Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File W. 20388, for Peter Simon La Fond, New York
Page 1

service;  New York
LaFond, Peter Simon    W. 20388
Maria Loisa or
Maria Louisa
Page 2

Albany 3468
Maria Loisa La Fond
widow of Peter Simon La Fond N. Y.
who died on the month of Sept. 1795
of Clinton Co. in the State of N. York
who was a Private in the company commanded by Captain ____of the regt. commanded 
by Col. Gansevoort in the N. Y.
line for 2 years
Inscribed on the Roll of Albany
at the rate of 80 Dollars 00 Cents per annum
to commence on the 4th day of March, 1834.
Certificate of Pension issued the 19th day of Nov.
1840 and sent to D. T. Taylor
Roush Point, N. York

Arrears to the 4th of Sept 1860           680.00
Semi-annual allowance ending Mar.      40.00
                                                             $720.00

{Revolutionary Claim, Act July 4, 1836, Section the 3.}

Recorded by D. Brown Clerk,
Book C  Vol 1  Page 121


Let to Hon A. C. Hand Dec. 24, 1840
Letter to W. S. Sowles 20 Aug. 1841
Page 3

State of New York
Clinton County SS

On this third day of March in the year of our lord eighteen hundred and thirty eight, personally appeared before the subscriber one of the Judges of the Common Pleas for said county, Maria Louisa La Ford a widow of the province of Lower Canadiens, aged seventy six years the twenty fourth day of August last, who being first duly sworn according to law doth on her oath make the following declaration, in order to obtain the benefits of the provisions made by the Act of Congress passed July 4th 1836:  That she is the widow of Peter Simon La Ford who was a soldier in the Army of the United States in Col. Gansevoort Regiment. ( He was an American and his name is forgotten). She further declares that she was married to the said Peter Simon La Fond on the twenty eighth day of November 1781 by Alexander Fes???? at Schenectady in the state of New York, and that her Husband the aforesaid Peter Simon La Fond died in the month of December 1795; and that she lived with him until his death, and that she has remained a widow ever since that period, as will now fully appear by reference to the proof document annexed and had no documentary testimony in ___of her claim.

Signed:  Maria Louise (her mark) La Fond

Sworn to and subscribed on the day and year above written before me & I certify that the deponent appears to be very aged and feeble & unable to attend Court
Wm. F. Haile first Judge of Clinton County Courts
Page 4

State of New York
Clinton County

On this tenth day of March in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and thirty eight personally appeared before the subscriber one of the Justices of the Pleas for said county Mary Louise Ashline now a resident of Champlain in the County and State aforesaid, who being first duly sworn according to law doth on her oath make the following deposition: That she was personally acquainted with Peter Simon La Fond and his wife Maria Louise, in the year 1785 or 6 : That about two years after the war her Husband Priesque Ashline came to live in the Town of Champlain County & State aforesaid, and shortly after the said Peter Simon La Fond with his wife Maria Louise and two or three children some whom were this ___about now I think four or five years old, came also into said Town and lived about a mile from this deponent and her husband several years. That this deponent often saw the said Peter Simon and his wife Maria Louise and their children: That the said Peter Simon and Maria Louise were reputed Husband and wife but this deponent did not see them married; but understood they were married during the War of the Revolution. That the said Peter Simon has been dead about forty years as this deponent is informed and verily believes; and the said Maria Louise was with him during his life, and that the said Maria Louise widow of the said Peter Simon has remained a widow ever since the death of the said Peter Simon, and has often been seen by and personally know to this deponent ever since. And further this deponent saith not.

Signed: Mary Louise (her Mark) Ashline

Sworn to and Subscribed on the day and year above written before
Rufus Norton J. P.
Page 5

State of New York
Clinton County  SS

On this tenth day of March in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and thirty eight personally appeared before this subscriber one of the Justices of the Pleas for said County Amiable Bueliau, a resident of Champlain in said County and State, who being first duly sworn according to Law doth on his oath make the following deposition. That he was personally acquainted with Peter Simon La Fond at West Point in the State of New York, and that the said Peter Simon was at that time a soldier in the Army of the Revolution, but in what Regiment this deponent does not remember. And this deponent further declares that he was knowing that the said Peter Simon La Fond lived with Maria Louise the person who has subscribed a declaration in order to claim the benefit of the provision made by the Act of Congress passed July 4, 1836, and hereunto annexed during the War as Husband and Wife; and further this deponent declares that he knew them in Champlain for several years after the War, as also their children - that they came into said Town with two or three children within ___ or three years after ___, and was reputed Husband and Wife, but this deponent did not see them married. And further this deponent saith that the said Peter Simon has been dead more than forty years, but the year or month this deponent cannot say. This deponent further saith that the person applying for the benefit of the Act of Congress passed the 4 July 1836, is the identical person who was the reputed Wife of the said Peter Simon and was with him as such during his life, and has remained a widow ever since the death of the said Peter Simon. And further this deponent saith not.
Signed: Amiable (his Mark) Bueliau

Sworn to and subscribed on the day and year above written before me and I certify that the Deponents are purported of respectability, and credibility.
Rufus Norton J.P.
Page 6

State of New York
Clinton County  SS

On this third day of March in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and thirty eight, personally appeared before the subscriber one of the Judges of the Common Pleas for the County aforesaid Charlotte Constantine of the Town of Chazy in said County and State, who being duly sworn according to Law doth on her oath make the following deposition: That this deponent is the sister of Maria Louise La Fond, and was at the wedding of the said Maria Louise when she was married to Simon Peter La Fond in Schenectady in the State of New York in the month of November 1781, by Alexander Terryall Esquire and further that the said Simon Peter was at that time a soldier in the Army of the Revolution in Col Gansevoort Regiment, but this deponent does not remember the name of the commanding officer of the Company and further, that the said Simon Peter remained in the Army during the War, and that after the ??? the said Simon Peter went to Champlain in the County and State aforesaid with his family and remained there several years - and further that the said Simon Peter has been been dead, to the best of this deponents recollection forty two or three years, and the said Maria Louise lived with the said Simon Peter until his death, and has remained a widow ever since the death of the said Simon Peter, and is the identical person who has subscribed the declaration hereunto annexed to obtain the benefits of the Act of Congress passed July 4, 1836.

Signed: Charlotte (her mark) Constantine

Sworn to and subscribed on the day and year above written before me

Wm F. Haile first Judge of Clinton County Courts
Page 7

Aug 15,1840
N. Y. 
Maria L. La Fond

J. L. Edwards Esq.
Com. of Pensions
Washington 
D. C.
Page 8

Rouses Point Augst 11th '40 
J. L. Edwards Esqr. 
Sir, In looking over your letter this day of the 20th July to Mr Hand, respecting Mrs La Fond's claim under the services of her first husband Joseph Brough, I find you say that "Joseph Brough's name is not found on the roll of any Regiment in the New York line." I do not suppose his name can be found "in the New York line." Brough was a Canadian Refugee and enlisted into Lieut Col James Livingston's Regiment of Canadian Refugees, and if I am rightly informed, those Canadian Refugee Regiments were not called the "New York line." I am Confident, Sir, if you will examine Livingston's rolls of '76, '77 he you will find Brough's name. Their is abundant proof, which you would not for a moment hesitate to believe, were your him, that he was in that Regiment- as also of the legality of his marriage. 
Believing that you have been led with an error in the examination, I have troubled you at this time. Be so kind as to inform me of the result as soon as convenient. 
Very Respectfully, Sir, your Obt Sevnt. [signature:] D. T. Taylor 
J. L. Edwards Esqr Comr of Pensions.
Page 9

Maria Louisa La Fond
Let. to Hon. John Palmer,
June 15, 1838

N. Y.

Let. to D. S. Taylor, 1 Nov. 1839
to same 6 Dec. 1839
to same 27 Jan. 1840

Act July 1836
Page 10

Rouses Point NY
Jan. 3

Jan 9 1840

NY
Lafonde

J. L. Edwards Esq
Com. of Pensions
Washington
D. C.
Page 11

Rouses Point Jany 2 '40 
J. L. Edwards Esqr. 
Sir Yours of the 6th ult. informing me that on  a re-examination of Mrs Lafond papers, nothing has appeared to justify the exemption of this case from the rules of voiding applicable to those presents under similar circumstances, "and that it is alledged that Peter Lavoy obtained Bounty Land, as a Canadian Refugee. But that their names cannot be considered as describing the same individual," I have received. [??] It thus appears that the claim is baseless [??] 
undue the services of Lafond; altho I cannot for a moment entertain the idea that it is rejected for the want of proof that Lafond was a soldier- re testimony that events endure in its favour the verdict of any Jury were impersonated [?? empanelled??] , must be as convincing to the Pension Department- but to some defect on my part to comply with the established rules of the Department. With respect to his lands, I had supposed that the fact of his obtaining Bounty Lands, was sufficient evidence of his having been a soldier, as New York gave not Land in this section but to Refugee Soldiers- and the fact that he came here immediately after the war- and settled upon them, and lived upon them, and cleared them, as his Bounty Land, and subsequently Sold them, was evidence that he did receive Land for his revolutionary soldier services, which could not admit of a doubt. No other person has ever claimed those Lands- no other person or persons has ever pretended to claim them under any other person whomsoever. And pray then to whom do they belong, but to Lafond? Who came and settled upon them when other Canadians of the Revolution, came and settled on them; and let me remark that all the Canadians who drew no Land returned to Canada after the war, which those who obtained Land came here and settled upon it. Pray, more, the eighty acre Lot goes by the name of the Lefond Farm unto this day. Stronger testimony than this could not be produced th0 our case arose from the dead. As it regards the name, errors in spelling ever pronouncing the French names other evig way - of far greater
Page 12

magnitude than Leff0o and Lav-o (I spell them as they are pronouncing) who ignorant of the fact would suppose that Davig now metered [??] Devino- that Lagnon was Lorno- that Mizeneault was pronounced Menea- and a hundred others I could name? - Would it not at once be said that "these names cannot be considered as ["ascribing" is crossed out] describing the same individual"?  
No woman suffered more in our Revolution than this applicant- the wife of two men, both of them soldiers in that Revolution- the first wounded at the taking of Burgoyne, and subsequently died of his wounds- Her then young ever left alone to struggle as she might for two years before she married Lafond- None, therefore, can have a higher or juster claim upon the bounty of our country, agreeably to the Laws of Congress. I propose therefore to collect and transmit to the Department, as soon as may be the evidence of her first husband's [crossed out word] Services, Joseph Brough; "unless, indeed, her subsequent marriage with Lefond would be a bar to her success, however well established . Brough's Services may be. And on this point, before any expense is incurred, I ask the opinion of the Department, believing after an examination, that the request is not conflicting with the rules of your circular, sent me some time since. With all our Respect, Sir, I am your Obt Sevt [signature:] D. S. Taylor 
J. L. Edwards Esqr Com of Pensions
Page 13

Rouses Point Nov 28th '39 
J. L. Edwards Esqr 
Sir, Yours of the first instant saying that "In the investigations of claims of this description (Lafond) it is required by the rules of the Department that the name of the Captain and Colonel of the Regiment should be given- and that without some ["such" is crossed out] guide of that sort, no satisfactory examinatino of a claim can be had," came duly to hand. Mrs Lafond continues to say that her husband served in Gansvoorts Regiment- that his Capt was an American, and that he was in the army before she knew him, under what officers she does not now remember, if she ever knew. Mrs Lafond an aged feeble woman, and her memory may have been some what impaired at this day. 
You will pardon, Mr Edwards, the interest I take in this claim. I have had many applications for assistance in obtaining pensions, but have uniformly declined, when the claim, after an examinatiion appeared doubtful, or the alledged testimony dubious or lost. But in this instance I am well acquainted with the witnesses. Buileau, Robarge and Mrs Blow, live within a few miles of me, and I have known them for twenty five years, and they bear unimpeachable character. I am compelled to believe their testimony, and to believe this claim meritorious and just, and I trust that the Department will, upon a review that and because of the evidence, come to the same conclusion. The rules of the Department were unquestionably adopted to guard the Treasury against frauds, but surely not to exclude from the benefits of the Law, those whom this law intended to embrace. Yet nothing is more certain than that those rules, established under certain circumstances, for a specific object, as the basis of Justice, between the Treasury and the claimant, operate thus, when those circumstances cease to exist, or are changed Thus, under the rules of the Department adopted years ago, when many of the Revolutionary soldiers were alive, "two witnesses" were required to prove the services of a claimant, in addition to his naming his Captain and Colonels, if his name was not found upon the rolls- And the same rule is yet in force when scarce a solitary Revolutionary Soldier is alive. Every death removes farther off the chance of proof however just the claim in reality, (and in this case the claimant is doubly so, being the widow of two Revolutionary soldiers) untill, at this late day, a mere accident can prevent an applicants claim, under those rules, from being hopeless. It is apparent, upon the
Page 14

slightest reflection, that this rule, adopted under other circumstances, now, when those circumstances have changed, must operate extremely uniquely, not to say unjust, between the first and the last claimant for the bounty of Congress. Where the law has been fulfilled in its spirit and letter, by establishing beyond a doubt, in the mind of the Comr of Pensions, by whatever testimony, that the claimant was a soldier in the United States army of the Revolution, of the required length of time, can it be possible that his claim would be rejected, as tho his name may not be found on the rolls; or, as in this case, the claimant may be unable to designate her husbands Capt and Col." Grant a rule necessary, has that rule no exceptions? If not it would be an anomaly in the code of justice, alike nullifying the law, the spirit of the rule, and the conviction of the Comr of Pensions.- 
With these few remarks which I conceive pertinent to this case, permit me to call your attention sure more to Mrs LaFond's testimony - Mrs Lefond declares that her husband was a soldier at Schenectady Barracks when she first knew him, and that he remained a soldier during the war, embracing a period of more than two years; and she has told where he was during that time. 
Robarge testifys, who, too, was a soldier, but stationed at another place, and obtained a furlough to go and see his friend at Schenctady Barracks in 1780, that he thence saw Lafond there a soldier- Hudson river in the spring of'83 to West Point 
Burleau testifys that in the summer of '83 on his way from Fishkill to Albany, his corps stopped at West Point awhile, and he then saw Lefond a soldier. 
Here, certainly is a very irregular coincidence of circumstances and corroboration. 
Mrs Lafond says her husband, with his family, came from Albany in the year '85 or 6 to Champlain in Company with other Canadian Refugees, and settled on lands granted them by the state of New York, and Mrs Blow says that she and her father's family made a part of that p. 
Buileau and Robarge say that they saw and knew Lefond when he came to Champlain soon after the war, that he settled on lands granted him by the state of New York, in the Canadian and Nova Scotia Refugees Military tract- and they as also Mrs Blow say that Lefond was called and referred, by all the Canadian Refugee soldiers, who cam and settled on those lands, to be "our
Page 15

of theirs," that is, a soldier of the Revolution. Now those people could not only three years after the war, have been mistaken as to Lefonds soldier character. And if he has not been one they would not have called him "one of theirs." He, too settled on his lands. Now it is well known that the state of New York passed no lands to Canadians who were not soldiers in the United States army- Here, Sir, is the testimony I have been able to collect from living witnesses of Lefonds soldiership, None of them it is true know anything of his officers, his company, or Regiment- But coming as it does from people of acknowledged character and veracity, could witness in its favour without hesitation, the verdict if any jury was empanelled; and is unquestionably more testimony of Lefonds soldiership by living witnesses, then could be procured, by any one who now enjoys a pension, were his claim to have been deferred untill this day. 
But further- Lefond did settle on lands, and those lands were his own, granted to him by the state of New York for his soldiership in the army of the Revolution. I mentioned this fact in my last letter accompanying Mrs Lefond's amended declaration, and referred the Dept. to the No of the Lots. which he drew- Namely, Lot No 121 of 80 acres which lies but a few miles from me, and Lot No 42 of 420 acres, all lying in the north section of this county. I did not know this fact at first, But after learning that he drew those lots, I turned to a list of Canadian Refugee names, and found that the name of the man who drew those lots was spelt Levoy on one list, and on another was spelt Lovor- neither of those names are spelt as I spelt it- and this name too is found in Livingstons Regiment. If Lafond was scout in Livingston's Regiment after he became with the claimant, she has now forgotten it- if before, she may have never known it. Those Refugee soldiers came and settled on their 80 acre Lots- each one count onto his own lands, and Lefond settled on his 80 acre  Lot No 121. and lived there nearly ten years before his death. Whether I have spelt the name right or wrong according to French orthography I know not- all I can say is whether Peter Lavoy, Peter Lavoy, or Peter Lefond, the man is the same and he drew those lands and came and settled on them, and this claimant is his widow- and I have a firm conviction that her claim is just. Have the goodness, Sir in due time 
to make me acquainted with your decision- Very Respectfully Your Obt Svt [[signature:] D. T. Taylor 
J. L Edwards Esq
Page 16

Ro J. L. Edwards Esqr 
Rouses Point Sept. 10th. '41 
Sir, Your letter of the 2 instant I received on the 8th. and in reply permit me to say that this correspondence to me has become extremely unpleasant and painful, in as much as I am apparently continually misunderstood, as also from the fact that I do not comprehend your meaning in some of your letters. Yet an important question will be settled by it, and that question is, whether a woman who was married in Camp in the army of the Revolution agreeably to the Laws of the State of N. York, even by a Canadian Refugee Officer, if you please, shall be considered as a lawful wife, and thus receive the bounty of our country, as contemplated in that case by its laws; or whether she is viewed as a prostitute, and thus beyond the job of the statute of Congress. This is the law issue in this case; and I might stop here and without saying another word, let you determine the question candidly and justly between your country's laws and the claimant in question after a fair and unbiased examination of all the evidence you have before you. But I have a duty to perform still further to the claimant- nay, even to yourself, Sir your letter of the 2d instant you have declined giving any opinion on the evidence addressed on the only point you objected to in your letter of the 19th ult. namely, the Legality of the claimants marriages, and that proof was the certificate of Judge Haile of its validity [crossed out word] Can you, Mr Edwards, entertain a doubt as to its Legality after reading Judge Haile's certificate which accompanied my last letter? Has Mrs Lafond been a prostitute all her life? for it comes to this if her marriage is not Legal. But you say also in yours of the 19th ult. that "the proof of her marriage is focal to her claim." Of what use are depositions on oath if this is correct? What becomes of the depositions of Robarge and Constantine who saw this marriage, who identified the time, place, and the person performing the marriage ceremony? Are they cast away as ider lates? [???] These very men by their depositions have procured pensions for other claimants to my knowledge. What has invalidated their testimony at this time, that the want of proof shall be fatal to the claim? Do you hesitate to give acclaim [??] to these witnesses? If not, where is the absence of proof of marriage that renders this claim fatal? In your letter of the 2d you carry the same idea. In speaking if the private and written rules which I considered conflicting you say the fact must be established "that a marriage in Camp was duly conducted and solemnized between a soldier enlisted for the war and a woman." Now as
Page 17

not the depositions of Robarge and Constantine establish that fact? What is meant by that part of the sentence following, namely, "who for aught that appears was already an inmate of the camp." I cannot understand, unless it mean the claimant was a prostitute at the age of 14. Where Mr Edwards, would you have had the poor girl remain but in camp? Her father came from Canada with his whole family, and threw himself into the ranks of our army. Where would you have her this their child go to avoid being "the inmate of the camp"? And where too often the death of her first husband but with her countrymen and kind in camp? You say further in your letter of the 2d that "The rules contemplate satisfactory proof of every important fact." Now what are the facts which the rules contemplate important? This question is answered by the deposition of Robarge and Constantine and the certificate of Judge Haile. The one proof the services of the claimant's husband, of her marriage, of his death the other proof that the marriage was legal. The whole sentence of which the above is a part reads then "The rules contain facts satisfactory proof of every important fact, and what would be sufficient under a general rule to establish facts probable and natural, could not be received to prove the contrary character." Now, what has been offered to prove improbable and unnatural facts? Here are new objections, more intimate before, and as incomprehensible to me as eternity. A simple unvarnished tale, containing but few facts, is all that has been offered in this claim- and yet I am told improbably and unnatural circumstances are held in the premises.- I pray most fervently, Mr Edwards, that you will point them out to me distinctly, and any other objection you have to this claim. It is due to the claimant as an act of justice- it is clear to me as having read without knowing it- That I may make reparation- 
I seems however that you have declined giving you decision because I informed you that in the event of its being adverse I should think it my duty to carry the case before the Secretary of War. Is this right? You may convince me of my error, and I should drop the subject without further expense . This appears to me the right course. Then, I have that its my duty to what I conceive to be a just claim, to carry the subject before the last tribunal if found necessary- and I have been strengthened in this opinion by the advice of those who are well versed in these matters, and have affected with success from your decision; and this advice has been after a careful examination of her testimony pre [presented]
Page 18

sented [presented] you. But, Mr Edwards, I shall not do so from any disrespect to your opinion. I feel confident you are in an error & I have advocated this claim fairly, boldly, sincerely, because I am convinced of its justness. But I would not be uncourteous or disrespectful to you or the Department.- I entertain a firm belief that if you will take up the evidence calmly and carefully, that you will see it meets every requisition of your rules, and that by inescapable proof. I will know that an appeal to the Secretary of War could be attended with much delay and expense. I must come to Washington myself, and must delay the matter untill Congress meets that I may have the assistance of some friends in that body, but I can fret no doubt about the result. This claim is too just and too well proven to be finally rejected. I again solicit a expression of the whole matter, and your unbiased decision. I have the honor, Sir, very Respectfully, to be your Obt Sevt [signature:] D. T. Taylor 
If you reject the claim I wish you would be plain on the point or points on which your objection is founded. 
J. L. Edwards Esqr Comr of Pensions }
Page 22

State of New York Clinton County SS: I certify that at all times previous & up to the year 1830 a contract of marriage made per verba de present amounted to an actual marriage & was a valid in law in this State as if made in facie ecclesie.- A marriage might be proved from cohabitation, reputation, acknowledgement of the parties, or other circumstances- No formal solemnization of marriage was necessary- (See 4th Vol Johnson N Y Common law reports 52 18th Vol same reports 34.6 2nd Vol Kents Commentaries, 86) 
In 1830 marriage was for the first time regulated by Stature in this State- 
Dated Plattsburgh August 26th 1840. [signature:] Wm. F. Hail First Judge of Clinton County
Page 23

J. L. Edwards Esqr Commr of Pensions Washington D. C. 
mail Oct 16 40 N Y La Fond
Page 24

Rouses Point Oct. '40 
J. L. Edwards Esqr
Sir, Per your letter of the 4th August last you say, "If this claim is persisted in (meaning Mrs Lafonds) the service should be established by the certificate of the Comptroller of New York." I suppose the "service" means the marriage service, and the certificate to refer to the legality of the marriages or in other words that the marriage of Fingells was Legal; and I therefore wrote immediately to my friend A. C. Flagg Esq of Albany requesting him to procure for me the certificate of the Comptroller as above. Mr Flagg on the arrival of my letter was absent, and I did not receive his answer untill the 9th Sept.  After waiting a suitable time and not hearing from Mr Flagg, I procured Judge Haile's certificate to the same point, which accompanyed my letter of the 27th August. It was between that the certificate of Judge Haile settled the question of the Legality of Mrs Lafonds marriages and that it could be perfectly satisfactory to you- this Legality of the marriage being the only objection you raised to her claim in your letter of the 19th August. To your decision on that point, I keenly conceive I am entitled, which, however, in your letter of the 2d Sept you declined giving. That letter I answered this day on month, but have recd no answer. I therefore write again to call your attention to the certificate of Judge Haile and hope it not incompatible with the duties and rules of the department to give me an explicit answer as to the Legality of Mrs Lafond's marriage under the testimony of that certificate. 
I saw Mr Flagg at Plattsburgh on the 4th Sept at our Democratic celebration of that day, but the cheering and joyous occasion of the day precluded all other subjects. 
Very Respectfully, Sir, I am your Obt Sevt [signature:] D. T. Taylor 
J. L Edwards Esqr Comr of Pension
Page 26

Rouses Point June 1st '40 
J. L. Edwards Esqr 
Sir, On the 20th of April I forwarded to the Pension Department by the S Boat thru this Letter Mrs Lefonds Declaration of Services of her first husband Joseph Brough [crossed out word] of her marriage with said Brough and of his death- Accompanyed by the testimony of two revolutionary soldiers who knew Brough when he served with the American army as a volunteer to Quebec in '75 and from that time untill his death- Will you be so good, Sir, as to inform me whether those papers ever reached the Depart. 
Very respectfully sir your obt sert [signature:] D. T. Taylor 
J L Edwards Esq-
Page 27

free 
Rouses Point N Y Pension 
Pension Office Washington D. C. 
3374 Mar 20. N Y. 4 July 36 3 Sec.
Page 28

free
Rouses Point N Y Pension
Pension Office Washington D. C.
3374 Mar 20. N Y. 4 July 36 3 Sec.
Page 29

M. L. Sneed 
Col J. L. Edwards Office of Pensions Washington 
June 5 his at N. Y. 
Hon. Jno Palmer H. R.
Page 30

House Rep. June 4th. 1838 
To Col J L Edwards Comr. of Pensions so 
Sir, The enclosed Letter contains enquiries to which I wish to obtain answers and therefor as most convenient both to you & to myself I send the Letter entire for your consideration Your most respectfully [signature:] John Palmer
Page 31

Pen. Off. Nov. '40 
Sir In the case of Mrs Maria Louisa LaFond of Lower Canada it was infered that you proposed to ["lay" is crossed out] present her claim to Congress after receiving the decision of the Dept. in my letters of 4 & 19 Aug & 2 Sept. last- It was not therefore deemed ["of any" is crossed out] important to the progress of her claim to hasten a reply to the argument by which you resisted that decision 
Without animadverting upon the tone & phraseology of that argument, I would remark that if the imputation of "prostitute all her life" has been cast upon the claimant it is to be found in your own inferences, not in my correspondence- She asserts thro you a claim under the act of 4 July 36 for the ground that she was married in Camp to a ["common" is crossed out] private soldier enlisted for the war, by a Canadian officer in Jany 77. and that her husband having died in Oct 79, she was again married by the same officer in feb. 87 to another private soldier enlisted for the war ["in Oct. '87" is crossed out] This narrative, it was the opinion of the Dept., should be established so far as the facts are concerned by that conclusive evidence of which marriages are so universally susceptible [crossed out or blurred words] way
Page 33

3374 N. Y. 
Maria Louisa La Fond let. to Hon. A. C. Hand 20. July 1840 do [ditto] to same Augst. 19th. 1840 & to same Sept 2, 1840.
Page 34

Rev WIDOW, &c. 
File No. 2o388 [or 20388, or 20.288] 
Maria Loisa La Fond Wid. of Peter Simon La Fond Priv. Rev. War 
Act: July 4. 1836 
Act: July 4. 1836 
Index:-Vol. A,. Page 420 
[Arrangement of 1870. ]
Page 35

Rouses Pt 9 July free 
J. L. Edwards Esqr Comr of Pensions Washington D. C. 
Aug 3 1840 N Y M. L. Fond