Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File S. 11613, Peter Van Buskirk, Continental Del. Md. New Jersey. New York And Penn. And War Of 1812
Page 448

in the year 1780,
Perm, Archives 1778 - 9
page 752,
After the Revoluction, and until the 1st of January
1783, Col Walter Stewart commanded the
Second Regiment, and Colonel Richard Hampton
to commanded the Sixth Regiment of
the Penn. Line, and both these regiments
accompanied General Wayne in his section 
Campaign leaving for Yorktown about the
16th May 1781, as appears by the letters
of Genl Wayne above cited.
After the [crossed out]
Washington Papers, Penn, Archives 
and Rolls in Pension Office

After the 1st of January 1783. (1783) the arrangement of the officers of the Penn Line
appears as by sections [in] that date to
have been as follows:
Second Regiment commanded by Col Richard
Hampton
and from a "list of the officers of the Pennsylvania
 Line who retired from service
on the 1st day of January 1783." the
name of "Walter Stewart Colonel" appears.
Penn. Archive 1781-3. page 727-8
Page 449

and instructions from the commissioner of
Pensions, directing me to ascertain where
the services of General Wayne, and Colonel
Stewart and Humeston of the Penn
Line, were rendered in the year 1781, 1882
+ 1783.
I have examined all the
books & documents available, we
the result indicated above.
L. M. Drury
May 24th 1862
Page 450

City and County of New York
State of New York
On the 16th of February 1863
before me the subscribed in and for the County
aforesaid personally appeared before me Samuel Cole
who being sworn deposes and says, he was for many
years Chief Clerk of the Pension Office, that afterwards
during the 36" and part of the 37 Congress was Clerk of the Committee on Revolutionary
pensions of the Senate. That during the 36 Congress
the claim of Peter Van Buskirk was presented to the
committee for its action. That before it was
acted upon Mr Van Buskirk asked permission to
amend the declaration which had been filed.
That by the command of the Chairman Mr. Thompson
of New Jersey the papers were handed to to Van 
Buskirk and the declaration was amended and returned
and as Clerk the claim was acted upon by the
committee and his impression is that Senator Grimes
made the report and further that he has no interest
in the claim
S. Cole
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 16th day of February 1863
Wm H Riblet Com of Deeds
Page 451

Copy
Pension Office
January 15. 1836.
Sir

In compliance with your request, I have very
carefully reexamined the testimony in the case of Peter
Van Buskirk, who is now inscribed on the New York roll
under act of June 7, 1832, at the rate of $60 per annum
and you are informed that there is no ground whatever
for an increase of his stipend, and that, if the case
was now examined for the first time it would not be
admitted at the present rate, if admitted at all
If, however, he will file a certificate from the Secretary of the State of New Jersey showing payments to
him for service under the authority of that State, the
case will be readjusted.
Very respectfully yrs,
J. Minot
Comm
Jesse
E Weems Esq.
Present
Page 452

self  No. 15/78
Department of the Interior.
Received Nov. 18, 1872.
Dated Nov. 19, 1872
From
R.G. Corwin
& S. S. Hinkle attys

SUBJECT
[illegible] of papers
in case of Peter Van
Buskirk

ACTION.
Nov. 13, 1872.
RESPECTFULLY REFERRED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF PENSIONS,
who will furnish the attys with
an abstract of evidence in the case.

Chief Clerk.
Registered, [illegible] 

Respectfully returned
with the information
that Mr. Corwin has just
examined the papers
in full, in the case, &
informed me that he deems
it unworthy of his
further consideration.
Two Secretaries have
decided adversely, 
the last one having
ordered the cancellation
of the Certificate.
In courtesy of this action,
 this office can
nothing further. I can
only forward the papers
in the case for such
action as the Hon. Sec'y
may deem proper.
[J N Bathe Com]
Nov 15th /72
Page 453

To the Honorable,
The Secretary of the Interior
The undersigned most
respectfully reccommend Abraham Van Buskirk
of Washington City D.C. for one of the Clerkships
in the Pension office. We so reccommend
him as qualified for one of the fourth
class Examiners of Revolutionary Claims.
We will be gratified at his appointment
as one of our best Republicans. 
Washington City D.C.
27th February 1861.
Est Pottle
Sidney Edgerton
J. C. Foster
Page 454

Washington City Juy 16 1862
Hon Caleb B Smith
Secretary of the Interior
I have been requested to state my recollection of the alterations
which were made in the original petition of Peter
Van Buskirk for a pension. The petition was not
before the Revolutionary claim Com. with
which I was connected, but other claims of
the Van Buskirk's were & I had frequent conversations with them on the matter
I was then informed & believe that the
said petition had been amended with the consent of the Committee & refiled-- but I do not recollect in what particular. I have no
recollection of having seen the paper but
my recollection is that the alterations were
Page 455

made with the consent of the Committee
that there was no wrong intended, in
making said alterations
Yours Respt'y
Geo.  Taylor
Page 456

65

Denniston letter
sending certified
from Albany
18 March 1861

Pension Office
March 20 1861
Page 457


State of New York
Comptrollers Office
Albany March 18th 1861

Geo. C. Whiting
Commissioner
Pension Office
Washington

Sir
In reply to yours of 14th inst, 
I have to state that after a
thorough examination of the records in this
office, the enclosed is all the evidence I
can find relative to the service of Peter Van
Buskirk.  Fees $3.00, which please remit
by return mail
Respectfully yours
Augustus Denniston
Rev. Clerk
Page 458

(15)
J. N. Granger's

Certificate of character
of Ephraim Archer, George Derr
+ John Spangle.
Page 459


Washington D.C. Dec 27
To all whom it may concern,

This may certify, that I have known
Ephraim Archer, George Derr & John Spangle of Ontario
County New York, for twenty five years, living in the same
County, and in an adjoining Town. I have been on terms of
intimate personal acquaintance during that time, and
can cheerfully testify to the integrity of character, and
social work as citizens. They are all farmers,
in comfortable, independent, circumstances, and are
Esteemed citizens of probity and respectability in the
Community where they reside.
I would further certify that Lyman
Crane formerly of Ontario 60, and who was witness in the application of Peter Van Buskirk died some four years ago at his residence in said County,
J N Granger
Page 460

IDepartment of the Interior
Washington, July 30 1863.

Sir

I herewith return you all the papers
in the case of Peter Van Buskirk, a Revolutionary
pensioner on the Roll of the District of Columbia
under the Act of June 7, 1832.
I have examined this case my thoroughly
since my predecessor commenced to review his
action, by which it was at one time allowed, and
feel it my duty to prohibit any further pay
ment being made. You will therefore, recall
and cancel the pension certificate and notify the
Pension Agent, and the parties interested, of this
final decision in the premises.

I am Sir, Very respectfully,
Your Obt Servant
J.P. Usher
Secretary

Attn: Joseph H. Barnett
Commissioner of Pensions
Page 461

Washington City D. C.
15th March 1861

Hon G C Whiting
Com of Pension
Sir 

officer

As attorney for A Van Buskirk
I herewith enclose affidavit of Mr. John M. Granger, Recorder of the Genl Land Office [setting pull the sections] of the neighborhood in which in Peter Van Buskirk as to his service as a Revy. officer & the manner in which he was reguarded on 4th July celebrations.
Yours
S.A. Peugh Atty
Page 462

State of New York

Comptrollers Office
Albany July 26 1864

Hon Jos. H. Barrett
D Sir

I have your form of the 24th inst
and in [annun] forward you the
paper to which it refers -  to
be returned as soon as you are
through using it
Your Srvnt
Robert James
Comptroller
Page 463

161
Certificate
of Rev Edward
T. Corwin, Pastor
Paramus Church
May 10th 1861.
Page 464


Paramus May 10th 1861
I, Edward T. Corwin, having
charge of the records of 
the congregation of Paramus,
do hereby certify that the 
marriage register of said
congregation prior to July
24th 1799 is lost.
Edward T. Cormin
Pastor of Congregation
of Paramus
Page 465

137
to
S. A. Pugh 
Washington Mar 22 / 61
Appeal in the Revolutionary
pension claim of Peter Van
Buskirk
A
Respectfully referred
to the Com of Pensions
for report
Moses Kelly
Dept of Interior
Mch 22 / 61

Recd 22 Mch 61
Pension
Page 466

Washington City D.C.
22 March 1861
Hon
C. B. Smith
Secretary of the Interior
Sir

I herewith enclose
the decision of the Court of Pensions in the
Case of Peter Van Buskirk of this
City + Respectfully appeal from the same
to your office and beg your early attention
to he case
I am Respectfully
Your &
S. A. Puegh
Page 467

138
Letter of the
Com'r of Pensions
17th April 1861
Page 468

Pension Office,
April 17. 1861.

Sir
I have examined the affidavits of Peter
and Abraham Van Buskirk, which accompanied
your letter to me of 10th inst., in reference to the
claim of the former for an increase of his pension under the
act of June 7, 1832. They do not, in my opinion,
alter the case as it previously stood. They only
express more emphatically what was necessarily designed should be implied from the previous statements of the
parties, and do not in the least affect the material
objections to the allowance of the claim.
I am Sir, Very respectfully,
Geo C. Whiting
Commissioner

S.A. Peugh Esq,
Present.
Page 469


United States Senate
Committee on Pensions
January AD. 1860

Sir:
Will you please furnish this Committee
with a copy of the original and amended
declarations (if any) of Peter Van Buskirk whose
petition is herewith enclosed.
Very respectfully, 
J. R. Thomson, Chairman
for S. Cole, Clerk

To
George Whiting Esq.
Commissioner of Pensions.
Page 470

In the Senate of the U.S.
January 29, 1861.
On motion by Mr Clark,
Ordered, That the petition and papers
in the case of Peter Van Buskirk,
be referred to the Commissioner of Pensions
Attest:
Asbury Dickins
Secretary of the Senate, U.S.
Page 471

129
Peter Van Buskirk
Papers returned for S. U. [ ]
Pension office to be [  ]
Not Important [crossed out]
[Rodes], Woodley, [Rev.  ]
[illegible]
Page 472

Albany Pension Agency
March 12th 1856.
Josiah Minot, Esquire,
Commissioner of Pensions
In reply to your letter of the 9th inst.
I have to state that Peter Van Buskirk
A Pensioner under the act of 7th June 1832, at
Sixty Dollars per annum was last paid
to the fourth day of Sept. 1855.
I am, Sir,
very respectfully,
Your obedient Servant,
Isaac Vanderpool.
Pension Agent
by Cornelius Glen
Page 473

136
S.A. Peugh
Washington Apl 17th 1861.

[illegible] that additional
evidence in the case of Peter
Van Buskirk recently filed
by him in the Pension Office
be referred to Secretary of
Interior for review,

Respectfully referred
to the Com of Pensions
for report
Moses Kelly
Dept Int.
Apr 19161
Rec’d 19 Apr 11
Pensions
Page 474

Washington City, D.C.
17th April 1861

Hon C. B. Smith
Secretary of the Interior
Sir
In the case Peter Van
Buskirk I filed additional evidence in the Pension
office to meet the difficulties which occurred to the
Secretary’s mind in reference thereto. This evidence
has been examined by the Court of Pensions, and his
reply is, “that they” (the affidavits) "do not in my opinion
alter the case as it previously stood.” &c &c
I respectfully request that as the evidence filed
in the case so clearly rebut the presumptions raised by
the Secretary that it be refered to his office for review.
upon the same.
I have the honor to be
Yours very Resp’y
S.A. Peugh
Page 475

119
Commissioner of Pension
17 Apl 1861
to
S A Peugh
Rejecting the new testimony
offered in the case of 
Peter Van Buskirk, as immaterial

In reconfirming report to  
Sec’y [illegible]
Apl 20, 1861
G.C.W.
Page 476

Copy

Pension Office
April 17. 1861.
Sir
I have examined the affidavits of
Peter and Abraham Van Buskirk, which accompanied
 your letter to me of 10th inst, in reference to the claim 
of the former for an increase of his
pension under the act of 7th June, 1832. They do not,
in my opinion, alter the case as it previously
stood. They only express more emphatically
what was necessarily designed should be implied
from the previous statements of the parties, and 
do not in the least affect the material objections 
to the allowance of the claim.
I am, very respectfully,
Your Obt. Servant,
Geo. C. Whiting
Commissioner
S.A. Peugh Esq.
Present.
Page 477

Albany N.Y. Pension Agency
May 15, 1862
J. P. Usher Esq
As’t Sec’y of the Interior
Sir,
I return herewith what purports to
be the statement of Peter Van Buskirk account & also send a
A certificate letter of Philip Phelp's Esq., Dep. Comptroller of this State, intending
to answer so far as he could do so, the inquiries in your letters
to one of the 16th & 17th [ulh].
Mr. Phelps thought it advisable
to furnish a package containing all the papers in the Comptroller’s
office in relation to the subject of your inquiry, which I also
send by the same mail which conveys this letter, directed to you.
M. Phelps desires me to say that
after these papers have been examined he wishes to have them
returned to the Comptroller's office for deposit & preservation.
With Respect
D Wright
Pension Agent
Page 478

1st Session
Remarks

Refers to Mr Patter 29 Fby 6
Refers to Mr. Potter 12 Mrch 60
Rep. to Mr.  Potter 29 Fby "60
[Mar ?? 80.] Report Bill allowing $8 per month 
Matter of [provisional] pension of $80 per annum.
26 Jany 1861 . Refs by order of the House to
Comm. of Pension
Page 479

36th Congress
Date | By Whom Presented | Subject Matter | 
July 10 | All Briggs | Van Buskirk [illegible] a Revolutionary Soldier for increasing Pension
“ 15 | Mr. Potter | Widow Jane wife of Jacob [Dutton] for pension
“ 23 | Van Buskirk Peter Supplemental  [illegible] for increase of Pension See first case (at 10t
Page 480

Memo of Mr Woodley
Page 481

Maam
Peter Van Buskirk filed his heirs application for
pension in the year 1846, Act June 7, 1832, as a resident
of N. York, to which state he removed about 10 years before.
In 1851, he presented a supplemental declaration, & was
allowed for 18 months service as a private, at [that of
Joannsson], from March 4th 1831.
He was paid the above pension at the agency at Albany
to 1855, + was transferred to the agency at this place
(D.C.) in 1856. In 1859 as a resident of the District
he made an application for [meriace] upon service as
Assistant Commissary of Forage from July 1781 to the
close of the war; and in support of this claim he furnished
the testimony of two witnesses, & two old scraps of paper
one purporting to be a discharge given to another man by
Genl Anty Wayne (of one P. Van Buskirk; commanding
General) dated Jan'y 18th 1781, the other, a receipt by
Teamster for oats recd from Peter Van Buskirk " Commissary
of Forage" dated the same year, 1781.
The papers in the case have been called for at different
times by committees of the Two Houses of Congress. The last
time by that of the House of Representatives of the 28th
of Jany 1860 & during the last month they have been
Page 482

returned to this office under resolution of the respective Houses, 
but at whose instance, it does not appear. Among [illegible] from
a paper which has never before he before this office [was] a
certified copy of a settlement with Peter Van Buskirk, from the 
Comptroller's Office of N. York showing payments made by him as
Forage Master from July 29th 1781 to Sept 3d 1783. This
certificate is dated Jan'y 11t 1861. It was rec'd with  ??? ???] at the office 
Jau'y 31st '61.
Peter Van Buskirk was a native of Bergen Co. N. Jersey
& rendered all his service as private in that State, up to June
1781. after that date, he was appointed assistant Commissary
or, according to the report of the Comptroll of N. York. Forage
Master, and served partly in N. Jersey & partly in N. York
under Genl Wayne & others.
The first declaration of P. Van Buskirk was made May
20th 1846, at which his he was 80 years old.
Page 483

Washington D.C.
26 Dec 1862,
Hon Wm AShton
Asst. Secy
Sir
The paper handed unto
youuon on Wednesday was taken
from the Book of the Committee on
Revolutionary Pensions having on the
back the following words.
"Committee
on
 Revolutionary Pensions
of
1st Session 36th Congress"
I intended to make the endorsment,
but omitted to do this

Deserving [ ] of importance before
[ ]  Book be returned to the House
Reps. I trouble you with it.
I am Yours, +
S.A. Peugh
Page 484

[NOTE: Following is extracted text. No image was available for transcription comparison.]

George Dearman
sus 1832
&
Peter Van Buskirk
N.Y. 1832
a case

A.
Page 485


Sir, 
I herewith enclose the appendices
of the representives of Geo. Dearman dec'd , late of
New York, asking an examination of the [illegible]
of his claim filed in support of his claim
under act of 1832. Also the pension certificate
of Peter Van Buskirk now a pensioner under
act of 1832 N. Y. roll at the rate of sixty dollars per
Ann. with a sum of an increase of his pension
which he believes he is entitled to receive.
Respf'y
Y'obet
J E Weems
Jay, 4 1856

Honl Com of Pension
Page 486

Chicago Ill. April 10th 1865
Hon James Harlan
Secretary of the Interior
Dear Sir
Some years since, a
claim of one Peter Van Buskirk, soldier of
the Revolution (pretended at least), after being
twice rejected by the Commissioner, was allowed
by the Secretary, $16,200, & after partial payment
had been made, payment of the residue was
stopped, until further investigation.
The claim belonged to my wife Mary E.
Babcock, nee Van Buskirk, as grand daughter 
& sole devisee of Peter, and I, at first,
thought the claim valid & genuine.
I am thoroughly satisfied now however,
that the whole claim is fraudulent and
ought never to have been allowed.
I am also convinced that both Abram
Van Buskirk, Peter's son, and Mr. Hugh
Page 487

the claim agent, who got it up & has (or
had) the management of it, both know that
it is a totally groundless claim.
I am further satisfied that the claim
would never have been allowed in the first
instance, had not a prominent Clerk in
your office been pecuniarily interested in
its payment.
It is my firm determination, should
the claim be allowed, to make a public
expose of the whole fraud.
Yours very Respectfully
H. G. Babcock
Page 488

Prof Henry's rep.
on genuineness
of old papers
Page 489

Smithsoman Institution
Washington, Oct. 30, 1861.
Dear Sir: 
In accordance with your request we have
submitted the writings you referred to this 
Institution, for examination to two persons, Dr Toney
of New York, the well known chemist, and the Hon.
Peter Force of this city in whose knowledge of
such matters we have much confidence, and have 
received from them the following reports.

First from Dr. Torrey - "It is beyond the power of chemical science to determine satisfactorily whether the writings were made at the time they bear date. The water mark shows that the paper was made in royal times, but such paper
can be obtained at the present day, manufactured a century ago. The ink sums to be the "old fashioned ink made of gall nuts and a salt of iron (copper as.). Such ink however, is still used by many persons. All I can say in this matter is, that there is no evidence that the writings
Page 490


"are not as old as the dates upon them."
Second from Mr. Force. "I am quite
sure the paper was not written in 1783. 
Mifflin was not then Quartermaster General.
He was a member of the Congress, where he 
appeared and took his seat. Nov. 20th. 1782. He
was elected President of Congress. Nov. 3, 1783.
If "Thos Mifflin. Q.M.G. on the paper was 
intended for the signature of Mifflin, it is a
forgery - he did not write it. Indeed every
thing about the paper goes to satisfy me that
it is a fabrication."
I have the honor to be
Very Respectfully
Your obedt Servt
Joseph Henry
Secretary S. J.

To the
Hon. C. B. Smith
Sec. of the Interior
Page 491

102
J. J. Coombs
Argument
April 19. 1866
Page 492

Washington, April 19th 1861
Hon Caleb B. Smith
Sec'y of the Interior
Sir:
Having been employed
as Atty to assist in the prosecution of the claim
of Peter Van Buskirk, for an increase of
pension, I beg leave to submit a few
suggestions in favor of the claim.
That a man by the name of Peter
Van Buskirk did perform service as 
Assistant Commissary of Forage for over
two years, commencing in July 1781, is
clearly proved by record evidence and
is not controverted by the Commissioners
of Pensions. The only doubt which
has been suggested in the case, is, whether
it was the claimant, or some
other man of the same, name who
performed said service.
The evidence tending to identify the
claimant with the man who performed
Page 493

the service mentioned in the record, is
very strong
1st In his original declaration, made
his 1846, the claimant states that he lived in
the Town of Harrington, Bergen County,
New Jersey, in the time of the Revolutionary war
 and served at that place.
The record evidence from the Comptrollers
office of N. York, which was never 
obtained or known to be in existence till January
ast, shows the service as Commisary of
Forage to have been rendered at "Harrington
& other places"
-
2d In his supplemental declaration, made
in September, 1859, (nearly  two years
before the existence of the record evidence
was known to him,) he declares that he
was appointed Assist Com'y of Forage in
June 1781 and served as such until the
close of the war in 1783, during which
time he was engaged in purchasing
forage, &c, at Harrington, Bergen County
Page 494

N.J. at Morristown, Pompton &.
The record evidence, since discovered,
fully corroborates this statement both
with respect to the time of the service,
and the places at which it was rendered.
3. The claimant in 1859, produced and
filed before Congress the original receipt,
dated July 29th 1781, for 58 bushels of oats,
issued to a teamsters by "Peter Van Buskirk
Commissary of Forage." If the claimant
is not the identical person to whom this
receipt was given, how came it in
his possession?
In the absence of any proof that said
service as Com'y of Forage was rendered
by another man of the same name, or
that there ever was another man of
the same name living in the same
region, this evidence of identity would
seem to be conclusive, if there were no
circumstances in the case tending to
Page 495

raise a doubt on the subject.
The Commissioner of Pensions, however,
has taken the ground, that the failure
of the Claimant, in his original declaration
of 1846, to set out any service as
Commissary of Forage, does raise a doubt
as to his identity, with the man who
performed the service in that capacity proved
by the record. On account of the doubt
thus raised, the claim was rejected by
the Commissioner of Pensions, and on
this ground, alone, was the decision
of the Commissioner affirmed by
you, on the 2d instant.
I admit that the failure of the
claimant to describe ['describe' is crossed out] allege any service
as Com'y of Forage, in his [ crossed out]
original declaration, requires explanation, 
and that it was not unreasonable
to refuse the allowance of the claim
until some explanation was given.
Page 496

since your decision of the 2d instant,
however additional evidence has been
filed, intended to explain that omission.
But the Commissioner of Pensions, in
his letter of the 17th inst., herewith enclosed,
take the ground that this additional
evidence does not "alter the case as it
originally stood," or "in the least affect
the material objections to the allowance
of the claim."
In this view of the case I differ with
the Commissioner. The additional evidence
consists - 
1st Of an affidavit by the claimant
himself, in which he declares that when
he made his original declaration, in
1846, he stated to the Agent who drew
it up, his whole service, including
the service in the Forage Department
now claimed for, but his agent told
him that inasmuch as the Department
would not allow any pension for
Page 497

that kind of service unless proved by
record evidence, it would be useless to
claim for it, etc.
2d Of the affidavit of Abraham
Ware Buskirk, a disinterested witness,
who swears that the claimant lived with
him at the time said declaration was
made (in his presence) and who fully
corroborates the statements of the claimant
above referred to, as to the reason
given by the Agent for not setting
forth the service as Com'y of Forage
3d Of another affidavits of the said
Abraham Van Buskirk, showing that
he first became aware of the existence
of any record evidence of the claimant's
service in the Forage Department
in the fall of 1860. If it is true that the
existence of this record evidence
was unknown when the supplemental
declaration of 1859 was made, that
ought, surely, to remove all doubt
Page 498

in the case; for it is impossible that the
claimant could have made a claim 
corresponding so exactly with the service
proved by the record, in ignorance of
its existence, unless he described the
service from memory.
4th A copy of a letter written by said
Abraham Van Buskirk, to the Clerk in the
Comptroller's Office of New York, asking ['asking' is crossed out] 
dated Nov. 13, 1860, asking an examination
of the records of said office with a
view to obtaining evidence of the claimant's
service in the Forage Department,
in which he refers to the accidental
discovery of said claimant's name on
the records a short time previously.
I beg leave to say, that if this additional
evidence is credible, it completely removes
the only objection made to the allowance
of the claim, when last previously
considered by the Commissioner of
Pensions and by yourself. It proves
Page 499

that when the claimant made his original
declaration in 1846, he did state to the
Agent who drew it up the identical
service he is now claiming for. If this
be true, it entirely removed the
objection founded upon the 
omission of that service in the declaration.
Whether the Agent acted wisely or
unwisely in omitting to include that
service in the declaration, is wholly
immaterial. The only question is, whether
the claimant then omitted to mention
that service or not. It is clearly
proved by this evidence that he did
not omit to mention it, but, that
his agent did omit to insert it in
the declaration.
I will add, that in my experience
 as chief Clerk of the Pension office
and a long experience in prosecuing 
claims before that office,
numerous just such cases as this
Page 500

have come to my knowledge, where 
important service has been omitted in
the declaration of the claimant [rende]r
the advice of his agent that it would
be useless to allege service that could
not be proved by competent evidence.
I will and, also, that it has been
the uniform practice of the Pension
Office never to allow for service in the
Commissary Department, unless proved
by record evidence. The Commissioner
of Pensions will hear me out in this
statement.
The character of Abram Van Buskirk
for veracity is not only not impeached, but
is certified to by the Hon. W. Pattle,
by Judge Grange Register of the Land
Office, and others. In fact he is known
in this community as a man of 
unimpeachable character.
Very respectfully &
J. J. Coombs
abb’y for clarity
Page 501

113
Secretary's Decision
June 10, 1861
Page 502

Department of the Interior
June 10th 1866
Sir: 
I have considered your report of the
29th [ultimo], in relation to the application of
Peter Van Buskirk for an increase of pension,
and now return the same, with my views of
the matters embraced in it.
I am unable to concur in your conclusion
that the evidence on file does not justify
the finding that a person named Peter Van
BusKirk rendered service as a Forage Master in
the Revolutionary War.
Your predecessor, in a previous report
upon this claim, decided that in his opinion,
the evidence was sufficient to prove that
services of the character for which the pension is
claimed, were rendered by a person bearing the
name of the applicant.  He rejected the claim
for the want of sufficient proof of the identity
of the claimant with the person who rendered the
Services.  I do not consider that you are concluded
Page 503

by his decision, however.  Inasmuch
as the case comes before you in the same manner
it was presented to him, it is your duty to
divide the whole case upon your own judgement
of the proof before you.  While, 
therefore, I am compelled to dissent from
your conclusions upon the evidence, I fully
concur in the course of examination you have
adopted.
I do not understand that the rules of
your Office prohibit the granting of pensions
to officers except upon record or documentary
evidence of their services.
The mode of proof by which a right to
a pension shall be established, is not defined
in any Act of Congress in which the right
is confirmed.
This is left to the judgment
of the Executive Department by which the
law is to be executed. 
In adopting
rules for this purpose, it would not have
been within the power of your Office to adopt
such as would limit or restrict the rights conferred.
Page 504

by the law. In the absence of any direction 
by Congress as to the mode of proof, such
rules should be adopted as will conform to the
well settled rules of evidence by which Courts
of justice are guided. One of these rules, of
universal application, is that the best evidence
of which the nature of the case will admit, shall 
be required.
Secondary or inferior evidence
shall not be admitted until the absence of the
higher grade of evidence is accounted for. Where
a right is dependent upon a written instrument,
as a title to real estate upon a deed, the party
asserting the right must produce the deed in evidence.

But, if it shall appear that the deed
is lost or destroyed, then, secondary evidence of 
its contents may be received. To entitle an 
officer to a pension, it is necessary that he should
prove his services in the capacity in which he
claims to have acted. A commission would
be the best evidence of his appointment to the
office, but it is not indispensable nor would it
of produced, prove the length of his service. Parol
Page 505

proof that he acted as an officer would be presumptive
evidence of his authority, and if sufficiently clear
would entitle him to the benefits of the law. The
great length of time which has elapsed may well
justify the presumption of the loss of a commission
Enties upon the army rolls are evidence of a high
character, and would in most cases, be regarded
as conclusive of the facts recited. Letters, receipts,
accounts, and any other written memoranda,
cotemporaneous with the transactions in question,
would be evidence entitled to great weight not be
cause the papers themselves confer any right, nor
because the facts stated in them are required to
be proved by any written testimony; but because
such evidence is not so liable to the suspicion of 
mistake, or want of recollection of witnesses who
testify from memory.
The written evidence in this case does not
reach the dignity of documentary or record 
evidence.  It consists merely written evidence of 
facts cotemporaneous with the alleged service,
and from which we are authorized to presume
the existence of other facts having an important
bearing upon the claim. It consists, first, of a
Page 506

copy of an account of Peter Van Buskirk with
the Quartermaster General, for forage purchased as a
Forage Master, the original of which is on file
in the office of the Comptroller of the State of
New York.
Numerous objections are made to this account
which I do not deem it necessary to examine. It is
wholly immaterial whether the account was
correct in its statements, or made out in proper
form. The point to be established, is that a person
bearing the name of Peter Van Buskirk rendered
services of the character claimed during the
Revolutionary War and the question is how far does
this paper tend to prove that fact? The certificate
of the Comptroller proves that the original of this
account is on file with the papers in his office relating
to services in the War of the Revolution. In the 
absence of any proof to the contrary we must presume
that it was filed there in proper time, and for the purpose
for which it purports to have been made. It is
not an account made out by Van Buskirk, but
seems to be rather a statement made by the Quarter
Page 507

Master General of the money advanced to Van
Buskirk by that Department, and of his expenditure
of it, and the length of his services. It is not signed
by any officer of that Department
In your report, you say: "It could not be
regarded as record evidence of service until it had been
examined, audited, and allowed by the
proper accounting officers. Then it becomes a
record which this Office is bound to receive as
conclusive evidence. Until then it has no official
character or significance which entitles it
to any greater consideration than a private paper, 
found anywhere else."
The paper in question, even if it had been 
allowed and signed by an office of the Quartermasters
Department, would not have been a record
nor would it be entitled to the character or weight
of record evidence. The Pension Office would
not be bound under any circumstances, to receive
such a paper, no matter how authenticated, as
conclusive evidence.
In the ordinary use of the term "record,"a  meaning is frequently attached to
it, widely different from it legal definition.
"A record is a memorial of a proceeding or
Page 508

act of a Court of Record entered in a Roll for its
preservation." Fowler Vs. Byrd, 1 Hemp 213.
Such a record is conclusive evidence, because 
a party will not be permitted to prove anything
in contradiction of the statements contained
in it.
This paper does not belong to that class of
evidence regarded by the Courts as record evidence,
but to that class which consists of entries in books
of account, written admissions, and written memoranda
of any description. They have not the
conclusive character of record evidence, and they
may therefore, be contradicted and disproved by
other testimony. They constitute, however a higher
grade of evidence than the [paral] statements
of witnesses of past transactions, because they are
not liable to the same uncertainty as the recollection
of witnesses. The recollection of a witness
of a transaction occurring twenty years before his
relation of it, is not as reliable as the written
statement of the same facts made cotemporaneously
with the transaction. For this reason statements
Page 509

of accounts, receipts, or written memoranda of any
description, bearing evidence of having been made
during the the time of the Revolution, have been regarded
by the Pension Office as entitled to more weight as
proof of the facts stated in them, than the statements
of living witnesses, of their recollection of the same
facts.
The copy of account filed by Van Buskick
is of this class of evidence. The original is found
in the Comptroller's Office, among the papers and
accounts relating to the Quartermaster Generals
Department. It is impossible to determine, from
its face, whether it was an account made out by
Van Buskirk, of his receipts and expenditures, and
filed in the Comptroller's Office, or a statement made
out by an officer of the Quartermaster's Office.
If it was the former, it is evidence that a man
bearing that name claimed to have rendered the
service, and filed his claim for settlement in the
proper Department. If the latter, it is evidence
of an admission by the Department of such services
by a person of that name. In either case, it
would be unreasonable to presume that the paper
had been prepared and filed by a person who had
Page 510

never rendered such service. If the paper bore
evidence that it had been admitted and allowed
by the proper officers, it would acquire additional
weight from that fact, and would be entitled
to more consideration. Still, it would not
be conclusive evidence of the service claimed to
have been performed, and unlike a record, it
might be contradicted, and its statement disproved.
This paper should be considered in connection
with all the other testimony in the case - both 
oral and written - giving to it the full right to
which it may be entitled as one item of the testimony, 
and the conclusion should be formed which
the whole evidence, taken together, satisfies the
reason and judgment as correct.
The original receipt of "Chas. Fox Teamster"
given to "Peter Van Buskirk, Commissary of Forage,"
for "58 bushels of oats", is an important item
of evidence, and, although neither "record evidence",
not conclusive proof is yet very strong evidence
that Peter Van Buskirk was in the public service
Page 511

and employed in procuring forage for the troops.-
The appearance of the paper is sufficient evidence of
is antiquity, and forbids any presumption that it
has been prepared as evidence to sustain this claim.
I am unable to percive any thing which can
excite a suspicion of its genuineness. The fact that
Van Buskirk is described as a "Commissary of
Forage," certainly should not discredit it. The
various grades of officers in the same Department
are frequently confounded in ordinary conversation
and it is of but little consequence that a wrong
official designation was given. If he was a Deputy
Commissary, it is not unreasonable to suppose
that a teamster, in giving a receipt, might omit
the Deputy either through carelessness or to abidge
the writing, as an exact description of his official
character could not have been important for the
purposes for which the receipt was given.
The fact that the receipt presents better
permanship "than most men employed in the
capacity of teamster would be likely to command"
will hardly justify the belief that it is not genuine.
 It would be more reasonable to presume
that a person capable of writing a fair hand
Page 512

may have been employed as a teamster for the
public service at a time when the people were
struggling for their liberties, than to presume
that it was not written by a teamster, simply
because it is legibly written.
In your report, it is stated that "however
" strong or respectable the testimony may be it
" cannot be received as conclusive without overiding
" a long established principle adopted in this Office,"
I do not understand that any rule adopted
by the Pension Office requires an applicant for a
pension to produce "conclusive" proof of his services.
Such a rule would render it absolutely impossible
for any person to obtain a pension for services in
the Revolutionary War, and would have caused
the rejection of the claims of a majority of those
who have obtained pensions for services in the late
was with Great Britain.
Courts of justice, in settling the controversies
of individuals, decide questions involving the title
to property of the value of millions of dollars, upon
a bare preponderance of testimony. The rule is
Page 513

well settled, that, in all civil suits, only a 
preponderance of testimony shall be necessary to entitle
a party to a judgment. A more rigid rule
is adopted in criminal cases, from principles of
humanity.
To produce a conviction, the proof
must be sufficient to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond a rational doubt. but such a
rule has never been adopted in any court in
reference to civil controversies.
To entitle a person to the County for 
military services provided by the liberality of Congress 
ought not to require a greater weight
of evidence than is required by Courts of justice
to establish the claims of an individual to
property in a controversy between contesting
claimants.
In your supplemental report of the 3d
instant, you refer to the case of John Light, 
allowed by the Pension Office. The papers in
this case show that Light, in his application
claimed that he only received pay as a Forage
Master, at the rate of 35 per month, but
that additional pay at the rate of $10 per
month was promised him for extra services -
Page 514

J.L. Edwards, Esqr for many years Commissioner of Pensions,  in a letter relating to that claim, stated that "Forage Masters, Wagon
Masters, & seem, during the Revolution, to
have been engaged for a stipulated price, 
varying at different times and places, and under
different "Qr. Mr. Gens."[Quarter Master Generals] These papers
also show that my predecessor Secretary Ewing
decided, in reference to Light's claim, that the
pay of a Forage Master was $80 per month
and that, notwithstanding Light had claimed
that it was but $35, his pension should be
estimated upon the higher legal rate. Light,
it seems, was appointed Forage Master in
July, 1781. His services were rendered 
during the same time that Van Buskirk claims
to have rendered similar services.
These papers prove that your predecessor,
Mr. Edwards, (whose long experience in the
Pension Office, entitles his opinions upon the
laws and regulations relating to the military
service in the Revolution to great weight) did
Page 515

not consider that there was any [agreed sum?]
of compensation allowed for such services. They
prove, also, that in the judgment of Secretary
Ewing, a claimant was not concluded by his
recollection of the amount of pay he received
and that a pension might be allowed upon
the basis of a larger rate than he claimed
to have received. They also show that the
fact alleged in your report, that there was
no way in which Van Buskirk could receive
the exact amount of pay he claims to have
received, is not of such consequence as to justify
the rejection of his claim for that reason only.
I see no reason to dissent from the opinion
expressed by your predecessor, that the
evidence does sufficiently establish the fact that
services as Forage Master were rendered by
Van Buskirk.
The only remaining question to be considered
is whether the claimant is the same person
whose services are proved by the evidence
now on file, and to which your attention is
requested.

I am, respectfully
Page 516

Your Obt. Servt.
Caleb B Smith
Secretary


Joseph H. Barrett, Esq.
Commissioner of Pensions
Page 517

Senator [illegible]
24 Juy 1860
Mr. Thompson presented the
related for allowance a 
pension a Comm. pay - Ref.
to Com. on Pensions 

Mch 13. 1860 - Mr. Grimes from the
Com in [pensions-crossed out] Rev. claims
made a report- No. 140-
Accompanied by a bill for his
relief No. 277. Passed & ordered
to a second reading & ordered to be
printed - All the action of the
Senate-[living?] that Congress
Page 518

June 4, 1853
Appl. of Jane
Van Deen dec’d. as 
widow of Abraham
Van Buskirk
Must be original
New Jersey
Act 4th July 1836

Ab’m Van Buskirk
Phelps
Ontario Co.N York

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
PENSION OFFICE,  OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Page 519

Certificate
Hon J.R. Riggs [illegible]
John J. Brown
Mayor of Patterson N. J.
Page 520

Paterson Augst 8th 1861
I certify That I have
known Abraham J Ackerson
for several years. That he
is now and has been for
Several years a Justice of
the peace for Bergen County
and I have never
heard his character [illegible]
honesty or integrity called
in question

J. R. Riggs
John J. Brown
Page 521

[illegible J. Hart S?] 

Hon. J. H. Barrett.
Commissioner of Pensions
Washington DC

[written vertically on side of envelope]
No 32.882 D.C.Roll
Lee Whiting and then submit
To Comm. of Sect’y
Page 522

Mr.  Boynton
Pen Off. Aug: 26 1865.
This day this letter was handed
me by Mr. [illegible name + County Clerk?] 
The paper book plates are not
on file. They are supposed to be in [illegible] 
Library of Con. Bureau locked up.
[illegible - As I first were acc’d by?] Sent. Smith for about 
$16000 for half pmt by Mr. [illegible Leggbottom?]
Bal. he was unable to pay not having funds
to make payt. Sub. Sect. [illegible Usher is by ?] 
Receive the bal. shown  [illegible]
Com. of Pen.  Division of Pen. 
8000 # U. S. Bonds, on [illegible - Def...Bigg]
which never held to determine
 if Govt. should not reclaim amt paid
to her & invested in Bonds.
 [illegible] of Washington. 

Can the Bonds be seized? I trust
[illegible]
B. Sec. Com.
Page 523

[illegible J. Hart S?] 

Hon. J. H. Barrett.
Commissioner of Pensions
Washington DC

[written vertically on side of envelope]
No 32.882 D.C.Roll
Lee Whiting and then submit
To Comm. of Sect’y
Page 524

Department of the Interior,
Washington Nov 13 1877
Hon C. Delano
Secy of the State
We respectfully
request copies of the papers
in the pending pension case
of [illegible] Van Buskirk
We have the honor
to be etc
R.G. Corwin
S.S. Henkle
Attys
Page 525

[Mon.] furnished me by McKennedy this day, Aug. 30, 1861 G. C. W.

according to the Census Returns of 1850, 
Peter Van Buskirk of Phelps (Town), Ontario
County, Northern District New York, was a farmer
in that place, born in New Jersey, and 85
years of age
Page 526

Bill
For the relief of
Peter Van Buskirk

[circular stamp]
PENSION OFFICE
JAN 31
Page 527

A Bill

For the relief of Peter Van Buskirk

Be it enacted. That the Secretary
of the Interior be directed to place the
name of Peter Van Buskirk on the Pension
Roll for his years service as Assistant
Commissary of Forage during the Revolution
in the State of New Jersey, under
Act of 7th June 1832, deducting
therefrom such amount as he may
have received for the same time.
Page 528

134
Found in case of
Peter Van Buskirk
I. File 11.613

[circular stamp]
PENSION OFFICE
JAN 31 1861
Page 529

Washington, D.C.
January 18, 1854.

JW Waldo

Dear Sir, 

Please let the
[Bearn] Abraham Van Buskirk have
the applications for Revolutionary
suspended claims, of Jane
Van Dean widow of Abraham
Van Buskirk, filed under act
of Congress July 4, 1836, & George
Farmer under act 1832, and
was presented by Abraham
Van Buskirk.

Respectfully yours
G. Dean

Copies to be made and sent to [illegible]Dean
of [illegible] SM
Page 530

Account of amount
of Purchases
made by P V. Buskirk
Fell

Thomas Mifflin
L.M.G
 Van Buskirk, Peter
Cont 5/16/13
Page 531

at Harrington and other places  L. S. D.

to Cash at Sundry times from
of
1781 to date for Forage
Fell

To his wages as a F.M. 25.
Mon. and 6 Days at $50
per Mo. Specia
1760.610
503.40
2263.10 [total]

By his account as received for
purchases of Forage 
1800

By balance -
463.0
Balance Due Peter [illegible-273]
Van Buskirk A.Fell   [illegible-543]