Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File R. 10953, Edward Vose, R.I.
Page 24

Providence Oct 27 1854
Sir
I have recvd your letter of the 20 inst respecting the claim of the daughter of Edward Vose in which you inform me the claim is rejected for the reason that "Rebecca Vose was not her mother." I have to request that this case be again examined your decision it appears to me to be against a fair construction of the pension laws as well as directly opposed to the decision of the Secretary of War, Permit me to call your attention to the Communication of the Secretary of War, the Hon M. Wilkins, to the Commissioner of Pensions of July 18 1844, particularly to the last five paragraphs, this communication places the policy & the construction to be given to the pension laws in just point of view, He decides that "the children of the man who performed the national services and not the Executors or Administrators of the widow should receive the arrear of pension" and he points out a number of cases by way of illustration whereby great
Page 25

injustice would be done if the children of the Soldier were excluded from the distribution of the arrears of pension And he concludes by a reference to the act of March 2d 1829 which is in full force having never been repealed even by implication and which marshals the order how arrears shall be paid - 
The same view seems to have been taken by the Secretary of the Interior Mr Ewing March 5, 1850 as appears from his remarks on the act of June 19, 1840, Indeed the case of "Elizabeth Thorn" was like the present in almost all respects, Elizabeth Thorn was never a pensioner (nor was Rebecca Vose) her case "must therefore be governed by the law as it stood, prior to the 19 of June 1840" that is, as I understand it, by the law of March 2 1829, which provides that in case there is no widow or children the arrears of pension go to  the "legal Representatives" But in the case of Rebecca Vose there is [underlined] one child [/underlined] and she is the child of the "soldier" who performed the services - Now in point of fact the children of the soldier are better entitled to the benefit of the pension laws, than the children of a mother, by a former husband, who was a "stranger" or one who performed no service.
Page 26

service I ask what is a pension given to the widow for, unless for the husbands sake? The soldier who jeoparded his life for his country? And in case there is no widow it is given to his children for the same reason - This is Mr Secretary Wilkins view and it is just & proper & meets the views of Congress. - Congress took into view the meretorious services of the patriots of the Revolution and Knowing the wholly inadequate pay they received made a generous grant to the survivors and if they had deceased, to their widows & children for [underlined] their sakes[/underlined]
Edward Vose was a soldier of the Revolution had been wounded & pensioned under a special act of Congress of April 20 1796, He died having a widow she died without availing herself of her "vested right" but left a child of her husband. Now I ask if this child is not entitled to the benefit of her fathers services? It must be remembered that pensions were granted to widows & children for the soldiers sake, not for any services [underline]they[/underline] had done but for the services of their husbands & fathers It was a debt of gratitude which Congress determined to pay & if the patriot was dead, the bonus should be given to his widow & children, and Rebecca Jack is
Page 27

the only child of Edward Vose & is entitled to the benefit of her fathers services. 
The decision of Mr. Secretary Wilkins may be reversed but his reasons cannot be refuted. 
I am very Respectfully 
your obt. svt. 
Benja Cowell 


Hon L P Waldo
Page 28

Providence October 1854
Sir
I herewith enclose the claim of Mrs Rebecca Jack the only surviving child of Edward Vose a soldier of the Revolution for arrears of pension due her step mother Rebecca Vose, at the time of her death, the corps of Light Infantry was raised in June 1779 for one year and it will appear by the old roll herewith enclosed that he was appointed "Quarter Master Sargeant" June 21, 1779 & from this Muster Roll he was in service March 13 1780, & no doubt can be entertained that he continued in service until his enlistment expired, to June 21 following for by the same Roll it appears he was appointed for "one year," A will also appear by the Secretarys Certificate that the Regt was raised for one year. 
I feel it my duty also to say that soon after the act of February 3 1853 was passed the widow Rebecca Vose applied to me to assist her in obtaining a pension but not being able to obtain any evidence of her husbands service at that time
Page 29

I could give her no assistance, but soon after her death a Roll of Capt H Daytons Company was found among some old Revolutionary papers of an office, which amply prove the services. 
I will also add that Edward Vose was an Invalid pensioned to a special amount by an act of Congress passed [illegible] 20, 1790 for some wound he had recvd to [illegible] in service but whether in this service or some other the papers he sent to Congress will tell as the law there was individual claims for Invalid pensions had to be [illegible] when by Congress. - 
I have to request that her claim be allowed. 
I am respectfully
your obt sevt. 
Benja Cowell 


Hon L P Waldo