Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File R. 10627, for Eli Todd, Connecticut

SERVICE
NUMBER
Continental (Com.)
Todd, Eli
Pr. 10627
CONTENTS
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....

State of Connecticut County of Litchfield ss.
On this 12 th day of December A.D. 1836 personally appeared before the Court of Probate for the District of Plymouth in said County Eli Todd a resident of the town of Litchfield in said County of Litchfield aged ninety nine years who being first duly sworn according to law doth on his oath make the following declaration in order to obtain the benefit of the provision made by the act of Congress passed June 7 th 1832. That he enlisted in the army of the United States in November nineteen hundred and ninety nine with Ensign John Osborn in Major Hildreth's Regiment of Artillery and served in said Regiment under the following named Officers viz: Col. Jonathan Baldwin and Captains Gerrit Pinder, and Captain Daniel Hildreth and Lieutenant Titus Hall. When the said Todd enlisted and when he was mustered he resided in the town of Roxbury, County of Suffolk and State of Connecticut and immediately after enlisting to wit in November A.D. 1777 he marched from there to Danbury in this State and remained there about five months as near as he can recollect and then marched directly to Fishkill in the State of New York on the North River and to move under the above named Officers until some time in November 1780, having served out his term of three years for which he enlisted. He further states and declares under oath that some time after the Act of Congress of March 18 th 1818 he made a declaration and proof of the above described service which was transmitted to the Department but his claim to a pension was rejected on the ground of his having served as an Artilleryman. He thinks that application was

made some time in the year 1818 and he then lived in Litchfield where he now does.
He hereby relinquishes every claim whatsover to a pension or an annuity, except the pension and he declares that his name is not on the pension roll of any agency in any State.
Sworn to and subscribed the day and year aforesaid
Eli Todd
And the said Court hereby declare their opinion that the above named applicant was an artificer in the Army of the revolution and that he enlisted and served as he states.
I Egbert S. Butler Clerk of the Court of Probate for the District of Plymouth in Litchfield County do hereby certify that the foregoing contains the original proceedings of the said Court in the matter of the application of Eli Todd for a Pension
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal of Office this 12 th day of December 1836
Egbert S. Butler Clerk

June 15, 1932
Eli Todd-R.10627
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
RA-J/RYL
Mrs. E.M.Wales 706 E. Grove Street Bloomington, Illinois
Dear Madam:
The data furnished herein are obtained from the papers on file in the Revolutionary War claim for pension, R.10627, based upon the military service of Eli Todd in that war.
Eli Todd applied for pension December 12, 1836, at which time he was aged seventy-seven years, and resided in Litchfield, Litchfield County, Connecticut, and alleged that while residing in New Haven, New Haven County, Connecticut, he enlisted in November, 1777, served as a private under Captains Gamaliel Painter and Darius Hickox, in Colonel Jonathan Baldwin's Regiment of Artificers, and was discharged in November, 1780.
His claim was not allowed as he failed to furnish proof of service as was required by the pension laws.
There are no data as to his family.
Very truly yours
A. D. HILLER Assistant to Administrator.

St. John, St. John N.B. Jan. 10 th 1837.
In the application I made to you over a month past for information respecting Mr. Eli Todd, service, I made a mistake saying his application made for a Pension in 1832 was rejected. It was returned, not having been made before a Court, but before a single Magistrate, and should have been so stated. I recollect the mistake soon after the my letter was done, but supposed it would make no difference with the Dept.
If his service was established, as I am now satisfied it was, under the Act of 1818, I trust his claim will be allowed without further difficulty. Communications may be made to me at this place respecting his claim.
Very Respectfully, Your Obedt. Servt. Calvin Muller
J. L. Edwards Esq.

Sturminster Newton, July 30 th 1837
Sir,
A letter from you to H. L. Ellis Esq. solicitor in law, in answer to one I wrote him, on the subject of Pensions, has been transmitted to me. I will now state the reasons for the allegations in my letter to H. L. Ellis Esq., as well in the case of H. Todd, as of Henry Johnson.
In December 1836 I forwarded to the Pension Office Mr. Todd's application for a pension, in which he stated, that he applied under the Act of 1818, and was then rejected for the reason that artificers were not entitled to pensions. In April 1837 I received your letter informing me that his claim had been rejected, because it did not appear from an examination of his son, that he was served in a corps of Military artificers. His claim you say, is not provided for by law. I could not then, nor can I now understand from that letter, that his services were not proved as he stated, but that they were not of that description to entitle him to a pension. That is I then understood, and still understand, that letter to mean, that he was rejected because he served as an artificer, and not for want of proof of service. The 3 rd of May 1837, after receiving that letter, I wrote to the Department, as you will see by my letter of that date, on file in your office, requesting most earnestly to be informed why Mr. Todd was refused a pension, while others who served in the same corps with him

were allowed. To this letter I got no answer. This letter may be filed with Mr. Osborn's papers, as it contained inquiries respecting my application as well as Todd's. None of your letters have ever given me any other information on this subject, except what was contained in the one of April above named. I did believe that would I be personally present at your Office, I could satisfy you that Mr. Todd performed Military services as an officer, and was therefore entitled to a pension, as well as others who served with him; and I went prepared with references to show that such was the case. While at Washington the last day I was at the Pension Office, you inadvertently informed me verbally, that Todd was rejected because his name was not found on any roll in the Department. This was the first intimation I had of the cause of his rejection. Had I been so informed before I went, it would have saved me the expense and trouble of a journey there, as well as much perplexity and anxiety. Perhaps you will say that the letter of April 1827 might mean that he was rejected on the ground of his name not being on any roll. It certainly might mean any thing else as well as that. If intended to mean that, why not say so directly? It would not have taken more words than it now contains, and there would have been no mistake about it, and we should have been looking for the necessary proof to help out the case. I never wished or expected the published regulations of the Department to be varied

or departed from to help this or any other case, but I do ask for such information in this and every other case that I may know how to remove the objections, if they can be removed, or abandon the claim. In this case, after I had learned, of the trouble and expense of a journey of four hundred miles, what what the objection was, I had some hopes it might be removed by a further examination of the officer; as I was fully satisfied that Todd enlisted and served as stated in his application. Of this I was satisfied, not merely from his statement, but from having in my possession the disposition of the officer who enlisted Todd, to that fact, and to his belief of the service as stated. This officer I knew to be a very honest and credible person. He could not testify to Todd's service, because he did not serve with him, but to the fact of his enlistment for three years, he did testify fully. Should you ask why I have not presented that disposition, my answer is, because, till I got to Washington and was about leaving there, I did not understand what the objection was to Todd's claim, and when then the papers were lost, so that I had no money to pay for the case; and still more, it does not come up to the requirements of the regulations, which are, two witnesses to the actual service. If it will be of any avail it can be forwarded forwarded.
I have stated the facts in this case, and if you allude to them you can judge whether I have any reason to complain.

Phan informs me that Mr. Todd made Application for a Pension under the Act of 1817 and 1820, on what ground he was then rejected. And what was assigned as the reason of rejection when he first applied under the Act of 1832. A copy of a letter from you to Col. B. Talmon will show that.
Very Respectfully Colin Miller
J. L. Edwards, Esq.

George L. Ames is established at my Albany in the business Hijab Galtis

Know all men by these presents that I Eli Todd of the town and County of Litchfield and State of Connecticut do hereby appoint Abijah Galtin of Farmington in said County and State my true and lawful Attorney for me in my name to prosecute before the Commissioner of Pensions at Washington City my true and lawful claim now pending before him for a pension under the Act of June 7 th 1832 which case was re suspended and of which Calvin Butts deceased was my Attorney. And I hereby authorize my said Attorney to examine the papers in said case to receive any certificate that may be issued in the premises also to appoint any other Attorney under him revoking all powers hitherto granted. Witness my hand Seal this 14 th March 1831
In presence of
Eli Todd
Seal
State of Connecticut County of Litchfield ss Litchfield 14 March 1831
Personally appeared Eli Todd agree- able to the foregoing power of Attorney to me well known as the claimant of a pension as before stated & acknowledged the same to be his free act & deed before me Edward Wolcott Justice of Peace

Plymouth Conn. May 3 rd 1837
Sir,
The first application Alhoda Osborn made before a justice of Peace and forwarded to Washington was returned with a letter of instructions. Soon after, early in Dec last another application, similar to the one now transmitted was made before the Court of Probate and sent to the Department that it seems by some means mislaid. Possibly it was burnt in the Post Office.
The proof of marriage from the Town Clerk's Office is in such form as would be received in our courts in this State. We have no Parish Record of marriages established by law; but our Town Clerks record such things and they are public officers and copies of records in their Office, certified by them are good evidence here, and I trust will be in your Department.
You say the claim of Eli Todd is rejected because it does not appear that he ever served in a corps of Military Artificers. Is then this claim rejected because his declaration does not state that he served in such a corps, or why is it? Others who served in the same corps, at the same time, with him, have had their claims allowed as I certainly know; and why is his rejected? Under the law of 1814, I know some artificers were allowed and some rejected, but that I positively know that were allowed who, I am confident served in the same corps with him . Others I was told were rejected but I have not heard that under the law of 1832, and the appropriation given to it any of that corps that applied were rejected. Some I know were. Pray do let Mr. Eli Todd's application have a further investigation, and see if he is not to far or with others who served with him. If there is

any objection in his declaration that should be counted and he not suffer on that account. If his claim was rejected merely because it was rejected in 1814 that is wrong when others who served in the same corps, had their claims allowed. Pray let me be further informed on this subject, or I must feel that manifest injustice is done me To d.
Very Respectfully
Your Obedt. Servt.
Calvin Butler

Sir
June 20 1838
I have read the enclosed and have not leisure to call, and therefore enclose the same which is not very courteous - still as it was not designed for the officer, it may be excused - I know all will be done that is consistent and to employ a stranger to try to get more done is unnecessary -
I remain your obedt Servt W. L. Saltonstall
Dear J. L. Edwards

Mon. 4. L. G. S. v. v.
2. July 1838
18

were mislaid when the writer of the enclosed letter was in this Office. He, however, was informed of all the objections in the case. On the next day the papers were found, and another a second letter was written to him, stating the objections a third time. The writer says that perhaps the claimant was entered on the roll by some other name , and that "there is some mistake about that, which a person on the ground who had time, might discover." As no one in this Office has been able to discover what the mistake consists in, nor by what name he was Todd was entered on the roll, we cannot proceed any further in the investigation until the name under which Todd is supposed to have entered the service be given, and the supposed mistake specified.
The writer says, that "I do feel as though manifest injustice was done Mr. Eli H. and that the business of the Pension Office was badly managed, to the great injury and inconvenience of applicants." Whatever the gentleman may feel, it is impossible for me to say. If he intends to charge the off head of this Office with "manifest

War Dep t
Pension Office
July 2 d 1838
Sir,
On the case of Eli Todd, mentioned in the enclosed letter, I bestowed an unusual degree of time and the most careful and patient examination, searching every book and paper where there was the least probability of finding the claimant's name. The fact of not finding his name on any of the rolls is strong presumptive evidence against the claim. The rules, however, direct that the claimant in such a case shall produce the testimony of two credible witnesses. Such proof was required in this case. Enclosed is a copy of the regulations which contains the rule. You will find an index (1 st ) on the margin referring to it. It is not in my power to do any more than I have done in the case, without further proof. The papers in the case of Todd

were mislaid when the writer of the enclosed letter was in this Office. He, however, was informed of all the objections in the case. On the next day the papers were found, and another a second letter was written to him, stating the objections at that time.
The writer says that perhaps the claimant was entered on the roll by some other name , and that "there is some mistake about that, which a person on the ground who had time, might discover." As no one in this Office has been able to discover what the mistake consists in, nor by what name he was Todd was entered on the roll, we cannot proceed any further in the investigation until the name under which Todd is supposed to have entered the series is given, and the supposed mistake specified.
The writer says, that "I do feel as though manifest injustice was done Mr. Eli H. and that the business of the Pension Office was badly managed, to the great injury and inconvenience of applicants." Whatever the gentleman may feel , it is impossible for me to say. If he intends to charge the off head of this Office with "manifest

injustice" and bad management , I think it would be better to state the reasons for making such as charges. That numerous applicants have been put to inconvenience I have no doubt. From the nature of things we find many there are some  many inconveniences which are unavoidable. It may not be convenient to procure witnesses in some cases; but no one ever undertook to prove that a rule of evidence to prevent fraud and imposition should not be carried into effect, because it might be inconvenient for claimants to comply with the rule. If Mr. Tod, or the writer, can shew that any injustice in this or any case, has been done to the claimant, I shall take great pleasure in making restitution to the utmost of my ability.
E
Entered this as Indet. 1 Count. act '32 No. 1744
Hon. H. L. Ellsworth Comm r of Patents Present.

C. Butler
Aug 4 '38
06
1020 10th Benton Harbor Mich. U.S.A.
Mr. C
Dear Sir: I hope you will
be able to send me a copy of your latest
catalog. It is not very large, but it is
very interesting. I have been waiting for it.
It is very well printed and the pictures are
very good. I am sure you will like it.
Yours truly, C. Butler

War Dept Pension Office Aug. 4. 1838
Sir,
Your letter of the 30 th relative to the case of Eli Todd has been received. I have already made to you through Mr. Ellsworth a very full statement of this case. It is not therefore necessary to say any thing further on the subject, except to repeat what has been communicated to you in several previous letters, viz. that it is not in my power to admit the claim unless he can prove by two credible witnesses, as the regulations direct, that he served at least six months as an Artificer in the regular Corps of Artificers belonging to the Continental Army.
Calvin Butler, Esq Plymouth, Con.
Enter this See Court Index, out 7 June '32 No. 1746

1932-June 15-List to Mrs Em. Sales Ed
Acts of July 14, 1862, and March 3, 1873.
10,627 P. O. Eli Todd
Service: Conn.
REJECTED
Enlisted: _____, 18
Discharged: _____, 18
Printed list of 1835 shows cause of Application filed: _____, 18
suspension - not on the rolls - no proof of Alleges: service.
Re-enlisted: _____
Attorney: _____
P. O. _____
_____ Recognized. _____ Contract.

By B. ... April 11-32
n: 1744
Eli Todd act June 7. 1832.
Connt.
See letter to H. L. Ellis - Worth July 2. 1838. do to Calum Brother Aug. 11 1838 -
10627
1832

Stamp Enclosed
LETITIA GREEN STEVENSON CHAPTER BLOOMINGTON, ILLINOIS
706 E. Grove St.
May 5, 1932.
U. S. Commissioner of Pensions, Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir:-
Please advise me if Eli Todd or Jabez Williams of New Milford, Litchfield Co., Connecticut were Revolution- ary War pensioners or either they or their widows were applicants for pensions, with any information given on application or certificate.
Very Truly yours.
(Mrs. E. N.) Mary Sloan Hales