Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File W 26286, Jonathan Wakeley, Conn.

SERVICE
NUMBER
born
Wakeley, Jonathan or Wakelee
W 26286
Parrott, Esther
(Former widow)
CONTENTS

Leah J. Sherman Jan'y 18/51
Reported
726.
Connecticut.
Esther Parrott widow of Jonathan Wakeley, who served in the Revolutionary war, as a Private.
Inscribed on the Roll at the rate of 80 Dollars
Cents per annum, to commence on the 4th day of March, 1848.
Certificate of Pension issued the 15 day of July 1848, and sent to
Leah Sherman Bridgeport Ct.
Recorded on Roll of Pensioners under act February 2, 1848, Page 326, Vol. 1,
Hand with encl. P.W. Aug. 1883. C.A.P.

Esther Parrott
Petition of Esther Parrott 1838
Dec r 20 1838 Ref d to the Committee on Rev d Pensions
Feb y 6 1839 Bill — N o 1117
Jan y 4 1840 Ref d (under resol y ) to the Com e on Revolu y . Pensions —
July 10 1840 Bill reported 469
Dec r 14 1841 Ref d to the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions Feb y 9 th 1842 — Bill N o 1492 Osborn
Whittlesey 36 Rev Perry

To the Hon. Senate and House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States now in Session
The Petition of Esther Parrott of the Town of Bridgeport in the County of Fairfield and State of Connecticut.
Respectfully Sheweth That she is 75 years of age who being first duly sworn according to Law doth on her Oath make the following declaration in order to obtain the benefit of the provision, made by the Act. of Congress, passed July 7 th 1838 entitled, an Act granting half pay and pensions to certain Widows —
That she was married to Jonathan Wakelin who was a private Soldier in the Genl. Continental Army, in in Col R. J. Hays Regiment of Light Artillery, and who served in said Regiment nearly Three years, as will appear by the Comptroller's certificate hereto annexed —
She further declares, that she was married to the said Jonathan Wakelin on the twenty first day of August in the year Seventeen hundred and eighty Three, (That her maiden name was Esther Morris) That her husband the aforesaid Jonathan Wakelin died on the fifth day of July fourteenth day of December A D 1800, of Consumption.
That she was afterwards married to Abraham Parrott, who died on the 5 th day of July A D 1816 of consumption, of bowel complaint and that she has remained as Widow ever since the death of said Abraham Parrott.

And that she was not married to said Wakelu prior to his leaving the service but the Marriage took place previous to the first day of January A.D. 1794 viz. at the time above stated.
And as the aforesaid Act has is so construed as to exclude her from its benefits for no other reason, only that she has been married to said Parrott, although she is now, and has been a Widow a long time in arduous circumstances & is justly entitled to a Pension.
Therefore she respectfully requests that she may be placed on the Pension Roll of the Connecticut Agency under said Act the same as she would be entitled had she not contracted said second marriage.
Esther Parrott
State of Connecticut } City of Bridgeport } ss. On this 7 th day of December A.D. 1838, before the Court of Probate in & for the District of Stratford in said State, personally appeared Esther Parrott and subscribed the foregoing Petition in open Court, and made Oath that the facts therein stated are true. Hanson Hamlin Judge Attest Ira Sherman Clerk
And the said Court do hereby declare their opinion after investigation of the matter that the said Esther Parrott is the Widow of Jonathan Wakelu & Abraham Parrott as she has stated and that said Jonathan Wakelu was a Revolutionary Soldier as she has stated. Attest Ira Sherman Clerk Hanson Hamlin Judge

I certify that on application for evidence of the service of Jonathan Wakeley I have examined the Records of Settlement made with the Continental Army and find his name in a settlement with the 5th Connecticut Regiment Return J. H. Higgs Col: before Jan'y 1 1780, When he is entered as a Private and commenced since Jan'y 16 1778 Time of Settlement Jan'y 1 1780 making 3. 11. 15 Amount beages £47. 0. 0 Again commenced since Jan'y 1 1780 Time of Settlement Jan'y 1 1781 making 12 months Amount of beages £24. 0. 0 Comptroller's Office Hartford July 30 1838
Henry Wilson Compt

This may certify that I have examined the Town Records of Derby and find on them no Record of the marriage of Jonathan Wakelee, but have found the Record of the marriage on a private record by a Justice of the Peace in the following words viz
Be it remembered that Mr Jonathan Wakelee and Mrs Ester Thomas was married together on the 21 (Twentyfirst) day of August A D 1783 (Seventeen hundred Eighty three) By me Eliphalet Hetchkip Justice of Peace
The above is a true copy of the original Record as appears on a Book kept by Eliphalet Hetchkip with the exception of the date which is expressed on the lines in fair legible figures as follows - 21 Day of August A D 1783
Derby Connecticut November 30 th 1838
Julius Hetchkip Town Clerk
There are in Derby Records acknowledgments of Deeds taken by Eliphalet Hetchkip as Justice of the Peace in the year Sixteen hundred Eighty three (1783)
Attest Julius Hetchkip Town Clerk
State of Connecticut New Haven County Derby Nov 30 th 1838 Sworn before me Sheldon Dapre Justice of Peace

I Isaac Sherman Clerk of the 1 st Congregational Church in Bridgeport in the County of Fairfield and State of Connecticut do hereby certify. That I find on the Records of said Church in my possession. under the head of the bill of mortality that Jonathan Wakelin died on the fourteenth day of December in the year One Thousand and eight hundred, of the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred Also that Abraham Parrott died on the fifth day of July in the year Eighteen hundred and Sixtytwo. both which Records are expressed in legible figures in the following manner viz
Jonathan Wakelin (December 14 th 1800. ,,
Abraham Parrott. July 5 th 1816 an old Bowl complaint aged 64. ,,
And I further certify that I was personally acquainted with said Wakelin & Parrott in their life time & with the Esther Parrot. their Widow and that I was present at the funeral of said Abraham, and that said Esther, has never married since the death of said Abraham Parrott and is now a Resident of said Bridgeport.
Isaac Sherman Sworn and Subscribed in open Court on this 7 th day of December A.D. 1838 before me, by Isaac Sherman a credible Witness well known to me Heman Hamlin Judge Attest Isaac Sherman Clerk

I. Ira Sherman Clerk of the Court aforesaid do hereby certify that the foregoing contains the original proceedings of the said Court in the matter of the application of the Widow Esther Parrott for a Pension.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and Seal of Office this 7 th day of December A D 1838.
Ira Sherman Clerk " " "

State of Connecticut } County of Fairfield } ss. Mansfield. On this 25 th day of March A.D. 1843 personally appeared before me Isaac Sherman a Justice of the Peace in and for said Fairfield County. Esther Parrott a resident of said Town of Mansfield. aged 79 years, who being first duly Sworn according to Law, doth on her Oath, make the following declaration in order to obtain the benefits of the provision made by the Act of Congress passed on the 3 rd of March 1843, granting Pensions to certain widows of persons who served during the Revolutionary War.
That she is the former widow of Jonathan Wakelin Esq. who was a private in the Connecticut line Continental Troops in which he served in said War. and The annual amount of the pension she received under the Act of July 7 1838 was Eighty Dollars. And that she was placed on the Pension Roll of the Connecticut agency under said last mentioned Act by Special act of Congress passed in the year 1842. She further declares that she is still a widow —
Esther Parrott
Sworn to and subscribed on the day and year above written before me & I certify that said declarant is personally known to me to be the former widow of Jonathan Wakelin Esq. & is now the widow of Abraham Parrott Esq. Isaac Sherman Justice of Peace

State of Connecticut County of Fairfield } ss Bridgeport I Mark Moore Clerk of the Court of Probate within and for the District of Bridgeport in said County & State do hereby certify that Isaac Sherman is a justice of the peace in and for said Fairfield County duly commissioned and qualified, as such. That his Signature to the within instrument is genuine —
Given under my hand and Seal of Office this 30 day of March A.D. 1843.
Attest Mark Moore Clerk

WIDOW, &c.
File No. 26286
Esther Parrott formerly wid of Jonathan Wakeley Dis. New War.
Act: Feb 24 48
Index:—Vol. P , Page 116
[Arrangement of 1870.]

6714✓
Reported
Connecticut
Esther Parrott, former widow of
Jonathan Waheley dec d who was a pensioner under the Act of and who died on the 14. Decr. 1800 of Mansfield, in the State of Conn t who was a priv t in the Comp t commanded by Captain _____ of the Reg t commanded by Col l Meigs in the Conn t line for 2 years,
Inscribed on the Roll of Connecticut at the rate of 80 Dollars _____ Cents per annum, to commence on the 4th day of March, 1836.
Certificate of Pension issued the 23 rd day of July 1842 and sent to Hon. J. B. Osborne, H. Rep
Arrears to the 4th of March 41, 400 Semi-annual allowance ending
Special Act 9. July '42 $400 { Act July 7, } 1838 }
Recorded by Theodore Moody Clerk. Book A, Vol. 1 Page 205

No 8353 ✓
Esther Parrott, Comt. Roll, $80 per Annum, for 5 Years from the 4 th March 1836. Act July 9. 1842 [Ent d on Roll act July 7. 1838.]
Send Cert to
Hon T. B. Osborne A. Q.
Dec 38

State of Connecticut Bridgeport November 12 1850.
J. L. Edwards Esq Com r of Pensions
Sir I. send you the application of Widow Estu Parrott for increase & back pay. for a pension to gether with her Pension certificate you will find on refering to her pension application under Act of July 7 1838 that she was pensioned for the service of her first husband Jonathan Waklee who was a Soldier in the Continental Army
Yours Respectfully Isaac Sherman
P.S. please send her new certificate to me

HR 142
IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
MARCH 28, 1842.
Ordered to be printed.—To accompany bill H. R. 142.
Mr. PRENTISS submitted the following
REPORT :
The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill from the House of Representatives, for the relief of Esther Parrott, together with her petition and the papers accompanying it, report :
That the petitioner claims a pension as the widow of Jonathan Wakeley, a soldier in the war of the Revolution. The service of Wakeley, in the continental army, for the term of two years, eleven months, and fifteen days, is proved by a certified transcript from the records in the office of the Comptroller of Connecticut ; and the marriage of the petitioner to Wakeley, on the 21st of August, 1783, some time after his last term of service expired, and his death on the 14th of December, 1800, are fully established. The applicant was afterward married to Abraham Parrott, who died July 5, 1816, and she has ever since remained unmarried.
From this statement of facts, it will be perceived, that the case arises under the act of 1838, granting annuities or pensions to certain widows whose marriage took place before the year 1794, but not before the close of the war, and before the expiration of the last term of their husbands' service, and so not early enough to bring their cases within the pension act of 1836. In this case, as in every other where the applicant, though a widow at the time of the passing of the act, and still so, has been married a second time, the application has been rejected at the Pension Office. It seems that, according to the construction which has been there given to the act, if the widow of an officer or soldier of the Revolution has married a second time, she does not come within the act, and is not entitled to its benefits, although she was a widow at the time the act was passed. The subsequent intervening marriage, though long since dissolved, is held to deprive her of all right under the act. It is on account of this construction, that the present case has been presented to Congress ; and the single question is, whether the construction is a fair and justifiable one. As there are several other cases before the committee, depending upon the same question, they have been disposed to enter more at large into it than they should otherwise do.
The doctrine which has obtained at the Pension Office, appears to the committee to be clearly erroneous, and wholly unsustainable. They are at a loss to know on what reasoning, or upon what principle, or rule of interpretation, it has been adopted. Is it, that, by a second marriage, a wo-
Thomas Allen, print.

man ceases to be a widow, and becomes a wife, and that, on the death of the second husband, she becomes his widow, and cannot be regarded or treated as the widow of the first, and so does not come within the letter of the law? A wife, it is understood, is a woman who has a husband; and a widow, it is understood, is a woman whose husband is dead. The same woman may be a wife many times, and, of course, may be a widow many times; but, however often she may marry and become a widow, she loses none of the rights belonging to her in any instance in that character, or attached to, or growing out of, that relation at any time it may have existed. A second marriage does not take away her right of dower as widow of the first husband. Her right in his estate still continues; and, though the control of it may be vested in the second husband during the marriage, yet, when that ceases, she has the sole dominion over it as at first. Her choses in action , her rights of action, and all her former rights, left unappropriated by the husband, survive to her. The marriage does not extinguish, but operates merely as a suspension of these and other rights, during its continuance. In cases arising under pauper laws, on the dissolution of the marriage, the settlement derived from the husband ceases, and the maiden settlement revives, and returns to the widow. If she has been married twice, and both husbands have died, she is the widow of each of them, and may claim as the widow, and in the right of either. It does not follow from this, that, under the pension laws, she can claim and have two pensions. The laws do not allow a double pension to one and the same person. If she comes within the act of 1836, she cannot claim under the act of 1838; for the latter law provides only for such cases as are not embraced in the former. But, if it was otherwise, and she might claim in the right of the first husband under one act, and in the right of the second husband under the other act, such result, if the legitimate effect of the laws themselves, could not authorize or excuse a construction at variance with the express terms and plain meaning of the acts. The general rules of law, applicable to the subject, are, therefore, clearly against the construction which has been adopted.
But the question, after all, depends upon the act itself, taking it as it is, and giving to its terms and provisions a just interpretation, according to their obvious sense and intention. And what does the act say?
"That if any person who served in the war of the Revolution in the manner specified in the act passed the seventh day of June, 1832, entitled, 'An act supplementary to the act for the relief of certain surviving officers and soldiers of the Revolution,' have died, leaving a widow , whose marriage took place after the expiration of the last period of his service, and before the first day of January, 1794, such widow shall be entitled to receive, for and during the term of five years from the fourth day of March, 1836, the annuity or pension which might have been allowed to her husband , in virtue of said act, if living at the time it was passed: Provided , That, in the event of the marriage of such widow , such annuity or pension shall be discontinued ."
Now, what facts, it may be asked, are necessary to bring a case within the terms and meaning of the act? Why, 1. That the officer or soldier for whose services the annuity is claimed, served in the war of the Revolution in the manner prescribed in the act; 2. That he died, leaving a widow; and, 3. That the applicant is the person so left a widow—her marriage having taken place within the time specified, and she being a widow at the

time of passing the act, and still remaining so. These are the essential requisites of the act; and, when they are made out, a clear case is made out within the very terms of the law.
What, it may be asked again, does the act say? Why, "That if any person who served in the war of the Revolution, &c., have died, leaving a widow , whose marriage took place, &c., such widow ," that is, the person so left a widow, "shall be entitled," &c. The expression " such widow " is descriptive of person , and denotes the woman who was the wife of the officer or soldier who served as required, and was left by him a widow. Apply the same phraseology to other subjects, and how would it be understood? Suppose it should be enacted, (and it is believed the statutes of some of the States do so enact in terms) that if any person shall die intestate, leaving a widow, such widow shall be entitled to dower in her deceased husband's estate. No one, it would seem, would be at a loss to know what was meant by such an enactment, or would allow himself to think, for a moment, that the right of dower, although a right resting in action only, would be lost by a second marriage, or that the woman would be incapable of asserting her right in the first husband's estate, as his widow, because she had married again, and become the wife of a second husband. It is further to be observed, that the widow is to have "the annuity or pension which might have been allowed to her husband , if living:" that is, which might have been allowed to the person who served in the war of the Revolution, and died, leaving her a widow. The husband's services are the meritorious cause or consideration of the annuity, and it was intended to give to the person who had been his wife, and become his widow, the same annuity or pension he would have been entitled to, if she had not survived him.
Such, it appears to the committee, is the only exposition the act is capable of receiving. The right to the annuity is given, in absolute terms, to be held and enjoyed for the term of five years, subject only to the condition that, "in the event of the marriage of such widow, such annuity or pension shall be discontinued ." The condition is a condition subsequent, depending on a contingency afterward to happen. In the event of a future marriage, the annuity is to be discontinued ; in other words, it is not to go to the future husband, but to cease. This is the only condition the act contains; and it is a well-known rule of interpretation, that the expression of one condition or exception is an exclusion of all other conditions or exceptions. The maxim, expressio unius est exclusio alterius , applies to things as well as to persons. To deprive an applicant, then, of the annuity, on account of her having married a second time, she being a widow at the time the act was passed, and still continuing unmarried, as in the present case, is plainly nothing short of an arbitrary and unwarrantable introduction, by way of construction, of a new condition, or, rather, exception, into the act.
The act of 1838 is a literal transcript of the act of 1836, with this difference only, that the act of 1836 requires the marriage to have taken place before the expiration of the last period of the husband's service, and gives the pension to the widow during the time she shall remain unmarried . In no other particular whatever, except these two, is there even the slightest verbal variance between the two acts. The form of expression, throughout both, is otherwise exactly the same; and it is worthy of special notice, that it having been held by the executive officers, under the act of 1836, that an intervening second marriage deprived the widow of the pension given by it, Congress, in 1837, passed an explanatory act, declaring that the benefits
Widow

of the act of 1836 should not be withheld from any widow in consequence of her having married after the decease of the husband for whose services she might claim to be allowed a pension, provided she was a widow at the time the act was passed. It could hardly have been expected, after this declaratory act, this legislative expression of the sense and meaning of the act of 1836, that the act of 1838 would receive a construction, which had been repudiated by Congress in reference to an act in language identically the same.
The question, it should be remembered, is not whether the act of 1838 was founded in justice or policy, whether it was expedient or inexpedient, or whether it ought to have been passed or not. The act became, and is, the law of the land; and the question is, whether the law shall be administered fairly and impartially, and be executed in good faith, according to its plain meaning and intention. This is the true and real question. Viewing the subject in that light, the duty of Congress, in the opinion of the committee, is as unequivocal and imperative, as the right of the petitioner is clear and undeniable; and they have no hesitation in saying, that the bill for her relief ought to pass. 1838

93cc 142
ESTHER PARROTT.
[To accompany bill H. R. No. 142.]
————— FEBRUARY 9, 1842. —————
Mr. TALIAFERRO, from the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, made the following
REPORT:
The Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, to whom the petition of Esther Parrott was referred, concur in the annexed report, made at the 3d session of the 25th Congress, numbered 246, and report a bill.
————— FEBRUARY 6, 1839.
The Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of Esther Parrott, report:
Esther Parrott, of Bridgeport, Connecticut, was married to Jonathan Wakelee on the 21st day of August, 1783, who was a private soldier in the continental army. Wakelee died on the 14th day of December, A. D. 1800.
The petitioner was afterwards married to Abraham Parrott, who died on the 5th day of July, A. D. 1816.
It is proved that Wakelee served nearly three years, by the records at Hartford, Connecticut. The marriage is also proved.
The case is complete, under the law of 1838, but for the construction which the Commissioner gives to it, that she is the widow of her last husband, and not of her first. The committee report a bill.

Connecticut
Esther Parrott, formerly widow of Jonathan Whaley who was a private in the Connecticut line for 2. years.
Inscribed on the Roll at the rate of 80. Dollars
Cents per annum, to commence on the 4th day of March, 1843.
Certificate of Pension issued the 6 th day of June 1843. and sent to
Isaac Sherman Bridgeport Conn t
[Act of March 3, 1843.]
Recorded in Book A Vol. 1. Page 74.

HR. ————— No. 142
Esther Parrott
No 1121 53

cont.
Bristol March 31 st 1843
J. L. Edwards Esq.
Sir I send you the application of Mrs Estlin Parratt. Please send her certificate to me Yours Respectfully
Isaac Sherman

No 8353
Esther Parrott,

27th CONGRESS, 2d Session.
H. R. 142.
( Rep. No. 96. )
FEBRUARY 9, 1842.
Read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
Mr. TALIAFERRO, from the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, reported the following bill:
A BILL
enact
For the relief of Esther Parrott.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 3 the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized to 4 place the name of Esther Parrott, of Bridgeport, Connecticut, 5 on the roll of revolutionary pensioners, and to pay her the sum 6 of eighty dollars a year, for the term of five years, from the 7 fourth day of March, eighteen hundred and thirty-six.
Approved, July 9 th , 1842.
A true copy from the Roll in this Office.
Dept. of State, July 11 th 1842.
M. S. Darrick Actg Chief Clerk.

State of Connecticut
County of Fairfield ss Bridgeport.
On this 4 th day of November A D 1850
Personally appeared before the Court of Probate for the District of Bridgeport in said County & State aforesaid Esther Parrott aged 87 Years, who being first duly sworn according to Law doth on her oath make the following declaration in order to obtain the benefit of an increase of her pension from 80 Dollars, in Annua the Sum for, which she was last pensioned under Act of February 2 1848 for life) to the Sum of 96 Dollars in Annua that being the Annual allowance to which her first husband Jonathan Wakelee would have been entitled to under the Pension act of 1818, had he been living at the time said Act of 1818 was passed, said Wakelee having served several years in the Continental Army in the Revolutionary War as a private. That her pension under several acts, including said Act of Feb 2 1848 was allowed to her for the services of said Jonathan Wakelee in said Continental Army as will appear by her Declaration for a Pension under Act of July 7 1838 passed by Congress granting Pensions to certain Widows, to which Declaration she refers - She further declares that she is now a Widow That she herewith returns her Pension certificate granted under act of Feb 2 1848 for the purpose of receiving a new certificate for the sum she is now entitled to for life together with her back pay - Esther Parrott Sworn to & subscribed on the day & year above written before said Court
Ebenezer D. Abernethy S ure ys of the Court of Probate for Bridgeport Dist. Ind.

J. E. B. Goodsell Clerk of the Court of Probate aforesaid do hereby certify that the foregoing contains the original application of Esther Parrott for an increase of her Pension
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court, at said Bridgeport this 4 day of November A D 1850
J. E. B. Goodsell Clerk 11
Legrand Parrott of said Bridgeport deposeth and saith that he is a Son of said Esther Parrott and that he is 45 years of age & that said Esther at the time of signing the foregoing Declaration was & is now a Widow
Sworn to & Subscribed before Legrand Parrott said Court this 11 th day of November A D 1850.
Elisha S. Atkinson Judge of the Court of Probate for Bridgeport District

Capt. P. Smith
John Smith
ad 244
admitted
Isaac Sherman Bridgeport ct

DECLARATION, in order to obtain the benefits of the Act of Congress of 2d of February, 1848, entitled "An Act making further provision for surviving Widows and Soldiers of the Revolution:"
STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
• County of Hartford } ss. Bridgeport
On this 16 th day of June 1848, personally appeared before me, a Magistrate in and for the County aforesaid, Esther Parrott a resident of Bridgeport in the County of Hartford in the State of Connecticut, aged 84 years, who being first duly sworn according to law, doth, on her oath, make the following declaration, in order to obtain the benefits of the provisions made by the Act of Congress, passed on the 2d February, 1848, granting pensions to widows of persons who served during the Revolutionary War:
That she is the widow of former Jonathan Wakelee who was a private in the Continental Army in said War, was a resident of said Bridgeport at the time of his decease and for proof of the Regiment & Corps in which he served as a private Soldier in said War she refers to her pension application at the City of Washington. —
That she received a pension under the act of June, 17th, 1844, at the rate of Eighty Dollars per annum.
She further declares that she is still a widow of said Wakelee & Abraham Parrott  now both deceased  is now a widow .
Sworn to and subscribed, on the day and year before written, before me. Isaac Sherman Justice of the Peace. Esther Parrott
I hereby certify that I am personally acquainted with the above declarant, and know she is the widow of former Jonathan Wakelee and is now the widow of Abraham Parrott and the same individual who drew a pension as stated in the foregoing declaration.
Isaac Sherman Justice of the Peace.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
County of Winfied } ss.
I, Thomas Robinson Clerk of the County Court of the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Isaac Sherman  was on the 16 th of June 1848 a Justice of the Peace in and for said County, duly commissioned and qualified: that his commission was dated on the 19 day of June 1847, and that his signatures above written are genuine.
That said commission expired with the 19 th day of June 1848
Given under my hand, and the seal of said County, this 10 day of July 1848
which was on the 16 th of June 1848, first interlined Thomas Robinson Clerk

BOUNTY LAND WARRANT RECORD CARD*
NAME Wakelie, Henry GRADE Private LINE Connecticut
WARRANT NUMBER 6637 ACREAGE 100 ISSUED Mar. 21, 1795 to — not shown —
*The information concerning the issuance of warrants carded on this form is found in volumes 2 to 4 of "Land Warrants Issued Prior to 1800" which are registers of bounty land warrants issued to non-commissioned officers and privates under congressional resolutions of September 16, 1776, and subsequent dates. Other records relative to the applications for warrants appear to have been destroyed in the War Department fire of November 9, 1800. Information concerning warrants surrendered to the Federal Government is to be found in General Land Office records in The National Archives.