Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File W. 14922, Moses How, Continental Mass.
Page 1

Continental Mass.
How, Moses W.14922
or Howe
Mary
GH
Page 2

Lt. Jno P Van Neyes Oct 5. 35
Pen Agt.

30194
Connecticut
Nathan Howe
Fairfield in the State of Connt.
who was a sgt & cpr in the comp commanded
by Captain Brown of the regt commanded by Col Chandler in the Connecticut line for twelve months private and eight months sergeant 

Inscribed on the Roll of Connecticut at the rate of 80 Dollars - Cents per annum, to commence on the 4th day of March 1831.

Certificate of Pension issued the 5 day of Oct 1835 and handed pension

Arrears to the 4th of March 1835 $320.00
Semi-anl. allowance ending 4 Sept 40.00
pd at Washington $360.00
{Revolutionary Claim, Act June 7, 1832.}
Recorded by Danl Boyd Clerk, 
Book E2 Vol. 3 Page 19
Page 3

No 24178
Nathan How
Fairfield Connecticut

Suspend
Capt Isaac Lockwood
Adml or private

12 mo  40
8 " Sergt  40

80

Capt Brown  Col Chandler
Conn. State Troops
Chas. Hawley Esq.
Stamford [crossed out Hartford] Connecticut
Page 4

War Department
Pension Office
183
Sir:
The evidence in support of your claim, under the act of June 7, 1832, has been examined and the papers are herewith returned.  The following is a statement of your case in a tabular form. On comparing these papers with the following rules and the subjoined notes you will readily perceive that objections exist which must be removed before a pension can be allowed. The notes and the regulations will show what is necessary to be done.  Those points to which your attention is more particularly directed you will find marked in the margin with a brace (thus: }). You will, when you return your papers to this Department send this printed letter with them; and you will, by complying with this request greatly facilitate the investigation of your claim.
A Statement, showing the Service of Nathan How of Fairfield Connecticut

Period when the Service was rendered | Duration of the claimants service Years | Months | Days | Rank of the claimant | Names and rank of the Field officers under whom he served | Age at present, and place of abode when he entered the service. | Proof by which the declaration is supported.

Enlisted 1775 |  | thinks 7 + |  | private | Colo David Waterbury | Aged 77 Hartford Connecticut | [illegible] & Living in troops

Enlisted 1775 |  | 2 | 3 |  | Colo Tilleman |  | 

[Illegible] |  | 9 | Days | Sargent | Colo Tilleman |  | 

Enlisted 1777 | Duration of the claimants service Years | 9+ | Days | Rank of the claimant | Colo Jno Chandler |  | 

From this [illegible] til 1780 [illegible] then resident & [illegible] a while he was offten called out [illegible] the company of an officer

In 1780 Company continued in Service from early in the Spring of 1780 till the end of the war |  |  |  | Lieut | Capt S Lockwood |  |  the applicant should either produce his commission or a certificate from E. Phelps Esq comptroller of  the State of Conneticut Hartford that he was commissioned. There was no service under one engagment that [illegible] of [illegible] for more than 7 months.. The applt should amend his declar. in this particualr to his service

I am respectfully Your obedient servant J. L. Edwards, Commissioner of Pensions.
+5 mo + 12 dup
+8 "
Page 5

2

Regulations Under the Act of June 7, 1832

The following regulations have been adopted:
This law has been construed to extend, as well to the line, as to every branch of the Staff of the Army, and to include under the terms "Continental Line," "State troops," "militia," and "volunteers," all persons enlisted, drafted, or who volunteered and who were bound to military service, but not those who were occasionally employed with the army upon civil contracts, such as Clerks to Commissaries and to Store Keepers, &c, Teamsters, Boatmen, &c. Persons who served on board of private armed vessels as also excluded from the benefits of the law, as well as persons who turned out as patrols, or were engaged in guarding particular places at night, and were not recognized as being in actual military service. 
Four general classes of cases are embraced in this law:
1. The Regular Troops.
2. The State Troops, Militia, and Volunteers.
3. Persons employed in the Naval Service.
4. Indian Spies
As rolls of the regular troops in the Revolutionary War exist in this Department, all persons claiming the benefit of this law as officers, non-commissioned officers, mucicians [musicians] or privates, will, in the first instance, make application by transmitting the following declaration, which will be made before a Court of Record of the County, where such applicant resides. And every Court having by law a seal and Clerk is considered a Court of Record. 

Declaration,

In order to obtain the benefit of the Act of Congress of the 7th of June, 1832.

State, Territory, or District of
County of

On this [blank] day of [blank] personally appeared (a) before [blank] A. B. a resident (b) of [blank] in the county of [blank] and State, Territory or District
of [blank] aged (c) [blank] years, who being first duly sworn, according to law, doth on his oath make the following declaration, in order to obtain the benefit of the provision made by the act of Congress, passed June 7th, 1832. That he enlisted in the Army of the United States in the year (d) [blank], with [blank] and served in the [blank] (e) regiment of the [blank] line, under the following named officers:
(Here set forth the names and rank of the Field and Company Officers; the time he left the service; (and if he served under more than one term of enlistment, he must specify the particular period, and rank and names of his officers;) the town or county and State in which he resided when he entered the service; the battles, if any in which he was engaged, and the country through which he marched. [finger pointing right] This form is the be varied so as to apply to the cases of officers and  persons who belonged to the militia, volunteers, navy, &c.)
He hereby relinquishes every claim (f) whatever to a pension or an annuity, except the present, and he  declares that his name is not on the Pension Roll of any Agency in any State,  or (if any) only on that of the Agency in the State of [blank]
Sworn to and subscribed the day and year aforesaid. 
A.B.
(And then will follow the certificate of the Court.)
And the said Court do hereby declare their opinion (g) that the above named applicant was a revolutionary soldier, and served as he states.
I [blank] of the Court of [blank] do hereby certify (h) that the foregoing contains the original proceedings of the said Court in the matter of the application of [blank] for a pension.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal of office (i) this [blank] day of [blank] &c.
If, on examination of the proper record, the names of applicants, making such declaration, cannot be found, they will produce such proof as the rule given in note (j) points out.
Every applicant who claims a pension by virtue of service in the State Troops, Volunteers or Militia, except those who belonged to the New Hampshire Militia and State Troops of Virginia, will make and subscribe a declaration similar to the foregoing, with the following additions, viz:
(k) We, A.B., a Clergyman, residing in the [blank] and C.D. residing in (the same) hereby certify, that we are well acquainted with [blank], who has subscribed and sworn to the above declaration; that we believe him to be [blank] years of age; that he is reputed and believed, in the neighborhood where he resides, to have been a soldier of the Revolution, and that we concur in that opinion.
Sworn and subscribed the days and year aforesaid.
(And then will follow the certificate of the Court.)
And the said Court do hereby declare their opinion, after the investigation of the matter, and after putting the interrogatories prescribed by the War Department, that the above named applicant was a Revolutionary Soldier, and served as he states. And the Court further certifies, that it appears to them that A.B. who has signed the preceding certificate is a clergyman, resident in the [blank] and that C.D., who has also signed the same is a resident in the [blank] and is a credible person, and that their statement is entitled to credit.
I, [blank] Clerk of the Court of [blank] do hereby certify that the foregoing contains the original proceedings of the said Court, in the matter of the application of [blank] for a pension.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal of office, this [blank] day of [blank] &c.
Every applicant will produce the best proof in his power. This is the original discharge or commission;but if neither of these can be obtained, the party will so state under oath, and will then procure, if possible, the testimony of at least one credible witness, stating in detail his personal knowledge of the services of the applicant, and such circumstances connected therewith, as may have a tendency to throw light upon the transaction.
If such surviving witness cannot be found, the applicant will so state in his declaration, (l) and he will also, whether he produce such evidence or not, proceed to relate all the material facts, which can be useful in the investigation of his claim, and in the comparison of his narrative with the events of the period of his alleged service, as they are known at the Department. A very full account of the services of each person
Page 6

3
will be indispensable to a favorable section upon his case. The facts stated will afford one of the principal means of corroborating declaration of the applicant, if true, or of detecting the imposition, if one be attempted; and unless, therefore, these are amply and clearly set forth, no favorable decision can be expected. All applicants will appear before some Court of Record in the Couty in which they reside, and there subscribe and be sworn to, one of the declarations above provided, according o the nature of his case. 

The Court will propound the following (m) interrogatories to all applicants for a pension, on account of service in the Militia, State troops, or Volunteers, except the Militia of New Hampshire and the State troops of Virginia. 

1.  Where and in what year were you born?
2.  Have you any record of your age, and if so, where is it? 
3.  Where were you living when called into service; where have you lived since the Revolutionary war, and where do you mow live? 
4.  How were you called into service; were you drafted, did you volunteer, or were you a substitute? And if a substitute, for whom: 
5.  State the name of some of the Regular Officers, who were with the troops, where you served; each Continental and Militia Regiments as you can recollect, and the general circumstances of your services. 
6. To a Soldier. To an Officer
Did you ever receive a commission, and if so, by whom was it signed, and what has become of it? Did you ever receive a commission, and if so, by whom was it signed, and what has become of it?
7.  State the names of persons to whom you are known in your present neighborhood, and who can testify as to your character for veracity, and their belief of your services as a soldier of the Revolution.

The Court will see that the answers to these questions are embodied in the declaration, and they are requested to annex their opinions of the truth of the statement of the applicant. 

The applicant will further produce in Court, if the same can be done, in the opinion of the Court, without too much expense and inconvenience to him, two respectable persons -- one of whom should be the nearest clergyman, if one lives in the immediate vicinity of such applicant, who can testify, from their acquaintance with him, that they believe he is of the age he represents, and that he is reputed and believed in the neighborhood to have been a Revolutionay soldier, and that they concur in that opinion. If one of these persons s a Clergyman, the Court will certify, and they will also certify to the charcter and standing of other persons giving such certificates. 

The traditionary evidence of service is deemed very important, in the absence of any direct proof, except the declaration of the party. And the Courts are requested to be very particular in the enquiry whether the belief is general, and whether any doubts have ever existed upon the subject. 

Applicants unable to appear in Court, by reason of bodily infirmity, may make the declaration before required, and submit it to the examination, before the Judge or Justice of the Court of Record of the proper county, and the Judge or Justice will execute the duties, which the Court is herein requested to perform, and will also certify that the applicant cannot, brom bodily infirmity, attend the Court. 

Whenever any official act is required to be done by a Judge or Justice of a Court of Record, or by a Justice of the Peace, the certificate of the Secretary of State or Territory, or of the proper Clerk of the Court or County of Record, or a Justice of the Peace, and that th signature annexed is his genuine signature. 

No payments can be made on account of the services of any person, who may have died before the taking effect of the act of June 7, 1832; and in case of death subsequent thereto, and before the declaration herein required is made, the parties interested will transmit each evidence as they can procure, taken and authenticated before a Court of Record, showing the services of the deceased, the period of his death, the opinion of the neighborhood respecting such services, the title of the claimant, and the opinion of the Court upon the whole matter. 

[a] The declarant must appear in open Court, unless prevented from doing so by reason of bodily infirmity; in which case the declarant will follow the rule laid down for his guidance.
[b] The declarant must make his declaration in the county where he resides. If he should fail to do so, he must assign a sufficient reason for not
conforming to the rule.
[c] The age of the claimant must invariably be mentioned.
[d] The declarant must mention the period or periods of the war when he served.
[e] Every continental officer or soldier must give the name of the Colonel under whom he served; otherwise a satisfactory examination of the claim cannot be had. Every claimant must state, with precision, the length of his service, and the different grades in which he served, in language so definite as to enable the Department to determine to what amount of pension he is entitled. In a case where the applicant cannot, by reason of the loss of memory, state precisely how long he served, he should amend his declaration by making an affidavit in the following words:
"Personally appeared before me, the undersigned, a Justice of the Peace, &c. A. B. who, being duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that, by reason of old age, and the consequent loss of memory, he cannot swear positively as to the precise length of his service; but, according to the best of his recollection, he served not less than the periods mentioned below, and in the following grades:--For---year- -- months, and -- days, I served as a- For months and --- days, I served as a -; and for such service I claim a pension." It is important, in all cases, to determine with precision the period for which each applicant served, and the particular rank he held, as the law ┃
directs the pension to be paid according to the grade of the pensioner and the length of his service. The use of the phrase about three or four months, is too indefinite, and all such qualifying expressions are objectionable. Some persons who apply for pensions merely state that they served two years in the militia, &c. without specifying the tours, the names of the officers, and other particulars respecting their service. This form of a declaration he found on the applicant served; the duration of each term of engagement; the particular place or places where the service was performed; that the applicant served with an embodied corps called into service by competent authority; that he was either in the field or in garrison; and for the time during which the service was performed, he was not employed in any civil pursuit.
[f] The law makes the relinquishment indispensable.
[g] The opinion of the Court is always required.
[h] The Clerk must give his certificate in every case.
[i] The Clerk must affix his seal, and if it has no device or inscription by which it can be distinguished from any other seal, or if he has no public seal of office, the certificate of a Member of Congress, proving the official character and signature of the certifying officer, should accompany the papers.
Mode of authenticating papers.
In every instance where the certificate of the certifying officer who authenticates the papers is not written on the same sheet of paper which comtains the affidavit, or other papers authenticated, the certificate must be attached thereto by a piece of tape or narrow ribbon, the ends of which must pass under the seal of office of the certifying officer, so as to prevent any paper from being improperly attached to the certificate.
Proof of Service.
[j] In a case where the name of the applicant is not found on the records of the Department, he must prove his service by two credible witnesses who are required to set forth in their affidavits the time of the claimants entering the service, and the time and manner of his leaving the same, as well as the regiment, company, and line to which he belonged. The magistrate who may administer the oaths must certify to the credibility of the witnesses, and the official character and signature of the magistrate must be certified by the proper officer, under his seal of office.
[Pointing hand symbol] The notes from [a ] to [i] are all equally applicable to the cases of Militia men, Volunteers and State Troops. The proof required by rule in note [j] applies to continental troops only.
[k] This traditionary evidence is indispensable in militia cases.
[l] If a witness cannot be found, the declarant must state the fact.
[m] The answers to the interrogatories must all be written, and sent to the War Department, with the declaration.
Page 7

[illegible] for a pension - In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand + seal of office this 24th day of April AD 1832   Saml Lockwood Clk

Nathan How
24178
Page 8

State of Connecticut
County of Fairfield
ss Probate District of Hampton

On the 21st day of August AD 1832 before the Court of Probate in and for said District personally appeared Nathan How of South Salem in the County of West Chester of state of New York aged seventy seven years, who being first duly sworn according to law doth on his oath makes the following declaration in order to obtain the benefit of the act of Congress passed June 7th 1832.

That he entered the service of the United States under the following named office & served as herein stated.

In the year 1775 in May as he believes he enlisted for seven months in a Company of Connecticut troops commanded by Capt Sylvanus Brown & Lieut. Whiting in Col. David Westerburys Regiment - enlisted at Stamford in Connecticut as a private & went from that place by the way of Harlaem & Albany to St. Johns in Canada & was in the siege [crossed out text] of that place. Montgomery had the Command - on our way stopped at Ticonderoga & helped build some boats. Declarant was there in the siege of St. John's seventeen days & was then sent off to Fort George sick - was so unwell that the [illegible] reported him to the Commandant (think his name was Yates) as one who would be unable to do more duty before his time would expire and he was discharged at said Fort George October 13th 1775 believes he received no written discharge - if he had  he has lost it. Thence came home about mid winter The same Capt. Brown who had then returned to said Stamford had orders to raise a company to go to the city of New York and do duty there & declarant and enlisted under him added Stamford for two months & served the whole enlistment of three days over, in [illegible]  This was in William's Regiment - cant give the time of enlistment but thinks he was discharged in April a [illegible] Whiting was still Lieutenant -  Gideon Waterbury was ensign - Declarant was then dismissed & in a few days after said Capt. Brown had [illegible] again to raise a company & go to said city of declarant again enlists [illegible] him and so he [illegible] for nine months enlisted as a Sergeant & served out the whole term as such - Whiting was still Lieutenant - Silliman  commanded the Regiment.  Stephen Bishop
Page 9

of said Stamford was a Sergeant in the company enlisted at said Stamford served on Long Island where the enemy [illegible] there in the city of New York & was then with the army at the time of the retreat - immediately after the retreat was taken sick & was ordered home & came home & did not again join the army till about two weeks before they [illegible] changed which was at [illegible] in New York & thinks in December. Thinks his enlistment for this campaign was in April for it was [illegible]  soon after he came home from New York in the Spring.
     In 1777 again enlisted in a company commanded by said Sylvanus Brown's - Whitney was still Lieutenant & he had one [illegible] for his waiter - one March was 2nd Lieut. & Stephen Bishop was Ensign - This enlistment was for nine months as he thinks & began as [illegible] in April & ending about the first of January - This was in Col. John Chandler's Regt. Joseph Haile was major - [illegible]  were Connecticut troops - did duty first at Peekskill in New York - thence went into Jersey & thence into Pennsylvania & down into the neighborhood of Philadelphia -was in the battle of Germantown Oct. 4th of that year - Thence went to Red Bank - detachment went into [illegible] Island, but defense was stationed on the shore - was in the command at Red Bank - went afterward to Valley Forge in Pennsylvania & lay there till he was exchanged - Then came home to said transfer.
       From this time till 1780 was first Ensign & afterwards a Lieutenant in the Connecticut militia in said Stamford Regt [illegible] Regt of Norwalk [illegible]  Was Captain for a while & after that Nathl [illegible] [illegible] of Darien in Connecticut was Captain - during this time the militia was often ( very often) ordered out against the enemy & Declarant as an officer as aforesaid [illegible] go out with[illegible] ordered out. Commr [illegible] [illegible] Length of this term of duty - was [illegible] out [illegible]  the points & [illegible] in said Stamford
    In 1780 [illegible] in the Spring a company of [illegible] men was raised In a [illegible] or coast guard in said Stamford under Capt Isaac Lockwood [illegible] This Declarant was a Lieutenant & Joseph Mather an ensign -[illegible]
Page 10

[collect?] that then was any [set?] time of enlistment but the company continued in service till the end of the war -  Thinks the enlistment must have been in March for it was cold weather - Declarant continued constantly & do duty in said [Iron?] Guards as a lieutenant till the end of the war - said Isaac Lockwood continued [their?] [illegible] to a [illegible] has gone in to the Department & he  [illegible] & that as his name is possibly on that. His duty was done in said Stamford & [transport of it?]  [illegible] is won. Darien declarant had commissions of a division Platoon at Noroton River which is now the dividing line between Stamford & Darien . His service was severe & more severe except that the living was better than Declarants service in the Continental troops. Declarant had commissions as Ensign & Lieutenant in the militia & also one as Lieutenant in the guards,[from?] the Government [of the?] State of Connecticut (Gov. Trumbull as he thinks) but they are all lost as he had heretofore had no [mission?] to preserve them.  
     Declarant was born in said Stamford Apr. 29th 1755 - has no record of his age except that it is recorded on the [illegible] records of said Stamford [liiegible] in said Stamford after  the war until thirty-five years ago when he [illegible] to said South Salem where he has resided ever since. He makes application before the Court of Provost in Stamford District in Connecticut because the witnesses of his service [archive?] then [illegible][accord?] & [not] able to go [illegible] here to give [evidence?] of his service - The Declamant cannot without [illegible] his Declaration [illegible] [made out anywhere else?] He could name many [other officers?]  [illegible] [regiments?] & circumstances of His Service, but it would make his Declaration inhospitably  long & tedious - He thinks he never have received a written discharge - if he did he has lost them. He [illegible] to said Stephen Bishop & to [illegible] Benjamin Weed  & John Clock of Said Darien [illegible] his character for [illegible] & [illegible] & [illegible]
Page 11

And him before said Court in the (?) further from time said Nathan How in addition to his preparing Declaration says that he has heretofore applied for a pension under former laws of Congress - but failed to obtain one in this (?) in said forth (?) & has (?) these evidences in faith to obtain his pension before because (?) bring himself within the provisions of the law - (?) was sent in to Washington (remaining test difficult to read)

Signature of Nathan How
Sworn & subscribed (?)

Ch. Hawley  Judge
Page 12

his service as a Soldier of the Revolution. He has [very?] little [illegible] with any clergyman [even?] in the region of Stamford. & [as?] Salem is [illegible] from the scene of his services, there is but little [illegible] [there?] in relation to his services.

I do hereby [illegible] [with?] every claim [illegible] to a pension or annuity except the [present?] & declares that his name is not on the pension roll of the agency of any [state?] sworn to & subscribed this day & upon aforesaid. 
                                               Nathan How
Chs Hawley Judge

And on the same day before said Court personally appeared Deacon Benjamin Weed of Darien in said District who being first duly sworn according to [law?] doth on his oath in open Court depose & say that he was always well known Capt. Nathan How who has subscribed & sworn to the [pressing?] Declaration - believes his age to be seventy seven years. his character In truth has always been good. In the Revolutionary War in 1777 deponent was in the Service of the United States & did service in Jersey & Pennsylvania. Said How was then a soldier in Col. John Chandlers Regiment in Capt. Sylvan Browns Company deponent belonged to [leut.?] Wells Regiment. Knows said How was with the army in Jersey. Knows by hearsay only he was at Red Bank. Knows he was with the army at Valley Forge for he very often saw him & associates much with him there. He was discharged at said Valley Forge in the winter season & he left the army to come home in company with Saml. (illegible) of said Stamford (illegible). Knows also that said How was lieutenant in the Guards in said Stamford   from the beginning of 1780 till the end of the war for Deponent was a soldier in said guards & in said How's division. Isaac Lockwood now (decd?) was Captain. Joseph Mather was ensign. did duty in guarding the shores & points & (illegible) (illegible) & during the times were in many skirmishes - one near the School house on what is now
Page 13

Darien in which a lost three men - this was in 1781 as he thinks - one also at Noroten Neck where David Silleck was killed - Said How was a lieutenant during all this time - & was a very faithful soldier & officer
                           
              Sworn to [illegible] the day & Town 
        aforesaid.       Ch. Hawley Judge
                                                Benjamin Weed

And on the same day before said Court personally appeared Stephen Bishop of Stamford in said District who being first duly sworn according to law [doth on?] his oath [illegible] that [illegible] were well known Nathan How who [illegible] declaration [illegible] him to the seventy seven[illegible] his character [illegible] good  in 1775 in the Revolutionary War & in [May?] as he thinks. [illegible] said [How both?] enlisted for seven months in a company of Connecticut troops commanded by Capt. [illegible] Brown in Col. David Waterbury's Regiment & went by the way of Albany to St. Johns in Canada & assisted
Page 14

in January of that year I (?) his commission (?) - (?) service time upon (?) rendered in Jersey & Pennsylvania - deponent I said (?) was both in the battle of Germantown - deponent was on said Island seven days - but How was not to his  knowledge on the island - There was a detachment on the Island - Deponent & said How was both at Valley Forge in the winter (?) till and said How was discharged - (?)  - How was discharged about the first of January  Deponent well knows said How (?0 in said company during the whole of campaign up to the time of his discharge - 
Knows by reputation only but believes that said How was a lieutenant in the (?) of Coast Guards in 1780 & 1781 of and only as such (?) (?) years - In 1782 Deponent knows that said How was a lieutenant in said Guard for Deponent was on duty as a Lieutenantw of (?) company of guards in said Stamfordboth (?) & officer of said county  as such(knowing command of a division in last(?) (which is now Darien) in six months of that year. - 

In the campaign of 1777 said How was an orderly (?) in said Capt. Brown's said company - said How was always a true friend to his country  & always an active, thorough excellence (?) & officer

I was to (?) entered (remainder of text unreadable)
Signature of Stephen Bishop

Ch Hawley  Just of pc. 
And within Same day last (text unreadable) appeared John Clock of Darien in said District who first  being sworn according to law & on his oath in open Court sworn & says that he has always well known Nathan How who has subscribed & sworn to the foregoing Declaration - believes him to be seventy seven years old his character for truth is good - In the Revolutionary was & (remainder of text unreadable)  1780 till the end of the war and said How was a lieutenant in the town guards in said Hartford & had (?) division of  the company to which he belonged - & (?) belonged to this division of said county therein till he was (?)
Page 15

(?) by the evening at the meeting house in what is now Darien, on the Sabbath in 1781 in (?) - well known said How was an active excellent officer + served the whole of the time which in service as aforesaid [?] as lieutenant- [illegible] was in a skirmish[?] [illegible] + [illegible] How we [illegible] back when David Sellick was killed-  have Lochwon now [illegible] was Captain of the company than command of a division in the village [illegible]. [illegible] was + are [illegible] of the time [illegible] severed deponents thinks he can say with confidence [?] I was [illegible] served as lieutenant of said [illegible] he more than two years. this he was a [illegible] under him after he this deponent was taken prisoner as  aforesaid John Clock [written diagonally wids. claim]
Sworn to + subscribed the [illegible] [illegible] aforesaid.
Ch Hawley Judge
[illegible] Daniel Smith a clergyman residing in the town [illegible] in Connecticut + Benjamin Weed residing in Damian in said State [illegible] [illegible] has said Daniel Smith that he is partially acquainted with Nathan How who has subscribed + sworn to the above declaration-that we believe him to be seventy five years of age that he is [illegible] + [illegible] in the neighborhood [illegible] [illegible] formerly [illegible] sided.( [illegible] in said Stamford + Damien which was home by a part of said [illegible]) I have [illegible] [illegible] of the [illegible] + [illegible] concurs in that opinion of the said Daniel Smith [illegible] [illegible] that he is but partially acquainted with this How he has long known his character which is very respectable..
Sworn + subscribed the [illegible] + [illegible] aforesaid. 
Daniel smith
Benjamin Weed
Ch. Hawley Judge
Page 16

And the Said Court do truly declare their opinion after the investigation of the matter & after putting the interrogatories presented by the War Department, that the above named applicant was a Revolutionary soldier & served as he states. And the Court further certifies that it appears to them that the Revd. Daniel Smith who has signed the proceeding certificate is a clergyman resident in the Town of Stamford in Connecticut & that Benjamin Weed who has also signed the same is a resident in the Town of Darien in said State & is a credible person & that their statement is entitled & [credib?].

            [Chr.?] [illegible]
I Samuel Lockwood clerk of the Court of Probate in & for the District of Stamford in Connecticut do hereby certify that the forgoing contains the original proceedings of the Said court in the matter of the application [illegible] [than] Here for a pension. In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand & Seal of office this 24th day of August A.D. 1832
          Saml Lockwood Clk

I certify that Benjamin Weed, Stephen Bishop & John [illegible] who have [illegible] & sworn [on?] the foregoing depositions as well known  [illegible] personally & are all credible persons 
     Stamford Probate office July 8th 1833
                  Ch. Hawley [illegible]

[Down the  side] Nathan How 24178
Page 17

P 
15466
Invalid.

No. 15466
Nathan Howe
Sergt Rev War

Act: June 7th, 1832

[illegible] Vol. 1, Page 188

(Arrangement of 1870.)
Page 18

Suspended 
Connecticut
Nathan How

See letter C.Hawley
3 July 1834
Page 19

Nathan How
Connecticut
Rejected

See letter to 
Charles Hawly
Oct. 2, 1834

Lett to S A. Ward
Dec 13th 1834
Page 20

See Let. Oct 2
1834 to Charles Hawley

Connecticut Revo.
Oct 7 June 1832

Nathan How
Suspended

Letter to Charles Hawley
6 Nov. 1833

Letter to same  6 Dec 1833
Same May 14 1834
11 Feb 1834

[Remainder of text unreadable]
over
Page 21

Dr
Cape Any
Page 22

Sir

I have reexamined Lt Howe case, I can find no additional proof. He might have served under some other captain, or in the year 1779.

I send all I can find regarding [illegible] Calvin Mead.

I am very respectfully yours

E Phelps

Fee $2.
Page 23

Immediate attention
Sept 22 1834

Pension Office

Hon Lewis Cass
Secretary of War

Mr. Edwinds will answer. 





DK
Page 24

Hampton  Sept 17. 1834
Hon. Lewis Cass
Sir
Several weeks ago I addressed a communication to you relative to the application of Walter How for a pension. I presume it reached Washington during your absence from that place of may have been misplaced & on that account escaped your attention. May I request of you the favor to look at the matter when your time will permit. 

I am Sir with much esteem
Your friend & obed Servt
Signature - Ch. Hawley
Page 25

Stamford
Nov 27th 1833

J.L. Edwards Esq. 
Sir

I forward some additional evidence upon the application of Nathan How; also an additional declaration heresy that when militia officers entered the grounds, they had no distinct commissioning - they undoubtedly acted under particular orders from [?] of the State to them as commander of the Guards, but others besides Capt. How tell one that when they[?] in the guards. The only commissions they had were those they had  as officers of the militia. 

Capt How has forwarded no evidence, pursuant to the litigation in your communication, of his Service in the militia in 1780 and 1781, because there was no such service - he being at no time on duty in the Guard.

[?] and a certificate from Mr. [?]
Page 26

The records do not indeed show a certain named in Service beyond Jan. '82  but there explicitly sworn to service in the guards for more than two years & I believe his [wrd?] before [sustain?] him in this. Indeed the want of record evidence of service beyond '82 I [conceive?] cannot be fatal to his claim for service beyond that period considering the manifest looseness with which the proceedings of these times were recorded. [illegible] perceives that there is no evidence of the persons to whom Col. Davenport (then a member of the Council of Safety & of this town) issued the commissions with which he was entrusted & also that there are [more?] [recent?] entries of the appointment of officers without naming them. The Gov. undoubtedly gave from time to time such [illegible] as the  emergencies of the times required, tho' the Legislature had given no particular directions in the particular case.  
       The payment to How as Ensign in 1780 to which you allude was clearly for Services rendered previously to the year - for at the same date he has an allowanc as Lieut. - The payment had probably been made long before, but was then carried to the acct. of the U.S.
       Capt. Lockwood has a large allowance in 1782. The records make one material fact very clear - In 1780 & 1781 & thru the whole of both those years (except the very beginning of 1780) these were kept up in Stamford by order of the government guards in constant actual actual service. That How was a Lieut. of [those?] guard is proved [if] the fact he [susceptible?]  [is?] proof by [illegible] testimony. If [illegible] more testimony to [that?] effect he wants, it can probably be furnished. Capt H. has sent one additional deposition only supposing that with  what he
Page 27

has previously (?) will be satisfactory - 

I forward a certificate of our clergyman to show the(?) of How & his witnesses - not only that they are respectable, but are among our most reputable citizens.  I well know them & (?) certinly in the opinion of Mr. Smith

Almost all new applicants from this quarter & more of their witnesses are of of irreproachable characters while the British held possession of W. York, they had possession also of Long Island & of the country between N.Y city & this state - Greenwich & Stamford were for several years as our old people term it "on the lines" - they were outposts - of the perpetual & most harrassing (?) & (?) to think they were at all times exposed from British & tories (who warmed here) from Tory (?) & the main land rendered it necessary for every man to be a soldier & (?) portion of the time under arms. Indeed almost every Whig spent moreover less time in some enlisted corps.  Giards were necessary almost all the time & were composed of those who were then (?) (?) have been our best men.  Most of the few who (?) were subsequently (?) , have already (?) away & the few who remain are among the most respectable of our (?)

I am Sir  very respectfully 
Your Obdt Serv
Chs. Hawley
Page 28

Stamford  Oct 22 1833
J L Edwards Esq\

Sir
The application of Nathan How is again forwarded with an additional deposition and additional declaration & a certificate from the Comptroller (?) in appointments as Ensign & Lieutenant. 

It will be observed (?) he was a lieutenant of the Coast Guards under Isaac Lockwood. The certificate shows an appointment in Nov. 1780 - he swears he was a lieutenant in the (?) - No fact was undoubtedly as he states - in the (?) in (?) ( suppose elsewhere to list or appoint new officers at anytime as occasion may require & to grant the commission at the nest session of the Genl assembly - the assembly (?) approving the appointment previously made & ordering a commission  giving (?) from the date of the new appointment - This I know to be the case invariably at the present time & it was undoubtedly so then. 

The certificate shows an allowance of his pay roll in Dec. 1780 at Middlesex - Middlesex was  formerly also city of Stamford, since 1821incorporated  into the Town of Darien.  It will be observed, declarant worn that he commanded a Division in that pace in 1780 - 

The certificate also shows an allowance of pay to Capt Isaac Lockwood (How's captain) January 1782 in coast guards of y 1686.15.9
This undoubtedly covered the Services (as part of services) sworn to by the applicant -  I will thank you also of further testimony
Page 29

[In regard?] to examine the pay roll of Capt Isaac Lockwood which accompany the application of Isaac Lockwood Esq to where a pension has sometime since been granted. 

I am respectfully 
Your obt Servt
Chs Hawley

I take the liberty of adding that pensions have already been granted to John Clock & [illegible] for services rendered as I believe under How. 
                  C.H.
Also [as?] observing further in [illegible] to the suggestion of the Department that there was "no service under management in  the militia or Governt. for more than7 months" that it will be seen by [reference?] to the certificate of the comptroller attached to the application of [Release?] June 1 in [?] of the Department, that a Regt. was raised in '76 for one year. Whether that was done has been greatly   [illegible] [illegible] indeed appear.
Page 30

State of Connecticut
County of Enfield ss. 

Probate District of Stamford

On this 8th day of July before the Court of Probate in (?) District personally appeared Nathan Howe of South Salem in the State of New York who being duly sworn according to law & on his oath in open Court & (?) in addition to his original Declaration dated August 21 1832.  That he served as a private in 1775 - Next at this he cannot give the Day of his enlistment with confidence yet it was the early part of May & knows that more than five months from his enlistment had (?) the time of his discharge in October - but he fixes the time at five months. His second enlistment was in a corps of troops raised by the (?) of Connecticut     it is impossible for him to give the Day - but knows he served two months & three days.  Col. (?) name was (?) . Declarant then enlisted under Brown was as he knows for nine months of that he served out the whole term as noted  in his original Declaration. 

(?) troops were rallied in Connecticut & were State troops. The enlistment was at Stamford in Connecticut & in April but the day is forgotten. It must have been the first or about the first of April.  & the discharge was the last of Dec.  Declarant after being ordered home on account of his sickness was constantly sick until he rejoined the Corps as noted in his original Declaration. 

Declarants fourth enlistment he knows was for nine months. Commencing the first or early half of Apl. 1777 & ending about the 1st. of the January following. This Corps was raised in Connecticut but belonged to the Continental service.  In this enlistment he was an orderly sergeant & as such served the whole term. 

The Declarant can give no particulars of the numbers or length of his terms of duty in the militia while he was Ensign; (?) than he has  done & therefore claims nothing on account of them.

His services as Lieutenant of the town guard commenced as (?) believes in March & is confident in that (?) & continued steadily thence forward until the end of the war & as he well knows for more than two years; but as  he cannot now say for how much more (tho it was for several months) he fixes the services at two years.  Capt. Isaac Lockwood now decd was Captain all this time. These services commenced in March 1780.  John Mead  (then a Col. or a General) commanded the forces along the shore at that time & was away (?) Declarant recollects receiving orders from him. These services were rendered in ((?) that part of it which is now Darien  - 

The corps in which (?) and Snow were in every instantly constituted and embodies corps of (?)  or the (Note?) of Connecticut or of the General Government of the Services and them as set forth by the Declarant in his original declaration or (?) were constant services, in the field, or garrison. such as certinly took him away from his home and from every civil (?) such that during their (?) he followed civil pursuit; except that during his services in the town guards by his home was nearby the (?) of his services, he could continually catch an opportunity & pay some little attention to his affairs' but still he was constantly devoted to the service & could not follow & did not follow  every (?)
Page 31

out of the service & during the whole time he drew rations & pay or (?) as a continental (/).  His service was more secure & (?) than the continental services; be the (?) & was constantly annoying us. - 

The declarant says that by [illegible][illegible] [illegible] of the consequent loss of memory he cannot swear positively as to the precise length of all [double underlined] his service, but according to the best of his recollection he served [illegible] less than the friends mentioned below & in the following grades-for five months 
 (attached) I served as a private| in winterbury's regt. a [illegible])- for two months & three days I served as a private (in New York in Brown's Company as before noted)- for nine months I served as a sergeant (in 1776 in Williams Regiment as before stated) - for nine months I served as an orderly sergeant (in Col. 
 Chandler Rgt. in 1777 as before stated) and to all this terms of service I swear positively - In two years (at least) I served as a Lieutenant (his only Lieutenant) in New Town Guards in 1780.1781 & 1782 as before stated) as I know I  served longer as such lieutenant in [illegible] guards, but [illegible] services at two years & to that term I swear positively - and for such service I claim a pension.
[signature] Nathan How
Sworn to and subscribed the day & year aforesaid.
Ch. Hawley Judge

I Samuel Lockwood Clerk of the Court of Orleans for the District of Stanford in Connecticut do hereby do certify that the foregoing contains the original proceedings of this [illegible] Court in the written of the application of Nathan How for a pension. In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand & seal of office this $d day of July ad 1833
Saul Lockwood Clk
[seal]
Page 32

State of Connecticut
County of Fairfield  Ss. 
Probate District of Stamford. 

On this 10 day of October AD 1833 before the Court of Probate in & for said District personally appeared Nathan How of South Salem in the State of New York who being duly sworn doth on his oath in open Court declares in addition to what he has already declared; that he still believes that his enlistment of service under Sylvanus Brown in 1776 was for nine months but (?) appears to be (?) whether it was for more than seven, he claims for only seven months (?) service on that town.  viz for seven months service as a Sergeant. My other services were I know positively for the term I have stated in my original & additional declaration & I declare positively that I served, that is, constantly & uninterrupted as a lieutenant with town guards for more than two years as stated in said Declarations & that during all of said time i was constantly devoted to the Public service & unable to follow & did not follow any civil pursuit; now I cannot be more specific in relation to the particular term or terms of enlistment than I have been.

I will know & I have proved that I was constantly on duty as a Lieutenant & (?) pay as such. 

Signature of Nathan How
Sworn to (name unreadable) this day
& (?) 
Ch. Hawley  Judge

And on the same day before said Court personally appeared Joseph Mather of Darien in said County  who being duly sworn * doth on his oath (?) and say that his age is eighty years - that he well knows Nathan How who has subscribed & sworn to the foregoing declaration - (?) said Howe and this deponent were fellow soldiers in the expedition against St John in 1775 in Capt Sylvanus Brown's Company (?) well known that from the early part of 1780 to the end of the war said Howe was a lieutenant of Town Guards in said Stamford & had command of a division of the company to which he belonged & was in actual constant service as deponent believes all the  time - The deponent was not with him for he belonged to a different division of which he had command in actual service for six months in 1781 - but he well  knows  How was in service(?) for (?) a time he cannot swear positively but always
Page 33

(?) it knew the time above mentioned to the end of the war in the Guard Service was (?)  service such as (?) with (?) other business & for the same sort of service Thaddeus Bell & others have long since obtained pensions.

Sworn to & subscribed the 
day (?) your aforesaid he (?) and I certify that I well know said Joseph Mather & that he is a credible person

 Chs Hawley Judge

[Bottom of page:]

I Samuel Lockwood clerk of the Court of Probate for the District of Stamford in Connecticut do hereby certify that the foregoing contains the original proceedings of the said Court [illegible] the matter of the application of Nathan How for a pension .
    In testimony whereof I have hereunto [set?] my hand & Seal of office this 23rd day of October AD 1833
              Saml Lockwood Clerk
Page 34

State of Connecticut. County of Fairfield
Probate District of Stamford.

On this 22nd day of Apl. AD 1834 before the Court of Probate for the District aforesaid now sitting personally appeared Isaac Bell of Stamford in said District aged sixty nine years who being duly sworn doth on his oath in open Court depose & say, that in the Revolutionary War he was a boy - that he then resided in said Stamford that he well knows from his own daily association at that time 1780 & 1781 that there was a body of town [or?] coast guards kept up in the public service in said Stamford through those years. Said guards were stationed within half a mile of th deponents house. They were commanded by Lieut. Nathan How there of said Stamford now of South Salem in New York. I will recollect that said guards were in constant steady service in guarding the [illegible] coasts, which were exposed to constant [illegible] from the enemy. I will recollect the [illegible] at the schoolhouse in Darien in which our people lost three men. Said guards were in service in that skirmish. I used to see said guards on duty from day to day during said two years. I understand & have always understood this [corps?] was a Lieutenants Division of a larger company who the Captain of the Company was I do not know as I did not use to see his division on duty but I perfectly well recollect all the facts stated above. The place where said How's guards were stationed was then in said Stamford but now in Darien since its incorporation into a district of town. I know also that Abm Bell of said Stamford, Hezekiah of said Darien, James Weed of the city of New York & the late Charles Weed now (decd.) of [illegible] in New York were all in service in said guards, for they then all lived in my neighborhood & I have always well known
Page 35

them from my boyhood & I [went?] daily to see them in said service. They were all very near neighbors of my father at that time . Those guards must  have been in the [illegible] service for I always understood that they drew pay & rations as [other?] soldiers. Iknew that my brother said Abm Bell drew provisions for I have seen him with the provisions drawn by him. 
                                 Iaac Bell
Sworn & subscribed the day & year aforesaid 
                           Ch Hawley Judge

And on the same day before Said Court personally appeared Moses Waterbury of Darien aforesaid aged Sixty four years who being duly sworn doth on his oath testify that he has always from his infancy [lives?] where he now does in Said Darien [or?] next door neighbors to Hezekiah Weed & close by the School house in Said Darien where there was a skirmish between our people & the army in the Revolutionary War. in which we lost three men, including a brother of this deponent. In the years 1708 & 1781 this deponent (then a boy) well  knows that there was a body of coast guards kept in constant service [illegible] Command of Lieut. Nathan How then of Stamford now of South Salem in New York. I think his guard consisted of about twenty - it was only a Lieutenants division belonging to a full Company commanded by Capt Lockwood. Hows said division [was stationed] close by my fathers house & used to sleep in the barns there - They were in steady continued service - I know [that?] How commanded them for I used to him & the privates from day to day & I cannot be mistaken as to the [post?] of the [service?] of said guards as stated above. I can recollect as plain as if it was only yesterday [illegible] Abm Bell of Stamford, Hezekiah Weed aforesd.& James
Page 36

Weed of the City of New York & his [second] brother Charles Weed were all members of said guards for they were all near neighbors of mine then, their parents living in the immediate neighborhood & I used to see them daily on duty. Said Hezekiah lost a brother in the skirmmish above mentioned. I can recollect seeing provisions ([c.c.?] rations) contributed [illegible] said guards & [were?] understood that they were raised by the State of Connecticut & [illegible] drew pay & rations - [my?] impression is that this was in the years 1780&1781 but I cannot [illegible] with absolute certainty that those were the two years referred to. I have no doubt they were [illegible] was necessary at this time to have a military force on duty in this quarter constantly. All the facts stated above are perfectly [there] in my recollection. The service was of a kind to require the constant attendance of the guards & such that they followed no civil pursuit.  
Sworn to & subscribed the day & year aforesaid 
                                               Moses Waterbury
                              Chs Hawley Judge
And on the same day before said Court personally appeared John Week Jr. [Esq.?] of Darien aforesaid aged sixty eight years who being duly sworn according to law doth on his oath in open Court testify & say that he was born & brought up & has always lived where he now lives in said Darien within thirty rods of Hezekieh Weed above mentioned. In the Revolutionary War I cannot state precisely the year but believe in the years 1780 & 1781. There was a small [body?] - likely about twenty of coast guards maintained in said Darien (then Stamford) under command of Lieut. Nathan How now of South Salem in New York -  Said How then lived in said Darien (then Stamford) & within a mile of my father,
Page 37

The station of said guards was very near my fathers Lands. They composed only a Lieutenants Division. I [illegible] understanding that Capt Isaac Lockwood commanded the Co. to which they belonged tho' How had the command of that division constantly. I think [when?] I understood that Jesse Bell had commanded the Co. before Lockwood took the command. I will recollect that Abm Bell of Stamford James Weed of the city of New York, his [secd.?] brother Charles Weed & Hezekiah Weed aforesaid were all members of said guards for they were all near neighbors of mine & I need to see them from day to day on duty. They were then called State troops & they need to say that they received regular pay & I always supposed they drew regular pay & rations. Indeed I recollect that I used to see them dividing provisions among them. I have no doubt they were [raised by?] & in the pay of the State. There was reported to be a very good officer?]. I have always known him & he is a gentleman of high respectability. All the others named are men of of truth & of entire respectability. According to my recollection these  guards were in constant & continued service during two years or more. The country in this quarter was so incessantly molested  by the enemy that guards were necessary all the while for several years. 
                                  John Weed [Jr.?]
Sworn [to & subscribed?] the day & year [aforesaid?] 
                                Ch Hawley Judge
Page 38

and on the same day before said Court personally appeared Aaron Weed of Darien aforesaid who being Duly sworn according?to law doth on his oath in open court testify that he is brother of Charles Weed & James Weed above mentioned & has always well known Hezekiah Weed & Abm Bell above named having always been a near neighbor of them. He has also always well known Nathan How formerly of said Darien (then Stamford) now of South Salem in New York. In the Revolutionary War I [was?] I believe in 1780 & 1781 tho I cannot [suposition?] as to the years, I will recollect said How commanded a small body or town [illegible} Coast guard in said Darien (then Stamford) for two years or more. Said Abm, Charles, James & Hezekiah all belonged to said guards as I will know for I went to see them on duty daily, as I lived close by their Station. [illegible] was a lieutenant Division & How was a lieutenant. James did not serve during the whole time that Charles did. I don't know who the Capt. or the co. was.  How had the whole charge of this Division. I know that I heard they drew provisions & I always [supposed] they regularly drew pay & provisions like other soldiers - & that they were raised & supported by the State. I think the time was one or two  years, but cannot be positive as to the length of time. Deponent is sixty three.  
                                        Aaron Weed
Sworn to & subscribed the day & years aforesaid.
                                Ch Hawley
And in the same day before said Court personally appeared Deacon Benj. Weed, of Darien aforesaid who being duly sworn doth on his oath in open Court depose & say that he is seventy five years old  that in the Revolutionary War this deponent was in the Continental service & draws a pension for his services.
Page 39

2. January 1780 [illegible] the Continental Service & immediately preceded [illegible]  my home which was then as now in said Darien (then Stamford) - when I got home I found Lieut. Nathan How then of [sd.?] Darien (then Stamford) now of South Salem in New York in command of a small body (a lieutenants division) of town or coast guards stationed & on duty in said Darien. Said guards with said How as their commanding officer continued constantly in said service at said [place?] for two years viz the years 1780 & 1781. I lived where I now do within half a mile of the station of the guards [illegible] to see them almost daily & know the fact of their service as well as any other fact in my recollection - I have always well known said How. I have also always well known Abm Bell of Stamford & Hezekiah Weed of said Darien & James Week of the city of New York & his [illegible] brother Chs Weed & I well know that they all  belonged to said guards & continued this the time stated above except that I believe James did not serve as long as Charles did. This was constant soldier service. I always understood & believe that they were raised & kept in service by the State & regularly drew pay & rations. I cannot say with certainty who was the Capt. or the Co. & which this division belonged, as the Capt. never was with this division belonged, as I recollect. As to the years I cannot be certain whether they were 1780 & 1781 or 1781 & 1782 but I feel strong in the opinion that it was '80 & '81 for as I stated before I found the guards in service when I returned from the Continental Service.
                             Benjamin Weed
Sworn to & subscribed the day & year aforesaid 
Chs Hawley Judge
Page 40

and in the same day testified and affirmed Thaddeus Bell Esq. of Darien aforesaid who being duly sworn according to law doth on his oath in open court testify that he well knows Nathan How formerly of said Darien (then Stamford) now of South Salem in New York - In the Revoutionary War deponent well recollects that said How for two years or more commanded a lieutenants division of town or coast guards station in said Darien (then Stamford). I cannot tell with any certainty who was Capt of the Co. for which the division belonged for the Capt was not with this division - nor can I say with certainty in which two years it was, but it seems to me to have been in 1781 & 1782 the said How [assures?] me it was in 1780 & 1781 - but I well know the fact of the service of these guards for two years under his command. I did not belong to them myself but Hezekiah Weed of said Darien, Abm Bell of Stamford, Chs. Weed lately [illegible] of [Wathill?] in New York & James Weed of the City of New York all old neighbors & acquaintances of mine belonged to said guards [steadily?] [did duty therein?]. I then lived in said Darien (then Stamford) nearby the station of the guards & used to see them on duty often from time to time. The guards were constantly in service & it was [hard?] service as the enemy was [very?] harassing [illegible] [frequent?] in [illegible]. I always  understood them to have been raised & maintained by this State & such was always the [illegible] - There can be no doubt but such was the case. Said How was formerly a near neighbour of mine & I have always known him well & he certainly served as he is
Page 41

(Lieu)tenant of said  guards for two years at least in the public services of the State-- I am seventy five years old- I was in the service during said war for which I draw a pension  Thaddeus Bell  Sworn to & subscribed the day and year aforesaid } Ch Hawley Judge
And on the 23rd day of said Apl before said Court personally  appeared John Clark of Darien aforesaid who being duly sworn testifies in open Court, that in the year 1780 & 1781 I lived in said Darien (then Stamford) as I have ever done since. And I well recollect & know that during these two years ? How  in the forgoing depositions mentioned as a Lieutenant had commanded a small  body of town or coast guards which were state troops. I lived within half a mile of their station. I was in service in the said Guards under said How & know that the members of his guard drew pay  & rations regularly and did  myself. This was a lieutenants division & Isaac Lockwood as I understood was Capt. tho his Division was station in a different place. This service of these guard was hard, harassing & constant service, such that the soldiers could follow as civil ? I can well recollect that Hezekiah Weed & Abm Bell who are & ever have been neighbours of mine were members of said guards during said years, tho my recollection is not so distinct as to other members of the guard-said How, viz Nathan How now of South Salem in New York I will know commanded said Guards for said years & was a any active faithful officer- I recollect the forgoing facts perfectly well & know that they are true & that there can  be no mistake as to the service of said How & said guards. The service was rendered in said Darien (then Stamford) Deponent is seventy six years old John Clock  Sworn to & subscribed the day and year aforesaid Ch. Hawley Judge
Page 42

I certify that the maker of the following deposition viz Isaac Bell, Moses Waterbury, John Weed Jr Esq., {illegible] Weed, Benjamin Weed, Thaddeus Bell Esq and John Clark are all well known to me and are all credible persons
[illegible] Hawl[?] Judge
Page 43

I Samuel Lockwood Clerk of the Court of Probate for [illegible] Continental do hereby certify that the foregoing contains original proceedings of the said Court in the matter of the application Nathaniel Howe, Graham Bell, Hezekial Weed, James Weed, Charles Weed [illegible] [illegible] In testimony whereas I have hereunto set my hand and seal of [illegible] 23rd day of April 1834
Samuel Lockwood Clerk
Page 44

(Hampton?)  July 14, 1834

Lewis Cass

Sir

Will yo permit me address you on the (?)  of an application for a pension.  That of Nathan How - (?) whose indeed, those of from others, Abm Bell, Hezh Weed, Chs Weed & Jas Weed (?).  Nr Hows has been repeatedly examined at the Pension Department of the (?) to his claim.  From the Communication of Mr. Edwards to me his (?) appears to me to rest upon the character of the evidence produced - & his appeal to you is (?) the sufficiency of secondary evidence, where that of a higher character cannot be obtained.  From the whole tenor of your () communication to Mr. (?) of the  Senate & your friends in(?) to applicants I (?)  to suppose that if documentary evidence cannot be obtained - & it clearly appears that it has (?) but cannot be found - (?) of an  inferior character as testified the (?) of the truth of the applicants declaration would conserve the purpose - 

Mr. How claims for two years service as a Lieut. of Coast Guards in this place in the years '80 & '81 in a Co. commanded by Capt. Isaac Lockwood  one division being under the immediate charge of Lockwood on one (?) of the town - the other issued the immediate change of the application in a different part of the town. He has no record evidence to the office, nor any record evidence of his desires as Leiut. except an entry in the pay table in Dec. 1780 of pay for services as Lieut (?) (the ? of the town where he was stationed) the records (?) his commission as a Lieut.  in the militia in  Nov 1780 - but no evidence of his (holding?) an office in the guards.  I am also informed by Mr Edwards that Co. roll of Capt Lockwood now and his (?) for the year '81 does not contain How's name. In this (?0 the claim has been rejected. 

I shall (?) detail the evidence forwarded; but (?) have to give in general outline. How there by (?) ( see Mr. Phelp's certificates ) that our Legislature ordered (?) at Stamford for those two years & (?) the Gov. to (?) orders for the appointment of officers - the Controllers certificates (?) that it was the practice in those days to entrust distinguished individuals with blank commission to be (?) upon such individuals as they might (?), of that record. Do not in all cases here (?) when such commissions were conferred.
Page 45

Wm. Davenport Hon. a member of our Council of Safety and a resident in this place was March 2, 1780 authorized to nominate the officers to command the guards at Hartford & to direct about the raising them and he was enlisted with the blank commission & [unreadable] that no rolls of these guards are on record or any evidence how long they served.   also that on record there and there are accounts of the appointment of officers without naming them  and that as appointments were made & afterwards commissions sent to the appointees [unreadable] and that there is no evidence showing how the blank commission intended to Col. Davenport were filled  - 
Mr How after providing this evidence, adduces a very great mass of deposition from our most respectable men including not only those who served under him but other shewing as clearly as [unreadable] testimony can and have that he did serve as a lieutenant to those guards, [unreadable] the two years stated - proving his standing in period of instability [unreadable] high-- and indeed as it relate establishing every fact unless any, if such facts can ever be established by evidence of the same kind and then forwarded.     
He has [unreadable] application from Comptroller but can after the most diligent search obtain no evidence [unreadable] him than he has -   I can suggest as reason for the inability to find any more except the looseness & irregularity with which business was done in the those days – a looseness of irregularity evidenced by the certificates of the Comptroller.  Mr. Edwards in one of his Communications to me observes that “it appears Mr. How was in Nov. 1780 appointed a Lieut. In the Militia, but that he gives no evidence ever having held a commission in the guards &c"  and that the certificate of Mr. Phelps relative to the service of Ensign How in 1780 & Lieut the same year corroborates the presumption that his service in Guard was as a militia officer for very temporary periods"   
In regard to the period that he was commissioned as Lieut of Militia till Nov. 1780 I would refer to Mr. Philips Certificate of May 21. 1834 showing that an appointment to and office in the State Regt.  did not vacate an office in the Militia & that whenever officer of militia [unreadable] a higher office in the State troops he was promoted to the same rank in the militia whenever a suitable vacancy occurred.  May not this have been the case & How being an Ensign for the records show him to have been of militia in the winter of 1780 was then selected by Col. Davenport for a higher office (Lieut.) in the guards, perhaps a commission given, men entered in record (as was the case often)
Page 46

and service book - by the appointment to this office the Ensign in the militia was not vacated. but in Nov. 1780 there then being a vacancy, How was promoted to the same grade office in the militia as he [unreadable] was in the guards – [unreadable] he says in his supplemental declaration that he has no recollection of having had any other commission than that he was in the militia - he may possibly be mistaken in fact this forgetfulness as having took a commission in the guards - but suppose he is not – Davenport may have elected him as a lieutenant of the guards & the man recd. a commission [unreadable] Nov. 1780 – the great question as it seems to me is did he actually serve as a lieut. as he claims? Upon this point I presume his troops will be found accordingly strong.      
In regard to entries of payment Dec 25, 1780 for services as Ensign in Greenwich - & as Lieut in Middlesex (the place where his services were rendered) I believe [unreadable]  will be found to authorize no [unreadable] against his claim.   There is no instance that his services in Greenwich were rendered in 1780 - The pay for them was then indeed certain - but a comparison with the dates of such entries with the proof of the devices, will then in almost all instances of application from this quarter, that a long time presently [unreadable]  from the services rendered to the date of the entry within books of the paytable. No entry or payment to him as Leiut. Is whats seen cant hardly be for services rendered in that capacity after he recd. his commission in the militia - he recd. in Nov. 1780 & the entry of payment is dated Dec 25 1780 - a [unreadable]  that time - probably not more than a month had then elapsed - and the payment to him as Lieut. was probably for service rendered as a Lieut. before Novr. 1780.      
In regard to the fact that his name does not appear on Lockwoods roll I can suggest no other explanation than that s they commanded Distinct Divisions on Different Stations, Lockwood kept a roll of his own Division only -  I have been told (I heard said it) that it contains the names or some 20 or 25 only - & so it was of [unreadable]  a roll of his own Division only - at all events it is written compartment I believe attached to the application of his son Isaac Lockwood - I do not understand whether it gives the name of the Lieut. at all - if so, the absence of How's name will of course furnish no presumption against him.
Page 47

It is suggested that there are some circumstances between the original and supplemental declarations - this is very possible; if so you will be satisfied after [unreadable]
 of the depositions that they are not willful -  Hows high character forbids that evidence not [unreadable] referred to the uncertainty [unreadable] incidental to the recollections of any old men, of transactions of fifty years ago, the leading & more important parts of which will be well [unreadable] the memory will be often and almost always at fault in regard to less unimportant particulars. How's services is to be borne [unreadable] were very [unreadable]
 & extended thru the whole war - is 75 he served 5 months - I think at St John & Montreal - in 76 he served again - I believe in & about N. York - in 77 he again served as a guard in Pennsylvania & in Jan afterwards in Connecticut in the militia & the guards. All that services he details & if in his recollections of all these services he has occasionally made a mistake in to some particulars. not so well calculated as others to impress themselves in the memory, it cannot be [unreadable]  - It would be indeed wonderful if no slight mistake had been made -     
In regard to the main question "Did he actually serve as he claims" I presume the testimony forwarded will be considered satisfactory, if evidence or a higher order or kind came in any be dispensed with.    
It is with no little reluctance I have been led to address you. Indeed I have already [unreadable] Mr. Edwards much more than I wished to do - but Mr. How so [unreadable]
 by persists to the correctness of his claims - his standing for respectability is such & so many of many of respectable people unite in sustaining his claim & I may add his interpretation of his services is to clear and extensive that I cannot entertain a Doubt of the truth of his Statements. He feels unwilling to abandon his application & as he can obtain obtain no further testimony other that already furnished, he has [unreadable]
suggestions I [unreadable] requested me to  we [unreadable] address you in that he has under your instructions and the [unreadable] to the Department, since made right be adopted not indeed a (unreadable) benefit) but are authorizing an allowance [unreadable]
 testimony, where the documentary evidence is insufficient -where evidence of that kind called the [unreadable] cannot be had; the applicant showing that he has forwarded the best in his [unreadable] . I am Sir with great esteem Your (?) servant Chs. Hawley
Page 48

Isaac Bell affidavit in relation to the claiming of Nathan How and Abram Bell.
Page 49

Stamford  Apl. 23rd 1834

J L Edwards Esq

Sir
I have under another application to our (?) for evidence of his character of the services of Nathan How, Abm Bell, Hez Wee, Chs Weed & James Weed, (?) as you will see by the enclosed unsuccessfully.  As this evidence cannot be obtained all that is left is to obtain the best secondary evidence. (?) I have forwarded in the Depositions several(?) all of whom are certainly respectable & all good (?) (farmers?) except A Weed who is a mechanic - (?) Bell & John Weed two of the deponents have for many years been magistrates  in this County & are of high standing - (?) others (?) of credibility  How as high as them. 

I cannot but (?) this evidence  with that which you already have will satisfy you (as more of these deponents except one (?) in question of none are claimants for pensions) (?) or doubt that the services noted by the applicants were recorded & were organized by the (?) especially if you take in connection with this testimony the record evidence (?) that guards were ordered for Stamford by one legislature during those two years. 

Secondary evidence I understand is received  where the (?) evidence cannot be obtained and if so. I know of no secondary evidence which can be of a more convincing nature that forwarded. 

(?) applicants pursuit in their application (unreadable text) 

I have taken this (?) to be (?) in all
Page 50

The cases above mentioned to leave to the  applicants the expense of taking is at length in each case; supposing that it would as well apply in your office to all the applications as to me only 

The evidence heretofore added & this will I have no doubt fully satisfy you that there is no attempt by the applicants to impose upon your department, by groundless claims

I am Sir very respectfull 
Your obt Serv. 
Ch. Hawley


[subsequent text written  down the side of the page to follow]

Isaac Bell affidavit [illegible]
Govt
in relation to the claims
of Nathan How and 
Abram Bell
Page 51

[written vertically left margin] CT  June 12
[partial stamp] STAMFORD [illegible]
J.L. Edwards Esq.
Commissioner of Pensions
Washington

[written upside down to follow]

Nath How [illegible]
Ch Hawley
Comm
Page 52

Stamford June 9th 1834

J.L. Edwards Esq.

Sir
You fwd to me in relation to the application of Nathan How of May 14th was duly recd.  You did not inform me in that whether you had recd. his testimony but forwarded corelating of many depositions proving the fact of How's service as a Lieut in the years for which he claims. If that had not then been recd.  & has since come to hand permit me to call your attention to it as furnishing what I conceive will be ... end secondary evidence of the most satisfactory kind.  I cannot but think that had not at the ...date of yours, come under consideration. 

I enclose another certificate from Mr. ... Phelps, unfortunately in relation to Mr. H but showing the practice which prevailed in this note. (?) and I believe will prove service, to Mr. H.

I beg you will not consider me impertinent in my perseverance in regard to this claim & the [illegible] of a similar character. I am so thoroughly convinced of the justice of the claims both from the testimony by which they are supported & from my personal acquaintance with the character of the applicant, that I cannot abandon them while there is left a possibility of obtaining them.

I am very respectfully 
Your friend & Servt. 
Ch Hawley
Page 53

I certify that I am, & for the last forty years have been a clergyman in Stamford. I stated in my certificate appended to the application for a pension, by Capt N. Howe, that my personal acquaintance with him was but partial; but had long know his character to be very respectable.  I have been intimately acquainted with those, who were his neighbours while he lived in this Town who have of uniformly repeatedly spoke of him in terms of esteem & affection.   I have evidence that he is, in the same manner esteemed & respected in the neighbourhood where he now residing and far as I know & believe, he has always sustained a character of high moral worth & unquestionable integrity.     
I am personally & well acquainted with Joseph Mather Benjm Wood, Hezekiah Wood & John Clock who testified to the revolutionary services of Capt. How.   They are entitled to rank among at the most respectable farmers in this region. Mr. Mather is a Deacon in the Chh at Davein and Mr. B. Wood is also a Deacon in the Chh in this town, and they all sustain an elevated standing in this community.
Stamford Nov. 27th 1833
Daniel Smith
Page 54

State of Connecticut
Probate District of Stamford
Fairfield County
On this 15th day of November 1833 before the Court of Probate in & for said District personally appeared Nathan How of South Salem in the state of New York who being duly sworn & then under his oath make the following Declaration
Supplemental to his Declaration for a pension ... on file in this here said Department & he says that of in his original Declaration he has alleged that he had a Commission as Lieutenant of the town Guards besides (that is District from) his commission as Lieutenant in the militia he said that which he had in & it was probably in Consequence of the mistaken...of the Judge of Probate who wrote his Declaration he had according to his personal recollection but one Commission as Lieutenant & that was in the militia. But when officers of the militia were placed in command in the Guards as according to the recollection of the aforesaid was very frequently and generally case, they received separate uniforms in the Guards but acted as officers in the Guards and their Commission in the militia being appointed to command in the guards by orders from the governor of Connecticut. & when their services in the Guards terminated they returned to their official rank & antics in the militia. The facts where these. Early in 1780 orders came to Capt Isaac Lockwood from the Governor as I understood from Capt Lockwood for him I was as his Lieutenant to raise a company of sixty to act as guards. This number was raised. The Capt had charge of the division of twenty men stationed in the village of Hamilton. Myself of a division of twenty  men station on the Noroton River about a mile & a half Eastward of said village. & the Ensign of the division stationed in what is now Danvers[?]. This place was kept to the end of the war as stated by me in my original & additional Declarations...that I showed him one man killed one of his division. I think one of mine & the Ensign twice one of his. We knew during the whole time stated in my former
Page 55

declarations regular pay & rations [also?] the time & I again solemnly aver that my services  from March 1780 to the end of the war were, not short & occasional services in the militia had constant uninterrupted actual services in the coast guards such that I cannot & did not follow any civil pursuit. [Of?] Lockwoods rolls [over?] the years above spoken of I cannot [illegible] why my name does not appear on them for I know I served under him as a lieutenant as I have already repeatedly stated. Possibly his rolls are of other years - & possibly of his division only. I cannot recollect distinctly whether my division was paid by myself or by Lockwood for it was long ago & my memory is uncertain on the subject. [illegible] I well recollect that for my services I received a pay table order ([either?] in whole or in part) which I kept for some time & finally sold it at 2/6 on the pound. 
     In Connecticut officers are always appointed to office in the militia requiring commissions. The commissions are not granted until the next session of the Legislature; but they act as officers from the time of the appointment. It is so long ago that I cannot recollect the time when I was appointed nor the particular circumstances attending the appointment; but I well know that from March 1780 forwards to the end of the war I acted & served as a lieutenant as already stated. 
                 Nathan How
Sworn to & subscribed the 
Day & years aforesaid 
                   Chs. Hawley, Judge

And on the [Thursday?] of said November before said court personally appeared Thaddeus Bell Esq, of Dorien in said District aged seventy four years who being duly sworn doth on his oath in open Court testify
Page 56

that he well knows Nathan How who has hereby entered and sworn to the foregoing declaration - I believe his age is seventy nine years. In the Revolutionary War this informant well knew said How & well knew him to be in Command of a Division of the torie Guards stationed at Noroton River in Hampton in Connecticut. In the december of 1780 informant was taken Prisoner by the British & kept by them for five months. Said How was in Command of said Guards his Lieutenant before Informant was taken prisoner & Thence as the Informant believes to the end of the war -That is until active hostilities ceased - Informant did not serve under him, but he lived in the neighborhood & said him often and in that way has a general knowledge of his services as aforesaid. Saw How in the course of the Summer of 1780 lost three men out of his division in skirmishes - Informant was taken prisoner as ... July 22 & 1780.
Thaddeus Bell
Sworn to and...cited
This day & year aforesaid & I certify that I well know the Informant & that he is a credible person.
Ch. Hawley Judge
I hereto state that the Defendant Th. Bell Esq for a long time has been a magistrate in this County & very often a member of our Gen. Assembly
Ch. Hawley
Page 57

I Samuel Lockwood Clerk of the Court of Probate in the District of Hamilton in Connecticut do hereby certify that the forgoing contains original proceedings of the said Court additional to the proceedings of the said Court and the matter of the application of Nathan How for a pension.
In testimony whereof I have here unto set my hand & Seal of Office this 27th day 1833
Samuel Lockwood Clerk