiting. Comm of Pensions
Page 156

Indian Spring Butts Co. Ga
March 9 1857

Dear Sir.

I have this day forwarded to the Commissioner of Pensions the affidavit of William Smith, aged 82 years. He swears that his brother Robert, who was the husband of Ferguson Claimant for Pension & bounty land positively served under Winn & Gray the officers mentioned in the certificate from So Carolina- I hope that you will consider this evidence in your examination of that Case

Very Respectfully
JM Varner

Sec. of Interior
Washington DC
Page 157

Indian Springs, Butts Co. Ga
March 9 1857.

Dear Sir.

Since my note of the 4th inst to you, I have received the affidavit of William Smith Sr. the brother of the deceased husband of Ferguson Smith The affiant states positively that his brother served in the revolution under Gen [Richard] Winn, [Captain Edward] Ned Martin & Lieutenant [William] Gray. He does not state directly his means of that knowledge, but it is clear from implication - being 82 years old, he was of course during the progress of the war old enough to know and recollect the facts to which he swears I wrote to this old man to send his affidavit if he knew anything of his brothers service and I suppose that he did not suppose that further particulars would be required. This affidavit will serve to assure you that this claim is a fair and honest one and to satisfy you that the husband of claimant is the identical person who served as mentioned in the certificate from South Carolina, and I hope that you will have no more doubt on your mind in regard to issuing the Land Warrant
For the Pension I hope that under the accumulation of testimony there is direct proof of 100 days service and that you will extend the liberality of the act of June 7, 1832 to this claimant, and allow to this claimant the Small Pension which she would receive for 6 months provision if not for the two years

Very Respectfully
JM Varner

Geo C Whiting
Commissioner of Pension
Washington DC
Page 158

Brief

Ferguson Smith widow of Robert Smith
S C Service

claimant for pension under act of June 7. 1832 & Bounty Land under act of March 3rd 1855

[very faint handwriting, illegible]
Page 159

3

The Attorney for the appellant, urges, that the record proof of 100 days service connected with the parole traditionary evidence is sufficient to establish the identity of the husband of the claimant with the Robert Smith of the Record and at least six months service, if not the entire three years.

The Commissioner of Pensions, Reports 'That traditionary evidence may sometimes, be received as sufficient to connect a soldier
with a record of service', but that in the present instance the evidence is insufficient even for that purpose.

Remarks
The act of June 7, 1832, (Mayo & Moulton pgs: 169-70) require a service of "Not less than six months", to entitle to the pension therein granted Therefore if the 100 days service shown by the Records of South Carolina to have been performed
Page 160

by Robert Smith, is admitted to have been performed by the husband of the claimant, she is not entitled to a pension for that service.

But it seems to me, that the Commissioner of Pensions is correct in his opinion that the traditionary evidence is entirely insufficient
to connect the husband of the claimant with the Robert Smith of the Records of South Carolina,
much less to support a claim for service for a longer period.

With great Respect
H Pritchette Clerk

March 12 1857
Page 161

Robert Smith Revy
S C Service
Page 162

1

Brief In the matter of Ferguson Smith widow of George [sic Robert] Smith claim for Pension under act of June 7 1832, and also Bounty land under act of March 3d 1855

Mrs Ferguson Smith the claimant alleges in her Declaration, that she is the widow of Robert Smith a soldier of the War of the Revolution. that he served in said war at different periods for a term of about three years. that he was a volunteer from Fairfield District in the State of South Carolina

Robert P. Coleman, testifies that he knew Robert Smith the husband of claimant, and " has often heard him speak of being a soldier
of the Revolution"

Robert W. Smith son of the claimant testifies that he has often and "often heard his father in his life time say that he was a volunteer soldier in the Revolutionary war. Has often
heard him say that he was fifteen or sixteen years old when he first went into the service-
Page 163

2

has often heard him say that he was in service in said war at different periods for three years"

Robert P. Coleman second Affidavit testifies "That he has repeatedly heard said Robert Smith in his lifetime say that he was a soldier in the revolutionary war at different periods for three years"

William Tanner, testifies, "That he has often heard said Robert Smith in his lifetime say that he was a Revolutionary soldier in the State of South Carolina"

All the witnesses testify to the general
reputation of Robert Smith as a Revolutionary soldier

An Exemplification from the Records of South Carolina is produced, which proves a service of 100 days Militia duty in the war of the Revolution, by a Mr Robert Smith
Page 164

[check mark] JM Varner Indian Springs Ga March 15,1857

[check mark] Rel. to the Bounty Land & Pension claim of Ferguson Smith, widow of Robert Smith for Revolutionary service

Rec'd 18 Mch '57 Wm Pritchette
Page 165

Indian Springs, Ga
March 15th 1857

Hon Jacob Thompson. Sec. of the Interior

I enclose letter to you and will state that I addressed the Hon R P Trippe to consult with the Commissioner of Pensions in relation to the claim of Ferguson Smith and he referred the case to J. J. Miller

You will observe that the Commissioner says that there is no evidence of six months service
to the contrary I say there is evidence furnished fully up to the printed rules under the act of June 7, 1832. There being muster rolls in the war department of the Continental army, an applicants name not appearing in the muster roll a presumption is therefore raised against him. But there being no muster roll of
State troops militia &c no such presumption is raised against them and on account of the rapid [illegible] of the Revolution, they are let into the benefit of traditionary proof, if there
is proof sufficient to show a truthful narrative. Now here is positive evidence of 100 days service. Claimant swears that her husband served two years mainly under Gen Richard Winn, Captain [Edward] Martin & Lieutenant [Wm.] Gray as a volunteer in the
Page 166

State of South Carolina that she was living at the time and knew he served - a certificate from the records of that state is produced showing
100 days service of Robert Smith under [Gen. Richard] Winn & Lieut. [Wm.] Gray. Robert Smiths brother States positively that he served under those officers. several affiants state that they often heard Robert
Smith in his life time say that he served under those officers. When the identity is established and yet
the Commissioner thinks not-- the Claimant swears that her husband served several periods of 3 months each, and direct proof of 3 months &
10 days being furnished, is it not fair to presume that her husband served 6 months in 2 years - there is also proof that claimants husband drew a Lot of Land in Georgia as a Revolutionary Soldier
and when it is shown clearly that he did serve 100 days, why should the rule be withdrawn from this claim of extending the liberality of traditionary
proof. here the affiants state that said Robert was all his life considered to have been Revolutionary soldier. This rule should be more liberally extended to widows and especially in
this case as it is shown that Claimants husband made out papers for a pension in his life time which have been lost
for the bounty land the Commr of Pensions rejected the certificate because there is no identity proven
Page 167

under the bounty act of March 3, 1855 when a claimant produces record proof according to the sworn declaration, the Commissioner cannot require any further. If there was a manifest fraud, he might
make further inquiry, and there being none it is his duty to issue the warrant. There on not men in life by whom claimant can prove the service, and even if there were she is not compelled to produce such evidence if there is any record proof, for the act allows parol only when record proof failed.
the first answer I received to this claim was to the effect that the papers were so badly connected that
they could not be understood-- the next was that the was no use to press because claimants husband had once applied from Oglethorpe Co. Ga. which was not true. next that no claim could be granted the validity of which was to the mind of the Commr
so doubtful, next that there was no positive proof and that traditionary evidence could not be received
for particular service, from all which it is doubtful if the papers have ever been carefully examined-
You are asked to give the papers, Claimants two declarations, affidavits of two Smiths, Tanner, Coleman,
Ward & Mrs McLendon, in connection with the rules Laid down by the Sect of war under act of June 7 1832, and I
am confident you will award the claims. Vy Respy JM Varner
Page 168

House of Reps

Sir.

Enclosed please find certain papers from. J. M. Varner Esq

Please direct this correspondence
in relation to the case to Mr Varner

Respy
Ro P Trippe

Hon Comr of Pensions
Page 169

[check mark] Pension Claim of Ferguson Smith widow of Robert Smith of Butts Co Ga

[check mark] JM Varner Indian Springs Ga April 10,1857

Cole

[check mark] Respectfully referred to the Comr of Pensions
Moses Kelly
 Dep. Int. Apr 15/57
Page 170

Indian Springs. Butts Co Ga
April 10th 1857

Dear Sir

I will ask you to give your personal attention to the Pension & Bounty land claim of Ferguson widow of Robert Smith and for fear that some portion of the proof may be overlooked, I will again recapitulate
the evidence furnished in the case, in order that you may know if you are furnished with all the papers. 1st Declaration of claimant that her husband served as a volunteer in South Carolina, for a period of two years under [Gen. Richard] Winn, [Capt. Edward] Martin, [Lt. Wm.] Gray and others-- and a certificate from the Comptrollers' office of So Carolina showing 100 days service of Robert Smith under Winn & Gray-- The affidavit of Smiths brother, that he served under Winn, Martin and Gray, for a period not recollected. With the affidavits of Tanner, Coleman, Mrs McLendon, & B. F. Ward that they know Claimants husband here, many years, and that he always claimed to have served in the Revolution under those officers, and that he was reputed to be a revolutionary Soldier-

That Claimants husband is directly connected with the certificate. There can be no doubt, at least the preponderance is in her favor, and the Land Warrant will certainly be no longer withheld from her 

She claims a pension under the act of June 7 1832, and subsequent provisions for widows. The Secretary of War prescribed the following
rule of evidence for that act. There being no muster rolls of the State troops, Volunteer Militia &c in the war department, and on
Page 171

account of the rapid decrease of the survivors of the revolution. Traditionary proof alone was taken to sustain a claim for a Pension of the Continental troops direct proof was required, because there the muster rolls are presented, and if the name does not appear on a muster roll, then a presumption is raised against the continental Soldier- It will certainly be admitted that in this case there is direct record proof of 100 days service, and traditionary proof that Claimants husband was a revolutionary soldier for a period longer than 6 months-shortest term provided for under the act of June 7. 1832 - There is also - which I forgot to mention - proof that Claimants husband drew a Lot of Land in Georgia as a Revolutionary Soldier

Now, if in such cases, Traditionary proof alone was received for the allowance of a Pension, should it not be granted in this case, where
there is direct record proof of more than one half of the term, and the strongest traditionary proof, that Claimants husband served as she
alleges -

This claim has been prejudged at the Pension office, on the only ground yet given that it is a little remarkable, that claimants husband did not apply in his life time. this objection was met by the showing that he did make out papers in his life time for a Pension, and the inference is that the papers were lost by some means, or his claim is not on file in the Pension
office, and even if had made no application, that was his own business, and
Page 172

the claim of his widow, should be put
on its own merits

There is one fact clear to my mind, that the Commissioner of Pensions, never examined the papers in this case sufficient to understand their full import, or else he entirely discarded the rules prescribed for the conduct of such claims, under the act of June 7, 1832.

If you will carefully peruse them and submit them to the rules alluded to, you will not fail to award the claim.

I have before forwarded the note of the Hon Mr McLelland, showing that he had instructed a report of the case to be made to him-

Very Respectfully
J M Varner

Hon Jacob Thompson
Sec of the Interior
Washington City D.C
Page 173

63. 
Commr of Pensions April 17. 1857

Returning letter of Ferguson widow of Robt Smith respecting claim for Pension and stating that the case is now before the Department with all the papers

please return

Rec'd 17 Apl '57
Wm. Pritchette
Page 174

Pension Office.
April 17. 1857

Sir
 The letter of Mr Varner, in relation to the case of Ferguson Smith, of Georgia, is herewith returned, and you are informed that the papers were transmitted to the Department
on the 24th of February, with the reasons for a denial of the claim by this Office, they have not since been returned

Very Respectfully
Yr Obt Servant
Geo C Whiting
Commissioner

Moses Kelly Esq
Chf Clk Int Department
Page 175

[check mark] J.M. Varner
Indian Springs Ga.
May 4, 1857

[check mark] In regard to the Pension & Land
claim of Ferguson Smith Widow of Robert

Cole

Rec'd 13 May '57
Wm. Pritchette
Page 176

Indian Springs, Ga
May 4th 1857.

Sir.

 I addressed your predecessor in office asking him to unite with the Sec of the Interior in the examination of the claim of Ferguson Smith, Wid of Butts Co. Ga. for Bounty Land & pension. your opinion as to the competency of the evidence in the case would doubtless be in favor of the claimant and if the claim is not yet acted upon, will you be pleased to give your immediate cooperation with the Sec of the Interior in its examination

The Commissioner of Pension. Mr Whiting rejected the claim, because he considered there was no direct proof the bounty land claim is made under the act of March 3, 1855, and that act grants Bounty Land on record evidence of 14 days service. Claimant alleges that her husband Robert Smith, decd, was a volunteer soldier in the Revolution, in So. Car. under General [Richard] Winn, Capt [Edward] Martin & Lieut. [Wm.] Gray, and produces a certificate from the archives of So. Car. of 100 days service of Robt Smith, under Winn & Gray - This is certainly direct record evidence of the service, untill the office of the Government proves that her husband was not the man mentioned in the record according to the practice in such cases. The Commissioner departing from the practice required claimant to prove by parol testimony that her husband performed the service
Page 177

shown by the record. That certificate is as competent testimony under the bounty act of  1855 as a muster roll in the war department. But this unwarranted requirement has been
as fully complied with as possible, by the affidavit of Roberts Brother William 82 years old who states positively that his brother was a soldier in the revolution under [Ge. Robt] Winn, [Capt Edwd] Martin & [Lt Wm] Gray, and by the evidence of various persons, who declare that they often heard Robert in his lifetime say that he served under those officers. I consider claimants husband fully identified with the certificate & so you will doubtless decide.

The pension claim is made under the act of June 7 1832. The Sec. of War fixed a rule of proof under that act, that a continental soldier must produce record evidence of service, or in the absence of written evidence, the evidence of witnesses, because there are muster rolls of the continental army preserved-

But there being no muster rolls in the War Dept. of State troops, Militia, &c and on account of the rapid decrease of survivors of the Revolution, tradtionary evidence alone was received for the allowance of a Pension. The act of June 7, 1832 provides for 6 months service. In this claim it is alleged that Robert Smith served two years of service. there is direct proof of 100 days - 3 Mos & 10 days service- traditionary proof that he served more than six months - proof that he drew Land in a Land Lottery in Georgia as a revolutionary soldier, and if pensions were allowed on traditionary evidence alone
Page 178

in this case it should be allowed, attest for the shorted term provided for, because here there is direct record evidence of more than one half the term, and strong traditionary evidence for the full period -

This is a just claim and I hope that you will give it your immediate attention

Very Respectfully
JM Varner
Page 179

Pension Office
May 14, 1857.

Sir, 

the Secretary of the Interior has examined all the papers in the case of Ferguson Smith, Widow of Robert of Georgia, and affirms the decision of this office disallowing her claim.

J. M. Varner Esq
Indian Springs
Georgia
Page 180

[check mark] J. M. Varner
Indian Springs Ga.
16th June 1857

asks if in the claim of Ferguson, widow of Robert Smith. the affidavit of William Smith of Ala was received-

Boynton

Respectfully referred to Commr Pensions for
Answer through this Department
Dep Clk}
June 17/57}

Moses Kelly Chf clk

Recd 22 June '57
Wm Pritchette
Page 181

Indian Springs, Ga
June 16.th 1857

Hon J Thompson Sec of Interior

Sir.

In the Bounty Land claim of Ferguson Widow of Robert Smith. I desire to know if you reviewed the affidavit of William Smith of Alabama-

This proof was forwarded about 1st of March, and probably was not filed with the other papers in the case.

Under your instructions the point here is to connect the party with the Certificate from South Carolina, and William Smith states positively that his brother Robert Served in the Revolution under two of the officers shown by the certificate.

Very Respectfully
JM Varner
Page 182

Pension Office.
February 5, 1838.

Sir.

In compliance with your instructions of the 27th ult, I have the honor to return herewith the letter of J. M. Varner, Esqr, asking an appeal from the decision made in the case of Ferguson Smith widow of Robert, for a pension under the act of 7th July 1838 and to state that this case was reported to you upon the 24th of February, 1837, upon the appeal of Mr Varner, and the reasons for its disallowance were stated in full.

On the 28th of April following, the decision of this office in the case was affirmed, as appears from your letter of that date. I have carefully reexamined the claim, and find that since your decision refusing its allowance, no additional evidence has been filed, that the report made by this office upon the appeal aforesaid correctly represented its condition, and that there is nothing upon file which should change the character of said report of your decision.
Page 183

with much respect.
Your obedient Servant.
Geo C Whiting
Commissioner

Hon Jacob Thompson,}
Secretary Interior.}
Page 184

520. [Crossed out: 593]
Pension office
February 5, 1858
[check mark] 77
Adverse report on the appeal of J. M. Varner in the case of Ferguson Smith widow of Robert, for a pension.

This claim was decided on appeal from the Commr of Pensions on [Crossed out: 24th Febr. 1857] Sec. Appeal Docket. 28. Apl. '57 and re-affirmed this 3d March 1858. -

Rec'd 6 Feb: '58
Wm. Rhett
Page 185

Indian Springs Geo.
Feb 17th 1858

Dear Sir 

A Bounty Land Warrant was issued under the act of 1855 to Mrs Clower, in Monroe County, when the Claimant could not state the name of the Captain who her husband served under nor could state anything of the service for that that he served in the War of 1812. from Morgan Co. Ga. A warrant was also issued to Vertine Tollerson, and warrants were issued to Jane Moore and Mary McDermott, when the Claimants stated nothing definite as to the dates of service performed by their husbands in whose rights they claimed. The respective names however, appeared, I presume on muster rolls, and hence the warrants were issued. A Warrant was also issued to Isaac Bankston, on evidence of a payment found on record in the Department, made to the name of Isaac Bankston. Not one of these claimants were ever required, to go out side of the record proof, to connect themselves with the
record by any other evidence besides their own affidavits; nor was this outside proof even required in any of a large number of claims I forward to the pension office
Page 186

when the second proof appeared.
The Bounty Land Claim of Ferguson Smith is suspended, and claimant is required to go beyond the record proof filed in the case, and prove by living witnesses that her husband performed the services shown by the record proof. Why is the requirement in this case. No other reason has yet been offered only that the bounty land claim is made dependent on the success of a pension claim filed by this claimant and that the pension claim is of doubtful validity, is nothing to be construed in favor of Claimant she declares that her husband served in the Revolution, in South Carolina, under certain officers, and then
showing certificate from the Archives of that note, Exhibiting the name of her husband in service under some two of the officers she certainly makes out a prima facie case. Is the bounty land claim to be rejected, simply because the pension claim is not proved up to the letter of the rule for pension claim I insist that there is an error in suspending this claim, and I presume that the error lies, in first examining the wrong papers. Shortly after the papers were forwarded I was informed by the Department that it was unless to prosecute the claim because
Page 187

claimants husband had in time applied from Oglethorpe Co. Ga. alleging a character of service not provided for by the Pension Laws. This was by letter from the Pension office of May 8. 1856 This mistake was doubtless never corrected, and the case must have passed under your review with some incorrect impression in relation to it.

I do not see any difficulty in the bounty land claim, when the declaration of the claimant, and the Certificate from South Carolina are examined. The error in connecting the claim with some other old papers from another Robert Smith who came from Virginia can then be corrected. This claimant is very old and exceedingly poor and the Land warrant would be of great assistance to her, and it is hoped that an appeal will not be made in vain to the department to reexamine the case and issue the warrant.

This Claimant is not able to litigate before the Court of Claims for the pension, and believing that under the circumstances of the case, the claim is proved as fully as the Department should reasonably require it is urged that you look into it again. And in doing so you will observe that this claim was in the first instance erroneously put down as a Virginia claim from the full that it was coupled with the old papers of some Robert
Page 188

Smith, from Virginia, when in truth the claim is for services performed in South Carolina-

There are muster rolls, of the Virginia troops preserved, and if the alleged services do not appear in the muster roll, that fact raises a presumption against the claim, and there is much reason in some positive proof being required. But there are no muster rolls preserved of the South Carolina troops, and with these no presumption can be raised against them, and a different rule is requirement. Shortly after the passage of the act of June 7, 1832, the Secretary of War Established as a rule for proving claims under it, that in a case, as from South Carolina, where there are no muster rolls, to advent to, and on account of the rapid decrease of the survivors of the Revolution, one witness was sufficient, and if none could be obtained, then traditionary proof was sufficient. These rules can be conveniently found on Printed Pamphlet of Pension Laws pages 41,2,3, & 4 made by a resolution of the Senate Feb 9th 1849.

When compared with the rule, how stands this case? Claimant alleges that her husband Robt Smith served as a volunteer soldier in South Carolina, for two years, in tours of three months, under Gen [Richard] Winn, Captain [Edward] Martin and Lieut [William] Gray, she then filed a Certificate from the Archives of South Carolina showing a service by Robt Smith, for three
Page 189

months and ten days. Is not that Certificate prima facie direct record proof of one of the alleged Terms of three months service. Is it not
record proof, as for as it goes? If it is will you simply presume fraud, and require this Claimant now to prove by living witnesses that her husband Robert was the Robert Smith who performed the same shown in the certificate. If that is to be the rule, what use would claimant have for the certificate or what benefit would any character of record proof be if the
claimant was driven out side of it. You will certainly hold to the Established rule in such cases, that the sworn declaration of the claimant is admitted to prove the identity with
the record. From the necessity of the case no other rule could be adopted. I take it then that here there is direct record proof of three months and ten days of the alleged service. you will recollect that the rules before cited do not absolutely require any direct proof. But there is other direct proof filed in this case, William Smith aged 82 or 3, of Alabama, who is the brother of Claimants husband, swears that Robert was a volunteer Soldier in South Carolina under Gen [Richard] Winn, Capt [Edward] Martin and Lieut [Wm.] Gray during the Revolution. He does not state his means of information, nor does he state
Page 190

particulars of the service, but his affidavit is direct proof as far as it goes, and particularly to connect Robert with the certificate.

If there were no direct proof in this case, the Traditionary proof comes up to the rule adopted 25 years ago. And if so long ago, there was reason for admitting this kind of proof, on account of the rapid decrease of the survivors of the Revolution, and the great difficulty in obtaining direct proof, for a still greater reason it should deemed sufficient now when it is impossible to obtain the proof of witnesses. There are filed in the case five other affidavits of disinterested persons, who establish the fact that Claimants husband was always reputed here to have been a revolutionary soldier in South Carolina under the officers alleged in the declaration. And you
will observe that witnesses declare that Robert Smith claimed to have performed the alleged service, even before the passage of the act of June 7, 1832, and he could have had no pecuniary interest in making claim of Service; and that he claimed to have performed the services ever since he came to Georgia about 1827, up to his death which took place in 1853 I believe. In addition to these affidavits establishing indisputable traditionary proof of the service, they connect the party with the certificate, and prove
Page 191

with every reasonable presumption, that Claimants husband was the identical Robert Smith who performed the service shown by the Certificate. These are the affidavits of B. F. Ward, William Tanner, R. P. Coleman, R. W. Smith, all in Dublin District in Butts Co. Ga. and Susanah McLendon, near by, in Monroe Co -
all of whom lived for many years neighbors to Claimant and her husband. There is also in the papers for proof that Claimants husband drew Land in one of the Ga. Land Lotteries as a Rev. Soldier.

Six months service is the shortest term provided for by the act of June 7, 1832. By rules of proof to which you were before cited, in all cases, except the continental Virginia & New Hampshire Troops, where no direct proof could be obtained, the sworn declaration of the party, if supported by corroborating facts, to show that the declaration was true, was held sufficient.

Do the facts corroborate this Claimants declaration? the direct proof - the Certificate from the Comptrollers office of South Carolina, and William Smiths affidavit together with the other affidavits, make as strong a case as could be made, short of direct proof for the whole term. Then why not grant this pension at least for the six months, if not for the longer term, two years, as provided for by the act. If the
Pension was award for the full term it would
Page 192

not amount to Exceeding twenty four hundred dollars, and so on, in proportion down to the provision for six months.

In the first letter to me from the Pension office, in response to this claim. I was met with the statement that it was a little remarkable, that Robert Smith, did not apply in his life time for a pension. In reply to this unjust insinuation. I have to say that Claimant declares in her declaration that her husband did make out his pension papers in his life time before one Rufus McCord in Butts County, and that she did not know what had become of the papers, and I presume they were not forwarded to the Department. This statement in the declaration led to the error in examining the papers of Robert Smith of Oglethorpe Co. Ga. for Virginia service. If that error was ever corrected, I have not been so informed. It is hoped that you will take up the papers in the case, and examine them in person that justice may be done in the premises. After repeated requests, I was never informed whether the papers forwarded by me were all received. They consist of two declarations of Claimants, two sets of the Certificates from So. Car., Affidavits of Wm Smith, Wm Tanner, R P Coleman, B F Ward, R W Smith, Susan McLendon.

Very Respectfully, JM Varner

Hon J. Thompson, Sec. Interior
Page 193

Rec'd 9 Oct '58 Wm. Rhett
Page 194

Notes on the case of Ferguson Smith

1st The 2 Declarations differ as to the length of the alleged service. In drafting the last declaration only 2 years service was alleged, because, that is the intent of the act of June 7, 1832, just as under the Bounty Land act of 1885, it is sufficient to allege 14 days service even if you could prove 5 years.

2nd The Bible shows claimant to be 91 year old & she says she is about 6 years older than her sister Elizabeth the wife of Wm Smith, the witness, which will make 85 the age of Elizabeth- she says in her affidavit (which seems to have been unnoticed) that William her husband is older than she is. This, the Bible, and all the records mean that in 1857 William was more than 82 years old. That declaration was put down by the scribe in figures - thus 82 - William in his last affidavit of last September 10, says that if in 1857 he said he was only 82 years old, that he was mistaken. Every record in the case shows that this was an honest mistake of his, or of the scribe.

Address me at Indian Springs Butts Co & mail the Bible to me or Claimant

JM Varner
Page 195

Department of the Interior.
March 5th 1858.

Sir 

The claim of Ferguson Smith Widow of Robert Smith, for Bounty Land under Act March 3d 1855, and for pension under Act June 7th 1832, having been decided by this Department on 28th April 1857, on an appeal from your decision, will not be taken up for re-examination, but upon the production of new and material testimony and Mr Varner should so be informed.

I am, very respectfully,
Your Obedt Sever

J. Thompson
Secretary.

Hon. George C. Whiting
Commissioner of Pensions.
Page 196

Bounty Land Claim No 242.818 of Ferguson Smith under act of March 3, 1855 & claim for Pension under act of June 7, 1832
Geo C Whiting 
Commr of Pensions
Washington City DC
for Hon Robt P Trippe MC
Page 197

The claim is No. 243.818 and is under the Bounty act of  March 3, 1855
JM Varner
Page 198

[Printed document with handwritten entries]

PENSION OFFICE, Mch 9th 1858.

Sir.
 The frequent applications made to this office for information about particular claims for bounty land pending before it, render it proper to call particular attention to some
suggestions, a careful observance of which, by those thus applying, is necessary to enable the office to give the information desired.

The system of the registration of such claims requires that both the name of the applicant for land and the number of his application be stated, in order that the office may readily turn to the papers in the files. In all acknowledgments of the receipt of applications at this office the number of each application is given, and by reference to those the numbers can always be ascertained. If, however, from not having received any such acknowledgment, or from having subsequently lost it, the number cannot be stated, the particular time -- the month and the day of the month -- when the application was forwarded to this office should be stated as nearly as may be.

Without these particular statements this office cannot undertake, with the force now at its command, to make those examinations for particular claims which are necessary in
order to give information about them. The amount of time and labor which would be required in a general examination for a particular application among the over two hundred and thirty thousand now received, will readily be seen.

GEO. C. WHITING.
Commissioner.

Your statement of 17th ult referred to this Office, in reference to claim of Ferguson Smith, does not mention the No or date of his application or under what act of Congress he applied without which date the case cannot readily be identified. This information from you will receive prompt attention

J. M. Varner Esq
Indian Springs. Geo
Page 199

Indian Springs, Ga
March 20, 1858

Sir
 In reply to your circular of the 9th Inst, in relation to the bounty land claim of Ferguson, widow of Robert Smith. I have to inform you that the application is made under the bounty act of March 3. 1855, and is numbered 242.818

The claim is supported by a Certificate from the Comptroller General of South Carolina, showing 100 days record proof of the service of Robert Smith, under two of the alleged officers in the Revolutionary War. The certificate was forwarded to the Pension Office. I think with the declaration.

I also forwarded another set of papers for a Pension for this claimant, which papers were recently obtained from the Pension office, by the Hon Robt P Trippe M. C. from Georgia. You will note particularly that there was a set of papers forwarded for each claim.

The bounty land claim was suspended from an error which you will understand at once. In your letter to me of May 8. 1856, in relation to the Pension you stated that it was useless to prosecute the claim further, because claimants husband
Page 200

2

Robert Smith had once before made application from Oglethorpe Co. Ga. alleging for a character of service not provided for by the Pension Laws furnishing beef cattle &c. In a subsequent letter you informed me that the bounty land claim was suspended, and for the reason, I was referred to the suspension of the pension claim. The error was this, this Claimant alleged that her husband served in South Carolina, and you will see from the Declaration, that he lived in South Carolina during the Revolution, and subsequently in Butts Co. Ga. and never lived in Virginia. Nor in Oglethorpe Co. Ga and the papers examined and referred to were those of some other Robert Smith, and had nothing to do with this claim. I forwarded your letter, show
ing this error, to Hon Jas L Seward, M.C. from Georgia, and will request him to transmit it to you, and it is hoped that the mistake will be corrected and the Warrant issued.

There were a number of affidavits forwarded in support of the Pension Claim, which were not furnished to the Bounty Land Claim. These affidavits were to connect claimants husband with the certificate, from South Carolina and show that he was the identical Robert Smith who performed the services mentioned in that record proof; and also to furnish
Page 201

3

Traditionary proof, of the services. You fell into an error in relation to the Pension Claim from the Examination of the papers of another Robt Smith, referred to, who alleged for services performed in Virginia. 

The Pension claim is made under the Act of June 7, 1832. and by a reference to the printed pamphlet of the pension laws, published by a resolution of the Senate, of Feb 9. 1849 on pages 41. 2 & 3. you will observe that the rules of proof, adapted to carry out the act, vary according to the Class of Soldiers to which the applicant belongs.

There is one rule, for the Continental Virginia and New Hampshire Troops, and a different one for the Troops of the other States. In the first case, there are "Muster rolls, preserved, of the Continental "Virginia & New Hampshire Troops, and when an applicant of these classes presents his claim, and his alleged services does not appear on the "muster roll", then a presumption is raised against his claim, and then the evidence of two contemporary survivors is required.

In the second case, there are no "muster rolls", to advert to, and no such presumption can be raised against the applicant, and according to the rule, to hold the applicants of those States of which no muster rolls, are preserved, down
to direct proof, after the lapse of so many years, and on account of the rapid decrease of the survivors of the Revolution, would be to deprive many of them of the benefits of
Page 202

4

the act; and with this last class of applicants, one witness was required if one could be obtained, and if none could be obtained, then the Sworn declaration of the party, if supported by corroborating circumstances was deemed sufficient

The mistake was in putting this claim on a footing with Virginia claims, when in truth it is for services rendered in South Carolina, and a claim for service rendered in South Carolina, comes under the Rule of proof, last referred to and for which direct proof is not absolutely required. But in this case there is some direct proof, and let us try it by the rule.

Claimant alleges that her husband, Robert Smith served as a volunteer, in terms of 3 months at a time, for 2 or 3 years, in South Carolina under Gen [Richard] Winn, Capt [Edward] Martin and Lieut [William] Gray, in the Revolutionary War. She then produces a Certificate from the archives of South Carolina, showing a service of 100 days rendered by Robert Smith, under two of the identical officers alleged. This is prama facie record proof and direct proof of one of the alleged
terms of service. But if there was any doubt as to the identity, the testimony of the various witnesses prove the identity beyond any kind of doubt - in addition to the strong traditionary proof they furnish in the case
Page 203

5

We have the 3 months and 10 days, direct record proof in support of this claim, when you will recollect that no direct proof is absolutely required. There is then the affidavit of William Smith, aged 82 or 3, brother of Claimants husband, of Alabama, who declares positively, that his brother Robert, was a volunteer Soldier in the Revolution, under Gen [Richard] Winn, Capt [Edward] Martin & Lieut [Wm.] Gray. This is direct proof as far as it goes, and identifies claimants husband with the certificate, the "record proof". Then there are the affidavits of B.F. Ward, Wm Tanner, R. P. Coleman, R. W. Smith and Susannah McLendon, who declare that they knew Claimants husband Robert Smith for 20 or 30 years in Butts Co. Ga. and that he was always reputed to have been a revolutionary soldier and that the fact was never doubted and R.P. Coleman declared that he knew him 30 years or more ago in South Carolina, and that he bore the same reputation there; and the affiants declare that he claimed throughout his life to have served under, [Gen Richard] Winn, [Capt Edward] Martin & [Lt. Wm.] Gray - Then there is on the claim papers proof that claimants husband drew land in one of the Georgia Land Lotteries as a Revolutionary Soldier. From the direct record proof furnished in the case and the Corrob-
Page 204

6

ating circumstances, viz, the abundant Traditionary proof filed, the Sworn declaration of Claimant is true beyond any reasonable doubt; and under the rule, if the Sworn declaration is supported by corroborating facts sufficient to show that it is true, that is all that is required. And if there was a necessity for this liberal rule of proof in 1832, because of the said decrease of the survivors of the Revolution, that necessity is still greater now when there is scarcely a survivor of the Revolution left.

It is confidently believed that the rule of direct proof for the term of five months, under the act of June 7, 1832, would not have been applied to this claim had not the claim been erroneously taken for Virginia service, and upon the Error being corrected, it is hoped that the Pension will be awarded The Hon Robert P Trippe, or the Hon James L Seward, having the Pension papers in possession, will wait on you with the communication, through one of whom it will be directed unsealed. You will observe that the undersigned is the attorney of record in the paper.

Very Respectfully
Jefferson M Varner

Hon Geo C Whiting
Comm of Pensions
Page 205

Ferguson Smith wid. of Robt. Decd.
Act of 1855- 242.618 [242.818]

Hon. Mr. Trippe of the House of Reps thinks there has been additional evidence
filed since 24 Feb 1857 when the claim was adversely decided upon & further that the claim for land has not been adjudicated on appeal &c now is this
GCW
5 Apl 1858
Page 206

JM Varner Indian Springs Ga April 12 1858
[check mark]
Respecting the claim of Ferguson Smith widow of Robert .

[check mark] Respectfully referred to the Commissioner of Pensions.
Dept. Int. Apl 19/58}
Moses Kelly Chf Clk
Rec'd 19 Apl . '58 Wm. Rhett

Washington City
Page 207

Indian Springs, Ga
April 12th 1858

Sir.

 A copy of your letter of the 23 ult
informing me that the Bounty Land & pension claim of Ferguson widow of Robert Smith, would not be reopened, unless new & material proof was furnished, was forwarded to me by the Commissioner of Pensions, and I have to say that a reexamination of the case was asked, because it had been decided on under an error that arose from the fact that the
claim papers of Robert Smith, of Oglethorpe Co. Ga. were taken for the papers of the husband of this claimant, when such was not the fact, and it is evident that this error was not corrected, because if it had been the bounty land claim would not have been suspended, for there is Record proof of 3 Mos &10 days of the alleged service furnished from the public records of the State of South Carolina, when as you are well aware the Bounty Land act of March 3. 1855 requires record proof of only 14 days service.

The Commissioner of Pensions informed me by letter of May 8. 1856, that it was useless, to prosecute the pension claim any further, because, Robert Smith, had made application from Oglethorpe Co. Ga. and his claim had been rejected, and to my subsequent inquiry as to the bounty land claim, I was referred to the action had on the pension claim. The
papers of Robert Smith, of Oglethorpe Co. Ga
Page 208

have no connection with this claimant, and will the Department refuse to reexamine a case that was rejected upon an error so palpable, and even refuse to see whether the alleged error does exist?

The bounty Land application is numbered 242.818 and there is filed with the declaration, record proof of 3 Mos & 10 days of the alleged service, and do you not know that the application would not be suspended but for some radical error. We again ask the Department to reexamine this Bounty land claim Suspended on a mistake of facts so apparent.

Very Respectfully
JM Varner

Hon J Thompson
Sec of the Interior
Washington City
Page 209

Jackson Georgia My 5th /58

To the pension office

I desire to know if ever the pension belonging to Ferguson Smith has been issued and sent
To Jefferson Varner Indian Springs Butts County if so please inform me as he refuses to give any account of what he has done - if you will
answer this Letter you will much oblige yours

Respectfully

Hendrick R Lunny
atty at Law
Page 210

Hendrick R Lunny May 24
Page 211

Pension Office, May 24, 1858

Sir.

In reply to your note of the 5th instant, I have to inform you that the claims of Ferguson Smith, for pension and bounty land have been rejected by this office and the rejection affirmed, upon appeal, by the department.

Applications of this kind, for information should be accompanied by powers of attorney from the parties interested.

Hendrick R. Lunny Esq
attorney at Law,
Jackson
Georgia.
Page 212

The State of Alabama}
Chambers County}

On this the 28th day of February A.D. 1857 personally appeared before me George W. Mitcham a Justice of the Peace in and for said County William Smith Senr aged about 82 years a resident of said County who being duly sworn declares that he was born in Ireland and emigrated to the State of South Carolina about 80 years ago that he is the brother of Robert Smith who died in Butts County Georgia in the year 1853 is about 14 years younger than his said brother that his said brother Robert served as a soldier in the revolutionary war from the State of South Carolina that he served under General Richard Winn, Captain Ned Martin, Lieutenant [William] Gray for the term of not recollected in the year of not recollected that he has heard of his brother Robert being in battles or a battle but does not now recollect what battle it was that he has no interest in the claim of Ferguson Smith who is the widow of his  rother Robert

William his X mark Senr

Sworn to and subscribed before me this the 28th day of February A.D. 1857 and certify that the affiant is a credible person and that I have no interest in this claim of Ferguson Smith.

Geo W. Mitcham
Justice of the Peace
Page 213

The State of Alabama }
Chambers County.}

I, William L. Crayton, Judge of Probate for the County and State aforesaid, and by the laws of said State, Ex-officio Clerk of the Court of probate, and keeper of the records of said County, hereby certify that George W. Mitcham, whose name appears to the foregoing declaration and affidavit, signed J.P.; is, and was on the date of the same, an acting Justice of the Peace, in and for the County and State aforesaid duly commissioned and qualified according to law; and that his signature, as written thereto is genuine.

Sworn under my hand and seal of office, at Fayette, Alabama, this 2d day of March, 1857.

Wm L. Crayton
Judge of Probate

[Image of seal, illegible]
Page 214

Pension Office October 5, 1858

[check mark]
85.
Referring to a letter from Mr J. M. Varner on the Ferguson Smith claim

Rec'd 6th Oct '58 Wm Rhett
Page 215

Pension Office
October 5, 1858.

Sir,

I have the honor to enclose herewith a letter addressed me this day, by John M. Varner, Esq. in relation to the claim of Mrs Ferguson Smith to a pension under the act of 7th July, 1838, as the widow of Robert.

The claim to which Mr Varner alludes is now before the Department, upon an appeal taken by him from the decision of this office; and any communication or request he may have to make in relation thereto, should, in my opinion, be made to you.

I deem it proper to remark, however, that we have but very few rolls in this office of the South Carolina service, and such as we have do not indicate anything in relation to the service of Robert Smith, or which could be regarded as materially affecting the claim of his widow.

I have heretofore examined the papers filed in this office in support of several pension cases to which Mr. Varner refers, and found nothing which would strengthen
Page 216

his case; unless it be that General Green, Captain Martin, and Lieutenant Gray were in service after
1780, a fact historically known, without reference to papers upon file in the Pension Office.

I am Sir, with much respect,
Your obedient Servant
Geo C Whiting
Commissioner

Hon. Jacob Thompson,
Secretary of the Interior
Page 217

The enclosed letter is from Hon D J Baily former member of Congress from Ga. His recommendation is entitled to the highest consideration- 

I enclose this to the Pension Office as Mr Varner has business in that office. Howell Cobb 24 Sept/58
Page 218

Atlanta Ga Aug 14th /58
Honl Howell Cobb
Washington Cty -

Sir. Mr Jef. Varner my neighbor in Butts Co will go to Washington to look after business connected with some of the departments of Gov, and as he is a stranger there, I have taken
the liberty to ask your kindness in making his acquaintance, which will doubtless be a relief to him to be recognised - the young gentleman is a member of the Ga bar, very
clever and as the least of all objections a good democrat. without wishing to intrude too much upon your time I trust you will make
him happy with an unofficial draft upon the Treasury - with respect
your obt svt  D.J. Bailey
Page 219

"H"
[illegible, bleed through or very faint handwriting]
Page 220

State of Georgia}
County of Butts} On this the sixteenth day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred fifty eight, In person came before me Henry Hendrick ordinary in & for said County, duly authorized to administer oaths for general purposes. James R McCord
of said County and state and who is personally known to me who being duly sworn deposeth & said that he was personally acquainted with
Robert Smith late of said County and State during his lifetime. That the said Robert Smith declared himself to be a soldier of the Revolutionary war. And that Deponent did at one time perhaps as long ago as ten or fifteen years, [Crossed out: the said deponent] filled up a declaration; or an application for the said Robert Smith for a pension for the Services of the said Robert Smith in said Revolutionary War. That the said Robert Smith was then a very old man. That this deponent does not [Crossed out: know] now remember which is the application he then made out for pension for the said Robert Smith was forwarded to the pension office at Washington City or not, but thinks that it the said declaration was sent to the proper office in Washington City. That he knows that the said Robert Smith is now dead from General Report.

J R McCord

I, Henry Hendrick Ordinary in & for said County do hereby certify that James R McCord the deponent in the above affidavit was duly sworn by me as to the contents of the same & I further certify that I have no interest in this claim or interest in its prosecution this 16th August 1858

Henry Hendrick
ordinary
Page 221

State of Georgia}
Butts County}

I William R Bankston Clerk of the Inferior Court of said County do hereby certify Henry Hendrick whose name appears to the foregoing Affidavit is and was at the time of signing the same the Ordinary of said County duly Commissioned and qualified and that full faith and credit should be had and given to all his official acts as Such and that his signature hereto is genuine.

Given under my hand and seal of Office this
the 10 day of August 1858

William R Bankston CIC
Page 222

Boynton's statement.
Page 223

Revo No. 88. Aug: 18" 1858.

I find upon Examining case [illegible] by this Off: under Pensions act that Genl. Winn, Capts: Martin & Moore & Lt: Gray, served in their respective capacities as officers in S. Carolina in 1781 & 2, their service was Infantry & Horse Service.

The Statement of Claimant & Wm Smith, the brother of Robt is Corroborated so far as the names, character of service & the period of service is concerned of Genl. Winn,
Capts: Martin, Moore & Lt: Gray.
Boynton
Page 224

Washington Augst 21st 1858

Sir

Below you will find a statement in answer to your enquiry of Mr. Baird this Morning

yrs Respectfully
Your Obt. Sert
J. A. Kaiper

Butts Co. Geo
Robt Smith Male age 94 Native of Ireland. Ferguson Smith female " 83 at Sea
Camden Co Geo
82 Chamber alo 85
William Smith Male Age 34 Native of Georgia
Elizabeth Smith female " 27 " of "

Please examine the return from Chamber Co. Ala for the two last names-- & return me this with the information

yrs trly GC Whiting
Page 225

Pension Office
August 24" 1858.

Sir.

I have personally examined the claim of Ferguson Smith as the widow of Robert to a pension under the act of 7" July 1838 & for bounty land under the act of 3d March 1855 & in no light in which I can view the cases should an allowance be made.

The husband of the claimant lives until 1853 & did not apply for a pension. It is evident, from the proofs filed in support of the claim of his widow, that he knew he was entitled to a pension if he performed the service claimed. His failure to prosecute a claim therefore cannot be regarded in any other light than that he knew he was not entitled or if so that he could not make the necessary proofs. If the Soldier could not establish a claim to a pension in his life time, it would seem, that the effort of his widow to do so would fruitless.

The statement of the claimant in relation to her husbands service, the Officers under whom he served, as she claims, & of his father's residence
Page 226

during the war is not consistent with itself & conflicts materially with the testimony of Wm Smith the brother of her husband & the main witness in the case; her statements therefore are entitled to but very little weight.

Wm Smith from his own showing is not competent to testify to the service of his brother Robert, with any degree of accuracy. In 1857 he alleged he was eighty two years of age. He was returned by the census of 1856 as seventy eight. In the one case he would be now 83 & in the other 86 years old. He can not therefore have been over eight years old when the incidents occurred which he relates. If therefore, it were admitted that his brother Robert was in service, it would be impossible for him to recollect with any degree of certainty the duration of his service.

It is remarkable that Wm Smith should recollect the Officers together with their grades of Office, under whom his brother served and that his brother wore a sword & yet has such indefinite recollection of this brothers service & knows nothing [3 words crossed out] of the Capacity in which he served. It is equally remarkable, that he, & other witnesses
Page 227

in the case, gives the names of the Officers under whom he claims to have served & their rank in the precise order that the claimant did in her original declaration. Smith testifies that his brother & his officers frequently come to his fathers residence near Winnsboro in the Fairfield District S. Carolina & stayed over night during the war & Yet the claimant alleges that her husbands father moved to Charleston with his family at the commencement of hostilities & there remained neutral. These discrepancies together with others unnecessary to revert to Constrain me to attach but little importance to his statements.

The other point proofs filed in support of these claims relate only to reputation of service. The ages of the Witnesses & the period of their acquaintance with Robert Smith
render their evidence of not much importance.

The Certificate of the Comptroller General of S. Carolina shows, that one Robert Smith served in the Militia of that State in the War of the revolution one hundred days, but that this soldier was the husband of the Claimant is not made to appear satisfactory. The service established by said Certificate, would secure bounty land to the claimant if the Evidence of identity were sufficient although it does not Establish a sufficient length of service to
Page 228

cover a pension.

I cannot say that the claimants husband did not serve in the war of the revolution but this office should be satisfied beyond a reasonable
doubt that he served & of the length of that service.

The inability to establish the service of Robert Smith is not the fault of this Office. It is the misfortune of the Claimant, if she cannot procure proof of her husbands service, if he served a sufficient length of time to entitle her to a pension or to bounty land.

J. M. Varner, Esqr.
Indian Springs,
Geo:
Page 229

Will you be pleased to furnish me your certificate on the paper is never in accordance under Tanner or you know the facts

Dillon 7
Brogan 4.
Newlery

John Lofton will a negro give to Elizabeth who married Boy Robert then to Elizabeth Bogan the wife of & they

Sam Beck
Page 230

State of Georgia}  
County of Butts} On this the twenty sixth day of August A.D. one thousand Eight hundred & fifty Eight, personally appeared William Tanner a resident of said County, aged Forty Six years, who being sworn according to Law, declares that he knew Robert Smith, the husband of Ferguson Smith, in this County, in originally Hearnes & now, Dublin District, from the year
Eighteen hundred and twenty seven or Eight, up to his death a few years ago. That in the year Eighteen hundred and Thirty two he was present when the said Robert Smith gave in to or Charles Baily the Commissioner of said District, for taking down the names of the persons who were entitled to draws in the Cherokee Land Lottery in Eighteen hundred and Thirty three, he thinks, and knows personally that the said Robert Smith gave in for two draws as a Revolutionary Soldier-
And he further declares that the said Robert Smith, the husband of Ferguson, was the only person of that name living in Hearnes District at the time, who could possibly have been a Revolutionary soldier and that he has no interest in making the declaration. 

William H. Tanner

I do hereby certify that William Tanner sworn to and signed the foregoing declaration in my presence the day & year above written that I know him to be the identical person he represents himself to be, and that he is a credible person and that
Page 231

I have no interest in his declaration.

Edwd Varner J.J.C.
Butts County Georgia

Georgia Butts County} I Benjamin F. Ward a citizen of the state and County aforesaid
& of the 609th District Georgia Militia, formerly known as Hearn's District, Do certify that I was well acquainted with Robert Smith in his life time, & with his widow Mrs. Ferguson Smith his wife now a widow. Mr Robert Smith was considered & esteemed in his neighborhood, as a revolutionary soldier. He was near a hundred years old when he died according to his statement of his age, & his widow is now over ninety years old.

Robert Smith was the only man of that name old enough to have been a revolutionary in said district He came from South Carolina to this State & to this county.

I knew said Smith for more than twenty years previous to his death & lived in less than four
miles of his residence. I am fifty six years old,

Benjamin F Ward J.P. & State Senator for said County
Page 232

Indian Springs, Ga
Aug 31. 1858
Sir.

I have just received your favor of the 24th Aug. in relation to the claim of Ferguson and you say nothing about the record of Robert Smith having drawn Land in Georgia as a Revolutionary Soldier.

I am not mistaken when I say that you and the examiners said to me that the record of that fact, would be taken as direct proof in the case, and I am not mistaken in saying that
you said to me in answer to my inquiry of you would not issue the Land warrant, that if Mrs Smith Established the fact that her husband was a revolutionary soldier at all that you would be bound to grant whole Pension - That I recognise as the rule, and I will call again in a few days with the proof required by you, and it
will be with you to grant the claim in
accordance with your own requirement of proof, or to reject it

Yours respectfully
J M Varner

Hon Geo C Whiting
Page 233

Surveyor Generals Office
Milledgeville Georgia
September 2d 1858

I do hereby Certify that Robert Smith Senr Revolutionary Soldier of Hearn's District Butts County State of Georgia was entitled under an
Act Assented to 21st December 1830 to draw as such Revolutionary Soldier in the Land and Gold Lottery in the year 1832. And I further certify that it appears from the Records in this
Office that Robert Smith Senr, Rev Sol of Hearns District Butts County Drew Lots of Land No. 221 in the 8th District of the 3d Section in Cherokee County & Lot N. 182 in the 27th District & 3d Section Cherokee County, as a Revolutionary Soldier and that the said Lots was granted to him by the State of Georgia on the 5th day of December 1839. and further that no other evidence of service exists in this Department

Given under my hand and Private Seal there being no Seal of Office

James A Green
Surveyor General
Page 234

"H"
Page 235

[Lower portion of document is faded]

State of Alabama,}
Chambers County,} 
On this the 16th day of September A.D. 1858 personally appeared before me John T. Jarrell an acting Justice of the Peace in and for said County William Smith a resident of said
County who being sworn according to Law declares that he does not know his exact age and swears that he is more than Eighty five that he has furnished two affidavits before
this one, on the same matter, and if he said that he was only eighty two years old in that he was mistaken he declares that he is the brother of Robert Smith late of Butts County Georgia, deceased, who was the husband of Ferguson Smith, and that he is of the opinion that his brother was about 14 years older than himself and in this he cannot say positively because he never knew his exact age he declares that his brother Robert was a volunteer soldier, in the Revolutionary war from Fairfield District in South Carolina under Genl Winn, Capt Ned Martin, Lieut Gray for the term of one year and that his brother served other times in said war of which he can state but little of his own knowledge. He would not say that his brother served one year to a day and that he says, a
Page 236

years because he and his brother David, an elder brother, and a negro man named Friday made and gathered a crop during the service
alluded to: that he was old enough to and did hoe and do other light work on the farm and that that year they made a crop of Corn. He declares that after the time his brother Served as a volunteer that his Father Hughy Smith moved to Charleston and remained neutral until the war was over and that he remained in Charleston until the war was over and then went back to Fairfield District near Winnboro.
He recalls that he was old enough to recollect the aforesaid facts and so states them under his solemn Oath and he further declares that he has no pecuniary interest in making this declaration

William his X mark Smith

State of Alabama}
Chambers County}
I John T. Jarell a Justice of the Peace in and for said County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that William Smith Sworn and subscribed to the foregoing declaration in my presence the day and year above written and that I know the afforesaid Smith to be
Page 237

the identical Person that he represents himself to be and that he is a creditable person, and that I have no interest in his declaration
this September 10th 1858

John T. Jarrell Justice of the Peace

The State of Alabama}
Chambers County} I, Wm L Crayton, Judge of Probate in and for the County and State aforesaid and by the laws of said State ex officio Clerk of the Court of Probate and keeper of the records of said County, hereby
certify that John T Jarrell whose name is signed to the foregoing certificate, was on the day of the duty of the same, an acting Justice of the Peace in and for the County and State aforesaid duly qualified and commissioned according to law, and that his signature thereto signed is genuine.

Given under my order and the Seal of the Probate Court of said County, at La Fayette Alabama this the 15th day of September AD 1858

Wm L Crayton
Judge of Probate

[Image of seal, illegible]
Page 238

JM Varner
Sept. 28
Page 239


Pension Office, Sept. 25, 1858
Sir

I have very carefully examined the additional evidence filed by you on the 26th instant, in support of the claim of Ferguson Smith, of Georgia, for pension under act of July 7, 1838, as the widow of Robert Smith an alleged Revolutionary soldier. assuming that the certified evidence of service adduced was performed by this Claimants husband, it does not cover a sufficient length of time to entitle her to pension, and the parol testimony furnished since the rejection of the claim by the Department upon appeal, does not satisfactorily show a service of as much as six months. The claim is therefore, further suspended

J. M. Varner Esq
Present