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 228

This is her error. He was Peter Van Buskirk’s uncle and the Grand uncle of the witness.


[Above is written vertically on the left side of the page, remainder below is the body of the affidavit]




State of New York 
City & County of New York  ss. 
On this first day
of August A D 1861 before me David McAdam
a Notary Public in and for the City & County
of New York, personally came Lucy
or Lucretia Hopper who being by me duly sworn
deposes and says that she is about 77 years
of age,  that she is the Daughter of Abraham Van Buskirk
who lived and died at Harrington Bergen County, New Jersey,
her Father being the Brother of Peter Van
Buskirk of Washington D.C.. That her father had
four sisters whose names were  Rachel
who married David Baldwin, Mary or Maria who married
Andrew Hopper, Margaret who married Garret
Hopper and Leah who married John Ackerman. And
that said Rachel was the oldest child of her Grandfather
 as she has always been informed.  And believes
that her uncle Peter Van Buskirk married Sarah, 
Daughter of Jacobus Van Buskirk.  And she has
always heard that they were married before she
was Born, and that the wife of her Uncle Peter
was several years younger than he was, but
she does not recollect how many, that her
said Uncle if alive must be about 99 or 100
years of age, that his Grandfather (old Uncle
Abraham, whom she well recollects lived until
he was 99. that she has always heard her
Grandmother Van Buskirk say that her children
were born about two years apart, and the
used often to say that she awaited until
her two years were up before she had another
Baby. That the deponent lived in
New Jersey until after the War of 1812, when the ┃
came to this City and has lived here ever
Since. That she well recollects the death
Page 229

of her Grand Father Thomas Van Buskirk
who fell in the fire in a fit and was burned
to death. That deponent then lived in Hoppertown
near her Grandfathers residence, That
she recollects her father's relating his service
in the Revolution and also recollects distinctly
the frequent conversations had between her said
Father and her uncle Peter in regard to said
services. That her Father had a beautiful
Book of Maps of the Battles of the Revolution.
and the officers’ names therein. That she
frequently heard him say what a large man
General Greene was, and that when in
the War, that bullets would whistle around
his Head, until he did not know whether
he had a hat on or not. And they would
frequently converse about her Uncle Peter’s buying
grain for the Army who laid near the House
of her Grandfather. And that when her
Father and her uncle Peter would be out, 
her Grandmother was in great dread of
the British.  That her Grandmother had a
large Leather Bag into which she would put
her silver and put the Bag above the closet
in a hole. That upon one occasion the
British came to their house and even lifted up
the Flagstones in the celler in search of
Valuables. And that she could relate
numerous incidents in regard to the
War from their comerations.  That she well
recollects conversations with her Grandfather, 
 Father and Uncle Peter, in relation
to his purchases of Grain and provisions,
for the Army Horses. And that he was in
the army until peace, and further
Page 230

deponent saith not.
Lucy
Lucy Hopper
 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
first day of August 1861
David McAdam
Notary Public
City of New York


State of New York
City & County of New York
 I the said
Notary Public, do hereby certify that I
read the foregoing affidavit to Lucy
or Lucretia Hopper, above named, and
explained to her fully and at large
the contents thereof, and I am satisfied
of the truth of her statement
New York August 1th 1861
David McAdam
Notary Public
City of New York
Page 231

Continental | Van Buskirk, Peter | S.1613
Del. Md. New Jersey | [blank] | B.L. Wt. 33751-160-55
New York and Penn | [blank] |  [blank]
(CONTENTS)
and War of 1812

This claim is in 2 envelopes See No.1.

[written at a later date, with a lighter pen] 
correspondence in this envelope
Page 232

The piecemeal manner in which the testimony in the
Van Buskirk case has come before you suggests to me to make a
brief summary of it on the different points involved.
The cause of the silence of Van Buskirk as to his Forage
Master's service in his declaration in 1846, and the mistake in his age
is accounted for by the testamony of A. Van Buskirk and the latter was
remarked upon by claimant at the time of his making it, to Mr. Archer,
the only surviving witness to his declaration, to Samuel Cole Chief
late Clerk of the Pension Office.  Both Austen his attorney and Abraham
Van Buskirk mentioned both facts. His real age though wrongly
stated is also deducible from his answer to the 4th interrogatory in his
original declaration as explained by Spangle and Derr in connection
with the extracts from records of purchase and sale of real estate in
New Jersey, and New York showing that he lived four years in
N. Y. City not [embraced] therein and in his application for County
and prepared by Austen the Attorney who drew his original declaration
 makes him 94 in 1856.
The birth of Peter (1762) is established by the recorded birth
of his wife (1767) and the difference as to their ages, by the testimony of
Polly Van Ryper and Salome Van Buskirk -  by the inscriptions
of the tomb stones as to the ages of two of his sisters, & one brother taken
in connection with the testimony of Lucy Hopper, Salome Van Buskirk’s daughter, 
Peter’s Niece, as to the order of births of his brothers & sisters and their names - 
 the statement of Peter’s mother as to the difference of their ages, - 
 the number of Thomas Children as inferencialy proven by certified
 extract from his will, - by the
testimony of Mr [R G Ramsey] whose age is of record (88) as to the difference
of his and Peter ages (10 or 11 years,) and Thos Van Buskirk’s affidavit.
With regard to Westervelt’s age the testamony seems conclusive
as to his several statements made in Peters case (94) in 1861. and (2) in
Page 233

in 1859. Also in case of Elizabeth Hopper (99) in 1859. To sustain
this point we have the record of his wife’s birth (1765) the testamony of
Mr. Elsey, a nephew of Westervelt’s wife, and Post Master at Saddle
river that there was two or three years difference between Westervelt and
his wife’s age,  she (his Aunt) being the elder-- As the testamony of Benjamin
a son of said Westervelts, stating that he always understood from the
lips of his parents. that there was about two years difference in their ages.
his mother being the elder. the latter can but be a lapse of memory, not strange in one of his age.
The traditions of his family, and others as to his Forage
Masters service - the testimony of Lutkins and Mrs. Hopper to the same
effect - the old documents in his possession, the proof from the
records of N. Y. confirming the uniform statements of a long and honorable
life and all the testimony being derived from the most respectable
 sources in society and well vouched for leave in my opinion not
a reasonable doubt of the well established justice of the claim
Which is respectfully submitted
I have the honor to be &c
S.A. Peugh


Hon Caleb B. Smith
Secretary of the Interior


New York Herald
11 Jan 1862
Obituary.
COLONEL SAMUEL COLT, OF HARTFORD, CONN.
The telegraph announced yesterday the death of Colonel
Samuel Colt, at Hartford, Conn. Mr. Colt was born in the
city in which he died on the 19th of July, 1814. He was 
the inventor of the celebrated revolving pistol, the wooden
model of which, it is stated, was made on board a vessel
while the inventor was on a voyage to Calcutta in 1829.
He received his first patent in 1835, and established a
factory in Paterson, N. J., but met with indifferent success.
.He subsequently disposed of his right to manufacture
revolving firearms, and, as it was generally understood
at the time, expended the proceeds in a vain attempt
to clear his brother, John C. Colt, of the charge of
homicide, with which he had been found guilty for killing
a printer by the name of Adams, at his (Colt's) rooms
corner of Broadway and Chambers street. Colonel Colt
afterwards invented a submarine torpedo, which was 
intended for the destruction of vessels. He have two exhibitions
of the power of his new invention in the bay off
Castle Garden, by blowing up that a schooner and afterwards 
a large brig.  He then established a line of telegraph
between this city and and Sandy Hook and Montauk, 
which was intended to announce the arrival of vessels,
and to facilitate the despatch of important foreign news;
but this enterprise failed, and Mr. Colt became
 much reduced in circumstances. A year or two 
later he again got possession of his patent for the
revolving pistol, and with the assistance of a few
 capitalists who joined him a company was formed, and a
manufactory established at Hartford, which has proved
 very successful, not only in the making of pistols, but in
the manufacture of a revolving rifle, which was also the 


[newspaper article cut off after the above line. Not sure why it was included in this file. I believe it was an error when the hard copies were originally scanned.]
Page 234

Statement of
S.A. Peugh
Page 235

Washington D.C.
17th Augt 1861


Hon C. B. Smith
Secretary of the Interior


Sir 
In accordance with your requirement, that I should seek diligently
for the Record of the birth of Peter V. Buskirk son of
Thomas Van Buskirk of Harrington, Bergen Co.
New Jersey though having previously examined
every channel where such document would likely
be found, I here detail my search.
Early in May of this year I accompanied Mr.
A. Van Buskirk, son of Peter to Bergen County N.J.
to ascertain if possible evidence of Record of this fact.
We then went to see Mrs Polly Van Ryper,
a sister of said A. Van Buskirk, where I  made
of whom I made initial inquiry as to the
existence and whereabouts of the family record
of Thomas Van Buskirk. She showed us the records
of their family but could not tell (tho’ recollecting
the Record of her grandfather) where it could be
found.  We then went to the son of Mrs W [Jones?] 
and made inquiry, but with no more favorable result.
from him we went to the domicile of Mr. Pell
who resided where the grandfather & mother lived, she
being sick , the sister of Peter who married John
Ackerman, & as I learned the nearest of him to said
Leah,  in the descending line, and could find no
Page 236

record of [Ths] Van Buskirk & only its age of said John
Ackerman, and their children & grandchildren.
From this place we went to Wm Osbones who married
a granddaughter of A. Van Buskirk & who now
lives in the old mansion of Thomas Van Buskirk, 
(the father of Peter,) and make inquiry as to the record of the
family of said Thomas and was informed that they
had no family record of the Van Buskirk family 
[archive?] & that of their grandfather Abraham's age, 
 and could not tell what had become of it; but they believed 
it had been sold at the "vendue.“
We then visited the descendants of
David & Rachel Baldwin with no better success.
in each and every of these cases (except the last
named) I made all these inquiries of the parties to
know if other family could be found but was wholly unable to
get any clue whatever to it, the same generally conceded
to have been “sold at the vendue” of Thomas.
We then went to the Paramus Church, about
2 miles from where said Thomas died and examined
all the word of births, baptism & Marriages from
1720  or 25 up to a hiatus in the records, which hiatus
is certified & on file in the case.
Since then and during the last of July +
the first of August, I made another journey to the same
neighborhood and made diligent search and inquiry
to many channels where the record might be possibly
be found, going over a portion of the same ground +
made numerous inquiries and extended my trip to
Page 237

Hackensack, the Shire town of Bergen County, and
had the Surrogate examine the records of his
office for any inventory or other document of the personal effects said Thomas
that might throw light upon its whereabouts, but without success,
in proof of which I herewith accompany the certificate under seal of his office.
I then went to New York City, to see a daughter of Abraham Van
Buskirk (the heiress of Peter) and she could give
no information in reference to it, tho’ she
also recollected having seen the old Bible in which
her grandfather’s family was recorded.
I then  went to Hohokus, New Jersey where it
was supposed Margot Marie Buskirk (who married
Andrew Hopper) died, but could get no clue of
her death ; she & her sister Margaret (who married
Andrew Hopper) both having died without
[same], and the forms in great obscurity.  I then
gave up the search deeming it useless to seek
further for it, believing that there was not [currently] any
family record of the birth of said Peter Van Buskirk, 
which is respectfully submitted, and to which
I make solemn oath
S. A. Peugh


Subscribed + sworn to before me this 19th
day of August 1861
Page 238

Sir:
In compliance with your verbal request, I herewith present
a brief statement of the evidence in the case of Peter Van Buskirk, for
increase of Pension, under Act of 7 June 1832, and my views thereon.
In the year 1846, Peter Van Buskirk made a declaration in
Ontario County, New York, for the benefit of the provisions of the said Act
for the Soldiers, &c of the Revolutionary War. In this Declaration,
from ignorance of the scope of its provisions, he made claim to service
as private, only, for a term or terms of service extending from 1778 to 1780,
or 1781; and in 1851, a pension was granted him of $60. per annum,
under said Act.
In 1859, he made an amended Declaration,
setting forth additional service as "Forage Master,” or Commissary of Forage
(as the office was frequently called) at a place or places from June 1781
to the end of the War.
The Son, relying upon his Father's title to credibility and the tradition
founded thereon in his family, seeks in New Jersey his Father's old associates
of the time of his service, in the neighborhood where it was performed, and
obtains the testimony of three living witnesses, all of whom fully corroborate
the statement of the old soldier.
With these proofs, the claim to increase of Pension, was laid before Congress,
and the "Committee on Revolutionary Pensions” of the "House of Representatives agreed
to report a bill for the relief of the old soldier, according to the provisions of
said Act of 7. June 1832. But, for want of opportunity, as I am informed, it was
not presented to the House.
The Son, a man of 62 years of age, and who had always lived with
Page 239

said Peter Van Buskirk, relying upon the credit due his Father's statements
as a man of truth, seek diligently in every conceivable channel for other
evidence of his service, and after much labor and research, find a record
which fully corroborates all his statements, and also, of all the the witnesses
who had a long time prior to its discovery committed them to writing and
filed them in the case, setting forth the time and place, the grade, and
the length of its duration. Upon the back of this certified copy from
the records, from the “Comptroller” of New York, is, however, an endorsement
in the following words, “Account of Amount of Purchases made by Peter
Van Buskirk F M. Thomas Mifflin, Q.M.G.”
While this endorsement should be regarded as a wholly immaterial
circumstance in the case, as the account is with the United States, and no
endorsement can change the relation of the two parties as obligor and
obligee, in a case where evidence exists of service rendered, still, as some
stress seems to be laid on the fact that the Resolutions of the Continental
Congress, (tho’ meagre in detail, and indeed silent of the actual service
of hundreds of the prominent actors during the War,) show Genl Mifflin
to have tendered the resignation of his Commission as Q.M.G. in 1777,
when said account appears to have been settled in 1783, some explanation
on this point may not seem amiss.- To concede that Genl Mifflin
did resign in 1777, as is stated, is to concede a simple isolated fact,
having no bearing whatever upon any other independent fact, that is
to say, that it is no evidence that he did not serve in the same capacity
three or four years thereafter: but whether Mifflin acted with, or without
Commission, one fact is clear, that he did so act, and that the Government
recognized his action; and hence concludes all controversy on this point.
Page 240

In proof of this fact, his Biographer says that he tendered his resignation
as Q.M. General, but he continued to perform the arduous duties of
Q .M. Genl Department until the end of the War. (See, John Frost’s
Biography of the American Generals, pages 368.9,) and in confirmation of this fact,
the Records of the State Department show him settling accounts as Q.M.G.
for service rendered in 1779 & 80, and this very copy of the record from
Albany, (if this proof was germain to the case,) would go very far to establish the
fact of the continued service of Genl Mifflin to the end of the War.
Another fact in connection with the statement in his amended
Declaration, by no means insignificant, is, that in speaking of those whom
he knew during the period of his Staff service, he mentions the names
of Col. Hampton, and Col. Charles Stewart, both of whom are also proven by
the records to have been in service as he stated.
The case then stands thus:-
1st
A Declaration setting forth the grade, the times, and
places of service, and the names of persons serving at the times,
All of which is proven by three Witnesses having personal knowledge
of the facts about which they testify, and the tradition of the
neighborhood in which they lived, as testified to by Hon. J. N.
Granger, Recorder of the General Land Office, and a cherished relic
of Documentary evidence, showing his grade and service, and the
Records of the Treasury, showing Col. Hampton and Col. Stewart
in service during the time stated by him.
2nd
The record proof showing his actual service in the very places
and at the very time to which all the other proof directly points.
It is therefore confidently believed, that with


3rd See next page.
Page 241

a case so clearly proven, and in the strictest compliance with every
official requirement in all analogous cases in the administration
of this branch, and the Bounty Land branch of the Pension Office,
and upon which millions of money, as well as millions of acres
of land have been granted, that it will be at once admitted,
and not be pushed to the unprecedented hardship and utter
impossibility of proving the evidence upon which his case is proven;
and thus furnish death with an opportunity, (as he is in his 99th year)
of cutting off the bounty so freely and gratefully intended by
Congress for these veterans of our liberties.
All which is respectfully submitted.
S. A. Peugh for the
Claimant




Washington City,
14th March 1861
To the Hon
George C. Whiting
Commissioner of Pensions


3rd The appropriate Committees in Congress, to which the case was
committed, becoming satisfied of its justice, referred the whole matter
to the Pension Office, this implying the absence of the necessity
for a special law for the claimant’s benefit.
Page 242

77
Van Buskirk [Camp?]

1850
85
1765 [total]
Page 243

[NOTE - The following is almost entirely copied from the extracted text.  Unable to confirm many of the locations (camps?), soldier  names and ranks (Forage masters & Quarter master Generals)]


Orange Co	Saml Landon B. F. John Edwards [ ]
Clarkstown	Jos King Lieut 2 Regt Dragoons, 4 Mass Brigades
Bedford	W Spratten J.M. to Com Genl Dep
Haversham	H. Leitheser W. M. Gen Grove's Brigade
Cakiatt	Ezra Goldsmith N.Y. Brigades
Tappan	Edw Busbee Lieut Col Baldwin's Regt of Artificers
Nyac	Asa Dunning Recd of Cattle. A B Bancher Com'y of [ ]
Fort Rensellan	Clement Biddle C G J W Archbold Conductor
Johnstown	W Coombs J W 5th [ ] + 1st Div
Albany	Tho's Swatzer to Genl Stark's Brigade
Fort Herkimer	Anthony Van Nighten A. State [ ] at Canajohane
New City	James Monroe A Com'r
Pond	Pat Qually N.C. January A.C.P.
Caughnenage	W Mookery J. to Park Artillery
Green Bush	Col [Lon] + Ass't Com' Forage
	Col Lon C. F.           Gen'l [   ] Brigade
New Hamton	Saml [  ] Conductor [ ]
	E Coleman Conductor   Col Sheburg [  ] Brigade
Schenectady	John Christy Jr to [  ] N Y Brigade
Courtland Manor	N. Little & Noah Pratt [ ] Mass Brigade
Fort Hunter	Capt W. J. Parker  Col Sufferlob Capt Van Hess
	with Genl Washington
Saratoga	Thos Thompson [ ] Genl Hands Brigade
Rhinebeck	Chas Fausett A.C. F. John Jones 2nd [ ]
New York	Wm Noyes [ ]  Clark County Conductor
New Windsor	C C Elmendorf Com of [Prisoner or Pensions]
Kamp Henry	M Baxter Conductor Jas Yule A C of [Issues]
Fishkin	E J Willits F. M. Saml Cook F.M. 1st Conn. Brigade
Morristown	John Denney F.M. Jersey Brigade
North Castle	E M Tenis D Q M Gl; Jn Roberts F. M. to Genl Wash
Green Bay	J E M Ewen Q M Col Spencer R Regt
Capt Wright Brigade	Col Wemple, Capt Townsend, Genl Patterson's Brigade
Genl Green's Brigade [ ] 	Russell A D Camp to Genl Stark at Greenbush
Col Malcolm's Brigade	
2. Penn Brigade	
New Wayne's Brigade
Page 244

Professor Henrys
Report
Copy



No 21
Page 245

Mr Thomson [Trustee or Justice?]
Washington Oct. 30, 1861


Dear Sir
In accordance with your request we have
submitted the writings referred to this [office-crossed out]
Institution for examination by the persons Dr. Lony 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, 
 & have rec’d the following report
First, per Dr. Lony, “It is beyond the power
of Chemical science to determine satisfactorily
 whether the writings were made the at the 
time they hear date. The watermark 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 seems to be the
old fashioned ink made of gall nuts & salts of
iron (Copperas.) 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 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
Quarter Master General. He was a member of Congress when
he appeared & took his seat Nov 20 1782, He was elected
President of Congress Nov 3 1783. If Thomas  Mifflin
Q. M. G.  on the papers was intended for his signature
Page 246

of Mifflin it is a forgery, he did not
write it.
Indeed, everything about this
paper [goes to states] by me that it is a
fabrication. 
I have the honor to be
Very Respectfully
Your obt srvt
Joseph Henry
Secretary [S. G.?]

To the Hon C B Smith
Secy of the Interior
Page 247

163


Draft Report
of Committee on Revolutonary
claims
Page 248

Mr Potter from the Committee on
Revolutionary Pensions made the
following report.
The Committee on Revolutionary Pension
to whom was referred the petition of
Peter Van Buskirk submit the following
Report.
That the Petitioner who is ninety eight
years of age, states under oath, that
he entered the service in the Revolution
as a private in the year 1778, and
served as such until 1780, or early in
1781; that in June he was commissioned
as "Assistant Commissary of Forage”,
which service was rendered under Genl
Wayne and Col. Hampton, in Bergen Co.
New Jersey and principally at Harrington,
Morristown, Pompton, Hackensack, and
along the borders of the Hudson river in
the vicinity of West Point, Courtland
Manor, Peekskill &c. from the time of
his appointment until the army
was disbanded in 1783.
His application is fortified by the testimony of 
Elizabeth Hopper, a Revolutionary pensioner
who states she knew Peter Van Buskirk
and all his family during the revolution,
and has been in the same neighborhood
ever since. that the army in quartered
near them in Bergen County N. Y. nearly
the whole of the war; that she knew his
service was to procure forage and supplies
from early in 181 until the army was
disbanded in that he was called Forage
Master &c
Page 249

Stephen Lutkins also testifies under oath
that he was a near neighbor of Peter Van
Buskirk’s family during the Revolution.
that he resided at Harrington, Bergen
Co. NY.,  that the encampment was at
Harrington [in Bergen Co. N.J. is crossed out] 
 not far from
the house of Peter Van Buskirk; that he
entered the army first under Gen DeKalb
and in 1780, the army divided. Part went
south under DeKalb; that said Buskirk
remained with the northern army at Harrington, 
 that in June 1781, he became assistant
 Commissary of Forage and served
as such until November, 1783, when the
any was disbanded; that he frequently
saw said Buskirk in the discharge of
his duties in collecting forage for the
army &c.
Stephen Westervelt also testifies under
oath that he is ninety one years of age & was
well acquainted with Peter Van Buskirk
of Harrington, Bergen Co N.J. during the Revolution, 
that they resided near together
that he was called Commissary or some
such name, & was engaged in collecting
forage and stores for the army encamped
at Harrington & in the vicinity of West Point
and that he acted in that capacity for about
two years from 1781 to 1783 when the army
was disbanded; that he lived in sight of the
residence of Peter Van Buskirk’s Father,
was often at the house, and since the war
were associates & often talked of the events
of the war &c. 
These witnesses are all vouched
for as being highly credible, and the claimant
Page 250

himself spoken of by Mr Granger the Recorder
of the General Land Office in this city
Your Committee might feel some
hesitancy in admitting this claim upon
Page 251

Washington, Aug. 19, 1861
Hon, Caleb B. Smith
Secretary of the Interior
Sir
I understand that the
payment of the claim of Peter Van Buskich,
for increase of Revolutionary Pension, (for
which a certificate was issued a few weeks
age) has been suspended on account of
representations made by one J. H. Peters, that the
claim is fraudulent.
The points, as I am informed, made
by said Peters, are,
1st That the paper on file, purporting
to be a receipt for oats given by one Chas Fox,
Teamster, to said Peter Van Buskirk, as
Forage Master, during the Revolutionary 
war, is not [egregious on?  written an?] ancient paper.
2. That Stephen Westervelt a witness
in behalf of Buskirk, who represents
himself to be ninety-four years of
age, is, in fact, not more than sixty five
years of age.
As to the first point, the paper much
speak for itself. Peters adduces no
evidence in support of his allegation that the
paper is a modern one, and one
consequently specious.I must, therefore, have
that question to be settled upon an
inspection of the paper itself, and
Page 252

such scientific tests as you may see fit to apply.
Of course it is impossible to adduce my other
proof that the paper is what it purports
to be.
On the second point, I herewith present
evidence which will at least show that Peters
has been guilty of gross misrepresentation.
After diligent inquiry, I am satisfied that
there is no record of Stephen Westervelt's
age, (or birth,) in existence; but I herewith
present other evidence which I think you
will find conclusive of the fact that he
is about the age that he represented him
self to be, viz. Ninety four.
1st The affidavit of Benjamin Westervelt,
the eldest son of said Stephen and
of Eva Westvelt, his wife, who states that
there is no record of his father's age in existence,
to his knowledge; but he always
understood in the family, that his mother
Eva Westerall) was two years older than
his father.
2d The affidavit of John Carlough, son
in law of said Stephen Westervelt to the same
effect
3d The affidavit of Henry Ester, (Post Master
at Saddle River N.J.)
Page 253

a nephew of said Eva Westervelt, deceased,
who was the wife of said Stephen, she being
the sister of his mother. He always understood 
that Stephen Westervelt was between
two and three years younger than his
Aunt Eva. He has a family record in
his possession in which the age of said
Eva Westervelt, appear as follows: (transcribed)
"My daughter Eva is born in the year
A.D. 1765. the 26th day of December."
This is the family record of the parents
of said Eva. Accompanying said affidavit,
 is a transcript of said record, which
you will perceive, by inspection, must
have been made many years ago.
If Stephen Westervelt was two years, or even
two and a half years younger than his wife
Eva, he is now ninety-four years of age.
But even admitting that Westervelt's testimony
is not entitled to full credit, I respectfully
submit that it does not necessarily follow
that the claim is a [deficient], or even a
doubtful one. The main point of 
materiality in Westervelt's testimony was
to establish the age of Peter Van Buskirk.
The worst that can be done with Westervelt's
testimony is to throw it out of the
case, as unworthy of credit. If you
Page 254

do this I respectfully submit that there is ample
testimony on file besides, to prove that the
Van Buskirk, is now the age that he 
represents himself to be, viz. about ninety nine.
On this point I now present the following
additional evidence.
1st The affidavit of Salome Van Buskirk,
wife of Abraham, the son of Peter the claimant. 
This witness is a lady whose character is wholly above impeachment or suspicion.Sshe is the daughter of the late Judge Price of Ontario County New York, and
throughout a long life has sustained an
unblemished reputation. She was 
married to said Abraham Van Buskirk more
than forty years ago, and ever since that
time has resided in the same family with
said Peter Van Buskirk, and with his wife
Sarah, till she died, about twenty four
years ago. For 14 years previous to her
death, said Sarah was bed-ridden, and
the witness was in daily attendance upon
her. Under these circumstances it would be
strange indeed if the witness had not
become perfectly familiar with the ages
of said Peter and Sarah Van Buskirk,
and especially the difference between
their ages. She always understood from
both of them, that there was between
Page 255

four and five years difference in their ages,
the said Peter being the elder, (This in connection
with the unquestioned record, show
ing that said Sarah was born in 1767
ought to be entirely conclusive as to Peter’s age)
Besides this witness testifies to
a family record, (in a bible which is now
lost), which she has seen hundreds of times,
and is positive and distinct in her recollection
that said Peter's death was there
recorded as occurring in the year 1762.
The testimony of this witness, also, is important
and in another aspect, as it establishes
the fact that said Peter from the time
she first knew him, always represented
that he had served as an officer in the
Forage Department.
2d The affidavit of William P. Ramsey,
who formerly lived a near neighbor to
Peter Van Buskirk, in Bergen County, N.Y.
and who always understood that said
Peter was 10 or 11 years his senior and
that he is now [nearing] 88 years of age,
3d We present testimony showing that
said Peter Van Buskirk's father had six
children, of whom Peter was the youngest
and that there was about two years
difference in their ages. (see deposition of
Lucy Hopper, as well as that of Salome Van
Page 256

Buskirk, above referred to)
The order in which these children of
Thomas Van Buskirk were born, was as follows

1. Rachel, (wife of David Baldwin)
2. Mary or Maria, (wife of Andrew Hopper)
3. Margaret (wife of Garret Hopper)
4. Abraham T.
5th Leah (wife of John D. Ackerman)
6th Peter (the claimant
It appears from inscriptions on the
tombstones, in the church yard where
said children are buried,
that Rachel was born 23d Dec. 1752.
(Mary or Maria died in some place 
unknown to the family.)
Margaret, born 24th Dec. 1756.
Abraham T. born 10th Oct. 1758
(Of Leah's age no record is found.)
It will be seen that there was just
about two year's difference in the ages
of the first four children, in fact a little
less than two years. If, (as Mrs. Hopper
states,) all the children were born at
about the same intervals, then Leah
was born in the latter part of 1760,
and Peter in the latter part of 1762.
This, it is true, does not rise to the dignity
of positive evidence of Peter's age, but
Page 257

but is a circumstance strongly corroboration
of the other testimony on that point.
In conclusion I have only to say, that whether
Westervelt's deposition is entitled to
much or little credit or no credit at all,
it was fairly taken, and contain 
nothing more than his voluntary statements
made at the time they were written down
in his presence. On this point I refer
you to the affidavit of Abram J. Ackerman,
the magistrate before whom it was
taken, herewith presented. In support
of Ackerman character I refer you
to a certificate of the Hon. J. R. Riggs
(M.C.) and of John J. Brown, (Mayor of
Patterson, N.J.) also herewith presented.
I will simply add, that Peters, who
made the charge of fraud in this case, 
before doing so, demanded of Abraham
Van Buskirt, the son of Peter a fee
of one thousand dollars, under the pretence
that he had had some agency
in establishing the claim. It was only
after this claim was percentorily rejected
by said Abraham, that Peters interfered
to arrest the payment of the claim.
Whether this was a mere attempt to
levy blackmail, and how much
attention should be paid to his
Page 258

representations made under these circumstances,
unless sustained by evidence, I respectfully
submit to your consideration.
I have the honor to be
Yours &
S. A. Peugh
N.B.
It is worthy of notice, that Salome Van Buskirk
States that she always understood from said Sarah
Van Buskirk, the wife of Petersthat she was married
at the age of 17, and from said Peter that he was
over twenty-one years of age when he was married.
Lucy (or Lucretia) Hopper, says that she always understood
that said Peter Van Buskirk and Sarah his wife
were married before she was born; and we present
the record of her birth, 3d January 1785. of Peter
Van Buskirk was married before January 1785.
and was over 21 years of age when married
he cannot be less there about 98 years of age.
even if he was married ever so short a time
previous to the death of said Lucretia Hopper, 
and was clearly past the age of twenty one
when married. In fact he was about 22
years of age when married.
Yours
S. A.P.
Page 259

Brief,
In the case of
Peter Van Buskirk
for increase of
Pension

On appeal
May 17th 1861.
Page 260


Washington, May 17th 1861
Hon. Caleb B. Smith
Secy of the Interior
Sir
Herewith I have the
honor to present additional evidence in support
of the claim of Peter Van Buskirk, for increase
of Pension, now pending before you on appeal
from the Commissioner of Pensions.
After I requested you to suspend your decision
in the case until an effort could be made
to clear up the difficulty in respect to the
age of the claimant, I advised his friends
to search for additional evidence on that point
in the neighborhood where he was born, and
spent the earlier portion of his life. 
Accordingly, his son Abraham Van Buskirk, with
Mr. Peugh, his Attorney, visited that 
neighborhood (in Bergen County, New Jersey)
a few days ago, and there obtained the 
additional evidence now presented. Before they
left Washington, however (and before it could
have been known what evidence they would
be able to obtain,) the claimant Peter Van
Buskirk, made the affidavit herewith 
presented, (marked A.)
In this affidavit the claimant says
that he was born, as he has always
understood, in August 1762; that he was
Page 261

married to Sarah Van Buskirk, daughter of
Jacobus and Vrontie Van Buskirk in the
summer after the declaration of peace (1784) at
the old Paramus Church, near his father's
residence; that he was then 21 years of
age, and his wife was four or five years
Younger than himself.
These statements of the claimant and
strongly corroborated by the testimony since
obtained in that neighborhood, and herewith
presented
1st We have the old family Bible of
Jacobus Van Buskirk and Vrontie  his
wife, containing a record of the birth of
their daughter Sarah, who afterwards became
the wife of the claimant, Peter Van Buskirk
This record, the genuineness and antiquity of
which will not be doubted, on inspection
shows that said Sarah was born the 7th
of April, 1787, and if living she would now
be 94 years of age. If her husband was
four or five years her senior, he must,
fthereore, now be 98 or 99 years of age.
2d We have the affidavit of Stephen
Westervelt, of Bergen County, New Jersey,
aged 74 years, who lived in the family of
Thomas Van Buskirk, the father of Peter
during the war of the Revolution, who
and gives a very circumstantial account
Page 262

of the family, strongly corroborating the statements
of the claimant, in many particulars, especially
as to his age. First, he states that Peter was
five years his senior, which would make him
now about 99 years of age. Westervelt was
16 years of age at the close of the war. The
fact that Peter Van Buskirk, who lived in the same
family, was about five years his senior,
is a fact which he would not be likely to
forget. 2d He states that Peter Van Buskirk
was married to Sally, only child of Jacobus
Van Buskirk, "shortly after the close of the
war" thus corroborating Peter's own statement
that he was married in 1784. If Peter was
born in 1766, as he was made to say by the
agent who drew up his original declaration
he could only have been about 17 years
of age when married, which is improbable.
Boys are sometimes married at that tender
age, it is true, but not often. 3d He states
that he never know of any other Peter Van
Buskirk in the region where the service as
Commissary of Forage is shown by the record
to have been performed, by a man of that
name. 4th He states a fact which, if
believed, must remove all doubt as to
the identity of the claimant with the
man whose service is proved by the
record, viz: that the said Peter
Buskirk (the claimant) was an officer, engaged
Page 263

in [buying] forage, grain &c for the army,
during the war, and was in the war till it
closed."
This is also a fact which the witness
would be likely to remember. The record shows
that the service as Commissary of Forage was
rendered in the town where the witness, (then
16 years of age) and the claimant, were then
living, members of the same family or 
in its vicinity.
3d We have the affidavit of Andrew
H. Hopper, of Bergen County, N.J. aged 74 years
who has had remarkable opportunities of 
be coming acquainted with the people of said
County for half a century past, having held
the office of Sheriff, and Judge of the Court
of Com. Pleas of said County.
He was
personally acquainted with the claimant,
and with his father Thomas Van Buskirk;
speaks of the high position of the
father as a man of wealth and respectability,
and says he never head of any
other Peter Van Buskirk in that region,
save the claimant.
4th We have the affidavit of Polly
Van Ryper, the daughter of the claimant,
73 years of age, who identifies the family
Bible herewith presented, as the Bible of
her mother's father, Jacobus Van Buskirk,
and the record therein contained as the
Page 264

record of her mother's birth. She always
understood from her parents that there was
five years difference in their ages, and has
now the family record of her father's family,
(which is now lost) showing that he was
born in 1762.
5th
A certificate of Abr'm J. Ackerson,
the Justice of the Peace before whom the
 abovementioned affidavits
were taken, who was a Judge of the Court
of Com. Pleas of said County for 10 years, and
was well acquainted with all the Van
Buskirk's in that region, and never heard
the name of any other Peter Van Buskirk
save the claimant, mentioned in 
connection with the Army, or in any other
way.
6th An affidavit of Abraham Van
Buskirk, son of the Claimant, stating some
facts heretofore stated by him in his former
affidavits in this case, but more 
circumstanstantially stating how the error came to
be made, as to his father's age, by Mr.
Austin, the Agent who drew up his original
declaration, and one or two subsequent
affidavits in which the same error
was repeated. He shows the loss of the
family Bible in which his father's
birth, in 1762, was recorded.
Page 265

7th
The certificate of the Rev. Edward T.
Corwin, pastor of the old Paramus Church,
showing that the marriage register of
said Church, son to July 24th 1799, is lost.
Also, a privited history of said Church, in
pamphlet form, on page 83 of which there
is a note stating that the records from 1777
to 1799 are lost, also page 80 Rev. B. Van Derline.
This evidence accounts for the failure
to produce record proof of the marriage
of said Claimant, in 1784.
8th By reference to the Bounty & and
files in the Pension Office, it will be
seen that said Peter Van Buskirk, the claimant
in April 1855, made a declaration
for Bounty land, in Phelps, N.Y. where
then resided, stating his age to be
ninety-four years. If born in August
1762, this would have been his age in
April 1855

Again, by reference to the Rev. Pension
Claims, under act 1838 &c
and of Elizabeth Hopper of
New Jersey,on file in the Pension Office,
 an affidavit of said Peter
Van Buskirk will be found, made in
Dec. 1857, in which he states his age at
ninety-six years, which is in like
manner consistent with the statement
that he was born in Aug. 1862
Both of these affidavit were made
Page 266

before the present claim was filed, and 
before the claimant could have known that the
mistake in respect to his age, made
by his Agent Austin would ever rise
up in judgment against him.
As I understand, the only doubt 
heretofore existing in your mind, respecting
the merits of this claim, is as to the identity
of the claimant with the Peter Van Buskirk
whose service as Commissary of Forage
or Forage Master is proved by the record
evidence. In other words, a doubt whether
there was not another man of the same
name residing in that region, to whom
the record evidence refers. I respectfully
subscrib, that the only foundation for
such a doubt, is the statement of the
Claimant in his original declaration
and one or two subsequent affidavits,
as to his age, going to show that he
was only some 17 years of age
at the close of the war. If he was
in fact so young, I admit that it
would be extremely improbable, if not wholly
incredible, that he should have held so
responsible an office for some two years
preceding the close of the war. But if
it has been satisfactorily shown that
said statement of his age was made
Page 267

by mistake, and that he was in fact
twenty-one years of age when the war
closed, the ground upon which this
doubt rested has been entirely removed.
I respectfully submit that all this
is satisfactorily shown by the evidence
now presented. The claimant has stated
his age in both ways, under oath, at
times when he could have had no object
in misrepresenting the facts. It is
clear then, that he has made a mistake
in one case of the other. All the evidence
tends so strongly to show, that the
mistake consisted in representing that he
was born in 1766, (as in his original 
declaration,) and that in fact he was
born as early as 1762, (as he now as
serts,) that I do not think a reasonable
doubt can be entertained on that point.
In addition to this strong evidence
explaining and correcting the mistake as to
the claimants age, as now presented, we
have negative evidence tending to remove
any suspicion that the service may have
been rendered by another Peter Van 
Buskirk, by showing that no other man
of that name was ever heard of in
that region, by the oldest inhabitants.
Page 268

In conclusion, we have, in addition to all this
positive testimony that the claimant is
the identical man who served as Forage
Master, by a witness who knew him, and
lived in the same family with him,
when he was engaged in buying Forage,
&c. for the army. This witness was of
competent age to take cognizance of
the facts to which he testifies, and
to remember them is not interested in
the claim, nor even a relation of the
Claimant or his family. I refer to
Stephen Westervelt.)
Having heretofore filed an 
argument in this case, and advised the
course which has since been pursued
in reference to obtaining additional
evidence, and being thoroughly
convinced, in my own mind, that the
additional evidence so obtained
remove every shadow of doubt as
to the identity of the claimant, with
the man who served as Forage 
Master, I did not feel at liberty to
decline presenting my views of the
case as it now stands, although my
present position renders it improper
for me to act as an attorney for
a claimant against the Government
Page 269

I therefore add this, gratuitously,
to what I have done in the case
heretofore.
I have the honor to be
Very respectfully,
Your obt svnt
J. J. Coombs

P.S. In 1860, Peter Van Buskirk made an 
affidavit in the case of Thomas Van Buskirk, for
County land, in which he state his age
at 98. (see files in that case)
Page 270

[Circular stamp/seal]
Pension Office
Jan 31 1861

Order referring
case back to
Pension Office
H. of Rep
Page 271

Thirty sixth Congress
Second Session
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
In the House of Representatives
January 26, 1861.
On motion of Mr. Thomas, by unanimous consent
Ordered, that leave be granted for the withdrawal
from the files of the House of the papers in the case
of Peter Van Buskirk, for the purpose of reference
to the Pension Office.
Attest.
[J.N. Fonvey]
Clerk
Page 272

(39)
[Geo] Taylor [letter]
Page 273

Copy
Washington City July 16. 1862

Hon Caleb B. Smith
Secretary of the Interior

I have been requested
to state my recollection of the alterations which were
found in the original petition of Peter Van Buskirk
for a pension. The petition was not before the
revolutionary Claims Court with which I was connected
but other claims of the Van Buskirks' were, and I
had frequent conversations with them on the matter.
I was then informed and believe that the said
petition had been amended with the consent of the
Committee and refiled, but I do not recollect in what
particular. I have no recollection of having seen
the papers, but my recollection is that the alterations
were made with the consent of the Committee and
that there was no wrong intended, in making said alteration.
Your Respectfully
signed George Taylor
Page 274

By whom Presented  - Mr Thompson

Subject reference
Peter Van Buskin
praying to be allowed
a pension for services
as Commissary
during the war of the
Revolution


Sub.[Counsellor]
Mr Grimes
12 March

Remarks
Jan. 26. 1860 set, to Com of Pensions [involving]
papers.

Returned
Favorable Report written.
Page 275

15
Additional proof
Page 276

Washington Nov. 19th 1861

Hon. Caleb B. Smith
Sec. of the Interior

Herewith I beg leave to
present additional evidence in support of the claim of 
Peter Van Buskirk, for increase of Revolutionary pension.
The principal object of the evidence now presented is
to explain the mistake made in the declaration of said
Van Buskirk of 1846, as his age, and to show that he
was in fact born as early as the year 1762; but it is important
in another aspect, as it proves that said Peter
Van Buskirk, as far back as 1816, (long before any pension
law of which he could claim the benefit was passed)
made the same statements in relation to his revolutionary
services, that he now makes.
The doubt in regard to Van Buskirk's age, arises
from the fact, that in his original declaration of 1846,
he stated that he was born in the year 1766
1st
The affidavit of Ephram Archer, now presented shows
that said Archer was present in Court when
original declaration was made, and was one of the
subscribing witnesses to it. He swears that
after said declaration had been made said Peter
Van Buskirk told his attorney, Austin, in the
presence of the witness, that there was a mistake
made in giving his age to the Court, and he should
have stated that he was born in 1762.
2nd
The deposition of Samuel Cole, late clerk of the Pen. office (who was heretofore testified in the case) shows that this mistake in
Page 277

the age of Peter Van Buskirk as stated in his
original declaration, was mentioned to him by Austin
the attorney, and Abraham Van Buskirk the son,
in several conversations occuring a number of years ago,
and long before the present claim was presented & also his [Company or Commission].
3rd
A memorandum from the census return of 1860. shows
that Peter Van Buskirk age was given (in June 1860) as
98. I understand it was given to the Dept. Marshal by
the wife of Abraham Van Buskirk, whose affidavit you
have in this case, and by reference to which you will see
that she has the most ample means of knowing his age.
This statement was given by her before the question as to
his age had ever been [marked or noted or mentioned] in this case.
4th
The most important aspect of this testimony is that
it shows, that said original declaration of 1846, contains
a statement from which (in connection with a
additional fact now proved) it appears that said
Peter Van Buskirk must have been born as early as 1762.
In answer to the 4th interrogatory propounded to
"him by the Court, he said, 'I lived in the Town of
Harrington (N.J.) until about 30 years ago. I was
about fifty years of age when I left Harrington, since
I left there I resided in Hopewell, Ontario County, N.Y.
about 23 years, and about 7 years in the Town of Phelps,
where I now reside."
Now if you add together
the 50 years he lived in Harrington, (N.J.) the 23
years in Hopewell (N.Y.) and the 7 years in Phelps
(N.Y.) you make him 80 years old at the time of
said declaration, (1846) which is consistant with
Page 278

the statement that he was born in 1766. But we now
show by the affidavit of Abraham Van Buskirk, that
he lived four years, (from 1812 to 1816) in the City of New York,
 which he wholly omitted to mention in his
declaration. Add these four years, and you make
him 84 years of age in 1846, which is consistant win
his present statement, that he was born in 1762.
In connection I would call your attention to the certificate
 of the Clerk of Bergen Co. N.Y. showing that the
deed from Peter Van Buskirk to Garret A. Ackerman,
of his land in N.Y. is dated the 28th of April 1812.
This land was sold by said Peter just before leaving New Jersey
and removing to the City of New York. The affidavits
of George Derr and George Spangle show that he removed
Ontario County, New York in 1816  - thus clearly showing
an interval of four years between his leaving New Jersey,
and going into Hopewell, Ontario Co. N.Y.
Again, if he was 50 years of age when he left New Jersey
and left there in 1812, he is now 99 years of
age, and must have been [born] in 1762. So that in fact
the declaration of 1846, contains the date for correcting
the mistake which occured in it as to his age.
I beg leave, also to refer to the statement ofs George
Derr and George Spangle, as to their distinct recollection
of hearing said Peter Van Buskirk, speak of service
as Forage Master when he first removed to Ontario County,
New York, some forty five years ago.
I hope that the testamony now presented, in connection
 with the large amount of evidence on the same
Page 279

point heretofore filed, will be sufficient to remove every
doubt as to the age of said Peter Van Buskirk and
to explain and account for the mistake in his declarations of 1846.
I have the honor to be
Very Respectfully Yours
S. A. Peugh
Page 280

28
Certificate
of Cornelius S. Blauvelt
Clerk of Bergen Co. N. J.
Page 281

State of New Jersey
Bergen County ss. 
 I Cornelius S Blauvelt
Clerk of the County of Bergen and Clerk of the
Circuit Court and Court of Common Pleas in
and for said County do hereby certify that
there is recorded in this office a Deed from
Peter Van Buskirk of the county of Bergen to Garret A. Ackerman
Dated the 28th day of April A.D. 1812 for two
lots of land, the one lot situate lying and
being in the Township of Harington in the County
of Bergen and the other lot in the Township of
Franklin in said County, and that said Deed
was recorded in this office in Files [ G. Q.] of
Deeds on the 5th day of May AD. 1812 by
Abraham Westervell, Clerk
Witness my hand and seal of
said County and County this
Second day of October A.D. 1861
C.S. Blauvelt, Clerk
Page 282

112
Interior decision
case of
Peter Van Buskirk
1861
Page 283

Copy

Department the Interior
June 10, 1867.
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 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 decide the whole case upon your own judgment 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
Page 284

pension shall be established is not defined in any act of
Congress in which the right is conferred. 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
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 will 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 dependant
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, if produced, prove the length
of his services. Parol 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. Entries upon the army
Page 285

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 because 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 consist merely of written evidence
of facts cotemporaneous with the alleged service, and from which
we are authorized to presume the existence of other facts having a
important bearing upon the claim. It consists, first, of a 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
deem it necessary to examine. It is wholly immaterial whether
the account was correct in its statement 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
Page 286

seems to be rather a statement made by the Quartermaster 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, andited,
and allowed by the proper accounting officers. Then it becomes
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 officer of the Quartermaster's 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 now authenticated, as conclusive evidence. In the ordinary
use of the term "record”, a meaning is frequently attached
to it widely different from its legal definition.
“A record is a memorial of a proceeding or act of a
Court of Record, entered in a roll for its preservation.” Fowler
Vs. Byrd, 1 Xemp. 2.13.
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
Page 287

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 parol statements of
witnesses of past transactions, because they are not liable to the same
uncertainty as the recollections 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 contemporaneously with the transaction. For this season, statements.
of accounts, receipts, or written memoranda of any description,
bearing evidence of having been made during 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 the account filed by Van Buskirk is of this
class of evidence. The original is found in the Comptroller's Office,
among the papers and accounts relating to the Quartermaster General
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 never rendered 
such services. If the paper bore evidence that it had been
Page 288

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 statements 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 weight to which it may be entitled as one them 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 "88 bushels of oats”, 
is an important item of evidence; and, although neither "record
evidence” nor conclusive proof, is yet very strong evidence that
Peter Van Buskirk was in the public service, and employed in
procuring forage for the troops. The appearance of the paper is sufficient
evidence of its antiquity, and forbids my presumption
that it has been prepared as evidence to sustain this claim. I am
unable to perceive anything 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
abridge the writing, as an exact description of his official
Page 289

character could not have been important for the purposes for which
the receipt was given.
The fact that the receipt presents better penmanship, “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 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 overriding a long-established principle adopted in the
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 war 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 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
Page 290

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 bounty 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 3rd instant, you refer to
the case of John Light, allowed by the Pension Office. The papers
in this case show that night, in his application, claimed that the
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. J. L. Edwards, esq., for many
years Commissioner of Pensions, in a letter relating to that claim,
stated that "Forage Master, Wagon Masters, &c seem, during the
 Revolution, to have been engaged for a stipulated price, varying at different
time and places, and under different Quartermaster 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 $40 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 claim
to have rendered similar services.
These papers prove that your predecessor, Mr. Edwards, whose
long experience in the Pension Office entitles his opinion upon the
laws and regulations relating to the military service in the Revolution
Page 291


to great weight, & did not consider that there was any uniform
rate 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 a 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
Your obedient servant,
Caleb B. Smith,
Secretary

Joseph H. Barrett, Esq.,
Commissioner of Pensions.
Page 292

1
(Copy.)
Pension Office
May 29th 1861.

Hon. Caleb B. Smith
Secretary of the Interior
Sir:
In compliance with the instructions contained in your letter
of the 22nd inst, requiring me to examine all the
evidence filed in the case of Peter Van Buskirk,
an applicant for an increase of pension under
Act of 7th June 1832 and to pronounce my judgment
upon the additional testimony adduced,
I have the honor to submit the following report.
Two documents each marked (B )
which compose all the record or documentary
evidence filed in the case, are herewith submitted
for your inspection
It has been conceded by my predecessor, and 
apparently by yourself, that a person bearing the
name of Peter Van Buskirk, is proven beyond 
doubt to have rendered service as Assistant
Forage Master in the Revolutionary War.
and the only question open for an examination
would seem to be, whether the applicant is identified 
as the individual who served in that capacity
Page 293

This admission I should regard as binding
upon me, if I had not been directed, to examine
all the evidence in the case, and as in my estimation,
 the whole question turn upon the point
whether service as exhibited by the documentary
proof, was actually performed, and as, with 
deference to the opinions before pronounced, I have
been constrained to arrive at a different conclusion. 
I propose to submit some observations
upon the point, leaving for your decision the question
whether the former admissions are binding
upon this office.
It has been a rule of long standing
in application for pensions under the act of 7th
June 1832, especially by persons claiming service
as officers, to require record or documentary evidence
showing clearly the appointment or comission
to the rank asserted and the duration of the service itself.
This has been necessary, as well to
satisfy the Department upon the merits of the
claim, as to afford a proper basis, on which
compute the rate of pension.
With this principle before us as a guide, it
becomes important to enquire what record or documentary
proof is presented of the service
Page 294

of any man of the name of Peter Van Buskirk as a
Forage Master, Assistant Forage Master or
Commissary of Forage, for all these grades are named
in the proofs.
No evidence at all of a Comission, or appointment
to any rank is adduced, and the only evidence
of service in such capacity consists in the
exhibition of two papers; one a certified copy of 
an account on file in the Comptroller's office of
New York, the other a paper purporting to
be an original receipt for fifty-eight bushels
of oats given July 29th 1781 by one Charles Fox,
a Teamster, in which Peter Van Buskirk is styled
a Commissary of Forage.
The evidence from the Comptroller's
office, is relied on chiefly to establish
both the grade and duration of service, it is
Headed as follows viz: "Q.M. Gen account of
Forage purchased by Peter Van Buskirk
F.M. at Harrington and other places.” It goes
on in the body of the account to specify the
sums of money received and expended his wages
as F.M. at $50 per month for twenty-five
months and six days from 29th July 1781 to
Sept. 1. 1783, and closes with the statement
Page 295

of a balance of $543. 1.8 due Peter Van Buskirk
A.F.M.
The paper bears no signature, it
does not appear by whom it was made 
whether it was audited and allowed by the accounting
officers, or whether the balance alleged to be
due was ever paid.  It is filed, or found in
the office of the Comptroller of the State of New York,
 and the enquiry suggests itself, at what
time and for what purpose was this paper
lodged in the archives of that State?
The service if performed by the claimant was
rendered by a citizen of New Jersey and mostly
in that State.
If it was in the State troops or militia
the balance of account alleged to be due,
would be likely to be a demand against that
State and to be filed in one of its public 
offices; but if as it purports to be it was in the
Q.M. General's Department it would be an
account with the U.S. and not properly belonging
to the offices either of New York or New Jersey.
 It certainly was not an account in which
the State of New York had any concern nor
was it recognized by the accounting officers
of that State.
The Comptroller’s Certificate
Page 296

does not show, even, that it is found among
the books and documents in that office relating
to the Revolutionary War, but merely
states that it is a copy of an original paper on
file, and for aught that is known, it may be an
isolated paper deposited at a time long
subsequent to that event.
But conceding that it was filed at the time of its
date, that it property belongs to the office where
it is found, and that the balance claimed to be
due, was a legitimate demand against the State of
New York, 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
If it had been an account presented either to the 
Legislature of New York or to the Comptroller and
had been disallowed it would not then be pretended
that this office should regard it as evidence
of service, but it would possess more value as
such than now, for it would show that it had been
Page 297

subjected to official action and decision. If the
original paper itself, no matter when prepared were
before this office, it would not be entitled to as much 
consideration as evidence as the declaration of claimant
himself for a pension, for that would at least
bear his signature and be supported by the solemn 
responsibility of an oath. Can then this unsigned, unexplained
paper, purporting to be an unsettled and unpaid
account merely by the certificate of the Comptroller
 of New York be elevated to the dignity of
record evidence which this office is bound to respect?

A careful inspection of the account itself, would lead
to the conclusion, that it could scarcely have been
made, either by a person filling the important post
of Forage Master or by any one serving in the
Q. M. General's Department or have been allowed by
any intelligent accounting officer. It is a tissue
of blunders and absurdities, which betray an
ignorance not only of every thing pertaining to the
rank of Forage Master, but of the simplest principles
of bookkeeping. For instance; it purports to be
an account of the Q.M. General with Peter Van
Buskirk, in which the latter should be charged of
course, with all monies coming into his hands
Page 298

and be credited, not only by his account of monies
expended as shown by vouchers but by the amount
of his wages at $50 per month for twenty-five months.
Instead of this, he is actually charged with his own
wages, making him a debtor to the Q.M.G. not
only for monies received but for his own services and
then a balance is struck in Van Buskirk's favor for
$[543.18] when, even by this absurd method of rendering
 the account it would be but $463.6.4. and would
be a balance, not in favor, but against him making
him a debtor to the Q. M.G. for that sum.
Again he is mentioned in the heading as F.M. twice, 
in the body as F.M. and at the foot it is stated, a
balance is due him of $543 as A.F.M. and in
the original paper, purporting to be a receipt given
by Fox, the Teamster, he is styled a Commissary of Forage.
Here are three different and distinct grade of office
named indiscriminately, 1st as Forage Master,
2nd as Assistant Forage Master, (there was no
such grade but that of Deputy Commissary of
Forage corresponded to it) and 3rd as Commissary
of Forage, each one having rates of pay fixed by
law and none of them specifying the precise sum
of $50 per month. The law passed July 15th 1780
Page 299

regulating the compensation for services in the Quarter
Masters Department fixed the rate of pay per
month as follows: Commissary of Forage $75;
Deputy Commissary of Forage $40; Forage
Master $10 in addition to his pay in the line. 
This law continued in force until Oct 23rd 1782
when it was repeated, and another was passed declaring
among other things, that there be for the
main army one Commissary of Forage, for the
southern and separate army, one Deputy Commissary
of Forage and as many assistants in the
Quarter Master’s Department as the service may
require in the main and southern army.
The pay of the Commissary and Deputy
 Commissary of Forage should be $60 per
month, and all assistants in the Quarter Master’s
Department each $30.
The grade of Forage Master does not
seem to have been recognized at all by this law and
with the repeal of the act of July 15th 1780 would
appear to have been abolished. There was then no
way possible by which Peter Van Buskirk
could have got the exact sum of $20 per month up 
to the 23d of Oct 1782 (to say nothing of the
pay after the repeal of the act of 15th July 1780)
Page 300

unless he had been a Capt. in the Line, and had been
appointed a Forage Master, when $10 per month 
would have been added, making the precise sum
of $50. But it is not asserted that he ever served
in the line, or if it were, the records of New York
and New Jersey would deny it.
If he were Commissary of Forage
he would have received $75 per month until
Oct 23rd 1782: of Deputy Commissary of Forage
 $40 per month to that date, when the pay
both of Commissary and Deputy was fixed at $60.
From Oct. 23rd 1782 it does not appear
that he could have served as Forage Master at
all, if the grade did not exist.
But as an assistant, either in purchasing or 
issuing forage, he would have received exacity
$30 per month as is shown by the pay rolls in
this office of Col. Hugh Hughes Dept. Q.M.G.
of the northern army stationed at Fish Kill in
1782, to have been paid to that class of men.
Again it will be observed, there appears to have
been but one settlement only of accounts for the 
whole period from 29th July 1781 to Sept 3d 1783
during which time Van Buskirk had received
$1760.6.10. and had expended $1800.4.6.
Page 301

The law of 15th July 1780 required all Deputies
serving in the Quarter Master's Department
make returns of their accounts quarterly, and
this one seems to have run on for two years
and one month without a settlement during
which period of continuous service for which
he charges $50 per month in specia (so spelled)
he expends but $1800 which was but little over
two thirds of his salary.
Officers receiving such compensation, equaling
the pay of a Major in the line, would be
likely to have expended large sums than this in
making purchases, during a space of over two
years, and to have made their returns at the
time, and in the manner required by law.
It is not credible that the affairs in the Quarter
Master's Department, were conducted so loosely
as the accounts in this paper indicate. And it is
not surprising that it bears no signiture or
that the balance due as A.F.M. never was paid.
If the considerations respecting
this paper are well founded, it follows then that
it ought not to be received as record evidence of
service as a Forage Master or Assistant Forage Master.
 The other papers relied
on, viz: the receipt signed by Fox, the teamster,
Page 302


does not amount to anything, even if there were no
doubt of its genuineness. It is given on the first day
that Van Buskirk, is stated in the account to have
been employed as a Forage Master, viz: 29 July 1881
and it styles him as a Commissary of Forage.
The two statements are entirely inconsistent as they
designate two distinct grades, both of which he could
not have filled at the same time. The body and
signature of the receipt are in the same handwriting
which is more regular, precise, and fair, than most
men employed in the capacity of Teamsters would
be likely to command.
If then there is no record or documentary
evidence presented, showing the services of
Peter Van Buskirk in the capacity of Forage Master,
as Commissary of Forage, or in the imaginary grade
of Assistant Forage Master, it is hardly necessary to 
go into an examination, of the parol proof, either to
reconcile former discrepancies, or to establish identify
 for however strong or respectable the testimony
may be, it cannot be received as conclusive, with
out overriding a long established principle adopted
in this office. It is possible that claimant rendered
service in some capacity connected with the Quarter
 Masters Department. It would be difficult and
Page 303

painful to dispute it, when asserted by his sworn 
assertion, and the testimony of witnesses, who must all
be mistaken or feigned, if it were not the fact.
But the grade and duration of this service are
not established by record or documentary evidence,
without which an admission of the claim
could not be justified.
I have deemed it my duty to present, for your
consideration, these objections to the record 
character of the evidence relied on. If you should
not concur in the conclusions to which I have 
arrived, but should decide, either that the service is
sufficiently established, or that the office is bound
by its former admissions I will then submit a
report upon the question of identity and of 
alleged discrepancies in former statements of claimant
both as to his age and services.
I have the honor to be
Very Respectfully
Your Obt Servt
Jos. H. Barrett,
Commissioner
Page 304

Copy
Pension Office
June 19. 1861
Hon Caleb B. Smith
Secretary of the Interior
Sir
In obedience to the 
instructions contained in your communication 
of the 10th inst in the case of Peter
Van Buskirk requiring me to examine
and report upon the only remaining
question to be considered viz: whether "the 
claimant is the same person whose services
are proved by the evidence now on file,” I have
the honor to submit the following report.
As the testimony is quite voluminous,
and as some of the facts stated are involved in 
doubt, I beg leave to submit for your inspection
a brief abstract of all the proof filed in the
case.
In the first declaration made by Peter Vin
┃ Buskirk dated May 20th 1846 for a pension
under the act of 7th June 1832 he asserted a
claim for services as a private soldier only, 
performing miscellaneous duties in camp,
Page 305

2
such as cook, guard & attendance on the
sick from Nov 1779, and stated that they
were all rendered at Harrington N.J. where his
father resided, & where was a military camp
and that these services terminated on the
1st of June 1781.
George Dearman whose testimony was
introduced to corroborate this statement, in
an affidavit made 11th June 1846, asserts that
he served as a soldier at the same time, in
the same place, for the same period and
was discharged when Van Buskirk was viz.
1st June 1781, and he says also that all the
army left Harrington in Nov. 1780, but other troops
came and continued there “until the 1st June
1781 when the whole was principally broken up.”
On the 19th June 1846 Peter Van Buskirk makes
an affidavit in support of the claim of
George Dearman for a pension, in which
after describing similar services performed
by each at Harrington he says “Dearman
continued to serve as a soldier and a
volunteer from the time DeKalb’s army all left
in Nov 1780 until the 1st June 1788 when the
army or troops went off & was quartered in
Page 306

3
other places."
These affidavits were draw by one person
(whose knowledge and skill in preparing
such papers is evident, Mr. Austin) for the
purpose of establishing both claims to a pension.
Van Buskirk's was granted on this 
testimony in June 1851, while Dearman's was
never allowed at all. In both of these statements
the fact is averred that the army principally
or wholly left Harrington 1st June 1786, 
nor do they mention its return after that time.
It will be seen that Dearmman and Van Buskirk
were both mistaken in that a portion of
the latter is correct in the statement made
in his subsequent declaration dated 5th
Sept 1859,  where the service as an assistant 
commissary was first asserted and if the testimony
of witnesses then introduced & the record
evidence from the comptroller's office at Albany
are reliable for they all declare that the services
as an assistant Commissary or Forage Master
 was rendered principally at Harrington
from 1st July 1781 to the fall of 1783 . The
witnesses (one of whom is a woman), testify
that the camp was at that place where they
Page 307

4
resided and where frequently they saw Van Buskirk
 acting in his official capacity. 
This discrepancy would not perhaps be very
material if considered by itself, but connected with
facts set forth in the affidavits of Abraham &
Peter Van Buskirk dated April 3 1861 (see abstract
page 8 & 9) it is not without significance.
In these affidavits it is said that the service as
an officer was all detailed to the agent (Mr. Austin)
when the first declaration in May 1846, was made.
and by his advice all allusion to that service was
omitted and that his attention was called to
the blunder respecting an Buskirks age but it was
not corrected. The reason assigned for this omission
was that there was no record evidence of service as
an assistant Commissary attainable, without
which the Pension Office, would not admit the
service, and it was said if any should be discovered
an amended declaration could be
drawn claiming the benefit of that service.
It would not have damaged the claim in the
  first instance to have narrated all the service
Van Buskirk rendered, even though he could
prove but part, and the Pension Office would
have received more readily the record evidence
Page 308

if subsequently found, to support the first 
declaration than if an amended declaration should
be offered based on the discovery of such evidence.
It was a mistake on the part of the agent
calculated at least to prejudice the claim to omit
not only all allusion to the service as an assistant
Commissary of Forage but to make Van Buskirk
and his witness say that the army left Harrington
& went to other places after June 1st 1781, if it was
intended to claim a service of two years from that date as
an assistant Commissary for troops stationed 
principally at that place. It was equally unfortunate
not to correct the blunder respecting the age of
Van Buskirk when discovered as standing 
uncorrected, it would be impossible to induce the 
belief that he could have been appointed to the 
important post of assistant Commissary of Forage
when only fifteen years old.
The Pension Office did hesitate to allow the claim as a private
because of his extreme youth, for if Eighty years old in
1846. he could have been but thirteen in 1779 when he began
the service as a soldier, but the peculiar duties
which he discharged, viz: standing guard, cooking
& attending the sick were such as a youth of that
tender age might perform.
Page 309

6
But it is reasonable to suppose that an agent as familiar
with the practice of the pension office as Mr. Austin was, would
perceive that an objection might be made to the claim on the ground
that Van Buskirk was too young to have been a soldier, and if a
mistake of four years had occurred in stating the age it is 
singular to say the least, that it was not corrected to avoid that 
objection when his attention was called to it, especially if it was intended afterwards to claim a service for two years as an officer.
He could not but see it would be impossible to induce the belief
that lad of fifteen years had served in that capacity.
He must have known also that it would be difficult to
correct the mistake if deferred till that claim was asserted.
The same mistake was repeated in an affidavit (drawn
by Mr. Austin), sworn to by Peter Van Buskirk on behalf of George Dearman
dated 19th June 1846, less than one month after the declaration had been made.
In his declaration made 20th May 1846. he says his age is Eighty years. In
answer to a question put to him by the court he says he was born 29th
 August 1762. The last two figures have been altered, but when and by whom
does not appear. It is fair to presume that the figures now standing
were not made at the date of the declaration for the alteration would
have been noted and Van Buskirk would not be made to say he was
Eighty years old in May 1846. and at the same time say he was born in
1762, for the year 1766 would correspond with his age of Eighty then.
The statements which Van Buskirk has at different times made of his
age are as follows (the time of birth I have made to correspond with each date)
Page 310

7
Declaration May 20th 1846 80 years from 1766
Affidavit June 19, 1846,       80   [years from]     1766
[Affidavit]    May 1, 1851,     84  [years from] 1767
[Affidavit] Sept 4, 1856,        91  [years from] 1765
Supplemental Dec. Sept. 4. 1859, 97  [years from] 1762
Affidavit            April 3d 1861       99  [years from] 1762

These discrepancies required explanation, and testimony 
has been introduced, calculated to fix the precise time of 
Van Buskirk's birth at the period last indicated in 1762.
Peter Van Buskirk himself makes an affidavit on the 5th of May
last in which he says he was born in August 1762, as he has always
understood and believed, that he was married in the summer after the
war ended (1784) at the old Paramus Church near his father's residence, that
he was then 21 years old, and his wife was four or five years younger than himself.
Polly Van Ryper, a daughter of Peter Van Buskirk, swears that she has
frequently seen an old family record of her father's in which the date of his
birth was written 1762, that she always understood her mother to be four or five
years younger than her father, and she presents an old family bible which
belonged to her mother's father Jacobus Van Buskirk in which are written the
following words "our daughter Sarah was born on Tuesday the 7th of April 1767
about 6 oClock in the morning." The antiquity & genuineness of both the
bible and the handwriting cannot be questioned.
Abraham Van Buskirk a son of the claimant swears that many
years ago, a transcript of his fathers age was made from an old into a
new English bible, and he distinctly remember the date of his fathers birth
Page 311

which was written 1762, but that this bible was lost in moving to New York City
& from thence to the western part of the State of New York.
It may not be improper to remark here that in the declaration
of Peter Van Buskirk of May 1846, in the reply to a question put to 
him by the court he says "I have no record of my age, my age
is recorded in the old family record of my father which is in the
hands of some of my sisters in New Jersey unless it is lost or destroyed."
Peter Westervelt swears that he was an inmate of the family
of Thomas Van Buskirk, father of Peter, at the time of the war,
that he has frequently seen the old family record of the said 
Thomas and knew, his own age in connection with that record that 
said Peter Van Buskirk is in his 99th or 100th year of age.
He recollects his own to be 94 and there was 5 years
difference in their ages.
If this testimony of Westervelt is reliable it would
seem to fix the date of Peter Van Buskirk in the yea
1762. The only doubt suggested is whether a person could
at the age of 94 recollected exactly that he is of that age,
but his statement taken in connection with that of 
Mrs. Van Ryper respecting the difference in the ages of her
parents, supported by the evidence of the family bible
 of the date of her mothers birth may warrant the 
conclusion that Peter Van Buskirk was born in 1762
and consequently that he was mistaken in all
his previous statements.
Page 312

9
identify the claimant as the individual who 
rendered the service as Forage Master as proved by the evidence on
file testimony of several witnesses has been introduced
Stephen Lutkins in an affidavit made 22 day of
July 1859 testifies that he is 95 years old, knew Peter Van
Buskirk in the revolutionary war, and that he resided in
Harrington N.J., describes Van Buskirk's services as a 
soldier till the first of June 1781, that after that date he
volunteered his service under Genl Wayne, Genl Lee and
others, as an assistant commissary for supplying the
army with Forage, until Nov 1783, that he saw him frequently
with the army at Harrington where the camp was,
"it being a regular camp ground during near the remainder
of the war." Saw him purchasing straw for the army
when the soldiers were lying at Paramus. 
Stephen Westervell in an affidavit made 19th August
1859 testifies that he is 91 years old, knew Peter Van
Buskirk of Harrington in the revolutionary war, that he
acted as commissary or some such name, collected
forage and straw for the army, which was encamped
at Harrington in the vicinity of West Point, supplied
the army and acted in that capacity for
about two years from sometime in the spring of
the year 1781 till 1783, witness was at the camp
and saw him frequently
Page 313

Elisabeth Hopper in an affidavit made 7th
Dec 1859 testifies that she is 87 years old, was well as
acquainted with Peter Van Buskirk of Harrington
during the revolutionary war and was well
knowing to his services in the U.S. Army, that was
quartered more or less all the time during said
war at Harrington, that he acted in the capacity
of an officer under Genl Wayne in collecting
forage & supplying the army from the spring of 1781
till late in the fall of 1783 when it was disbanded.
The army was stationed sometimes in the vicinity of
West Point and along the Hudson River, Cove, Paramus, 
Hackensack, &c then returned to campground formerly
occupied by them, that Peter Van Buskirk acted
to the close of the War as a Forage Master or commissary. 
This witness gives an account with a
minuteness & degree of certainly which would 
imply a personal knowledge of Van Buskirk's services
at Harrington, West Point, Hackensack & other
places. She was eighty seven years old in 1859.
and would have been ten or eleven years of age
when these services were rendered.
George W. Spangle in a letter dated Dec 18 1859 
States that he has known Peter Van Buskirk for 20
years and has often heard him speak of serving as a
Page 314

Commissary of Forage.
All this testimony upon the question of identity,
was before this office when the decision was pronounced
by my predecessor, and it was before
your honor when the opinion dated 2d April
last was delivered.
Since that time the following affidavits have been
filed.
1st The affidavit of Stephen Westervell made 10th
May 1861 which reaffirms the facts sworn to in his
former one respecting Van Buskirk's services
as an officer engaged in collecting forage
and states a fact not before mentioned that
Peter Van Buskirk was the only man of that
name whom he had ever known or heard of 
in Bergen County.

The affidavits of Andrew H. Hopper aged
74 years, of Polly Van Ry per aged 73 years, and 
the Certificate of Abraham J. Ackerman aged
52 years, all of which aver that from an
extensive acquaintance throughout Bergen
 County N. J. they never knew or heard of any
other man by the name of Peter Van Buskirk
except the claimant.
No additional proof bearing upon the
Page 315

19
question of identity is adduced in these affidavits,
except this, that the claimant was the only one of
that name known to have resided at Harrington
or in Bergen County, with this exception the 
condition of the claim so far as the question of identity
is concerned, is not altered, from what is was 
when the former decision of your honor was pronounced.
All the testimony which relates to the personal
knowledge of the witnesses of Van Buskirk services
 as an assistant Commissary or forage
Master has been examined by both my 
precessor and your honor, and has been deemed
insufficient to identify him as the individual
who rendered such service as is named in the
record evidence produced. In my judgment the
solitary fact now added (which is well enough
proven) that the claimant was the only individual
of that name who resided in the vicinity of
Harrington is not of sufficient importance to
justify a reversal of the decision heretofore made.

I have the honor to be sir
Very Respectfully
Your Obedient Servant
Jos. H. Barrett
Commissioner
Page 316

[illegible] of the various declarations
and Proofs

Peter Van Buskirk made a declaration
 for a pension under act of 7th June,
1832, on the 20th of May, 1846, and alleged
his age to be eighty years, and that he entered
service as a volunteer about the 1st of October
1779, in a company commanded by Lieutenant
Wright at Harrington, N.J. where the Army
was stationed, and where he resided; that he
continued to perform duties as a soldier in
camp,-- standing guard, cooking, and taking
care of the sick for 13 months. That his com
pany in November, 1780, moved South with the
Army, and he accompanied it a few miles, when
he was discharged and returned to Harrington,
That other troops arrived in Nov'r 1780, at the
camp in said town, and he volunteered and
served from middle of Nov'r 1780, until 1st
June, 1781.
In answer to a question
put to him by the Court, he says he was born
in the town of Harrington, N.J. on the 29th
Page 317

2
August 17 -. The other figures are blotted,
and the figures "62" added. to another
question put by the Court, he answers:
"I lived in the town of Harrington until about
(the original word erased, and the word
"thirty" written) thirty years of age. I was
about (word erased, and "fifty "written) fifty
years of age when I left Harrington. Since I
left there I resided in Hopewell, Ontario Co.
N. York, about (figures erased, and "23 supplied)
23 years.
George Dearman testifies, 11th
June, 1846 to Van Buskirk's services exactly
as they had been stated in his (Van Buskirk's)
declaration; that witness saw him almost every
day on duty, sometimes with a musket, and at
others in the barracks cooking, also in places
where the sick were quartered. That all the
Army left Harrington in Novr 1780, but others came
and continued there "till 1st June, 1781, when the
whole was principally broken up." Deponent
was in same service, at same camp, and for
the same time.
Page 318

3
Declaration and affidavit in the same
handwriting, and very full and specific
in narrating the service.
On the 19th of June, 1846, Peter
Van Buskirk made an affidavit in sup
part of George Dearman's application for
a pension, in which he states his age to be
eighty years. Also, that George Dearman
"continued to serve as a soldier and a volunteer
from the time Dekalb's army finally all
left in Novr 1780, until the 1st of June 1781
when the army or troops went off and was
quartered in other places." States, further,
that he resided in Harrington until about
thirty years ago.
Supplemental declaration of Peter
Van Buskirk made 1st May, 1837, reaffirms
briefly the statement of his service as given
in the former declaration; and he states, at
this time, his age to be eighty four years and
upwards
On the 9th January, 1852 Peter
Van Buskirk makes another affidavit in
Page 319

4
behalf of the widow of Abraham Van Buskirk,
his brother, in which he states his age to be
eighty seven years.
On the 4th September, 1856, he makes
another affidavit in behalf of the widow of his
brother Abraham, in which he states his age
to be about 91 years.
Stephen Luthins testifies, 22 day
of July, 1859, that he is 95 years old; know
Peter Van Buskirk in the revolutionary war; that
he resided in Harrington, N.J., and was a near
neighbor: goes on to describe Van Buskirk's
services as a soldier till fore part of June, 1881,
in the same manner as has been detailed before.
That after the service as a soldier had terminated
Van Buskirk volunteered his services under Genl.
Wayne, Genl. Lee, and other officers, as an
assistant Commissary for supplying the army
with forage until in Novr 1783; that he saw
him frequently with the troops after it was
known that he was regularly enrolled; saw
him collecting stores for the Army, when the
soldiers were lying at Paramus
Page 320

Stephen Westewell testifies, 19
August, 1859, that he is ninety one years old,
has always resided in Bergen County, and
knew Peter Van Buskirk, of Harrington, in the
revolutionary war; that he acted a commissary
or some such name, collected forage and
stores for the army which was encamped at
Harrington in the vicinity of West Point.
Names of the officers were Genl Wayne, Genl
Lee, and Lieut Wright; he supplied the army
and acted in that capacity for about two years,
from sometime in the spring of the year 1781,
until 1783. Witness was at the camp ground
frequently, and saw Van Buskirk often;
was then about 13 years of age.
Peter Van Buskirk, on 5th Sept
1859 makes a supplemental declaration, in
which he states his age to be 97 years (the
figure 8 was written, but partially erased)
and claims for the first time the service as
Assistant Commissary of Forage for and in
the American Army; that he received his
commission of Assistant Commissary of Forage
Page 321

6
and served as such from the date of his
appointment until the close of the war in
1783; was under Col. Stuart Hampton, Wayne
and other officers. That his service as Commissary
 was rendered at Harrington in Bergen Co.
& Morristown & in the neighborhood of Pompton,
Perciponey, Hackensack, and along the 
Hudson river, and in the State of New York, in the
vicinity of West Point, Courtland Manor, Peekskill,
Cove and Paramus, - constantly engaged
in purchasing forage till the army was 
disbanded in 1783, doing duty in the capacity of
Commissary of Forage; was honorably discharged
at the close of the war, which discharge and
his commission, accounts and papers were 
considered useless and were destroyed; that he
was born in the year 1762.
Elizabeth Hopper, in an affidavit
dated 7th Decr 1859, states that she is 87
years old; was well acquainted with Peter
Van Buskirk of Harrington, N.J. during the
revolutionary war; that he acted in the
capacity of an officer under Genl Wayne and
Page 322

7
others in collecting forage and supplying the
army with it from the spring of 1781, till late
in the fall of 1783, when the army disbanded.
The army was stationed in the vicinity of
West Point and along the Hudson river,
Cove, Paramus, Hackensack, &c, then returned
to the camp ground formerly occupied by them.
The said Peter Van Buskirk acted to the
close of the war in collecting forage and 
supplying the U.S. Army as Forage Master, or
Commissary as it was called.
George W. Spangle states, in a letter
addressed to Mr Van Buskirk, dated Dec. 13
1859, that he has known Peter Van Buskirk
for twenty years and upwards, and has often
in conversation heard him relate his services
in the war of the revolution, and that he
claimed to have served in the capacity of
Commissary in collecting forage for the American
army in N. Jersey, till the army disbanded,
and was knowing to his services in the U.S.
Amy that was quartered more or less all
the time during said war at Harrington
Page 323

others in collecting forage and supplying the
army with it from the spring of 1781, till late
in the fall of 1783, when the army disbanded.
The army was stationed in the vicinity of
West Point and along the Hudson river,
Cove, Paramus, Hackensack, &c, then returned
to the campground formerly occupied by them.
The said Peter Van Buskirk acted to the
close of the war in collecting forage and
supplying the U.S. Army as Forage Master, or
Commissary as it was called.
George W. Spangle states, in a letter
addressed to Mr Van Buskirk, dated Dec’r 13
1859, that he has known Peter Van Buskirk
for twenty years and upwards, and has often
in conversation heard him relate his services
in the war of the revolution, and that he
claimed to have served in the capacity of
Commissary in collecting forage for the American
army, in N. Jersey, till the army disbanded
at the close of the war; and that the belief
was general in the neighborhood that he
did so serve.
Page 324

8
Abraham Van Buskirk in an
affidavit dated 19th March 1860 swears that
he is the son of Abraham [should this be Peter, or are there 2 Abrahams?] Van Buskirk, and
has always lived with him, and that from his
earliest recollections to the present time his
father has assisted his service in the revolutionary
war in the Commissary Department, as an
Assistant Commissary from June, 1781, until the fall
of 1783; that his father among his neighbors
and comrades always spoke of his services as a
Commissary as a portion of his services in said
war.
Abraham Van Buskirk in an affidavit
 dated 6th March 1861, swears to the same
facts, with the addition that his father, Peter
Van Buskirk, was the only person he ever heard
of of the same name, who resided at Harrington,
New Jersey
On the 3d April, 1861, he makes
another affidavit in which he states his belief
that his father is 99 years old, that he has
lived with him all his life, and "that the history
of his said father's services both as a private
Page 325

and ‘Forage Master’ is one of the traditions
of his entire family”; that at the time when
his fathers first declaration for a pension was
made, he was told by the agent who drew it, that
it would be useless to assert a claim for services
as an officer unless he had record proof
of it, and that it had better be omitted” as
the Pension Office would not grant a pension
for his Forage Master's service without the record
proof of the same,” and the agent stated, if
at any time hereafter any record evidence should
be discovered, an amended declaration could
be made claiming the same; that he was
often asked by the agent of any record
evidence had been discovered, that he had
searched in Trenton, N.J. and Harrisburg
Penn & without success; that he then obtained
the parol proof and the document
that have been adduced, with the design of
applying to Congress for relief, believing that
that body would be more liberal in its
consideration of the proofs than the Pension Office
but upon finding the record evidence from
Page 326

10
New York, the Committee of Congress sent the
case back to the Pension Office for action
Peter Van Buskirk, the claimant,
make an affidavit, 3d April 1861, substantially
 swearing to the same statement as
the above respecting his detailing an account
to his agent of his services as a private and as
Forage Master in the revolutionary war, and
giving the reasons for his omission to set them
forth in his first declaration.
Abraham Van Buskirk on the 5th
April, 1861, makes another affidavit explaining
the manner by which he learned of the
existence of the record evidence in the 
Comptroller's Office, New York, of Peter Van Buskirk’s
services as a Commissary; that he was in that
office in the fall of 1860, looking for evidence
of service of a man named Armitage, and
accidentally saw the name of Peter Van Buskirk
on the books, and he asked the Clerk to make
an examination and send a certificate to him,
which was done; that he never was in the
Comptroller's Office before not since, nor had ever
Page 327

heard anyone say they had seen the name of
Peter Van Buskirk there, and he was wholly
ignorant of the existence of the evidence of
service till the certificate was sent to him.
Abraham Van Buskirk, on 10th
April, 1861, makes another affidavit, and
states that among his father's papers filed in
the claim was a receipt to Peter Van Buskirk,
Forage Master in July 1781, another in Jan'y
1782, in which he was called Forage Master,
and a discharge of a soldier by Gen. Wayne.
On the 5th of May, 1861, Peter
Van Buskirk makes another affidavit, stating
that he was born in August 1762; was married
to Sarah Van Buskirk in the summer after
the declaration of peace, at the old Paramus
Church, N.J., 3 miles from his father's residence,
by Rev. Benjamin Vander Linder; that his
Cousin Abraham Van Buskirk was present;
that his wife Sarah was always believed
by him to have been 4 or 5 years younger
than himself. That Stephen Westervelt was
living at his father's house at the time of
Page 328

12
his marriage; recollects distinctly the time,
from the fact that he had returned from his
military service, and it was shortly after he
had become 21 years of age.
Stephen Westervelt testifies, 10th
May, 1861 that he is 94 years of age; always
resided in Bergen County, N.J., and knew
Thos Van Buskirk of Harrington, and all his
family. That during the revolutionary war
he lived with Thos Van Buskirk in a house
still occupied by his descendants. That Thos
had two sons named Abraham and Peter
that deponent has frequently seen the family
record, and knows from his own age, in 
connexion with the said record of Thos Van Buskirk,
that Peter is in his 99th or 100th year of age, 
recollects his own to be 94, and there was five
years difference in their ages; never heard of
any other Peter Van Buskirk; that Peter was an
officer engaged in buying forage, &c for the
army during the revolutionary war, and was
in it till its close; that soon after its close
Peter married an only child of Jacob Van Buskirk
Page 329

and lived many years in Harrington.
Andrew H. Hopper testifies, 10th
May, 1861, that he is 74 years old, always
has resided in Bergen County, and has held
the office of Sheriff and Judge, and for a
number of years knew Peter Van Buskirk,
now of Washington, who formerly resided in
Harrington, N.J.; also knew Thomas his
father, has been thoroughly acquainted throughout
 the entire County for fifty years, and has
never known or heard of another man of the
name of Peter Van Buskirk.
Abraham J. Ackerman, a Justice
of the Peace, certifies, 10 May, 1861, that
he is 52 years old; that he knew Peter Van
Buskirk, formerly of Harrington, now of
Washington; has been from a boy extensively
acquainted throughout the County; knew all
the families of Van Buskirk, and never knew
or heard of another man named Peter, has
heard his mother frequently speak of the
Van Buskirk family, and of Peter's being
in the army that encamped near the house
Page 330

of Peter's father; she was about 10 years
of age at the time of the war; witness has
travelled often in an official capacity through
the entire County of Bergen, and never heard
of any other Peter Van Buskirk than the one
now residing in Washington.
Polly Van Ryper testifies, 10th May
1861, that she is about 73 years old, has always
lived in Harrington, is a daughter of Peter
Van Buskirk and grand daughter of Thomas;
that her mothers maiden name was Sarah
Van Buskirk, daughter of Jacobus. That from
an old Family Bible in her possession, it appears
that witness's mother was born on the 7th
day of April, 1767, and that she always
understood from her parents that there was
about five years difference in their ages, and
that from family records which she has often
seen, her father was born in 1762; and
further she never knew or heard of any other
Peter Van Buskirk in the County, than her father.
Rev. Edward J. Corwine, Pastor of
Congregational Church of Paramus, N. Jersey
Page 331

certifies that the marriage register of the
said Church prior to July 24th 1779, is lost.
Abraham Van Buskirk, 6 May
1861, makes another affidavit, restates
the reasons for the omission of his father
to assert in his first declaration his claim
for services as a Commissary; says his parents
were married at the close of the war when
his father was 21 years old; that a transcript
of his parents ages from the old family
Bible into an English Bible was made,
and he, witness, distinctly remember the date
of his father's birth was written 1762. This
Bible was lost in moving to N.Y. That when
the first declaration for a pension was
made, his father told, in witness's presence,
Mr Austin, the agent who drew it, that a mis
take had been made in his age, but was told
by Mr Austin it would make no differencebut
that, in subsequent affidavits, Austin
did try to correct the mistake.
Page 332

100
Peter Van Buskirk
Page 333

Department of the Interior
May 21, 1862
Sir
Peter Van Buskirk was pensioned as a common
Soldier for services performed previous to June 1, 1781, at
which time according to his petition filed on the 20th
day of May 1846 to obtain that pension he was
discharged from the Army: On the 5 Sept 1859 he filed
an amended declaration for an increased pension and
claimed that his services for which the increased
pension was sought was for after services rendered as
"Assistant Commissary" commencing in June 1781, and
ending with the close of the war in 1783.
To aid the case of the applicant, a paper purporting
to be an account of one Peter Van Buskirk as Forage
Master in the year 1781 to 1783, found in the Comptrollers
office in the City of Albany, New York was produced and
upon that, and various affidavits, and a receipt
purporting to have been given by a Wagon Master to Peter
Van Buskirk for oats, the claim was allowed.
There having been reason to suspect that the claim
was allowed by the imposition of false evidence the
payment was suspended, and a further and more
critical examination of the case determined upon
as already said the application is based upon
Page 334

2
sworn petition of Peter Van Buskirk, and was somewhat
irregular, as the application is founded upon an independent
 and distinct service from that for which his
pension as a soldier was obtained, and regularly he
should have appeared in a Court of record and made
his declaration there, but inasmuch as the petition was
received, and has been acted upon, that objection to it
could not now with fairness be made.
In order to a proper understanding of the questions
involved, it is well to [recur] to the case as it appeared at
the time of the allowance of the pension on the 6 of July 1861.
The applicant had filed his petition wherein he set out
his services from which according to the petition, as it there
read, he had served upwards of two years as assistant Commissary
under Genl Wayne and Col Stuart, this petition appeared
to have been attested by his oath on the 5 day of Sept 1859.
To sustain this declaration the affidavit of Stephen
Lutkins was filed, he gives quite a detailed statement
of the services of Van Buskirk while in the capacity of a
Soldier, and he says that after he was discharged from
that service he volunteered his services under Generals
Wayne and Lee, and other officers as Assistant
Commissary for supplying the army with forage.  He
says he saw the troops after the said Peter Van Buskirk
was known to be regularly enrolled and in the
Page 335

3
service, that he was not in any other service in the
Army and saw him collecting stores.
Elizabeth Hopper aged 87 years in the year 1859 says
she knows the applicant well, lived in the same
neighborhood in Bergen Co. and was well acquainted with
his services in the United States army that he
acted in the capacity of an officer under Genl Wayne
and other officers, to collect forage, and that the army to
which he was attached were sometimes at West Point,
along the Hudson River, Cove, Paramus, Hackensack
&c, then again returned to the Camp occupied by them.
Stephen Westervelt's affidavit of the 19 August 1859
proves that Peter Van Buskirk was acting as Commissary
or some such name. The officers he recollected then were
Genl Wayne, Genl Lee and Lieut Wright. That Van
Buskirk supplied the any and acted in that
capacity for about two years. That he lived in sight
of the Camp and saw Peter there often.
These affidavits, the account from Albany before
mentioned, and the receipt of Fox the Wagon Master
together with the petition of the applicant, formed
the evidence upon which the allowance was made
on the 6th July 1861.
Stephen Westervelt since that time has made an
affidavit, now on file, wherein he states that his
Page 336

4
former affidavit is not true in scarcely any particular,
that he never saw to his recollection Genl Wayne. Genl
Lee, or the Lieut Wright, this last mentioned affidavit
made on the 15th July 1851. taken by Mr Whiting of this
Department, late Commissioner of Pension is [per from].
Every imputation of fraud in any respect, and is a
flat and complete contradiction of every material
circumstance testified to by Westervelt in his former
affidavit. The effect of this under any circumstances
would tend to throw distrust and suspicion over the case,
and when taken in connection with other facts in the Case
some of them lately discovered, compels me to believe that the
case is without merit,
They are briefly these. The applicant on the 20 day
of May 1846. filed his petition which had been prepared
in accordance with the regulations of the Commissioner
of Pensions, in the body of his petition he represented
himself then to be 80 years of age, and that his services
partook rather more of those of a servant about
the Camp than those of a soldier, his application was
rejected for that reason, the Commissioner holding
that to entitle him to a pension he must have been
compelled to discharge soldiers duties, and amenable
to soldiers discipline, much of this objection grew out
of the fact, that he was so young at the time of the
Page 337

5
service that he could not have reasonably performed
soldiers duty, but the applicant without attempting to
correct his application in the now supposed erroneous
statement of his age, made a further affidavit and
alledged that he was subject to soldiers duty, and his
pension was allowed. In his answer to the 
interrogatories put to him by the Court, his answer set down
in figures has been altered, and he is made to say as
altered, that he was born in 1762.  Now, it is singular
if those figures were altered before the paper left Court
that any question should have arisen with the
Commissioner about his age, his former statement
would have been corrected by his answer categorically
given, but no correction was offered and the applicant
for years afterwards in four several occasions upon
oath declared that his age was as nearly as may be
without giving the day of his birth, the same as that 
mentioned in his first declaration. Upon this question 
the case stands thus, On the 20 day of May 1846
Peter Van Buskirk made his original declaration in
open Court, and represented himself to be 80 years of age
making his birth in the year 1766. This is alledged to be
a mistake, and that the attention of the draftsman
Mr. Austen, was called to it at the time, notwithstanding
this but one month after he made the same statement
Page 338

6.
as to his age, verified by his oath, this was his affidavit in
behalf of Dearman.
In support of his own claim made in 1846, in the 1st
of May 1851, he made a further affidavit in which he
described himself as "aged 84 years and upwards" making
his birth in the year 1767 and afterwards on the 4th Sept
1856 in an affidavit for the benefit of Jane Van Deen
he says he is "aged about 91 years" making his birth in
1865. [error, should read 1765]
But with the setting up of this claim now under
consideration he alledged that he was born in 1862 [error, should read 1762], and
he has twice verified that statement by his oath, viz,
on the 5 Sept 1859 and on the 3 April 1861.
These discrepancies would have only been a subject
of remark, imputable to the carelessness of the deponent,
or the draftsman of the affidavit, were it not for the
fact, that it would be preposterous to suppose that
he could by any possibility have been deputed to so
important a position as that claimed, and been only
of the age of fifteen years. Accordingly in support of
the two latter affidavits much circumstantial
proof has been taken ex parte, of a traditional character
which seemed to render it almost certain that the first four affidavits of Mr. Van Buskirk were probably
erroneous.
Page 339

7
But now it appears that Westervelt one of the witnesses
by whom the claim was in good part established, not only
denies all knowledge of pretended service of the claimant,
but gives as a reason that he could not have rendered
the service, because he was too young; and against
this damageing statement of Westervelt, it is sought to
be proved that Westervelt is really older than he swears
he is. And it must be admitted that in this, the
parties have had reasonable success, and if full credit
could be given to all these statements there would seem
to be but little doubt that Westervelt was mistaken
and indeed that his last affidavit was false throughout
and so I was inclined to suspect, and had in fact
written out an opinion favorable to the claim, only
doubting whether the applicant was not acting as Clerk
to the assistant Commissary or may probably under
an appointment, from the State of New Jersey, and if so,
hesitating in determining what his grade of service was necessary
to be ascertained in order to determine the amount of his
pension, and but for a difficulty that arose in determining
how, under the law as it then was, Van Buskirk might
probably have been an Assistant Commissary or Forage
Master as he alleges,  the false alterations of the paper
would not have been discovered,
It being known that Genl Wayne, who he names
Page 340

8 ┃
as having served under was an officer of the line, and
was in the South during all the time he claims to have
been engaged as Forage Master, an examination was
instituted for the purpose of determining whether Col
Stuart also named was in service in the region of
Harrington during the year 1781. 2 & 3. when it was
accidentally discovered that the declaration of said
Peter Van Buskirk had been so deceitfully and
artfully altered, as to leave no doubt in my mind of
its having been corruptly done with the fraudulent
purpose of deceiving the officers whose duty it was to
pass upon the merits of his claim. In his declaration
as it was originally drawn and verified by him the
name of Stuart does not appear. By the rules of the Pensions
Office the name of the Col under whom the party served should
be given or some satisfactory reason given for the omission
Stuart's name is artfully inserted and attention is called
to the fact by the Solicitor of Van Buskirk, that he was known 
to be in the service, in the vicinity of Harrington. He says
that it is a fact "no means insignificant that in
speaking of those whom he knew during the period of
his staff service, he mentions the names of Colonel
Hampton and Col Charles Stewart, both of whom are
also proven by the records to have been in the service
as he stated", and claims that the case is "clearly
Page 341

9
proven" and "in the strictest compliance with every
official requirement in all analagous cases," and so
fact it seemed to be. The case was not strong but
yet it was so fortified that the mind was involuntarily
compelled to yield to the conclusion that in some manner
Peter Van Buskirk had rendered service in the
Commissary Department from June 1781 to the close of
the war in 1783.
But now with the certainty that his declaration
has been deceptiously altered, that he has never
asserted that he ever saw Col Hampton or Col Stewart,
the conclusion irresistibly forces itself upon the mind
that a fraud was practised upon Westervelt, that he
is made to swear that he never intended to swear
and that he now says is untrue, and we are
hastened to the further conclusion that there is no
reliance to be placed in any of the testimony produced.
It being found that the application had been acted
for the purpose of deception, we might well stop the
examination of the case here, for by the false alteration
its vitality was gone, it was no longer the sworn
Statement of Peter Van Buskirk, but worse than
nothing because it was marked with corruption.
The testimony considered in the light of these
revelations shrinks from its once beautiful proportions
Page 342

10.
confidence if not wholly lost, is for the time suspended
and instead of embracing the assertions of the witnesses
as absolutely true, apprehensions that they have been
tampered with, or made to verify what they never
intended is forced upon the mind.
In this state of perplexing doubt how can we be
confident that Peter's four times sworn statement of his
age made through a period of ten years is not the truth, 
[whether] the account found at Albany had any thing to
do with him. It was found a year before his death,
and yet neither himself or his son Abraham have ever
asserted that it was in his handwriting. Peter since
the discovery of the paper has made an affidavit of
his age, and Abraham has made several, explanatory
of various transactions and circumstances, and yet no
allusion to this account as being the genuine account
of Peter.
Is it not quite as reasonable to suppose that it was
the account of one of the New York Peter Van Buskirks,
or the Peter Van Buskirk living near Hoboken spoken
of by Westervelt, as of the applicant.
I think more
so, because the applicant never was or claimed to
be one of the New York troops, or in the service of
that State, and as there was not such an office
as he professes to have held in the Army of the line
Page 343

11
of the U.S. if appointed at an he must have been
appointed by the State of New Jersey, or under its authority
so that the presumption, that the account found at
Albany was that of Peter is quite dissipated.
Mrs. Hopper could not have been more than 9 years
of age when the facts transpired of which she testified,
and we have an express decision of this Department
made by Mr Ewing in his letter of 8 April 1850 to the
Commissioner of Pensions, in the case of Leah Westervelt,
that the testimony of persons to facts happening while
they were so young could not be relied on.
It is true that this objection does not apply to
Latkins, but it must be observed that history does
not sustain him. There was no such thing as
volunteering to so important an office as that of
Commissary or Assistant Commissary of Forage, or
Forage Master, nor was General Wayne and S Lee in that
part of the County at the time of the alledged service.
To of the receipt-- it appears strange at Van Buskirk
should have destroyed his commission, if he had one,
and his accounts, and yet kept so unimportant a
paper as the receipt of Fox, yet the paper is produced, 
it bears the marks of great age, and until these [hands]
were discovered, herein before mentioned; was believed
to be a genuine paper, and so it may be, but it being
Page 344

12.
Established that a wicked deception has been intended
and in fact practiced in the alteration of the application,
and in the obtaining a false affidavit from Westervelt,
confidence in the whole case is lost. The evidence may 
be genuine, and the case meritorious, if so, and
injustice has been done, it is no fault of mine, for in
entering upon an examination of the case, was favorably
impressed with its merit, to which I adhered until
I became thoroughly convinced of the deception in the
alteration of the application which has caused me to
doubt and distrust the whole case, and see nothing
in the case to shield it from the application of the [trite]
maxim of the law, "false in one, false in all."
My opinion therefore is, that justice requires that the 
certificate of pension be cancelled, and the whole
claim be rejected as fictitious:
I will add that I do not find any evidence which 
determines who perpetrated the fraudulent alteration
of the paper. I only am satisfied that it was altered,
[which was - crossed out] for the advantage of the applicant, and
that it was done some time after the 23rd day of Feb'y
1860 at or about which time a copy of the paper was
taken, now on the files by which the alteration was
detected.
Very Respectfully
Page 345

13
Your obedient Servant
J.P. Usher
Assistant Secretary

Hon J. H. Barrett
Commissioner of Pensions
Page 346

103
Secretary's Decision
July 6. 1861
Page 347

Department of the Interior
July 6th, 1861
Sir,
The claim of Peter Van Buskirk, for an increase of
pension, on account of services as a Forage Master, in the Revolutionary War,
 has been for the third time presented for my consideration, by
your report of19th utl. The case was first brought before me,
by an appeal from the decision of your predecessor, adverse to the
claim. His decision, rejecting the claim, was affirmed by me, upon
 the ground, that although the evidence clearly proved the
services as a Forage Master, were rendered by some person, bearing
that name, there was not sufficient evidence to identify
the applicant with the person who rendered such services.
Additional proof have since been filed, and the question now
to be decided is do these additional proofs, warrant a different
decision from that heretofore made.
It was held that the proof of identity was insufficient.mainly
upon two grounds:
First, the claimant in his original statement of his
services, made no reference to my services rendered by him, except
as a private. Your predecessor entertained the opinion
that if the applicant, had rendered services as an officer, they
could not have been entirely forgotten, while his services as a 
private soldier, should be distinctly remembered; and regarded the
absence in his declaration, of all reference to such services, as
warranting the presumption, that they had not been rendered
by him.
Second. The statement, of his age, in his original
declaration, showed that he was but fifteen years of age, at
the time his services as a Forage Master, were alleged to
Page 348

have commenced. It is very improbable, that a youth of that
age, would have been employed in so responsible a position
There were then on file, some affidavits, made by him, at a
subsequent date, which if true, would prove that he was nineteen
years old, when his alleged services as a Forage Muster
commenced. There was however no evidence, to explain
these discrepancies, or to account for the alleged error in his
first statement
The evidence, upon these two points, in my judgment,
justified the decision of your predecessor, that although the
proof was clear, that some person bearing the name of Peter Van
Buskirk, was employed as a Forage Master, it did not establish
the fact alleged that the claimant was the same person.
In considering this question, in connection with the additional
evidence, which has been filed, it must be borne in mind, that the law presumes 
Identity of persons from identity of names. In the case of Boyne vs Bigelow,
29 Vermont Rep 179, it was decided that "in tracing title to lands, identity
of names is prima facie evidence of identity of persons.”
In the case of Wines vs Henston, 5 Ind. Rep. 539, it was held
“that evidence that a person of the same name of the defendant was served
with a subpoena, is prima facie evidence that it was served on the defendant’.
Upon the principle decided in these cases, the name of the applicant,
being shown to be the same, as that of the person who rendered the services,
for which the pension was claimed, the legal presumption would be, that 
he was the same person. In the absence of any proof, tending to
overcome this presumption, the decision should have been in favor of the
identity.
It was only a presumption however, liable to be overcome
by the proof of any facts, showing that such a presumption, was
Page 349

inconsistent with the real facts of the case. As the case stood, when
first presented for my consideration, this presumption was resisted
by the implied admission of the applicant, that he had not rendered
services as a Forage Master, which was properly inferred, from
his neglect, to state such services, in his original declaration. It was
also resisted, by the past, then proved that he was too young to be employed
in such a service, at the time the services were alleged to
have been performed. These facts, were sufficient to overcome the ┃
presumption of identity, and created a preponderance of evidence
against the identity of the claimant, with the person who rendered
the services. If the additional evidence, which has since been filed
is sufficient to rebut the original evidence upon those points, then the
presumption of identity will be revived..
The additional evidence filed since the decision adverse to his
claim, consists of
1st of the affidavit of Peter Van Buskirk, the claimant, 
alleging that his first declaration was prepared by Mr. Austen, his
agent. That he stated to him fully his services, both as a private, and a
Forage Master, but that Austen told him, that it would be useless to
include in his declaration, a statement of his services as forage master,
as in the absence of record evidence, of such services, which he had not
then been able to discover, the Pension Office, would not grant
a pension for the latter service, and that it would be useless to encumber
the case, with such a statement, and that if record evidence 
could be afterwards discovered, of such services, he could avail
himself, of it in a subsequent declaration.
2nd The affidavit of Abraham Van Buskirk, son of the
claimant, who alleges that he is 62 years of age, and that from his
earliest recollection, the services of his father, “both as a private
Page 350

"and a Forage Master, is one of the traditions of his entire family."
He also states that he was present, when the original declaration of
his father was prepared by the agent Austen. That his father then
stated his services, both as a private, and a forage master, but by
the advice of Austen, the statement of the services as forage mas
ter was omitted, because there was no record evidence then discovered
to prove the services as forage master. Austen has
since died, and his testimony is therefore unavailable.
3rd Affidavit of Abraham Van Buskirk, alleging that
in the fall of 1860, he was examining the records of the Comptroller's
 Office of New York, in reference to the services of one
Armitage, when he discovered the name of Peter Van Buskirk.
That he informed the Clerk in the office, that his father had
performed services in the war as a Commissary, and requested
him to search for evidence of such service, and forward
it to him. That said Clerk afterwards sent to him the
copy of the account of Peter Van Buskirk's services, as
Forage Master now on file.
4th An affidavit of Abraham Van Buskirk, stating
that the receipt to Peter Van Buskirk, for oats delivered as 
Commissary of Forage, and a discharge to a soldier given by Gen
Wayne, both of which are now on file, and also a receipt to
Peter Van Buskirk, as forage master, not now on file, were found 
among the old papers of his father.
5th An affidavit of Peter Van Buskirk, alleging
that he was born in Aug. 1762, as he has always understood
and believed, that he was married in the summer after the 
declaration of peace, that his wife was always believed by him to be
4 or 5 years younger than himself. That he was married at
Page 351

the church of Paramus.
6th A certificate of Edward T Corwin, pastor of the
church at Paramus, that the marriage register of said Congregation prior to July 1799 was lost
7th The affidavit of Stephen Westervelt, who testifies
that he is 94 years of age, that he knew Thomas Van
Buskirk, father of Peter, and all his family, and that he lived
with him during the revolutionary war, that he has frequently seen the old family record of Thomas Van Buskirk, and that he knows from his own age, in connection with that of Peter Van Buskirk, that the latter is now in his 99th or 100th year of
age. He recollects his own age to be 94, and that there was
five years difference in their ages. That he knew all the Van
Buskirk Family, and never knew or heard of any one, having the
name of Peter, except the claimant. He also states that he
knows that Peter Van Buskirk, was an officer, during the revolutionary war, and engaged in buying forage, grain, &c.
for the army.
8th The affidavit of And. H. Hoppin, aged 74, 
that he has spent all his life in Bergen Co. N.J.; that he
knew the family of Thomas Van Buskirk well, that he has
been Sheriff of the County, and Judge of the Court of Common
Pleas, and that he never heard of any person named Peter
Van Buskirk, but the claimant, who was a son of Thomas,
that Thomas was reputed in his life time, to be a man of grant
wealth.
9th. Affidavit of Polly Van Ryper, daughter of the
claimant, that the family record of her mother, shows, that she
was born on the 7th April 1767, and that she has always understood
Page 352

from her parents, that there was about five years difference
in their ages. That she has frequently seen the family records of
her father's family, which showed that he was born in 1762, that
she has never known, or heard of any other person of that name.
10th Affidavit of Abraham J. Ackerman, aged 52, that he
knew the Van Buskirk family, that it was a leading family in the
County has heard his mother speak of Peter Van B's services, in the army.
has seen Peter frequently when on a visit to the family, and never heard
of any other person of that name.
11th Affidavit of Abraham Van Buskirk, stating that he
was present when the declaration of Peter Van B. was prepared by
Austen. That he then stated to Austen, his services as a Forage Master,
but by Austen's advice, they were omitted in his declaration. That Austen
make a mistake in the statement of the age of the applicant, and was informed
by him that it was a mistake, but he replied, it would make no
difference, and it was not corrected. That he recollects the family
record of his father, which showed he was born in 1762, and that the
family record is lost.
These affidavits, constitute the additional evidence, which has
been filed since my letter of 2nd April, affirming the decision of
your predecessor. The omission, of all reference to his services, a
Forage Master in the original declaration of the claimant is explained
 by the affidavits of Abraham Van Buskirk. The statements,
on this point, are clear and distinct, and unless discredited furnish
a reasonable explanation of the omission. They show, that the claim
did, at that time past, that he had served as a forage master,
and that he gave such a narration of his services, in the
Revolutionary War, as was entirely consistent with his subsequen
declarations. They prove also, that Austen who prepared his
Page 353

declaration, omitted to insert those statements, for the alleged reason,
that the Pension Office would not recognize such services, unless
they were sustained by record evidence.
These statements, if believed to be true, must necessarily rebut
the presumption, arising from the omission of the claimant to
assert them in his original declaration. Austen by whom the
declaration was prepared is dead.
The positive statements of both the claimant and the witness, on
this point, leave no ground, upon which they can be rejected, but the 
imputation of wilful and corrupt perjury. I am not prepared to
admit such an imputation, in the absence of all proof, tending to
sustain it. Besides the testimony of Peter Westervelt, taken
since my decision, strongly corroborates the original evidence of
his services. He testifies, that he is 94 years of age, that he
lived in the family of Van Buskirk, and that he knows that the
claimant was an officer, and engaged in buying forage, and grain for
the army. This witness appears to be disinterested, his testimony is
unimpeached, and I can see no grounds, upon which his clear
and positive statements can be rejected.
In my judgment the additional evidence, does rebut the
presumption arising from the omission of the claimant, to state the
services for which the present claim is made, in his original 
declaration, and which mainly controlled my decision. In regard
to his age, I concur with you, that the evidence upon this point
"may warrant the conclusion that he was born in 1762."
Admitting that as the date of his birth, he was ninteen 
years old when his alleged services as a forage master, commenced.
His father was at that period an extensive [illegible] proprietor, and
a man of wealth and influence in that vicinity. It is not
Page 354

unreasonable to suppose, that the son of such a man, should be entrusted
with the duty of procuring forage, at the age of nineteen.
In addition to the positive testimony of the witnesses, who
prove his services as a forage master from their own knowledge,
there is evidence, from witnesses of high character, that the claimant,
 long previous to the date of his first declaration, was in the
habit of speaking of his services as a forage master, and that it
was the general belief in the neighborhood in which he resided
that he had rendered such services. Evidence of his character,
 although not sufficient alone, to sustain a claim for a pension, is
get entitled to great weight, and is usually received by the office,
as corroborative evidence. Such evidence is very important to
identify the person, when the services have been proved by a higher
grade of testimony
Since the case has been brought before me, on appeal, the
original paper, on file in the office of the Comptroller of the State of
New York, which states an account between Peter Van Buskirk,
and the Quarter Master General, has been submitted to
my examination. A question has been raised as to the genuineness
of this paper, upon the ground that upon the back of the ┃
paper is written. "Thomas Mifflin, Jr. Mr. Gen." who it is
alleged resigned his position as Jr Mr. Gen, in 1777. The
journals of the Continental Congress, show, that he resigned
in that year, but it is also shown by the history of the war, that
he continued to serve as Quarter Master General, to some extent.
until the close of the war. There are in the Department of
State, of the United States, among the papers connected with
the revolutionary war, accounts made out by Gen Mifflin,
as Quarter Master General long subsequent to the date of his
Page 355

resignation. These facts, repel any presumption, that the paper
is not genuine, which might arise from the resignation of Gen
Mifflin, previous to the date of the account.
A question has been raised, how this account could
be property found in the Office of the Comptroller of New York,
 when the services were rendered in New Jersey. I
am informed that papers connected with the settlement of the
accounts of persons engaged in the war of the revolution, are
frequently found in the public offices of the other States, than
those in which the persons lived, or the services were rendered.
If that was a frequent occurrence, the presence of this paper
in New York, would require no explanation.
Upon a careful examination of all the evidence in the
case, I am convinced that the services were rendered by the
claimant, as alleged, and that an increase of pension should
be allowed.
Very Respectfully
Your Obt. Servt
Caleb J Smith
Secretary

The Commissioner
of Pensions
Page 356


Pension Office,
March 21. 1861
Sir
In relation to the claim of Peter Van
Buskirk for an increase of his allowance of pension
under act of June 7, 1832, I have to state that
I have personally and very carefully examined
all the evidence in its support adduced by the
claimant's attorneys, and all that could be 
procured by this office, and have not been 
satisfied that he performed the service as Forage
Master, certified by the Comptroller of the State of
New York as having been performed by a
man of his name, and upon which the claim
for further allowance is based.
Very respectfully &c
Geo. C. Whiting
Commissioner

S. A. Peugh, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
Page 357

116

Letter from Commiss'r
of Pensions, Dec. 28, 1868,
(C)
HR 340
Peter Van Buskirk
Page 358

Pension Office
December 28, 1838.
Sir
In reply to the letter of Harrison Holt
Esq, Clerk to the Senate Committee on Revolutionary Pensions,
of 24th inst., I have the honor to state that an application
for increase of allowance of Pension was made at this office
by Peter Van Buskirk in 1856. I enclose the papers then
filed. The claim was disallowed for the reasons assigned in
a letter dated January 15, 1856, of which I enclose a copy.
I herewith return House Bill 340, which accompanied
Mr Holt's letter.
I am, Sir, very respectfully

Your Obt. Servant
Geo. C. Whiting
Commissioner
Hon. J.W. Jones
Chairman, Committee on
Revolutionary Pensions,
U.S. Senate.
See over
Page 359


Copy
Pension Office,
January 15, 1856
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 the 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 State of New Jersey
showing payments to him for service under the authority
of that state, the case will be re-adjusted
Signed by the
Commissioner
Jesse E. Weems, Esq.
Present.
Page 360

117
Peter Van Buskirk
Secretary Pension
April 2, 1862
communicated to
S. A. Peugh Apl 3/61
G.C.W.

Copy furnished to S. A.
Peugh by permission of Sec'y
Apl 6, 1861
G.C.W.
Page 361

Department of the Interior
April 2, 1861

Sir

I have carefully considered the application 
of Peter Van Buskirk for an increase of
pension, brought before me on an appeal from
your decision.
From the papers presented to me, it appears
that the applicant first presented his claim for a
pension in 1846, which was then rejected.
He filed a supplemental petition in 1851, upon
which, with the proofs presented, he was allowed
a pension at the rate of $60. per annum.
The only services alleged by him to have been
performed, in his original petition and the 
supplemental petition, were such as pertained to
the duties of a private soldier.
No allegation was made that he had rendered service as a
Forage Master, or as an Officer of any description.
In 1859 he filed an application for
Page 362

an increase of pension upon the alleged ground
that he had rendered services as an Assistant
Forage Master from 1781 to 1783, in addition to
the services for which he claimed a pension
in his original application.
No mention was made of such service in his
original application; and the only services then
alleged to have been performed, were from
October 1779 to June 1781.
If he performed such services as pertained only
to the duties of a private soldier during that
period, and afterwards served as a Forage
Master from 1781 to 1783, the inquiry naturally
suggests itself, why was all mention of
the latter, and more important, service omitted
in his first declaration?
He attempted an explanation of this in his petition 
for an increase of pension made in 1859, by the statement
"that he was not aware that the different grades,
nor the length of service made any difference in
the amount of pension due."
This explanation is not satisfactory. His
declaration is drawn with all the formalities
prescribed by the Pension Office, and was
Page 363

evidently prepared by some person familiar
with the pension laws, and the mode of
presenting such claims.  To suppose that
such a person did not know that an
Officer was entitled to a higher rate of pension 
than a private soldier, would be utterly
inconsistent with the knowledge of such matters
indicated by the careful and technical
manner in which the papers were prepared.
It would be equally absurd to suppose
that an old soldier, who had rendered services 
both as a private and an Officer in giving
an account of his services, where appealing
to his country for some compensation for
the sacrifices of his youth, should refer only
to the more humble duties which he had
rendered as a private soldier, while more than
two years additional services as an
Officer should be entirely forgotten and
Overlooked,
It is evident that some person of the same
name performed services as an assistant
Page 364

Forage Master.  This is proved by the
transcript from the records of the office of
the Comptroller of the State of New York,
as well as by an original receipt, on file
among the papers, given to a person of the same
name.
But neither this evidence, nor the affidavits
of the persons who testify to the services of
Peter Van Buskirk as assistant Forage
Master are sufficient to establish the idenity
of the applicant with the person
named in the record testimony, over the
almost conclusive testimony furnished by
the applicant's sworn statements.
However much allowance may be made
for the loss of memory attendant upon
old age, I cannot believe that the minor
services would be remembered in all their
details, while the more important services
of an officer would be entirely forgotten.
The discovery of the evidence in the
Comptroller's Office of services rendered by
a person of the same name, and of the
receipt for grain, after the allowance of
Page 365

a pension for services as a private soldier
may have prompted this application for a
pension, on account of services never before
claimed to have been rendered.
A careful examination of all the evidence
leads to the conclusion, irresistibly, that the
applicant is not the person named in the
record evidence which has been produced.
Your rejection of this claim is therefore,
in my judgment, well founded, and
your decision is approved and affirmed.

Very Respectfully
Your Obt Sert
Caleb Smith
Secretary

Geo. C. Whiting, Esq
Comm of Pensions
Page 366

118
Peter Van Buskirk 
Letter of Commissioner of
Pensions April 20, 1861

Recd 20 Apl '61
Pensions
Page 367

Pension Office
April 20. 1861.
Sir
Since the claim of Peter Van Buskirk
was before you, additional affidavits of the claimant
and of his son Abraham Van Buskirk, have been
presented and examined. My decision thereon is
shown by the enclosed copy of a letter to Mr Peugh, the
attorney in the case, dated the 17th inst. He has
taken an appeal therefrom, which was referred to me
from the Department on the 19th inst for report.
I return that appeal with the additional affidavits
alluded to, and re-submit the papers which you
have already examined in connection with my report
of 27th ult. As you are familiar with the case,
the character of the new papers now offered as 
additional evidence does not seem to call for or admit of
anything further in the nature of a report.
I have the honor to be
With much respect,
Your Obt. Servant,
Geo. C. Whiting
Commissioner
Hon. Caleb B. Smith,
Secretary of the Interior.
Page 368

George W. Riggs Esq
Pension Agent
Washington
Sir
If you have
not already paid the amount of Pension recently
allowed to Peter Van Buskirk, for services in the Revolutionary
war, I request you to withhold payment for the
present & until you hear from me.
Respy
(Signed) Caleb B. Smith
July 10, 1861

Official Copy
Geo W Riggs
Pension agent
Page 369

115
Peter Van Buskirk
N. York
Act 7th June 1832
 Allw'd 18 mo. for $60
per annum from 4 March '31

Payable to him
(A 5)

Cert to
Abraham Van Buskirk
Present
Chief Clerk consulted, who thinks
this a mentorious claim and ought
to be allowed
[Keily]
June 2/51
Page 370

Com'r of Pensions
April 16, 1862
Page 371

[ cannot view the pdf. See below the lanaguage scanned in the extraction. HOWEVER, the tumbnail view od the pdf  appears to have more lines, so tis transciption coud be inaccurate]

Copy
Pension Office
June 3d 1861
Hon Caleb B. Smith
Secretary of the Interior.
Sir
In the case of Peter Van Buskirk, I beg leave
to submit for your con sideration, the following 
extract from the law
of July 18, 1780 accidentally overlooked in
making my report viz:-That the Forage
Masters and keepers of the army [agafines]
shall make weekly returns to the
Commission of forage, or to the deputy with
a separate army, of all forage issued &
received and of all pasturage made use of
and certificates given for the same" &c &c
I beg leave also to submit for your
inspection, the original papers in the
Page 372

case of John Light & to call your attention
to the letter of Peter Anspach to John Light
dated July 26, 1781, in which he says "no
forage master is to have an assistant
but a measurer, whose pay is to be eight
hard dollars per month & no more."

An examination of a large number
of cases of persons pensioned for services
as Forage Masters, discloses the fact, that
where they did not belong to the line, their
rank and pay, were invariably that of
a Captain which was $40 per month,
except in this case of John Light who
States it to have been $35; but with a
promise of $10 more-for extra services as a
waggon Conductor
I have the honor to be sir
Very respy Your Obt Servt
Jas. H. Barrett
Commissioner

L. P. D.
Page 373

Brief in the case of Peter Van Burkirk
Washington County and  District of Columbia
Allowed at the June 1832.
Claim ("original " or " for increase.")
Proof exhibited, (if original)
Is it documentary, traditionary, or supported by rolls? If either, state the substance.
Allowed by order of the Secretary of
the Interior
(If for increase)
Has additional evidence been filed since the admission of the claim? If so, what?
Forage Master & Private
Allowed at the rate of $600 per annum
to commence 4th March 1831, and to 
continue during life deducting former
payments at the rate of $60 per annum.
Name and residence of Agent
S.A. Peugh Esq
Present-
L.M. Drury
Examining Clerk.
Page 374

155
Letter of Mr. Granger
No. 16
Page 375



Washington DC. Oct 2 1759
Hon Geo. C. Whiting
Comm of Pensions
Sir

Peter Van Buskirk was formerly
a resident of Ontario Co. N York for many years; indeed
from a period as early as I can remember until some
four or five years ago. I knew him well, residing as I
did in the same County & in the adjoining Town. He
was always regarded as a man of probity, and
his family held a high social position in the
neighborhood. It was understood and believed
that he served as a soldier in the Revolutionary War
until its close, and was so recognized at the
4th of July celebrations in that vicinity. I have no
doubt that his statements respecting such service
can be relied on implicitly.

Yours very truly
J N Granger

Hon Geo C. Whiting
Page 376

Hon.Geo Whiting
Com of Pensions
Sir
I will thank
you to ask the Secretary of the
Ginate be pleased to return the
Papers in the case of Peter Van Buskirk
to be acted on by your office the papers
have been within drawn from Congress
for this purpose.
A. Van Buskirk
Page 377

160
[charged or changed] to [Auauou]
Page 378

Office Secretary of the Senate,
April 1st 1861.
Sir,
Your letter of the 27th ult to the Clerk of the House of Repre
sentatives, having been referred to this office for reply, I have the honor
to state, that the petition of Lucretia Bell, heir of Jane Van Deever,
widow of Abraham Van Buskirk, a Revolutionary soldier, was presented
in the Senate on the 19th December, 1857, and an adverse report made
thereon, the 5th April, 1858, which was agreed to, by the Senate, on
the 16th December, 1858. Under these conditions the papers cannot,
according the 50th rule of the Senate, be removed from the files.
A copy of the report made by the Committee is herewith
enclosed, in which, you will perceive, the papers from the
Pension Office, are referred to, and which makes them a part of the
files, and consequently, this office cannot be relieved of their custody,
except by an order of the Senate, but, inasmuch as you request
merely the loan of them, with the promise of return as soon as
they are examined, or copies of them taken, they are, with pleasure
enclosed to you accordingly.
Very respectfully
Your Obed Servt.
W. Hickey
Acting Secretary

Geo. C. Whiting, Esqr
Commissioner of Pensions
Page 379


Office House of Reps. U.S.
January 29 1869
Sir
In compliance with the inclosed order
of the House of Representatives I transmit
the papers in the case of Peter Van Buskirk
herewith.
Please acknowledge the receipt of the papers
I am very respectfully
Your Obt Servt
[J N Forney]
[illegible]

Geo C Whiting Esq
Comm of Pensions
Page 380

District of Columbia,
County of Washington
On this 3rd September, 1861, before
me the subscriber a Notary Public in and for said
County, personally appeared Samuel Cole who being by
me duly sworn, deposes and says that he has been
acquainted with Abraham Van Buskirk for several
years last past - that while he was the Chief Clerk
of the Pension Office from March 1833 to Sept. 1838,
and at other times previous thereto, said Van Buskirk
often conversed with him, the deponent, on the
subject of his father's pension claim for his 
revolutionary services, stating that his said father
performed the service of Commissary in the Revolutionary
war as he was assured by his said father,
but that when he made his original declaration,
he was not aware that he could receive pension
for such service, and if so, that he had no 
documentary evidence of such service which he
believed would recognized by the Department.
Said A. Van Buskirk stated to this deponent that
he had often heard his said father relate his services
as Commissary
(over)
Page 381

Deponent also says that the statements aforesaid
 were also frequently made to him while
Chief Clerk of the Pension Office by James G.
Austin, Esq (now deceased) formerly of Phelps
Ontario County, New York, who was at one ┃
time a neighbor of said Van Buskirk, the
revolutionary soldier and officer.
Further this deponent says not.
Samuel Cole

Subscribed and sworn
before me, this 30 Sept. 1861
John S Hollingshead
Notary Public
Page 382

Washington City
District of Columbia ⎬ On this day December 12th
A.D. 1861. Personally appeared before me, A. Van Buskirk
aged about sixty three years, a resident of the
City of Washington D.C. Who being by me first
duly sworn according to law, deposes and says
that he is well acquainted with J. H. Peters
of Washington City D.C. That I met the said
Peters on 7th street some time in July, the day
after its allowance was announced in the Star.
He congratulated me upon having succeeded
in procuring an increase of the pension of
Peter Van Buskirk, Then said that in as much as
he had assisted me in procuring an increase
of said pension, and as he had a power to 
prosecute the case, I now ought to be willing to
pay him one thousand dollars for his services
in the matter. I then told him that Peter
Van Buskirk had given him no power or
contract. Said Peters then said he would go
to the pension office and examine the papers,
he thought the power was filed with the papers
of the case, he insisted on having me pay him ┃
One thousand dollars. I told him that he was
not entitled to one cent, for I had repeatedly
hold him at the Capital, and numerous other
Page 383

places, that I did not want his assistence
in the matter. He looked very angry and 
vindictive, and turned away with a threat,
and went as I considered from his conversation
to the pension office to examine the papers,
evidently to me vindicative.
A. Van Buskirk
Sworn and subscribed before me the day and
year above mentioned
William S. Clary J.P.
Page 384


Washington City Aug  6 1862
Dear Sir
Your favor of the 29th ult
requesting me to explain my letter
of 16th ult, has been rec'd. In reply
I have to state, that is impossible for
me to be precise, either as to "time" or
"place." Regarding my means of
ascertaining the information imparted in my letter. I can state more definitely.
I was one of the members of the
Revolutionary Claim Committee in the
35th Congress, and as such member, has
the case of Maryette Van Buskirk,
referred to me for examination and 
report to the Committee. This case was
one of considerable importance, and in
the course of the investigation I became
acquainted with Mr. A. Van Buskirk &
his family, and repeated conversation's
with himself & other members of the
family. This acquaintance began in
Page 385

the winter of 1857+8. I think in
December 1857, it continued during
my term (which expired 4th March 1859)
and up to the present time.
During this period much was said
by Mr A. Van Buskirk, not only concerning
the claim of his daughter; but also the
pension claim of his father Peter Van
Buskirk, and in one or more of these
conversations, in referring to his father's
old age & claim, he mentioned the
fact, that he had made a mistake in
the application for an increased
pension, and that he had got the permission
to with the application or petition
for amendment in that particular.
This was a common curtesy extended
to parties pressing claims before the
Committee, and I think there was
other cause, in which the petition was 
amended, so as to meet the proof in this
case, upon the principle that the
proofs went to the merits, while the
petition application or statement was
more formal matter, upon the same
principle that court allows
papers to be amended even after the
Page 386

judgment. In the committee it is 
generally understood that errors as to
dates and names may & do easily
occur, but that the proof or evidence
may correct these formal matters without
impeaching the good faith of the
party who prepared the petition or
application. I make these remarks in
Justification of the practice of allowing
paper to be amended.
Mr Van Buskirk may have
mentioned the particular point in which
the petition was amended, but of this
have no distinct recollection, and I do not
remember whether I saw the paper
but I think I did not. It is equally
impossible for me to say at what
time the fact was communicated
to me - it may have been during my
term [L. E. or S.C.] between March 4 1857.
& March 4 1859 - and it may have
been since that period, my impression
is, that it was since that time & that
it was during the 36th Congress, but of
this, it is impossible for me to speak
with any degree of exactitude. The
simple fact that the petition was
Page 387


was with care with the consent of
the committee & amended in good
faith, is staying singlarly upon my mind.

I stated this fact in my
letter of the 16th inst. at the request
of a friend as an act of justice
without wishing or desiring the position
of a witness in this or any other

case - and I now return my letter
of the 16th with the full statement of
all I know with great [substance]
and [may] because I cannot consent
to do injustice to the parties involved.
If of any service to the Department
you are at liberty to use them.

Yours Resptfully
Geo. Taylor

To Hon. Secretary of the
Interior
Washington City
Page 388


State of New York
Comptrollers office
Albany May 14th 1862
Sir
Pursuant to Chapter 390 sec 12 of the law of
1839, the Comptroller was authorized to and did arrange, index
and put in order for reference, all books and papers, deposited in
the offices of the Secretary of State, Comptroller & Treasurer, relating
to the Revolutionary period, and to the claims of revolutionary
officers and soldiers, and their legal representatives for pensions
under the acts of Congress.
Among the papers thus arranged, and in a package
of Miscellaneous papers, the account of Peter Van Buskirk as
Forage Master transmitted to Washington was found, and the
Comptroller proposes to forward this package of papers to the 
Secretary of Interior, inasmuch as from an examination thereof it
appears that the papers contained in this package may have
an important bearing upon the case, such papers to be returned
to this office when the matter shall have been disposed of.
The papers pertaining to the revolutionary period
remaining in this office, are for the most part of a miscellaneous
Page 389

character. There are no books except such as relate to services
in the militia and [levies or armies?] of this State in which the name of
Peter Van Buskirk occurs as having served as a private and sergeant
in respect to which a certificate is herewith transmitted,
which with the account as forage Master above referred to
contains all the evidence found in this office in relation to the
service of Peter Van Buskirk, nothing showing to what portion
of the army he was attached, whether continental or state, or
as to his residence or location, or in relation to Lieut Wright of
Col Peter Yates Regt and no records or papers of Quarter
Master Genl Mifflin, Pickering Green, and nothing as to the
location of Col Peter Yates Regt or Capt Jacob Yates Company or
Capt Jarrett [Terniss Brady] Company is found.

Your Obd't Serv't
[.. Shefield ...]

Deodatus Wright Esq
Pension Agent
Albany
Page 390

Van Buskirk
[Pension]
?
Page 391

All Official Letters to this Office must be addressed to the " Third Auditor of the Treasury," and in replying to
Letters from this Office the intials on the upper left-hand corner should be referred to.
Finance Division Oct 13 1875 Pension Office
Treasury Department,
THIRD AUDITOR'S OFFICE,
Washington, D. C. October 8th 1875
Sir
In looking over the files I find a
memoranda that voucher of Peter Van Buskirk
Act 7 June 1832 D.C. Agency paid in
3 quarter 1861
"was loaned to Pension Office
August 25th 1863 "
Please return the same for file in its
place with the account
Very
respectfully
A M Gangswer
Acting Auditor

Hon H. M. Atkinson
Commissioner of Pensions

Returned Oct 20 1875
[J N Britt]
Clerk
Page 392

high do
Dr Sir
In answer to you of
the 2d inst. I reply that
I very well recollect the
case of Peter Van Buskirk
it having been [decided] in
my special charge as a member of the Senate Pension Committee. 
The report was made by me.
I am quit confident that no [one thirty] was
given by the Committee
by any member of it, to say
Page 393

ons, to alter the petition
after it was filed.
I recollect nothing
a calculation of the amount
that would be due to Van Buskirk
under the bill Inspected, 
based upon the petition, and
no such amount was [unsaved it]
as that believed now to be due.

Your Obt Srvnt
J. W. Grimes

Hon. J.P. Usher
Secretary of the Interior
Page 394

130
Hon. J. W. Grimes
March 7. 1883.
In answer to Secretary's
Attn of the Instant, says the
Petition of Peter Van Buskirk
was not amended
by permission of the Committee
having it in Change &c
Page 395

Comptroller Office
State
of
[Agn'y of State]
New York
Albany Dec 7 1852
Sir
On the receipt of $10 for a careful
examination will be made in this office
and in the office of the Secretary of State, and
a certificate of whatever may be found
in the name of either of the names
1 Abram Hopper,  John A Hopper, Peter Van
Buskirk & Isaac [Blankenship or Blauvelt] mentioned in your
form of the 4th inst: will be immediately
forwarded.

Respectfully
C. X. Keels
Examing Clerk

J. H. Peters Esq
Washington
Page 396



State of New York
[Ag'y of State]
Comptroller Office
Albany Nov 15 1888
Sir
Your letter with inclosures 
has been duly received.
A very careful & diligent search
has been made in this office for evidence
of the service of Peter Van Buskirk under
Captain John A Hopper, performed in the 
revolutionary war & there is nothing to be found
in the books a paper deposited in this office
relating to the revolutionary period. These
have been carefully arrayed & indexed but
neither show any thing respecting both Hopper
or Van Buskirk.

Your Obt Srvt
Philip Phelps
Dep'y Comp'l

A. Van Buskirk, Esq.
Washington City
Page 397


June11
[illegilble]
J H Peters Esq
Enclosed copy of letters
&c
Page 398

Washington City D.C.
11th June 1862
Hon. Caleb B. Smith
Sec'tary of Interior
Sir
I enclose you
copies of the two (among other) notes
refered to by me a day on the period in
my interview with you. For prudential
reasons, which to prevent loss of the originals, I send you copies; & also for the reason that as the Criminal Court is so near I 
shall want these for the action of the
grand jury.
I trust you will retain what
purport to be the original accounts of
the "Commissary" officer Peter Van Buskirk that
it may be brought before the Grand
Jury also, as I think it bears evidently
upon its face the appearance of [novelty]
Page 399

May I ask you again for a 
certified copy of the deposition made by
Stephen Westervelt which you sometime
since declined to give me. Of this being
a criminal imposition I have a personal
knowledge, by whom perpetrated I know
not. In a letter received by me from
New Jersey some week or more ago, I am
informed that Mr Van Buskirk was in New Jersey
making effect to “reconcile” this
deposition with that made by the same
party heretofore, for the purpose of having
the money paid, that you had stopped
the payment of until this was “reconciled”
to your satisfaction.
I am respectfully
Your Obt Svnt
J. H. Peters
Page 400

Thereby certify that I
was well acquainted with Peter
Van Buskirk that I have administer
several oaths to him
in relation to his application
for increase of his pension the
particulars as to time & place
do not recollect. My
recollection of the current business
as Justice not being
fresh in my memory. But I
am satisfied from 
Mr A. V. Buskirk’s statement in
relation to his amended
declaration being [usurn]
is correct.
Thomas J Williams
30th Dec. 1862
Page 401

Copy recorded
Department of Interior
July 20, 1861
Geo W Riggs


Dr Sir
Mr. S. A. Peugh
the agent of Peter Van Buskirk
informs me that
on the evening of the
day on which I requested
[Bank?] to withhold the payment
of the pension allowed to Van Buskirk
be offered to repay to you
the amount [Agent]  had
paid him on his certificate
[less] some $200 which
you delivered to [revival] as
it was offered later than
your usual business hours.
I shall be obliged to you
if you will inform me
whether the offer to return




Hon Caleb B Smith
Secretary of the Interior
Page 402

the money was made as alleged 
by Mr. Peugh.
As some doubts have
been suggested as to the
validity of the claim, I
am anxious to investigate
the matter thoroughly
and would be gratified
to have the money 
already paid [proved] with
in the control of the Govt. 
before I shall be
required to decide upon
the right of the applicant
to receive it.
Very resp'y
Caleb Smith
Page 403

36
Dec. 18, 1867
letter of
Mr. Spangle
No 17
Page 404

New York Dec 13, 1837
Mr. Van Buskirk
Washington D.C.
[Inding]
You write to me
for information in regard
to your Fathers Service in the
War of the revolution. I have
known Peter Van Buskirk
twenty years & upwards & have
after in conversation with him
heard him relate never [!] to me
+ others his service in that war
that he served the latter portion
in the Capacity of Commissary
in Collecting forage for the
American Army in the time
of the revolutionary [war or winter? Jones]
under Gen Wayne & other officers
as Comissary till the army was
disbandoned at the close of the
Page 405

War and that the belief
was general in the neighborhood
[known] and never heard it
doubted to my knowledge
but that he so served.
Yours +
G W Spangle
Page 406


Washington D.C
Dec 18 1859
Mr. Van Buskirk Sir
I have been intimately
acquainted with Geo. W. Spangle for
many years, and know that
he possessed advantages of becoming
acquainted with your fathers history
by being a near friend of the family.
I have myself heard
frequently the same facts herein
mentioned from others in the neighborhood
but not to my recollection from
the lips of your father.
Geo. W. Spangle
Gentleman of ability and
his statements may be relied
upon implicitly.
Yours &c
J N Granger
Page 407

Agency for Paying Pensions
Wash'n July 30, 1861
Sir
Your note of this
date is is reeived - If 
Mr. Van Buskirk has
returned to this City I
have not been informed
of its -  He has
made no deposits with
me of the amount
paid on account of
his fathers pension.
Very Respectfully, 
Your Obt Servt
Geo W. Riggs
Pension  Agent

Hon Caleb B. Smith
Secretary of the Interior
Page 408

127
George W. Riggs
Pension Agent
Washington, D.C. Aug 2/61
-
States that Mr. Van
Buskirk has called to
see him, but has no cash
means, and will give his
promissory note
Rec'd 3 Aug. '61
Pensions
Mr. Whiting
Page 409

Wash Aug 2, 1861
Sir.
Mr. Van Buskirk
called to see me at my
office this morning.
He seems desirous
of making every thing
Satisfactory, but is
evidently without cash
[made or able] to do so. He
says he has property
and will give his
promissory note.
Very respectfully, 
Yr. Obt. Servnt
Geo W Riggs
Pension Agent


Hon Caleb B Smith
Secretary of the Interior
Page 410

Washington City D.C.
10th April 1861
Hon G.C. Whiting
Comr of Pensions
Sir

I herewith enclose you additional evidence in the case of Peter Van Buskirk and ask that as the case has been rejected entirely upon presumptions
and as this enclosed evidence rebels that presumptions, that the
office will not hesitate to reopen the case.
The testimony enclosed consists of an affidavit of
Peter V. Buskirk stating the fact of his having stated his
whole service to his Agent [&]
An affidavit of A. V. Buskirk corroborating his fathers
statement &c. and also an affidavit, stating the fact
that he never had been in the Comptrollers office until last
autumn &c &c whose character for truth and veracity
is well vouched by Hon J. N. Granger, Recorder of the Gen
Land Office, and by J. O. Coombs of this City, and also
an affidavit stating the substance of a receipt that
does not now appear among the papers which was
dated "Jany 1782"
It is believed that this evidence
will satisfy the office of the identification of the claimant
& that the case will now he admitted.
I am respectfully yours &
S. A. Peugh
[illegible]
Page 411


Pension Office
August 1st 1865
Sir
I take the liberty of addressing this letter to you
on the purpose of soliciting your opinion & official
action, as to the proper steps to be taken to recover a
sum of money, illegally obtained by certain parties
by the allowance of a claim for a pension.
In July 1861, Peter Van Buskirk an alleged
revolutionary soldier, obtained, through
the agency of his son Abraham & others, 
by means of evidence now known to be false an
allowance of $16,200, on which about $7,500
wase paid to Abraham, as the attorney of
his father Peter. 
Tis office had decided adversely upon the
merits of the claim, but on an appeal to the
Secretary of the Interior, its action had been
reversed, and the claim was admitted. Soon
after the certificate was filed, information was
received, which led the Secertary to suspect that the
claim might not be genuine, and he ordered
Page 412

it to be suspended and the payment to be arrested -
 until an investigation could
be had. But as above stated the sum of $7500. which
happened to be all that was in the hands of the
Pension Agent, payable under the act, had been
received by Abraham Van Buskirk as a power
of Attorney. It is only within a few days
that the Secretary, on a full & thorough 
investigation, has given a final decision, pronouncing
the claim to be a fraud and ordering
further payments to be withheld.
It is too late, now, to resort to criminal proceedings
to punish the guilty parties, as
more than two years have elapsed since the
false testimony was procured. but, if it is possible,
I am desirous that civil proceedings should
be instituted to recover the money that
has been received; and upon this print. I
wish to obtain your advice, and assistance.
Peter Van Buskirk is dead, but his son
Abraham is living in Canandaigua, N. Y.
and is believed to be responsible, and it can
also be shown that he received the money. The
father was at that time, and had been previously
Page 413

Residing with him. Peter made a will in
the year 1857. bequeathing all his personal
& real property to a daughter of Abraham
and the latter was also made the Executor of the
will. This daughter it is believed, and the papers
in the case warrant the believe, is implicated
as deeply as the father, in the fraud.
The result of the investigations leaves [no] doubt
as to the criminal character of the transaction
and that the entire claim was a fabrication
made up of forgery & perjury. This could be
made to appear. I am confident in any Court
and you can better tell whether or not
it will be necessary to establish it, in order
to recover the money by civil process.
You will also be able to judge whether or not
Abraham Van which can be arrested & held
to bail, lest he might dispose of his property, before
a suit is commenced.
I should esteem it as a favor, to receive a
letter from you immediately suggesting the
proper course to be pursued, and entering upon
it forthwith, if there is any reason to expect
that a recovery of the money is possible. There is
Page 414

no doubt of the fact that the son is now 
abundantly  reponsible and you can determine whether
it would be best to proceed against him individually or as Executor.
I am &c
Signed Jos. H. Barrett
Com'r

105

Hon Wm A Dart
U. S. Dist. Atty
Potadam
N. Y.
Page 415

Committee Room,
Dec. 24, 1858
Sir
I enclose House Bill, N. 340, for increasing
the Pension of Peter Van Buskirk of Washington City. As
this bill came from the House, unaccompanied by any papers,
the Committee can know nothing of the nature of the case.
You will please inform them of the ground upon which
the Pension was originally granted, and forward, for the use
of the Committee any papers on file in your office in his
application for an increase of pension, if any has been made.

By Order of Senate Committee on Pensions,
Yours very Respectfully,
Harrison Hall
Clerk of Comm

Hon. George C. Whiting
Commr of Pensions
Page 416

Mr Van Buskirk
In his declaration of the
20th May 1846, makes no mention of
his serving as Forage Mash under
Dearman, but both speak of his being
a solder standing guard &c.
and Van Buskirk says in his declaration
that he removes & releases any claim
whatever to a pension except the present - 
What does this mean?

On the 19th March 1860 A Van Buskirk, son
of Peter, says he has always heard his father
[was] in the Commissary service from 1781 till
late in the fall of 1783.
Salome Van Buskirk says that her Mother
was born on the 7th April 1767 - was married
when she was 17 years of age [In] 1784.
Peace declared Sept. [Treaties of War.] Apl 11th
[yeare] proclaimed by Washington to be Apl 1818
Page 417

Copy
Pen off Augt '46
The claim of Peter Van Buskirk has been examined 
and disallowed. It is asserted for what he calls a
volunteer service in Gen Dekalb's camp at Harrington in
New Jersey in the Brigade formed by the M'd & Delaware Lines.
Even if the very imperfect and studied narration did not
shew that he was employed like many others in the 
neighborhood of the camp under hire or contract, it was not
practicable to enlist as a soldier of either of those lines
as there was no authority present by which he could be enlisted.
The Soldiers of those Lines were enlisted by the States
respectively either to organize the corps or subsequently to fill
it up-- The pension laws provide for those only who
rendered service in the army under a soldier's obligation,
& subject to the penalties of the law martial.
Very respectfully &c
J. L. Edwards
P. Commissioner

Geo. R. Carburt Esq
Canandaigua, N. Y.
Page 418

108
S. A. Peugh
Sept. 17, 1863
States that he has 
applied at the Pension Office
for the papers of Peter
Van Buskirk and been
refused, and asks the 
Secretary's permission to see them.

Respectfully referred to the
Commissioner of Pensions who
will allow Mr Peugh to examine
the papers under Mr. Ewing  of
the office unless some objection
exists which is not known at
the Department.

Dept Interior
Sept. 26. 1863
Hallet Kilbourn
Clerk


The Department of the Interior
Sept 17 1883

Mr Whiting
Page 419

Washington D.C.
17 Sept 1863

Sir, 
This morning I applied in the
usual way to the Pension Office to see
the papers in the case of Peter V. Buskirk, 
which request has been denied by
that Office.
I have the honor to request
permission to see the papers
I am yours very
Respectfully
S.A. Peugh

Hon J.P. Usher
Secy of the Interior

-
Page 420

107
[illegible]  to [Secy or Treas] Pensions
May 22, 1861
Page 421

Department of the Interior
May 22d 1866
Sir,
I return herewith the papers relating
to the claim of Peter Van Buskirk for an increase
of pension. In the letter of your predecessor
of the 27th of March last, he stated that the
proof clearly showed that the services for which
the increase of pension was claimed, were rendered
by a person bearing the name of the claimants
but was insufficient to establish the identity of
the claimant with the person who rendered the
services.
I concurred in that opinion. The fact
that a person of that name was employed as
an Assistant Forage Master is placed beyond
doubt by the documentary evidence; but the
discrepancy, in the several statements of the 
applicant, as to his age, and the omission of all
reference to those services in his original 
application was calculated to throw serious doubts
upon his claim.
Page 422

Since the case has been placed before me,
on a second appeal, the applicant has filed
additional testimony, a portion of which is claimed
to be quite important.
The object of this testimony is to explain the omission of a statement
of his services in the capacity of Forage Master,
in his original application, and also the discrepancies
in his statements relative to his age.
Deeming it proper that the claim should
be examined by you upon all the evidence, and
that your judgment upon the additional testimony
adduced should be pronounced before
any final action shall be taken by the Department
on the appeal, I respectfully refer the case
to you for a re-examination in connection with
the evidence filed since the appeal.
I am, respectfully
Your Obt. Svt.
Caleb B. Smith
Secretary


Joseph H. Barrett, Esq.
Commissioner of Pensions
Page 423

14
Additional
Affidavit
of Saml Cole Esq
State Chief Clerk of
the Pension Office
Also, Memorandum
of Census return of
1860
Page 424

Washington Co.
District of Columbia
Sam Cole being duly
sworn deposes and says that in several
conversations with J. M. Austin and
Mr Van Buskirk, the son, they have each
said at all times that the original 
declaration for pension for the father of
said Van Buskirk was written under
a mistake by said Austin and that
Mr Van Buskirk’s age was not stated
Correctly -  further this deponent
saith not.
Samuel Coe
Sworn and subscribed this 30th October 1861, before
W Thompson [ ] 
in and for the County + 
District aforesaid


Page 33 line 38
Peter Buskirk  [age or an] 98
United Merchants
Washington City
2d [Ward or Avenue]
J. H. Brookhead
Sept 21/61
Page 425

Pension Office, March 27. 1861
Sir,
I have the honor to make the following report
in the case of Peter Van Buskirk, an applicant
for increase of pension under act of June 7, 1832.
The letter of [and to .. stating thereto] Mr. Peugh asking an appeal from
from the adverse decision of this office and his
argument (marked A) are also herewith
communicated together with my [letter deciding]
the claim dated 21st instant.
This claim is based upon evidence
certified by the Comptroller of the
State of New York (See papers marked B.)
 showing that a man of the name of
claimant served as Forage Master from
29th May 1781 to September 3 1783. I do not
question the fact thus certified to, e
and concede that it is not important whether he served
under Quarter Master General Mifflin or under his successors. Van
Buskirk is now a pensioner at rate of $60
per annum, for service as private in 1779
‘80 and ‘81. If he performed the service as
Forage Master in 1781, ‘82 and ‘83 he is entitled
to a pension at rate of $600 per annum commencing March
11. 1838, and continuing to the time of his death
involving an amount of arrears exceeding $10,000.
Page 426

2/




Application for pension was first preferred by this claimant in
1846. In his declaration then made (see pages marked A1) he sets forth his
service generally, and alleges two distinct times and [ ] too,
 viz from [illegible number inserted] October 1779 to November 10, 1780
and from the middle of November
1780 until June 1781. It is assumed that in
a case of this kind the material papers themselves will be 
examined, by the Department and therefore an abstract of the
evidence is not deemed necessary; but attention is
particularly directed to the character of the
service claimed, and the age of the claimant.
He states (first page of his Declaration) his age to have been 80 in 1846.
and on the 6th page, in answer to interrogatories 
propounded by the Court states that
he was born on the 29th August 18 [illegible insertion] the
date of the year having been subsequently obliterated and
the figures “62” [inserted subsequent].
The character of the service is described by him
were that of "standing guard, cooking, and doing
other duties as a soldier” that
 the service claimed in his first declaration [was same]
(over)
Page 427

3
all the service he performed during the revolutionary war
is clearly inferable from his answer to the
question proposed on page 5 of his said first declaration and that


his statements both as to age and service were not made ignorantly
or without due caution is proved by his
reiteration of them in his affidavit in
the case of George Dearman, (Papers
marked A 2) and his amended declaration
made in 1851. (see papers marked A 3)  In the latter he swears
he was then 84 years old.
It would then seem that he was born in
1766. It is also the borne in mind
that his declaration in 1851 was made
in response to the objection of the office
contained
presented
in a letter of which a copy is herewith contained & presented
marked A, in which his attention was specially
called to the character of the service he
had alleged. It is the pensioner, if he really
had served in the
important part of Forage Master, or had been
an age to have been selected for such service,  that
he would have attested it then. Accounting
all his statements and the whole of the testimony [ ] up to 1859 he was
Page 428

4
15 years old in 1781 (when the service now 
commenced) and no reference was made up to
that time by him or any of his witnesses
of his service as Commissary, Forage Master
or in any branch of the Staff department.
It also happens that the evidence procured
from New York (see papers marked "B")
discloses the fact that a man of the
name of Peter Van Buskirk was a
Sergeant in, or prior to,, October 1779
in a New York Regiment commanded
by Col. Yates. This service was,
confusedly, not performed by the
present claimant. He was at that precise
time, as will be seen engaged in due as cook &
under other officers. There were, therefore, at least two
parties of this same name (a very common one in New
York and New Jersey) who served during the war of
the revolution, and the evidence, as yet noticed would
seem to under it more probable that the man who
served as Sergeant in 1779 was subsequently appointed
Forage Master than the present claimant. Again, the original
Claim of Van Buskirk was allowed with hesitation (see paper
marked A 5 with its endorsement in pencil) of 1831. In
1856 application was made for increase of allowance
(see paper marked A 6) but no additional service whatever
is asserted and again, that new claim, and the demand
for increase was rejected for the reasons assigned
in a letter from his office dated Jan’y 15, 1856, a copy of which
Page 429

5/
accompanies this report marked (A 7)


To what the necessary presumption
arising from this state of facts, the claimant
has filed, in addition to Declaration
dated September 5, 1859 (marked B 1) several
affidavits designed to identify him with the service
as forage master of the close of the war. It will be
seen that the claimant, and some of the witnesses 
misapprehend the nature of the Office of Forage
Master, and the superior officers under whom
he immediately performed his duties. Forage
masters belonged to the Quarter Master Generals’
Department and the superior
officers with whom they were immediately
Connected were of the Staff -  Yet the
witnesses Stephen Westervelt (paper marked B2)
Stephen Luskins (B3) and Elizabeth Hopper (B4)
with singular coincidence name only identically the same General, officers of
the line, the dates of the commencement of the service, and of its
Page 430

6/
conclusion are likewise given with remarkable
similarity by these witnesses.
It is the theory of the office that the
Claimant was, when quite young, engaged in
miscellaneous duties about the camp, as he
himself asserts and that some of these duties probably
pertained to the Commissarist. This supposition
will in a measure account for the statements
of the witnesses generally, and the recollections
of Mr. Abraham Van Buskirk as to
his father’s declaration. (See paper marked
B5)
In cases of this description experience
has abundantly shown that the phraseology
employed in Declarations and affidavits must
be viewed with great caution. They are
are almost invariably prepared beforehand
taken ex parte and generally an opportunity is offered
the office of as ascertaining either the exact meaning
the witnesses attach to the words used
in the affidavit or the
 means possessed by them of knowing the facts
Page 431



7/
themselves. This will will be apparent open
among the affidavit of Mr. Granger, and
his explanatory note endorsed upon it
(see papers marked 136 with which 
may also be found the letter of Mr.Spangle)
It only remains to be observed that I
can discover no satisfactory evidence authenticating
the papers marked [B.Y.] That purporting to
be the discharge of a soldier is doubtless
genuine, but it would seem to have no
bearing upon the point at issue.
The action of Congress upon this
can be gathered from papers marked.
[Ca]


With much respect
I am, &
Your Obd’t Servnt
Geo C Whiting
Comm


Hon. Caleb B. Smith
Sec’y Int.
Vol. 3 p. 329
[Geddes]
Page 432

but not much about town.
The account at 11th was after
dinner.
Van Buskirk, [Graves Chamn]
Saml Cole Clerk
I think the amendment was in
March 1860. The [latter printed] Fifty copies
were filed in the House.  These papers
were withdrawn to make copies.
the amendment was made at
the first part of March.  I paid
The Justice for [reserving] my
father. It was not long after the
filling of the papers in the House that the
amendment in the Senate [politic]
was made.
Page 433

Van Buskirk case
Feby 11 1860  First Mention
Feby 23 1860  Sup Deed & Pet. Rept
to Mr. Potter 29th [  ]
Report a bill allowing
$8. per month.




No. 462, 11. In the spring of 1860
A J Williams saw Justice Williams
this House & heard him read a paper
to the old man a paper & [said]
to administer an oath on
the bible. There was pen & papers
on the table. I am a [crack make by hado]
I saw an oath
administered by the same Justice
In 1877 on Pennsylvania Avenue
moved to No 46 in Dec 1857.
lived on New Jerry [avenue]
in Sept 1859. The old man
used to go out about the yard
Page 434

but not much about town
the account of 11th [  ] after
dinner:
Van Buskirk, [Pension Claimant]
Sam’l Cole Clerk


I think the amendment was in
March 1860.  The better part of [Fifty] copies
were filed in the House, the papers
were withdrawn to make copies.
The amendment was made in
the fore part of March.  I paid
the Justice for [reserving] my
father. It was not long after the
filing of the papers in the House that the
amendment in the Senate [politics]
was made.
Page 435

109
Affidavit
of
J.M. Granger
15 March 1861
Page 436

County of Washington
District of Columbia
On this 15th day of March
1861 before the subscriber a Notary Public
in and for the County aforesaid personally appeared
John N Granger,  Recorder of the  Recorder of the Genl Land 
office of the United State & made oath in due
form of law that he is well acquainted with Peter
Van Buskirk now of this City but formerly of Ontario
County New York & a Revolutionary Pensioner
of the United States that he recollected said Peter
from the earliest of his recollection as they lived in
adjoining towns in the same County.  That he
was always regarded as a man of strict probity
and his family held a high social position in the
neighborhood. It was always understood and
believed in the neighborhood that said Peter Van
Brokick served as a soldier and officer in the
Revolutionary War until its close - that he was
Page 437

always recognised on the 4th of July celebrations
as such and I further state that I have
No doubt of the truthfulness of his statement in
reference to his Revolutionary services.
I would further state that I am
well acquainted with George W. Spangle of New York
who has stated in certain letters that he understood
Mr Van Buskirk acted as Commissary or forage master
and believe him to be a gentleman of truth and veracity
J N Granger
Sworn and subscribed to before
Me this 15th day of March 1861
John S Hollingshead
Notary Public
(Over)
Page 438

Hon Geo C. Whiting
Comm. of Pensions
Sir, 


My statement to the [ration] affidavit [that]
Response “[ ] in the neighbor that said Peter Van Buskirk
served as an officer” was based upon the fact that he
was commonly dubbed “Capt” or “Maj” Van Buskirk and
upon no general knowledge of other facts, or circumstances
in the case whatever. I have no recollection of having
stated that he was a Captain or officer in the war.


Respectfully
J N Granger
Page 439

The original letter
of which this is a copy
was this day delivered
by me to Mr. Abraham
Van Buskirk on 11th St. 
in this city, about 15
minutes before 10 o'clock
Joshua T. Taylor
Washington, D.C.
Aug’t 2/61


Copy 1
Letter of  Hon. Smith Secy
to 
A.Van Buskirk
Aug. 1 1861
Page 440

(Copy)


Department of the Interior
Washington August 1st 1861
Sir,
Since the allowance and partial payment of the
claim of your father Peter Van Buskirk to an increase of
his pension, doubts have been suggested, as you are well aware
in regard to portions of the testimony by which it was sustained.
Efforts are now being made to settle those doubts without
unnecessary delay, but in the mean time it is due to yourself
as well as to the Government that the money paid in the claim
by the Pension Agent in this City should be refunded. I have
therefore to request that you will at once cause the amount to
be deposited with Mr George Riggs, the agent from whom it
was received. When that shall have been done I shall feel more
free to review the merits of the claim
Very Respectfully
Your Obt Servant
Caleb B Smith
Secretary of the Interior
Abraham Van Buskirk Esqr
Present
Page 441

January 4th 1781.
A committee of Sergeants of the
Pennsylvania Line address General Wayne, and he
replies to their communication. The army was
then at Princeton, New Jury.
Letter of General Wayne, dated January 8th 1781.
at Princeton New Jersey speaks of the
unhappy defection of the Penn. line and wishes
that the soldiers were in the vicinity of
Trenton
See Washington Papers. Department
of State
Page 442

Resolution of Congress. Feb. 20, 1781.
that the Southern Army be composed of all the
regular Troops from Pennsylvania to Georgia
inclusive, and that the Commander in Chief
be & is hereby is directed to order the Troops
of the Pennsylvania Line to join the army
in Virginia by Detachments as they may
be in readiness to march. ++++++++. 
That the States aforesaid and the State of
Pennsylvania be & they are required to
complete their respective [Insta] of Troops
afterward then to join the southern army
without loss of time
Penn. Archives 1781 Page 737
Also Journal of Congress. Vol. III Page 579
Feb. 22 1781, Genl Wayne and the officers at
Princeton New Jersey
Same
Letter from Genl Washington to Genl Wayne, dated
New Windsor April 8. 1781 urges upon him
the necessity of moving to the South, without
loss of time, as large a proportion of the
Page 443

Pennsylvania Line, as possible, and hopes that
before this the [ ] he has taken,
all impediments to a movement will
have been obviated.
Penn. Archie Page 66, 1781
Letter of Genl Wayne to Pres. Reed, dated Philadelphia 13th
April 1781. says, that every impediment to his advance
Southward is removed, except sufficient money
for the gratuity, bounty & three months pay
He suggests the expeditions of [ ], artillery, [ ]
second, (Col Walter Stewart) third, fifth & sixth (Col Richard Hampton)Reg. first in rotation
in order to expedite the advance of the whole
to Yorktown. the Artillery & Second, to be
paid on Wednesday & Thursday, the third &
fifth on Friday & Saturday, and to March
immediately to the General [rendezvous] at Yorktown.
Says, if he is able to take up his line on March
for Yorktown, with the whole detachment by
Monday or Tuesday of week, he has the fairest
respect of a junction with the troops under
Genl Lafayette & to give a happy turn to
affairs.
Penn. Archives 1781- page 74 [last digit cut off]


Resolution of Council of Penn. dated Philadelphia 7th May 1781
That Genl Wayne be requested to furnish
Page 444

this Board with a list of the officers of the
artillery, going with the detachment of to
the Southward, under his command.
Letter of Genl Wayne. dated May 7th 1784 [ ]
the required list. Penn Archives 1781 page 123.
Letter of Genl Wayne dated Lancaster 16th May 1781.
to Pres. Reed inform the council, that cattle
are wanted & may be procured to serve the
detachment until he arrives in Virginia, if [its]
Contractors of Lancaster & York had orders.
wishes to receive of sixty head by next
Monday at which period the 5th Regt will
reach Yorktown
Before closing the letter, says he has just recd letter
from the board of war, Gov. of Va. + Genl Lafayette
of an alarming nature, & proposing [??]
of the troops under his command.
Penn. Archives 1781 page 138
Letter of Genl Wayne to President Reed, dated Yorktown
Va. 20th May 1781, says that while the troops
are passing through the town, he [intends a command]
to thank him for intelligence just [not]
[Idem] page 17.
Letter from
GenL Wayne to Pres. Reed dated
Page 445


[Hoodriver] Ferry, James River. 16th July 1781.
says, the retreat Genl Cornwallis to Portsmouth
& the advance of Col Tarlton towards South Carolina.
Has determined the Marquis Lafayette
to order the Penn. & Va. Troops under my
command to that quarter.
[Idem]1781 page 282
Letter of Genl J W to Pres. Reed dated Hanover
18th Aug. 1781, says, after being near the
Roanoke. We have returned here to meet
Lord Cornwallis, from and after the 24th [ ] 
we have once saved Va. & may do it again”
[Idem] Page 358
Letter of  Pres. Reed to Genl Wayne dated Aug 25, 1781
acknowledges the receipt of his letters of
the 8th + 16th giving a detail of the occurrences
of the army under his command
[Idem] page 366
Letter of Genl Wayne to Pres. Reed, dated “Lines before
York 3 Oct. 1781." says that the investiture of
the British army was effected on the 29th ult.
[Idem] page 430
Page 446

Letter of Genl Washington to Genl Green dated 1st
June 1781, New Windsor, says, "I have not
heard that Genl Wayne had left Yorktown, but I
have reason to believe he has gone before his time.
Sparks Life Washington
Vol. 8. page 65.
Letter of  Genl Washington; to  Genl Lafayette dated
29th June 1781, written while the latter
was retreating before Lord Cornwallis, and
Just as he was about to cross the [Rasidan]
to form a junction with Genl Wayne
same, page 86.
General Wayne in battle at Green Spring July
8th 1781. Same page 118

From the Washington Papers 
Letter of General Wayne addressed to Genl Washington
dated at Philadelphia 1st Nov 1783, in which
he speaks of having been accustomed to act
under General Washington's eye, until he was
detached after the reduction of Yorktown
October 1781, and then goes on to relate a
detailed account of the operations of the
Page 447

Troops under his command in Georgia [about]  on 
the 19th of January 1782. he crossed the Savannah and
effected a landing in Georgia.
Various other letters written by General Wayne
to General Green & others during all the
months of in the year 1782, shew that he
continued in command of the forces in
Georgia as late as December 13, 1782.
[‘After he was’ crossed out] After that date there
are no documents to indicate where General 
Wayne was, until date of the letter above alluded
to General Washington of the [‘dated’-crossed out]  1st Nov. 1783, nor
does that, on any other letter or document, as
yet discovered, shew where Genl Wayne
was from the 13th December 1782, to the
1st Nov. 1783.
[So] Washington Papers. Department
of State.
ColonelWalter Stewart commanded the 2d Regiment
of the Pennsylvania Line, and Col.
Richard Hampton the 10th Regiment
before the Reduction of the Line to
Six Regiments by act of Congress