Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File R. 5611, for Eliphalet Johnson, Connecticut

SERVICE
NUMBER
Conn.
Johnson, Eliphalet.
99. 5611
CONTENTS

Eliphalet Johnson
Declaration
— ~ —

State of Connecticut County of Litchfield } ss at Kent -
On this 4 th day of August  September 1837 personally appeared Eliphalet Johnson, before the Subscriber, Judge of probate within and for the district of Kent in said County, the said Eliphalet being a resident of Kent in said district and aged Eighty six Years who being first duly sworn according to law doth on his oath make the following declaration in order to obtain the benefit of the act of Congress passed June 7 th 1832 - That he entered the service of the United States under the following named officers and served as herein follows (V.D.) That about the middle of August 1777, he enlisted for three months into a company of State troops commanded by Capt. Ebenezer Doolittle in a regiment commanded by Col. Latimer in the Connecticut line - That he lived at New London in Conn t when he enlisted that immediately he was marched from New London to Stillwater and there joined the Northern Army under Genl. Gates that he was in the battle and at the taking of Genl. Burgoyne but not in the engagement and that just before his time of enlistment expired he was taken sick and was removed to the hospital where he lay sick four months as near as

he can recollect, and until a horse and litter was sent for him from New London to convey him home. That his disability remained for three months after his return when he again recovered his health. That he has no documentary evidence by which to establish his claim to a pension and knows of no person living who was in the service with him but Capt. Sturdevant whose deposition is herewith enclosed. and only knows that he was in the same service from facts related by Capt. Sturdevant to him more than 30 years ago since from which he knows the truth of Sturdevant's relation. — He hereby relinquishes every claim whatever to a pension or annuity except the present and declares that his name is not on the pension roll of the agency of any state — I am and subscribe the day & year aforesaid.
In presence of
his
Lecheder Sturdevant Eliphalet Johnson
Payne Fuller —
mark.
We William W. Andrews — a clergyman residing in Kent in Litchfield County and Justices of the Peace residing in the same town hereby certify that we are well acquainted with Eliphalet Johnson who has subscribed & sworn to the foregoing declaration, that he believe him to be Eighty Six Years of age that he is reputed and believed in the neighborhood where he resides to have been a soldier of the revolution and that

We concur in that opinion - June 8 th Subscribed the day & year aforesaid -
William W. Andrews Pastor of a Church in Kent.
Hubbell Miller Just. of Peace Nathl. Perry for of law
Rufus Fuller Just. of Peace
And the said Court do hereby declare  reaffirm their opinion after the investigation of the matter and after putting the interrogatories prescribed by the War department that the above named applicant was a revolutionary soldier and served as he states - And the said Court further Certifies that it appears to them that said William W. Andrews is a clergyman who has signed the preceding certificate resident in the Town of Kent aforesaid - and that said Justices of the Peace who have  have signed the preceding certificate are a resident in the Town of Kent and are a Justice person  person and that their statement is entitled to credit -
I Rufus Fuller clerk of the Court of probate within and for the District of Kent do hereby certify that the foregoing contains the original proceedings of the said Court in the matter of the application of Eliphaleth Johnson for a pension - In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal of office this 31 st day of August A.D. 1837.
Rufus Fuller Clerk of the Court of Probate for the District of Kent -

Kent, Litchfield County, Ct. November 1 st 1852
Sir, —
In the year 1837, Papers were forwarded to the Pension Department City of Washington for the purpose of establishing a claim for a pension in behalf of one Eliphalet Johnson of this place - He having served as a Soldier in the Revolutionary War - An answer was received from the Department bearing date January 11 th 1838, disallowing the claim and giving notice That the papers were filed on file in the Pension Office -
The answer from the department assigns as a reason for disallowing the claim - That four months of the period claimed for service in the Army was passed in the Hospital and cannot be counted out to make out the time of service as required by law to entitle him to a pension -
A line of late has been forwarded from a noted pension Agent expressing a confidence, That this claim can be sustained - This has led me to a review of the matter and upon a review of Mr. Edwards decision in this case am quite satisfied that it was wrong - And my reasons for the opinion, That the decision of Mr. Edwards was wrong are derived from the following view of the matter -
Johnson's remaining in the Hospital in the absence of a discharge shows that he was within the limit and control of the Army and his being in the Hospital is evidence that he was considered as belonging to the Army and that he was treated as any soldier would have been treated

or belonging to the service - It seems, That he was not in the Army as acting as a volunteer nor by enlistments but by draft - The question as I humbly conceive is not under such circumstances at time how long did they professedly draft him for - but how long a time did they actually hold him within their control and by their act disinherit him of his freedom and of his ability to return to that place from whence they had forcibly taken him - Again if they drafted or drew him into the service and he was held there by the disablement derived or suffered in consequence of that service and having or not having a discharge, What Court would not say, That both in law and in fact the period of his disablement was to all intents and purposes within the limit of his service - He was in fact detained there by the Government, He was held there detained from his own private pursuits from his home and family subject to the perils of the war and to the sickness and contagion which it engendered and from which he suffered. He was not there of his own free will but from necessity they originated and for the consequences of which in law and in fact they were responsible. And in no Court as I conceive would the Government be allowed to thrust in their claim of a limitation of his constrained service to suit its own particular interest - It is evident that in a draft the subject has no control over the extent of time for which he is drafted and the extent of his service may or may not be governed by the extent of his draft as he wants he wholly subject to be detained by the wants or caprice of the power having him in control and might or might not grant a discharge. It appears to me that the claim

That his service offered when his service ceased to be of value to the Government, is to make Governments despotic - is to place citizens & their rights wholly at the mercy and disposal of the Governments under which they live - To say that a man may be dragged into the service of his country for a day or like the victim of a King David's passion placed in the front ranks to die whether the necessities of his country require the sacrifice or not, if he survives perchance to exhibit a mutilated frame for life or lie and die in the Hospital, It is a service for but a day. Tho' the war continue in a Mexican or Indian country where its severities spare neither age nor sex and where the sword or the still more dreaded fire and bayonet, pierce consume and sacrifice soon the four months unwilling tenant of the Hospital. Yet the victim had been in the service for but a day by the rejection of this claim, His life it is true was not given by him as a willing sacrifice. But who would say that he did not die in the service of his country, and that that country did not of itself make him a sacrifice in its defence. And could that country claim that it was a service for but a day and want a widow and an orphan. As told this and that country not accrued -
It is from this view of the reasons alleged for the rejection of the claim of Mr Johnson, that I am led to call on the department for a reconsideration of their decision fully in the belief that such decision neither conforms to the spirit nor intent of the law nor do I believe such decision to be consistent with the decisions that have been given in analogous cases by the several courts of law in this country - It is evidently a case depending on

the construction of the law and where Justice Equity and humanity lead & point the way should not construction follow - I ask in conclusion if a decision allowing this claim would not meet with the approval of every enlightened and conscientious man in the country to whose knowledge it might come, And if it is true that there is merit in this claim why may it not be allowed as well upon this application as that of another And too if there be evidence or precedent within the knowl- -edge of the departments may we not look for their influence in its allowance of this claim -
Hon J. E. Heath Commissioner of Pensions City of Washington
Very Respectfully Rufus Fallar Atty for Claimants

34. 358
Eliphale Johnson
Con.

I Zebedee Sturdevant of Kent in the County of Litchfield and State of Connecticut being Seventy Nine Years of age depose and say that I am a pensioner of the United States under the act of June 7 th 1832. - That I was a soldier of the revolution and was in the battle at Bemis heights and at the taking of Genl. Burgoyne in October 1777, that I belonged to a Company of men commanded by Benjamin Shipman in Col. Cook's Regiment in the Connecticut line - That I am, and for thirty Years last have been well acquainted with Eliphalez Johnson of said Kent, that said Johnson removed from the Town of New London in Conn t . into the town of Kent about 40 Years ago - That, from facts related by him to me near that time & frequently since, I have no doubt he was a soldier in the Northern Army at the taking of Burgoyne, in Col. Litchfield Regt. as I was well

acquainted with that regiment in 1777 and from circumstances connected with the service of that Regt. related by said Johnson to me I have no reasonable doubt he was a soldier in it and said as he states in his declaration - because he could not have known the facts he relates unless he had been present and a participator in the events of that day. - I was not personally acquainted with him while in the service nor until the time I state above. and further says not.
Subscribed to me
Itchfield County ss. Kent Augt 31. 1837 Personally appeared Lebedee Hattarant the person of the foregoing deposition, known to me as a credible witness and being duly cautioned and sworn according to law made their oath to the truth of the facts therein stated before me.
W. D. Pease
State of Connecticut ss. ss. at Kent - Itchfield County ss.
I, Rufus Fuller Clerk of the Court of Probate for the District of Kent in said Itchfield County certify that the above subscribed Frederick D. Pease is an acting Justice of the Peace within and for the County of Itchfield for the time commencing

New York Octr 27 th 1837
Dear Sir
The Papers herewith enclosed are forwarded for the purpose of obtaining a Pension for Eliphalet Johnson a soldier of the Revolution. We believe there is no further evidence of service than what we have forwarded, unless it may be found on the records at Washington. But having conformed to the requisitions of the Department in those cases where full testimony cannot be obtained from the waste of time and change of things. If the evidence procured should prove insufficient and none may be found on the War records at Washington. Still we think him entitled to a pension under the Provisions that have been made by Congress. Mr Johnson is in indigent circumstances and deserving well of his country.
Respectfully
Hon. L. L. Edwards Commissioner of Pensions with MS. Communcat n directed to "Rufus Tuller & Rev. Nathan D. Root" County Connecticut
Yours Rufus Tuller Jr

= June 20 th A D 1837 and ending June 20 th A D 1838 and that the foregoing signature purporting to be his is genuine - In testimony whereof I have hereunto fixed my seal of Office and subscribed my name this 31 st day of August A D 1837 ~
Rufus Fuller Clerk of the Court of Probate for the District of Kent
Abide Stertens Disposition

5611
O. Edmund Johnson
Service: _____
Enlisted: _____, 18
Discharged: _____, 18
REJECTED
Application filed: _____, 18
Alleges: _____
Re-enlisted: _____
Attorney: _____
P.O. _____
_____ Recognized. _____ Contract.
_____ Cert. of Dis. Searched for _____, 18

One Suspended See let to Rufus Fuller, January 11, 1838. Same 16 Nov 1832,
5611
2678 June 1832

Rufus Luller
Nov 16/52

Pension Office November 16, 1857.
Sir:
In reply to your letter of the 1 st inst. respecting the case of Elizabeth Johanson, an applicant for a pension under the act of 7 June 1832, I have to inform you that under a recent decision of the Secretary of the Interior, no claim that has been adjudicated for five years, and no additional evidence having been presented in the meantime, cannot be re-opened without the production of material evidence.
The case of M. Johanson was adjudicated in 1838.
Rufus Miller, Esq. Kent, CT
Rev

Rufus Fuller, Jan 21, 1838. P. G.

War Dep
Gen. off
Jan 11, 38
Sir
The claim of Eliphalet Johnson has been disallowed this paper filed in this Office
He alleged  It appears that he entered the service in Aug 77 under a draft of the Conn. militia for 3 mo service in New York to reinforce the Continental army and having been  at the close of his term of service he was sick in the Hospital where he remained some 3 or 4 months
The act of 7. June 1832 provides for actual service not less than 6 mo and his availing himself of the Hospital and after the termination of his term of draft gave him at that time no claim to the pay & rations of a soldier in actual service or to the stipend lately provided for actual service
Rufus Fuller Jr Esq Hart Conn.