Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File W. 13,637, for Abner Loomis, Connecticut

SERVICE
born.
Loomis, Abner Gilpha
NUMBER
W.13.637
CONTENTS
[Faint, illegible handwriting on the left side of the CONTENTS section]
[Faint, illegible handwriting on the right side of the CONTENTS section]

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Hampshire County ss
Be it known, that on this 11. th day of September A.D. 1852 before the undersigned a Justice of the Peace in for said County personally appeared William Loomis, a resident of Williamburgh in s d County & made oath in due form of law, That he is the son of Abner Loomis, who was a Revolutionary soldier of the United States & as he has been informed & believe was promoted to the office of Quartermaster or clerk to the Commissary & who died at Whately in the County of Franklin on the 2 d April 1812, That his widow Lefina Loomis died at her residence in Williamburgh aforesaid on the 23 d March 1847, That she made application for a pension, which was rejected as will appear by the accompanying letters of S. L. Edward dated respectively Feb. 7. 27. 1840 & May 8. th 1840, that he has no means of knowing by living witnesses or documentary evidence when or where his father enlisted, That he has been informed by his mother & by his father's cousin Asa Loomis late of Lebanon Conn te - dec d . who was a Revolutionary pensioner that he enlisted as as he thinks a private & being an excellent penman & man of good education was promoted to the office of Commissary or clerk to Commissary and continued in the service till the close of the war & was honorably discharged, which certificate of discharge

He thinks was burnt with other papers of his father supposed to be of no value after his death, that his father was a native of Lebanon Conn n - but removed when quite young to Longmeadow & afterwards to Hatfield in Mass s - from which State he may have enlisted instead of from Conn n - as his mother supposed that his father was supported principally by himself for many years after his father's death & until her decease; That she left four children & only four viz: Jonathan C. Loonis, Leonard Loonis & Sally Sanderson widow all of Whately in Franklin County Mass s - The affiant said William Loonis; That his brothers & sister have released to him all their claim for pension & bounty land, from Congress; That he is directly interested as a claimant & makes this affidavit for the purpose of obtaining such pension & bounty land as may be due under any of the Laws, Regulations or decisions that have been or may hereafter be adopted.
The said affiant further declares that he hereby constitutes and appoints Sam l L. Hinckley of Northampton Mass s to be attorney and agent to prosecute said claim with power of substitution to examine all papers & documents in relation thereto & to do all things necessary & lawful in the premises except drawing the money which will hereafter be provided for Mrs Loonis

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.
HAMPSHIRE ss.
I, Samuel Wells, Clerk of the Judicial Courts of the Commonwealth, for the County of Hampshire, do certify, that William O. G. Miller Esquire, whose signature is affixed to the certificate on the paper hereto annexed, was, at the date thereof, one of the Justices of the Peace, within and for said County, duly commissioned, and acting under the authority of this Commonwealth; and that full faith and credit is, and ought to be given, to his acts and attestations, done in that capacity; and that I am acquainted with the hand-writing of the said William O. G. Miller and believe his signature to said certificate is genuine.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and hereunto set the seal of the Supreme Judicial Court, for said Commonwealth, this fifteenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty two
Samuel Wells Clerk.

Hampshire ss
The within affidavit was sworn to & submitted the day & year first within written
Before me W. O. Goshorn Justice of the Peace
I, William O. Goshorn Justice of the Peace in & for said County of Hampshire do hereby certify that William Loomis within named is a respectable resident of this County & is as I believe directly interested in said claim as herein set forth & acknowledges the within power of attorney to be his free act & deed. Before me
W. O. Goshorn Justice of the Peace

I do hereby substitute D. D. Addison Esq. of Washington D. C. as attorney & agent to prosecute the claim of the heirs of Delphia Downes for a pension and to examine all papers & documents in relation thereto & to do all other things lawful & necessary in the premises as fully as I am authorized to do by virtue of the within power of attorney
Witness my hand & seal this fifteenth day of September 1852
Sam l L. Hinckley
Massachusetts Hampshire Is
Personally appeared Sam l L. Hinckley above named & acknowledged the foregoing power of attorney to be his free act & deed
Before me
W. A. Goshorn Justice of the Peace

9. 300 Massachusetts Hulda Loomis dec. widow of Abner Loomis who was a Comr. of Issues in the Revolution Comr.
Inscribed on the Roll at the rate of 600 Dollars Cents per annum, to commence on the 4th day of March, 1843.
Ending 23. March 1847 Certificate of Pension issued the 19 day of Apr. 53 and sent to
D Addison Pres.
[Acts of March 3, 1843, & June 17, 1844.]
Recorded in Book ct Page 33.

I hereby certify that in the records of the Congregational Church in Hatfield in the County of Hampshire in Mass s kept by the Rev. Joseph Lyman D. D. late dec d - during his ministry there is recorded the marriage of "Abner Loomis & Zilpah Field" August twenty-fourth Seventeen hundred & eighty-three
Joseph Billings { Stated Clerk
I Joseph Billings, above named depose & say that I am Stated clerk of the Church above mentioned & have the custody of the records thereof, and that the above is a true extract from the records of marriages with the exception of the date which is ex- pressed in the record in fair legible figures as follows "August 24 th - 1783"
Joseph Billings Stated Clerk
Sworn to before me this 6 th - day Dec r 1839 Samuel Partridge Just. Peace 1839
Justice of the Peace

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Hampshire County ss
On this fifth day of Dec r A.D. Eighteen hundred & thirty-nine personally appeared before the Hon Court of County Commissioners (being a Court of Record) for said County now in session Zilpha Loomis a resident of Williamburgh in said County aged eighty three 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 Act of Congress passed July 7 th 1838 entitled an Act granting half pay & pensions to certain widows. That she is the widow of Abner Loomis, who was in the service of the United States in the Revolutionary Army for three or four years as she has heard him say in his life time. At the time he entered the service she was not acquainted with him, that he then lived in Lebanon, & she did not become acquainted with him till after he left the service, she is unable to say where he was in the service for she has no documentary evidence of his service & knows that the commission which he held in the Army aforesaid was destroyed many years ago. She has often heard him speak of the Trumbulls Bulls & Bingham's who were in the service with him & were friends of his; that he was an opening Commissary in the Army and was stationed on the North River the most of the time as she

age. She has often heard her husband speak of his friends Bulls & Bingham, who were in the service with him & were friends of his; that he was an opening Commissary in the Army and was stationed on the North River the most of the time as she thinks at Fishkill & Poughkeepsie; she thinks his Commissary gave him the title of Lieutenant & that he first enlisted as a private
She further declares that she was married to Abner Loomis after officiated by the Rev. Joseph Lyman of Hatfield, on the 24 th August 1783, that her husband the aforesaid Abner Loomis died on the 22 nd April 1812) second day of April Eighteen hundred & twelve; that she was not married to him prior to his leaving service, but previous to the first day of January (1794) Seventeen hundred & ninety fourth to wit, on the day above stated & she has since the death of the aforesaid Abner Loomis remained un- -married -
Zilpha has Loomis mother
Sworn to before me & subscribed in Open Court on the day & year first above mentioned
C B Rising Chairman Comt

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Hampshire ss
I Samuel Wells Clerk of the Judicial Courts for said Commonwealth for the County of Hampshire aforesaid do certify that the within contains the original proceedings before the Court of County Commissioners for said County in the matter of the application of Gilpha Dorrance for a pension
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the Court of County Commissioners for said County this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty nine Samuel Wells Clerk

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Hampshire ss.
At a Court of Probate held at Northampton in and for said County on the first Tuesday of October A.D. 1852 before the Hon. Thomas Conkey Judge of Probate in and for said County. Satisfactory evidence was furnished that Diphna Loomis of Williamburgh in said County, widow of Abner Loomis a Revolutionary Soldier of the United States, died on the 23 d day of March 1847 and left some and only four children whose names and residences are as follows and who are all still living - viz Sarah C. Loomis Leonard Loomis and Sally Sanderson all of Whately in the County of Franklin and William Loomis of Williamburgh aforesaid.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of said Court this 5 th day of October A.D. 1852
Sam l F. Lyman Reg r of Probate

Pension Office
Decemr. 14. 1852
Sir
Be pleased to inscribe on your Roll the name of Gilpha Loomis deceased, widow of Abner Loomis who was a Commissary of Issues in the Revolution, as entitled under Act of 7. July 1838, to receive a pension of Six hundred Dollars per annum, commencing 4. March 1836 & terminating 4. March 1841. Also, as entitled under Acts of 3. March 1843 & 17. June 1844, to the same rate of pension per annum, commencing the 4. March 1843 & terminating the 23 d March 1847, when she died.
And pay the amount due, under the Acts aforesaid, to Jonathan Loomis, Leonard Loomis, Sally Anderson & William Loomis, only surviving children of said Gilpha Loomis deceased.
I am Very Respectfully V o Franklin Haven Esq y } Yours Pension Act. } Boston, Mass. } Commissioner of Pensions.

I William Loomis of Williamsburgh in the County of Hampshire in Mass ts aged fifty years before I say that I am the son of Abner Loomis late of Whately in the County of Franklin & State aforesaid & of Elizabeth Loomis his widow, She is now living at Williamsburgh aforesaid and has remained un married since the decease of said Abner Loomis; That Abner Loomis aforesaid died on the second day of April (1812) Eighteen Hundred and twelve. I was with him on the day he died & helped to lay him out. I put them before my I have often heard my father Abner Loomis aforesaid speak of his being in the Revolutionary Army and being a Commissary & dealing out provisions to and I have seen the Commissions which he held in the Army, but recollect no particulars of the Commission except that I was pleased with the seal when I first saw it - it being then "quite young". I have seen the Commission since the decease of my father aforesaid, I think four or five years after his decease and have never

never seen it since. It was then at Whitney in a chest filled with his old papers, which were afterwards destroyed.
I have often heard my father speak of his being stationed on the North River and of his being in the service there or four years.
Furthermore Deponent says it not.
Wm Loomis
State of Massachusetts Barnstable County ss
On this fifth day December (1839) eighteen hundred & thirty-nine Wm Loomis abovenamed, appeared before me & subscri- bed made oath to the truth of the fore- going deposition & full credit may be given to his statement as he is personally known to me to be a man of truth & respectability.
I am E. L. Hinckley
Justice of the Peace

The widow in her declaration 5 th Dec r 1839. declared for the benefit July 7 th 1838 That she is the widow of Abner Loomis, who was in the service of the United States in the Revolutionary Army for 3 or 4 years.
That she heard him say in his life time he was in the service but is unable to say where he was in the service for she has no documentary evidence of his service and knows the commission he held in the army was destroyed many years ago
That she heard him speak. That he was an Issuing Commissary and stationed at the South since the most of the time.
She thinks his commission gave him the title of Lieutenant and that he first entered as a private
There is no documentary proof. offered, or presented in support of Abner Loomis service as private or as commissary
John Loomis, and Simon Loomis both declare they were related to Abner Loomis
The first witness declared "I well remember that he was in "the war of the revolution, but am "not certain in what capacity, but was "he thinks in the latter part of the war

in the service as commissary".
Simon Loomis the second witness swears "That he well knew Abner Loomis, was "certainly related to him. he was drafted "and went out in Col Shelton light horse "was ordered to Fishkill in the State of "New York. found Abner Loomis there. had "charge of the commissary stores. this was "in the spring of 1778. the length of the "service said Abner performed. I do not know
John Porter swears - That he was perfectly well acquainted with Abner Loomis he was a soldier. first went into the war as a soldier. but afterwards was in the Commissary Department. and that he. the said Abner was several years in the war
Official - was discharged in 1780. returned home by the way of Fishkill. and saw said Abner Loomis in charge of the commissary stores. well knew Mr Loomis he had been a long time in the commissary Department since had been transferred from the Army to the commissary Department -
William Loomis a son. swears. that he has frequently heard his Father say he was in the service as commissary
all of which was rejected see letter to Jesse Chatton. 2 Feb 1840. and to J L Hinkly 8. May 1840

No documentary evidence of his appointment as an Issuing Commissary, nor the length of his service has since been presented —

In a recent application Sept r 18. 1852. an affidavit is presented, made by the Hon, William Loomis similar in its character as the same affidavit he gave in 1839. of course, not to be regarded as additional evidence under the Five year rule.
An "extract" is presented dated Register Office Nov r 12. 1852. showing a payment to Abner Loomis of $400. due January 1782.
But it does not show that the Abner Loomis was an Issuing commissary. Nor does it identify him. as Zephaniah Loomis husband - Nor does the extract give $400. as pay due, but in the settlement of an account.
It is altogether too indefinite to justify an allowance of a claim involving an amount near six thousand dollars. The case of Zephaniah Loomis widow of Abner is therefore rejected, as there is no evidence of appointment, or military service.

6523
✓ Zepha Loomis Dor. Mass. Act 7 July 38

Mrs. Postus
in Abner Looms
Dad see him in Dec - 1930
Left

St. Louis
Alberic Lewis
Did not see before then
20 Thurs May 23rd 1895
162-183
Handwritten text in Arabic script, oriented vertically.
五二五
序
1579
1863
1897
Handwritten text in Arabic script, oriented vertically.
Alma Mater

I John Loonis of Lebanon in New London County State of Connecticut aged. Eighty Eight years this month of Nov- 1839. after being sworn as the Law directs do on oath testify & say, that I was formerly well acquainted with Abner Loonis formerly of S d Lebanon, but the S d Abner removed to Whately in the State of Massachusetts, where he died in the year 1812 - If I rightly re- collect - the said Abner was cousin to me & I knew him well. He was about three years older than I was -
I will remember, that the said was in the War of the Revolution, but I am not certain in what capacity he was, but I think the latter part of the time he was in the service, he was in the Comsary Department, under Col o Jeremiah Wadsworth with of Hartford Count y he was out a considerable time, as much as two years

or more - I know he was gone a long time
I was a Soldier myself a considerable time, - I know the P o Abner was at Fishkill in the State of New York on the North River and at other places with the army
The P o Abner was a man of good education, & was an excellent penman - I have often seen the P o Abner since the War was over & have often conversed with him about his services in the War, as we were both in the War of the Revolution we were well acquainted together, & often compared our services in the War -
If I remember correctly Mr Abner soon - was out in the years 1777 & 1778, it was the latter year he was discharged when he first went into service, he left as a Soldier. I think under Capt Bingham
Given to subscribed In John Loomis
John Loomis
John Loomis
John Loomis

State of Connecticut & Lebanon New London Co. -
B. it Remembred that on 21 st Nov 1839 John Loonis the within Depo t personally appeared before me & made oath that the Deposition by him subscribed hereto, containing the truth and I do hereby certify that I am well acquainted with the aff d John Loonis & know him to be a man of truth & veracity & a credible person
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand & seal the day & year last aforesaid
W. Williams Just Reu

I Simon Loonis of Lihourow in New London County & State of Connecticut aged Seventy Nine years in August last - after being sworn according to Law. Do on oath testify & say - That I was formerly well acquainted with Abner Loonis of Lihourow apts - That I well knew him being distantly related to him & his son -
That during the War of the Re- -bellion I was drafted into, & went into the ser- -vice in Col. Sheldon's Light horse -
I was stationed at Danbury in said State of Connecticut - During the time I was so stationed at Danbury. I together with another man named Elisha Hyde were ordered by Col. Sheldon, apts to wait upon and guard an officer he ordered from Dan- bury apts to Fishkill in the State of New York upon business at Fishkill - We went and on my arrival at Fishkill I found, the Col. Abner Loonis: Who I well knew. The said Abner, was very glad to see me & invited me to stay with him while I was at Fishkill & I did stay at his quarters. & While there at Fishkill. I found the Col. Abner had the

charge of the Company Store at S t Furbush and dealt out to the prisoners & the Soldiers - He told me that he was in the Company - Department, this was in the month of November in the year 1778 - I think - when the S t Abner, first went into the - Service, he went as a Soldier, but he was a man of a good Education, & was a very handsome man & was a ready Accountant - The length of Service S t Abner performed - I do not know - but believe it was several years and further I say not
Friend & Servant
In service of -
W m Loomis
Julia & Mason
Simon Loomis

State of Connecticut Newbedford county { Liberator p 2
Be it remembered that on the 21 st day of Nov r 1839 Mr Simon Loomis asp d - the within Deposition per- sonally appeared before me & made Oath that the within deposition by him signed, contains the truth and I do certify that I am well acquainted with the asp d Simon Loomis, & ever have been since I was a child, & know him to be a man of Truth & Veracity & a credible person In testimony Whereof I have hereunto set my hand the day of years last asp d W. Williams, Justice of the Peace

I John Porter of Columbia Co. and County & State of Connecticut, aged Seventy five years. first being sworn as the Law directs. do on Oath testify & say, that I was formerly well acquainted with Abner Loomis formerly of S d Lebanon, but now S d , that I was well knowing that the aforesaid Abner Loomis was a Soldier in the War of the Revo- -lution, that he first went into the War as a Soldier - but afterwards he was in the Commissary Department - & that he S d Abner was several years in the War -
That I was a Soldier in the Revolution -ary War. & that when I was discharged in Dec r - 1780 - I came homewards the way of Fishkill in New York, on the North River. That I went into the Commissary Store at S d Fishkill, there I found the S d Abner Loomis in Charge of the Commissary Stores, & he delivered me some Bread, he told me then that the Stores were very bare of Provisions - I well knew Mr Loomis, & he had been a long time in S d Commissary Department & had been transferred from the army to S d Commissary Department, he was a very

accomplish? Man for that business being very active & a good acquaintance, I know he was several years in the War - that time I mean - this was the last time, I ever saw the ? Elder Loomis, as he soon after the War went up Connecticut River, & took his residence up in that Quarter - and further I say not
Sworn to & Subscribed
In presence of -
John Porter
Wm Loomis
W. Williams
State of Connecticut } Debenham New London County }
Be it known that John Porter afore-mentioned - ally - appeared before me under oath that the deposition he has subscribed contains the truth and further I certify that the ? John Porter is well known to me & that he is a man of truth & veracity & a credible person
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set

and this 21 st Day of November 1839
W. J. Mathews Justice of the Peace

I, Royal R. Hinman, Secretary of State for the State of Connecticut do hereby certify; That William T Williams Esq, before whom the annexed Depositions, of John Loomis, Simon Loomis, and John Porter, were taken, who at the taking of the same, and had been for more than Six Months last past, a Lawful Justice of the Peace, for the County of New London, in the State of Connecticut; and that, the signature of the said William T Williams Esq, to each of said depositions is the genuine signature of the said W m T Williams Esq, and I am well acquainted with his hand Writing.
In testimony whereof, I do hereunto subscribe my name, and affix the Seal of said State at Hartford in said State on this 24 th day of XXXX 1839.
R R Hinman Secretary

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.
Hampshire ss.
I, Samuel Wells, Clerk of the Judicial Courts of the Commonwealth, for the County of Hampshire, do certify, that Samuel Partidge Esquire, whose signature is affixed to the certificate on the paper hereto annexed, was, at the date thereof, one of the Justices of the Peace, within and for said County, duly commissioned, and acting under the authority of this Commonwealth; and that full faith and credit is and ought to be given to his acts and attestations done in that capacity; and that I am acquainted with the hand-writing of the said Samuel Partidge and believe his signature to said certificate is genuine.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas for said Commonwealth, this seventh day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty nine —
Samuel Wells Clerk.

Northampton Mass. Sept. 15 1852
Sir
The widow of Abner Lovins, who was a commissary or clerk to the commissary in the Revolutionary War made application for a pension twelve years ago which was rejected for want of evidence. He went from Lebanon Conn. and his commission or discharge was burnt among his other papers soon after his death in 1812. The heirs have no documentary evidence of his service except what may be in your office. Nor have they the evidence of any living witnesses. If the record books of the Commissary General's Department are not transferred to the Pension Office, will you do me the favor to inform me where they can be found that I may make further search? The widow of Abner Lovins, Mrs. Delpha Lovins died 23 d March 1847 & her children have requested me to apply in their behalf for the pension supposed to be due. I am aware that claimants are expected to find & produce evidence of service without the aid of the Pension Department. In this case the extreme difficulty in procuring the necessary evidence

and my belief in the merits of their application constrains me to make the foregoing request.
Letters have been received from persons unknown agreeing to substantiate the claim on payment of one half the proceeds. This induces the claimants to think that evidence may have come to the Pension office since the rejection of Mrs. Zilpha Lovins application. One of her sons supported his mother for many years after his father's death & until her decease. He is now reduced in property & his brothers & sister have released to him their interest in the pension. In making this effort in his behalf I wish to save him unnecessary expense without asking improper assistance from your office.
Very respectfully
Yours at servt.
Sam l L. Hinckley
Hon J. E. Heath Comm ee of Pensions Washington D.C.

Decision of the Commission in the case of Bilphee Loomis vs.

Pension Office, April 18. 1853.
In the matter of the application of Zilpha Loomis, widow of Abner Loomis decd., late of the State of Massachusetts, under the act of July 7. A.D. 1832.
This is an application on account of the services of Abner Loomis decd. in the Commissary Department, in the Army of the United States, in the war of the Revolution from the year 1778. to the year 1782; and the claim is that the said Abner served as a Commissary of Yrs for a period of more than two years.
The claimant has proved by satisfactory evidence that she was lawfully married with the said Abner Loomis on the 24 th day of August A.D. 1783, and that the said Abner deceased on the 2 nd day of April A.D. 1812. It is further proved that the said Zilpha Loomis remained a widow until her decease on the 23 rd day of March 1847 and that she left the following named children who still survive, to wit, Jonathan C. Loomis, Leonard Loomis and Sally Sanderson of Whately in the County of Franklin and William Loomis of Williamsburg in the County of Hampshire and State of Massachusetts.
The claimant in her declaration avers that she "knows that the commission which he" (the said Abner) "held in the army was destroyed many years ago; that she has often heard him speak of being an Yrsing Commissary and that he was stationed at Fishkill or Poughkeepsie."
William Loomis a son of Abner, aged fifty years December

5. 1839 testifies, "that he has seen the Commission which he (his father) held in the army, but recollects no particulars of the Commission, except that he was pleased with the same"; that he saw this Commission four or five years after the decease of his father, that it was "in a chest filled with his old papers which were afterwards destroyed."
John Loomis, a Cousin, aged Eighty Eight years in November 1839, testifies, that Abner Loomis was in the service in the Commissary department under Col. Jeremiah Wadsworth of Hartford Connecticut; that he knows the said Abner was at Fishkill in the state of New York on the North River; that he was out in the years 1777 and 1778, that it was the latter year that he was commissary, & that he was first a soldier.
Simon Loomis aged Seventy nine years in August 1839, himself a Revolutionary Pensioner, testifies that he well knows the said Abner Loomis and "was distantly related to him"; that he saw the said Abner at Fishkill; that he had the charge of the commissary store at said Fishkill and went out provisioned to the "soldiers," that this was in November 1778, and that he does not recollect the length of time the said Abner served, "but believes it was several years."
John Perlee, aged Seventy five years in November 1839, says that he was a soldier in the Revolutionary war and discharged in 1780; that he returned home by the way of Fishkill in New York, and he found the said Abner Loomis in charge of the

Commissary Store at said Fishkill and that he delivered to dispo- nent some bread. That he knew the said Abner Doble, and that he "had been a long time in said Commissary department."
The credibility of the three last mentioned witnesses is sustained by the Certificate of Wm. J. Williams Esq., now deceased, the magistrate before whom their depositions were taken; a man who was well known to me to have been a man too conscientious and honorable to make such certificates for mere formality.
There was filed in this case, on the 12 th day of November 1852 a Certificate from the Register of the Treasury, purporting to be "a true extract from the Register of Certificates issued by Jonathan Burnell Comr. for settling the accounts of the Commissary and Quartermaster departments from the 22 d August 1782 to the 7 th May 1789" from which it appears that Abner Doble had an account with that department under date of August 11 th 1778 and showing a balance his due January 1, 1787 of $400.-
There is also filed a certified copy of a letter from the Secre- tary of State under date of January 14, 1853, in which it is said that the accounts settled by Jonathan Burnell, "are the accounts only of Commissary General of Issues and of Purchases, Commissary of Provisions and Commissary of the Northern and Southern Depart- ments and Assistant Commissary."
Taking this evidence together I am satisfied that it proves and therefore finds, that the said Abner Doble was a Com- missary in the Army of the Revolution, and second therein in kind

capacity a period of more than two years from August 4, 1788 to January 1, 1782, and that having deceased in 1812 leaving the said Zilpha Dromis his widow, who remained such until her decease, she was entitled to a pension from the 4 th day of March 1836 to the 4 th day of March 1841; and from the 4 th day of March 1843 to the 23 rd day of March 1847 when she died at the rate of Six Hundred Dollars a year. And I hereby direct that the amount due her at her decease be paid to her surviving children before named, and that a certificate be issued therefor to the usual form. —
Soren P. Madsen
Commissioner —

No 3.
Report of Mr Niles to the Com s of Pensions in relation to the pension claim of Mrs. Lulpha Loomis.

Pension Office, January 6 th 1853.
Sir:
I have read the characteristic reply of the counsel for Mr. Addison, in the case of Gilpha Loomis, widow of Abner, dated December 31 st 1852, which you handed to me on Monday last, and sincerely thank you for the opportunity of replying thereto—pledging myself to show that every proposition contained in my report of the 28 th ult., is not only in strict accordance with the regulations of this Office, the rightful construction of the Revolutionary Pension Laws, and the precedents established by your predecessor.
The counsel's argument embraces six propositions. The first is, that the certificate of the Register of the Treasury, dated November 12 th 1852, and filed by Mr. Addison, is such testimony as brings Mrs. Loomis' case within the rule established by the decision of the Secretary of the Interior, of the 11 th of March, 1852, in the case of Thomas Murray. I know not whether the regulations based on that decision have been officially sanctioned by the Secretary; but I do know, however, that you informed me, some time after they had been in my possession, that you had not seen

them, and that, at your request, I furnished you with a copy. I have in my possession what are, I believe, the original drafts. They are in the handwriting of the counsel for Mr. Addison, then the Chief Clerk of this Office. The first were handed to me on the 18 th of March, 1852, and are as follows:
"1. If 5 years have elapsed since the first adjudication of a claim, no additional evidence being presented, and the Office, in the meantime, not having agreed to its admission on certain conditions, the case will not be re-opened."
"2. It will not be re-opened unless upon the most clear and satisfactory proof of the discovery of such additional evidence, and that evidence must be material to the issue."
"3. These rules apply to all cases - suspended, rejected, and admitted."
"March 18, 1852."
I found no difficulty in considering claims under the above rules, which were fairly based on the Secretary's decision. But, on the 12 th of June following, the counsel for Mr. Addison, being then, also, the Chief Clerk of this Office, handed to me the following additional Regulations:

"In applying the 5 years' rule, evidence which was in the Pension Office at the time of the adjudication, should be exempted from its operation. So should evidence in the Archives of the different States, or other offices of the Government, if the party was not required to apply there, and oath is made that the claimant did not know of its existence. This oath should be required in all cases where reliance is placed on new evidence. Additional parole evidence may always be received under the above instructions. " Aug 4/52. "June 1, 1852."
How far they remedied the first, I will not now inquire; but the rule that "additional parole evidence could be always received," and Record of any character excluded, seemed to render all which preceded it nugatory; and I have, since their receipt, been governed in my consideration of claims by the plain language and meaning of the Secretary's decision; for I was at a loss to understand that nice legal discrimination which could see more in the evidence of a fact, than in the fact itself. The opinion of the Secretary is, that "in no case should a case be reviewed after five years, unless upon the discovery of new evidence, which was not accessible to the party, by due diligence, at an earlier day," and he, therefore, instructs you not to disturb any case in which

there has been a final adjudication of more than five years, unless upon the most clear and satisfactory proof of the discovery of new evidence, which would justify a Court of Equity in granting a Bill of Review, viz: the discovery of evidence which is material to the issue, &c. Let me now test the testimony filed by Mr. Addison, by the Secretary's decision and instructions. When Mrs. Loomis's claim was first examined, on the 27 th of February, 1840, this Office required [see Letter Book, vol. 32, page. 435] in support of the allegations, 1 st Documentary evidence of Abner Loomis's appointment as a Commissary of Issues 2 o The amount of his monthly pay; and 3 o of the period he was actually engaged in the service. These requisitions were in accordance with the Regulations and uniform practice of this Office, and their rightfulness has been frequently sanctioned by the highest appellate power. Now, sir, in what manner is that testimony a compliance with either of the above requirements? Even admitting that it shows a payment for military service , (which I will presently prove in a manner which admits of no cavil or doubt, it does not,) does it show the nature of Loomis's appointment, the amount of his monthly pay, or the time he was in actual service? Or, sir, is it testimony which was not accessible to the party, by due diligence, at an earlier day, or testimony which would

justify a court of Equity in granting a Bill of Review? The notorious fact that the Records in the Office of the Register of the Treasury are open, at all times, to all persons having a just right to examine them, is the best evidence that the testimony was accessible; and the fact that, when adduced, it does not meet either issue in the case, certainly would not justify a court of Equity in granting a Bill of Review. The counsel for Mr. Addison, however, says he can refer to numerous cases which were opened upon similar similar testimony. I do not doubt his assertion; but they must be cases considered by himself, or under his sanction; for I am very certain that I have never regarded such testimony as coming within the rules.
2 o . He says that I stated that the certificate from the Register's Office does not show that Abner Loomis was appointed by competent authority; and subsequently, that the principle that such a certificate was evidence of rank, was never before disputed in the Pension Office, and that numerous cases have been allowed on similar certificates. Nay, sir, I said more. I said that it was neither proof of service nor rank, and that the amount paid was probably for supplies. I advanced that opinion, as I do all others, upon evidence which to me was satisfactory and indisputable,

viz: an examination of the Record of Burrall's list of certificates, and the opinion of a gentleman more familiar with its character than any man living. That it was a correct view of the character of the certificates, as shown by that Record, I would refer you to the letter of the Register of the Treasury, dated January 11 th 1853, and herewith, submitted. The Register states that the evidences of the claims for which Jonathan Burrall issued his certificates having been lost by the burning of the Treasury, in 1814, " it is impracticable to ascertain whether they were for services or supplies! " I might here rest the case; for that statement alone is a complete refutation of all the pretension to knowledge of the rules and the precedents of this Office, set up by the counsel for Mr. Addison! But I will proceed to show the counsel for Mr. Addison, that he is equally mistaken in his other assumptions in this portion of his argument. The counsel, with marked courtesy, says that I myself do not believe what I have said in regard to Burrall's certificates, and cites the advice I gave you in the case of John Hinley as evidence of his assertion. This allusion to the case of John Hinley is more unfortunate than his opinion of the character of Burrall's certificates; for there is not, perhaps, on our files a better case by which I could illustrate the entire

truth of every averment made by myself as to the rules and practices of this Office. There is not the slightest analogy between the cases of Gilpha Loomis, widow of Abner, and the case of John Finley! In the case of Mrs. L., her husband never applied for a pension; and in her own application, neither the rank nor character of the service of her husband, or its duration, was established, as required by the Regulations. But what are the facts in the case of John Finley? That gentleman was a pensioner under the Act of March 18 th 1818, at the rate of $240 per annum. The Act of 1818 made no provision for staff service, but awarded pensions according to rank in the Line. Finley was a Captain in the Line and a Major by brevet, and his commission, as such, was filed with his application. In it he stated, (certainly not with a view of establishing a claim to a higher rate of pension, for he knew that his rank as a Captain in the Line would give him the highest,) that in 1778, he was appointed Brigade Major to General Irvine, of the Pennsylvania Line. That fact was alluded to as a mere incident of his service. Under the Act of June 7 th 1832, staff service is embraced; and Mr. Addison filed a claim for increase under that Act. And how, sir, did Mr. Addison sustain that application? Why, Sir, by doing precisely what I informed you was necessary under

the Regulations, the practice of this Office, numerous decisions, and especially under the decision of Mr. Secretary Cope; for, by referring to Finley's papers, you will there find that Mr. Addison filed a certificate from the State Department, dated August, 13 th 1852, showing that "among the Washington Papers, there is in Army Returns, vol. 103, page 6, a paper entitled monthly returns of the troops in the service of the United States, commanded by William Irvine, Esq r Brigadier General, Fort Pitt, December 30 th 1781." That the paper is signed John Finley, M.P. and W m Irvine, B. Genl. "and that in a marginal note is the following: "Officer in staff department, Captain John Finley, Brigade Major." This, sir, fixed Finley's rank in the staff beyond all question. It was, in fact, the very " instrument of writing " contemplated by Mr. Secretary Cope. In connexion with that certificate, was filed a certificate from the Register of the Treasury, dated September 22 d 1852, showing the issue of a certificate to John Finley, on the 10 th of December, 1788, for $34.66 (not $27, as stated by the counsel,) due May 1 st 1778. That I could have said that this latter certificate was proof of rank, when I had the evidence of rank before my eyes, and in a form not to be questioned, is not only "absurd," to use the elegant language of the counsel, but preposterous! I may have said, and probably did, that that certificate, in connexion with the evidence of his rank from

the State Department, and the averment of Finley, in his declaration, under the Act of 1818, was evidence that he was in the staff as early as 1778. It shows a payment, probably, on account of extra rations or allowances in the staff.
The first portion of the Counsel's third proposition is embraced in my comments upon his second proposition. But he proceeds to say, that assistant commissaries then, as now, made their own purchases with the public money, &c. [see his remarks.] The manner in which the counsel has so frequently travelled out of the Record, and the lack of coherence in his, so-called, argument, has created a distrust in my mind, more than once, that he is utterly oblivious of the subject he affects to discuss. What does he mean in this profound definition of the duties of Assistant commissaries who make "their own purchases?" They have nothing to do with the case. The claim of Mrs. Loomis is for service as a commissary of Issues , who made no purchases, and whose duties are widely different. If you will refer to vol. 2, pages 155, 156, and 157, of the Journal of the old Congress, you will there find the Bill establishing the commissary's Department, and the duties of each branch of the Department defined. Under

that organization, in no event could a commissary of Is- sues become a creditor of the Government on account of sup- plies furnished, unless he delivered what he did not receive, and which he was not authorized to procure, for the use of the Army. What, then, I ask, is the meaning of this defini- tion of the duties of Assistant commissaries, who made their own purchases, and how does it apply to the case? or has the counsel never taken the pains to ascertain the wide difference between commissaries who make their own purchases, and commissaries who deliver the purchases made?
I will now examine the counsel's fourth proposition, which is, that there can be no stronger evidence that Ab- ner Loomis was a commissary [commissary again] than the proof which has been adduced, my comments on which have so disgusted his delicate sensibilities, that he "does not deem such trash worth answering." Disgust, however, did not prevent him, with the garbage still under his "innocent nose," from offering an illustration which was intended as a powerful sanitary purgation of the pestilent odors. It is, that if an applicant swears that he served in the First Massachusetts Regiment, his wit- nesses sustain him, and his name is found upon the

Rolls, yet, according to Mr. Niles's showing, he has not identified himself." I have already expressed the opinion that the counsel has forgotten the case he is considering, for his proposition no more illustrates the facts in the case of Mrs. Loomis, than the case of John Finley, the dispensation of Record evidence of rank. In the first place, there is not the slightest Record evidence of the service of Abner Loomis; he was not an applicant for a pension, his widow did not know that he was in service, his name is not found on any Roll; his rank is not even fixed by the parole testimony; and, apart from the certificate of Burrall, which I have shown is neither evidence of service nor rank, the claim would not receive, as it did not receive when first taken up, a moment's consideration. In what, therefore, consists the parallel? It must exist in the counsel's imagination alone, for no one accustomed to sift testimony could discover it, even if aided by the re-appearance of Burrall and Loomis—a kind of evidence the counsel thinks is "in the nature of things." The force of the denial with which he concludes his fourthly , will be appreciated [ viz : that I cannot produce another certificate of Burrall's] by referring to the letter of the Register of the Treasury, from which you will see that Burrall issued 1,106 certificates, of which "it was im-

practicable to determine whether they were for services or supplies," "some from five to ten in one name!"
In the counsel's fifthly , he says, that Documentary evidence of Loomis's appointment as commissary [of Purchases, I suppose, but I will treat it as commissary of Issues.] has been produced; and then, without taking breath, says that he showed you the other day a Resolution of Congress dispensing with the necessity of any commission for a commissary. Was not that an act of supererogation? for where was the necessity of searching the journals of Congress for a precedent for a fact, of which, if the counsel's averment be true, there was already evidence? That Congress had authority to decide in a special case, where a party had served as a commissary, of which it had ample proof, he should be regarded as a commissary, though not commissioned as such, there is no doubt; but that, under the regulations of the Department, a commission was not indispensable, is too obvious to be disputed, [see the Bill referred to ante .] But let me ask, if a commission was not indispensable, why invoke the action of Congress?
He closes his fifthly , by the round assertion, that a commission, &c. is not necessary to establish any grade, and refers to the case of Mary Elderkin, in which, he says, the present Secretary confirms a decision of Mr. Ewing, that parole testimony shall be deemed sufficient to establish any char-

acter of service. A strange fatality attends the precedents of the counsel. There was no decision by the Secretary in the  case at all! It was submitted to the Secretary of the Interior in a report prepared by Mr. Kirby on the 30 th of January, 1852, and without any argument or statement whatever. Mr. Kirby He merely referred to the "concise and accurate brief of the case" made by Mr. F. S. Evans, attorney for Mr. S. A. Pugh, the ap- pellant. The papers in the case were returned to this Office on the 3 d of February, 1852, accompanied by the report, which required your signature. The letter, also, which accompa- nied the returned papers, requested you to state whether there were any Records in your Office as to the particular service under which the claim was asserted. On the 4 th of February, the papers were again sent to the Secretary of the Interior, who was informed that there were no Records of the service claimed in this Office; and on the 28 th of February, the papers were again returned to this Office, at the request of the Attorney, for re-examination, and your attention called to the grounds upon which the claim is based, and the decisions referred to as precedents by the said Attorney. On this reference, the claim was admitted by Mr. Kirby, at the rate of $270 per annum, under the Act of July 4 th 1836, deducting former payments at $30 per annum,

the amount for which the claim had been admitted by Mr. Da- ridge for service as a sergeant. Mr. Kirby, in the brief filed with the case, refers to the cases of Hannah Cooke and Mary Knapp, as precedents for his decision. Why, sir, the case of Hannah Cooke is almost precisely similar to that of John Finley, for there is Record evidence of his rank, viz: a certificate from the Office of the Third Auditor, showing that he was paid as an Adjutant of Colonel Drake's regiment, in 1776! The case of Mary Knapp was a very peculiar one — there was record evidence of her husband's service as ensign, but his service as a Captain of Boats at King's Ferry, Ver- plank's Point, &c., was resisted. Five soldiers, however, who were pensioners, testified that they enlisted and served under Knapp! The fact that the service had been performed, was not questioned. Indeed, the main question in the case was, whether Knapp's service as captain was military, which was established by evidence from the State Department! The evidence of the men who served under him was not equal to an "instrument of writing," but the fact that they had been pensioned for that service, clearly recognized Knapp's rank as a commissioned officer. The Secretary, in deciding the above cases, expressed no general opinion of parole testimony in the case of parties claiming as commis-

signed officers!
The next proposition of the Counsel is contained in his sixthly . It is, that "Record evidence, when required at all, is required simply to sustain and make way for parole testimony," and illustrates his view of such testimony by saying, that "if an officer produces his commission, or evidence of payment to him as an officer, neither determines the length of his service; but this is to be settled by verbal testimony." If this illustration is the result of the deliberate opinion of the Counsel as to the object of Record testimony, it affords a clue to all he has previously said, and is almost equal to the famous Rule about parole proof under the Five Years Rule. Let me illustrate its operation: A. B. applies for a pension for his service as a Captain - he alleges that he was commissioned as such on the 1 st of January, 1778, and served in that rank until 1780, when he resigned. As evidence that he was thus commissioned, he produces his commission, but produces no Record evidence of the duration of his service. Is this last fact to be determined by parole proof? Would not the very "nature of things," as the Counsel said, in reference to the re-appearance of Burrall and Loornis, indicate that it should be shown by Record testimony? The commission being a matter

of Record, why should not payments under it be also matters of Record, or the date of his resignation? The first action of an examiner would, therefore, be to ascertain if the Records in this Office sustained the service; if not, then to demand Record evidence of claimant. If he could not produce it, the way is then open for parole testimony; but not until the Office is satisfied that Record does not exist. But, to assert that Record evidence, per se , but opens the way for parole in the manner stated by the Counsel, is utterly opposed to the usages of this Office, or of any Court of Law or Equity, that ever existed.
Now, sir, I will examine the parole testimony in the case, which, the Counsel thinks, should override the necessity of Record, and will show you that his views of it are almost as far from the facts, as his deductions are opposed to the Regulations under the Pension Laws. John Loomis , the Counsel says, thinks Abner was Commissary!! but is not certain. He thinks he became Commissary in 1778. This is a pretty fair version of John's testimony, and the Counsel admits, that of itself it would not be sufficient to establish Abner Loomis's rank as Commissary, "but is to be taken in connexion with what other witnesses swear to positively." And, with the view of adding force to the witnesses' statements, he adds, there is no Regulation of this Office

discrediting the testimony of witnesses who are not pensioners. 'Tis true, there is no such regulation. But there is a general regulation of much greater force, in the principles of common sense, and common equity; for who, in the full possession of his faculties, would admit a statement of a fact, as proof of a fact, when the affiant is not himself certain of the fact about which he has testified?
The testimony of Simon Loomis, a pensioner, is next reviewed by the Counsel. He says that Simon swore positively that Abner was a commissary in 1778, and long after. That Simon's declaration was filed many years ago, and its truth so fully admitted, that he was admitted as a pensioner; and further, "it seems he, Simon, in 1777, enlisted in Sheldon's dragoons, but was discharged after three months' service. He says so in his declaration ". In reply to this version of Simon's testimony, if you will refer to his declaration and to the papers of Mrs. Loomis, you will find that it is not in accordance with its letter or its spirit. Is it a positive averment that Abner was a commissary in 1778? No! Merely that he had charge of a commissary's store, and that he said he was in the commissary's Department. Is that positive evidence of rank or service? Now, for the second portion of the Counsel's version of Si-

mon's testimony, viz: that he, in his declaration, said he enlisted in Sheldon's dragoons in 1777. but was discharged after three months' service. Unless my eyes deceive me, there is not, in Simon's declaration, the slightest allusion to Sheldon's dragoons or any other mounted Regiment, in 1777. His entire service in that year was claimed to have been in the militia; and he distinctly states, that on the 20 th of August, 1778, he was drafted as a light-horseman. That was the service for which he was pensioned as a dragoon; for it was sustained by parole proof, the only proof then accessible to this Office. But it is very clear, as shown by the Rolls of Sheldon, that the service was rendered in 1777; the fact was not stated in his declaration. Where, then, is the force of his testimony? He swears that, in 1778, when in Sheldon's dragoons, he saw Abner Loomis at Fishkill, &c, who told him he was in the Commissary's Department; but he was not in Sheldon's dragoons in 1778, as shown by the Record!
But, if there is no rule excluding the testimony of witnesses who are not pensioners, what shall I say of that of John Porter, a rejected applicant for a pension? Does he stand in the same category? Or does the Counsel's high regard for parole proof find more reason to trust his aver-

ments in the case of another than his own? But, admitting that he is a credible witness, what does his testimony prove? Why, that, in 1780, he saw Loomis in a commissary's store, and that he gave him some bread, &c.? Is that proof of rank or service? Does not the counsel know that he might have been a clerk or other employé, without holding the high and responsible position of a commissary of Issues?
A further consideration of the testimony in this case has more fully confirmed the opinion heretofore expressed, that Abner Loomis was not a commissary of Issues, and that not one of the requisitions of this Office has been complied with. The certificate relied on could not have been issued to him as a commissary of Issues, for the reason stated, viz: that he could not, in the discharge of his duties as such, become a creditor of the Government; and it is not pretended, in the testimony, that he was a commissary of Purchases; and there is moreover, no testimony to show that Zilpha Loomis's husband received it. Loomis was probably, at one time, a clerk in the commissary of Issues store; and was at another, a contractor for some sort of Supplies. Much stress has been placed on Burrall's certificate.

The only way such a certificate can be available, is shown in the case of John Finley; and the only way other certificates of payment are effective, is when they show rank, as well as service, as illustrated in the case of Hannah Locke, ante . To admit the claim of Mrs. Loomis, therefore, upon that certificate, would not only be a violation of General Capps's opinion, and other rightful decisions, but also an express violation of the principle established by Secretary Stuart, in the case of Thomas Murray, March 11 th 1852- See the third paragraph of that decision.
Before closing this communication, I must be pardoned for saying a few words in relation to the gross personalities of the Counsel for Mr. Addison. You know, sir, that I did not seek the revision of the case of Mrs. Loomis, and have never sought the revision of any case admitted by my associates. On the contrary, I earnestly requested you not to ask me to revise it- among others, for the reason that it had been admitted by Mr. Thornton Triplett, who, in my brief intercourse, had impressed me favorably, and whom I was unwilling to offend by any act that could be construed into a reflection on his judgment. But, when you demanded the service as a duty, I had no alternative. Up to that moment, I knew nothing of the merits of the case, and had never seen the papers. How I performed it,

it does not become me to say; but there is not, in my report, one discourteous or unkind expression—one inference that could offend a candid and honorable mind! To what, then, am I to attribute the coarse epithets, the scandalous imputations, and the affected contempt of my information and judgment, in which the counsel for Mr. Addison has so freely indulged? To his zeal for his client—to latent malice, or to the promptings of his vanity?—that he should "unpack his heart," and assume an air of superior wisdom and worth, which, in the swash-buckler days of Corporal Nym and Ancient Pistol, might have impressed those worthies, but which, towards me, is not insolent, merely because it is ridiculous!
I am, sir, very respectfully,
Your Obt. Servt.,
W m Ogden Ryles Examining Clerk.
J. H. Heath, Esqr. Commissioner of Pensions

Letter from Thos Secretary of State July 4. 1883

Department of State Washington January 24 th 1853
D. G. Addison Esq. Washington
Sir.
In reply to your verbal request for evidence from the Washington papers of the nature of the Accounts which were settled by Jonathan Burrall of the Commissary Department during the War of the Revolution I have to state that in V. 143 page 131 there is a paper entitled "List of Accounts which have been transmitted by the Register of the Treasury to Jonathan Burrall Esquire Commissioner for adjusting the Accounts of the Commissary Department". These are the Accounts only of "Commissary General of Issues and of Purchases" "Commissary of Provisions" and "Commissary of the Northern and Southern Departments" and "Assistant Commissary"
I am Sir very respectfully Your obedient Servant (signed) Edward Everett
Department of State.
Washington. Mar 25. 1853.
A true copy of the original draft on file in this Department.
R. J. Chew Acting Chief Clerk.

No 1.
Lot D.D. Adkins,
Jan 22/53

Sir:
Pension Office,
December 28 th 1852.
In compliance with your request, I have examined the testimony in the case of Gilpha Loomis, dec d widow of Abner, who, during her lifetime, applied for the benefit of the Act of July 7 th 1838, for the services of said Abner as an issuing commissary, and am of opinion that the grade and the duration of service are not, in any degree, established, as required by the Regulations. And further, that the certificate from the Office of the Register of the Treasury, dated November 12 th 1852, and filed by Daniel Addison, Esq., as additional testimony in the case, is not such testimony as exempts it from the operation of the Five Years' Rule, established by the Secretary of the Interior, on the 11 th of March last, for the reason, that it is not evidence which was not accessible to the claimant when her claim was suspended in 1840, nor material to either issue in her case, viz: 1 st . The fact that Abner Loomis was appointed, by the competent authority a commissary of issues; and 2 d if so appointed, the duration of his service; for that certificate, instead of meeting either of these points, merely shows that a party named Abner Loomis received, on the 24 th of August, 1788, a certificate for $400, due on the 1 st of January, 1782, from Jonathan Burrall, commissioner for settling the

on the opinion of the Report of the Treasury on the accounts of the Commissary and Quartermaster's Department, from the 22 d of August, 1782, to the 7 th of May, 1789.
9 January 1853, marked No —, accounts of the Commissary and Quartermaster's Depart- ments, from the 22 d of August, 1782, to the 7 th of May, 1789. No testimony whatever has been adduced to show that Zil- pha Loomis's husband was the party who received that certificate; nor does it appear that it was a payment on account of the Commissariat of the Revolutionary Army. If it was a payment on account of that department of the Revolutionary Army, the presumption that it was on account of supplies furnished, is as strong as that it was for service—indeed, stronger—for the reason, that the pay of an issuing Commissary being fixed by law, there would be less difficulty in arranging settlements for service, than accounts for supplies; and the account for which an Abner Loomis received a certificate was not finally settled until August 11 th 1788, though the amount was due January 1 st 1782. The fact assumed by Mr. Addison, that the certificate is proof of Loomis's service from 1778 to 1782, or of any service at all, is not, in any way, supported by the Record on which that certificate is based. That Record is a List of the parties to whom certificates were issued—showing when they were issued, when the amounts were due, &c. The accounts settled were those of the Commissary and Quartermaster's Depart- ments; and, though they may have embraced accounts for pay, it is very clear that all the settlements were not of

that character; for the whole number of certificates issued by Burrell amounted to 1,106, some of which were for amounts which render the conviction irresistible that they were for supplies. I am, therefore, at a loss to understand how such evidence can be deemed a compliance with the requisitions of this Office of the 27 th of February, 1840, when it required documentary evidence of Loomis's appointment, the duration of his actual service, and the amount of pay received by him!
The parole testimony relied on to show that Abner Loomis was a regularly appointed Issuing Commissary, is, in my opinion, entitled to very slight consideration, and was very properly rejected when the claim was examined in February, 1840. The office of an issuing Commissary was one of great responsibility. Those who held that rank in the Army, held it in virtue of an appointment which was tantamount to a commission; and though, in the language of Mr. Secretary Cams, [February 21 st 1833.] "a commission is not, in every case, necessary to invest a person with rank or command, or to entitle him to the emoluments of the office which he fills, some act or instrument of writing, tantamount to a commission, or promise of commission, is deemed essential. " But, in the case of Loomis, who was, if the averments of the witnesses are true, for many years in a position which would

under the production of some instrument of writing, which recognized his rank a matter of no difficulty, not the slightest Record evidence that he held the rank claimed for him has been filed! It rests entirely upon parole testimony, and that of the most vague and inconclusive character. Mrs. Loomis, in her declaration, stated that she was unable to say when her husband was in service, and that she had no documentary evidence of it. He was, however, "an Issuing commissary in the Army, and was stationed on the North River — for most of the time at Peksill and Fishkill." She thinks "his commission gave him the title of Lieutenant, and that he first enlisted as a private." This is the substance of claimant's averments; she does not even furnish the names of his officers. But John Loomis, one of the witnesses in the case, who, " though not certain in what capacity Abner served, thinks that in the latter part of the time he was in the service, he was in the Commissary Department, under Colonel Jeremiah Wadsworth; " and further, "if he remembers correctly, Abner Loomis was out in the years 1777 and 1778, and that it was in the latter year he was commissary," having first gone into the service as a soldier under Captain Bingham. This testimony, it will be seen, is based merely upon the impressions of the affiant, and unsupported by any Record whatever. It would not be available,

the witness not being a pensioner, as proof of service claimed as a private - much less in the case of an officer, where the highest rate of pension is claimed in a high rank, and for the maximum of service. The only fact stated in it is, that of Jeremiah Wadsworth having been a Commissary [General] at Hartford, Connecticut. Wadsworth was Deputy Commissary General of Purchases from June 18 th 1777. to August, 9 th 1777, and a Commissary General of Purchases from April, 1778, to January 1 st 1780.
The next witness is Simon Loomis, who is a pensioner. Simon was drafted, he states, in Sheldon's dragoons. He was stationed, when serving under Sheldon, at Danbury, Connecticut. During the time he was so stationed, "he, together with a man named Elijah Keyde, was ordered by Colonel Sheldon, to wait upon and guard an officer from said Danbury to Fishkill, in New York." "He went, and on my arrival at Fishkill, he found the said Abner Loomis, who had charge of the commissary's store at Fishkill, and who dealt out provisions to the soldiers; he told me he was in the commissary's Department; this was in the month of November, in the year 1778!" To show how little reliance is to be placed in this statement, I would refer you to the Rolls of Sheldon's dragoons, herewith sent, from which it will be seen that the

witness was not in said corps in 1778, having been omitted in November, 1777. He makes the same statement, however, in his own declaration, under the Act of June 7 th 1832, as to the escort of an officer to Fishkill in 1778, in which year he stated he served three months in Sheldon's dragoons. But it is very clear that his service in that corps was in 1777, as shown by the Rolls; for it was on continental establishment, and no enlistments were made into it unless for three years, or during the War. Admitting, however, that his service in Sheldon's dragoons was in 1778, and that his averment is true as to his having seen Abner Loomis at Fishkill, it amounts to nothing more than that he saw him in the commissary's store, and that he dealt out the provisions of the soldiers! A party might have dealt out provisions, and yet not have been invested with the high and responsible duties of a commissary of Issues!
The next and last witness in the case, as to service, &c. is John Porter. Porter was an applicant for the benefit of the Act of June 7 th 1832, but his claim was rejected for the reason that the alleged service was discredited by the Rolls. He made two declarations: in the first, he claimed eight months; and in his second, six and a half months service; but his entire service amounted to only four months and twenty-two days. This discredited witness states that he was discharged in December, 1780, and

that he came home by way of Fishkill, in New York, and that when there, he found Abner Loomis in charge of the commissary's stores, and that he delivered him (Porter) some bread, and told him that the stores were very bare of provisions; that he well knew said Loomis, and that he had been a long time in the commissary's Department. The affiant's statements in his own case having been discredited, his testimony in the case of Mr. Loomis was not, of course, entitled to any weight; for he was not sixteen years old, according to his own showing, when he entered the service, in which he remained only four months and twenty-two days! that Loomis was a long time in the commissary's department and therefore, could not have known, of his personal knowledge.
The above is a fair recapitulation of the testimony in the case; and, in my opinion, it does not meet a single requirement under the regulations.
Very respectfully,
Your Obt Servt,
W m G. den Piles
Examining Clerk.
Then as  in the case regarding the testimony, I cannot admit it as  it as  the  the  decrees  decrees  to  to , and you are the  the  decrees  decrees of the 11 th March 1852, in the case of Thomas Mung, H. Heath Esq. The papers in the case numbered from Commie of Pensions. to — on present etc.

Lydia Loomis Widow of Abner Loomis Act 1838. Mass.
In this case I claim a Pension of $600 per Annum, under the Act of July 7, 1838 for the services of her husband, Abner Loomis, as Issuing commissary from 1778 to 1782.
The evidence in support of this is,
1 st , the Widow's own Oath, who swears that she has frequently heard her husband speak of his having been several years an Issuing commissary, and that he had a commission which was destroyed many years ago. —
2 nd , The Affidavit of John Loomis a Revolutionary Soldier and Pensioner, proves that Abner Loomis was a commissary at Fishkill in 1778.
3 rd , Simon Loomis a Revolutionary Soldier and Pensioner proves that he Abner Loomis was in the Commissary Department at Fishkill doing the duty of Issuing commissary, issuing Rations to the Soldiers &c, that he knew him and put up at his Quarters, this was in November 1778.
4 th , John Porter a Revolutionary Soldier swears that he (Abner Loomis) was an issuing commissary for several Years and that he last saw him performing the duties of Issuing commissary at Fishkill, in December 1780.
5 th , William Loomis, a son of said Abner swears that he has frequently heard his father speak of his services as Commissary.

Commissary at Fishkill, and that he well recollects seeing his Commission when he was quite young, that he well remembers being much pleased with the Seal. Saw it some four or five years after his father's death at Whately, where they formerly lived, in a chest filled with old papers, which was afterwards destroyed.
6 th A certificate from the Register's Office showing a balance due him (Abner Loomis) for Services in the Commissary Department, of $400, up to the 1 st Jany. 1782, thus proving Service from 1778 to 1782.
Respectfully Submitted D. B. Aldis

Abner Loonius d 1872 Zilpha . M. 1783. S
Enlisted as a private, and was subsequently, during the war in Conn. promoted.

East Windsor Hill, Hartford County, Conn te December 24 th 1839.
Hon d Sir.
I herewith transmit the application of Mrs. Typhina Leonis; Widow of Abner Leonis, formerly of Lebanon, in Conn, & last of Whately in the County of Franklin & State of Massachusetts for a Pension under the act of July 7 th 1838.
And am Sir, most respectfully your Obed Servt.
Jesse Charlton.
Hon d J. L. Edwards Esq.
Commissioner of Pensions Washington.
D. C.

Zilpha Loomis
lettr. to Miss Charlton 27 Feb 1840
J. L. Hinkley 8 May 1840

Washington Sept. 18 th 1852
Dr. Sir,
I enclose herewith a power of Attorney from the heirs of Sophia Loonis under the Will of Abner Loonis dec d and have to request that you will cause the papers, to be again examined and if the evidence already filed is not sufficient to establish the claim to a full pension that you will do me the favor to inform me what further proof is required.
As this claim has now been pending for nearly fourteen years, I beg your early attention thereto.
I am, Sir, respectfully
M. A. O. St.
D. D. Addison
Secy of War Comm ee of Pensions

J. F. C. Imbriaco Esq. Attorney at Law

Washington Dec. 17 th 1852
Dear Sir,
Business renders it necessary for me to be absent on tomorrow and having the promise of Mr Heath to decide the case of Gilpho Dennis on that day I have to ask the favor of you to be present and represent me on that occasion. The claim has been allowed by the Examining Clerk, it is a very clear case as you will at once perceive by referring to the papers in Mr Heath's possession. Mr Heath told me to day that the only objection he had to its admission was the privilege rule - You will perceive that the documentary evidence filed by me not only removes that objection but furnishes the very proof required when the claim was last examined, I think in 1840. Hoping that you will not fail to be present as requested -
I am
M c Guire
D r D r Allison
27. C. Ingleto Esq Attorney at Law

45. / Washington D.C. Jany 24. 1853.
D. D. Addison " "
appeals from decision of Com: in case of Zilpha Loomis,
Col Niles Jany 26 / 53
Keepy up at Loomis Pension for report Dept Int. } Jany 24. 1853 }

Washington Jan'y 24 th 1853
Sir
I have the honor to ask an appeal to you from the decision of the Commissioner of Pensions, in the case of Gilpha Loomis.
The grounds upon which I shall rely are, that the parol testimony in the case requires its admission; that this parol testimony is fortified by the record evidence; and that the case is not within the provisions of your five years rule.
As the letter to me of the Commissioner enters into no argument on the subject, I shall ask the privilege of replying to the report which may be made you in the case.
I have the honor to be, Very respectfully, Yours obedt Servt D. D. Addison
Honble J. H. H. Stuart Secretary of the Interior

Treasury Department Register Office Jan'y 4 1853
Sir
In reply to your letter of the 3 d Inst t I have to state that the evidence of the claims for which Jonathan Burritt issued his certificates as Commissioner of the Commissary & Quartermaster Department, at the close of the Revolutionary war, having been lost by the burning of the Treasury in 1814, it is impracticable to ascertain whether they were for services or supplies. Mr. Burritt issued 1106 certificates; some were for five, to ten, in the same name; they amounted in the aggregate to $671 361.59.
I am respectfully Your Gt. Servant N. Sargent Register
J. E. Heath Esq. Comm. of Pensions.

Payment to be made at Boston, Mass, by Franklin Hearn Agent for paying pension- ers, in the Agency of
Boston
Recorded in the Pension Office, in Book A Vol- ume 2 Page 33. by
K. M. Rae Clerk.

This Certificate has not not signed by Mr Heath Case being considered & delivered by Mr Waldo Present Commissioner new Certificate is issued
19 Apr 1853

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.
Claim for Military Service.
I certify that, in conformity with the law of the United States, of the 7. July 1838, Zilpha Loomis deceased, who was widow of Abner Loomis deceased, who was a Commissary of Issues in the Revolutionary war, was entitled to a pension of Six hundred dollars per annum, commencing the 14 th March 1836 and terminating the 14 th March 1841.
Also to a pension under Acts of 3. March 1843 & 17. June 1844, at the same rate per annum, commencing the 14. March 1843 & terminating the 23. March 1847, when she died.
And that the amount due, is payable to Jonathan Loomis , Leonard Loomis , Sally Anderson & William Loomis , only surviving children of said Zilpha Loomis deceased.
Given at the Department of the Interior, this 14 th day of December one thousand eight hundred and fifty. two.
Alex. H. H. Stuart
Secretary of the Interior.
Examined and Countersigned. } S
Commissioner of Pensions.

Apr. 20 1820
Hon. J. L. Edwards Comm ee of Pensions Washington
[Large stylized letter R]
5

Northampton Mass ts - Apr. 16 '44.
Hon J. L. Edwards Comm ee of Pensions Washington
Sir
I inclose you a request of Jesse Charlton Esq r - respecting the applica- tion of Mrs. Lillpha Loonis for a pension. I am informed that the name of Abner Loonis her du o . husband is not to be found on the Com ee . rolls in your possession. The children of Mrs. Loonis inform me that many years ago they distinctly recollected seeing the commission of their deceased father which he rec d . in the Army of the Rev ts . & one of them recollects who was quite a child being pleased with the seal on the com- mission. They have lately ascertained that their father was in the Rev. War with Mate with Capt. Burt, who went from Longmeadow in this State & they are of opinion that his name will be found on

the Mass ts rolls. The widow begs that I will request the Department at Washington to examine the Mass ts rolls for evidence of her husband's services as Commissary in the Rev. Army.
I have ascertained from the Comptroller of N. York that the name of Abner Loomis does not appear on the N. York rolls & the Sec y of this Commonwealth informs me that the Mass ts rolls are in your keeping -
Mrs Loomis would not make the request she does make had she any means of ascertaining otherwise
Respectfully y rs S ec y
Sam l L. Hinckley

Elpha Loomis de widow of Abner
Adm d Map
Act July 7 1838
2 yrs Is Commis 600 00 per annum from
4 March 1835 to
23 " 1847
when she died
except two years
Payable to
Jonathan Loomis
Leonard Loomis
Sally Anderson &
M rs Loomis
only surviving children
Cutt to
D.P. Addy
Present

Washington, Dec 31. 1852
Sir:
In the labored arguments, which Mr. Niles makes in the case of Philip Morris , there is not one single proposition consistent with the law and the evidence, as I propose to show as briefly as possible. 1. His first assertion is, that the certificate of the Register of the Treasury mainly filed, is not of such a character as to exempt the case from the 5 years' rule. Yet the Secretary declares that if the evidence were in the archives of any State government or of the U. S. and the party had not been directed to apply there, such evidence shall be allowed to prove the case. And, if it be necessary, I can refer to numerous cases opened on similar testimony with your sanction and by Mr. Niles himself. In fact, its validity was never disputed before by any one. 2. He says that this certificate does not

show that Abner Lowrie was appointed by competent authority. There can be no higher evidence of the fact that a man was an officer than a settle- ment of his pay as such by the proper government officer. Mr. Burwell was responsible for all payments made by himself, and it is a very strained presumption that he scattered his forms to all who claimed, without evidence of their official character. But that Mr. Sikes does not himself be- lieve what he says in this regard is evident from his advice given you in the case of Finley, of Kentucky. He was a Brigade Major and on the production of a similar certificate, showing a payment of $27. Mr. Sikes told you it was in conflict with evidence of his rank and the claim was allowed. And I affirm that this principle was never before disputed in the pension office, but numerous cases have been allowed on similar certificates. I showed you.

in the Journal of Congress the appointment of Jonathan Burwell as Commissioner to settle the Commission and Interest Master's accounts, and you [yourself] yourself satisfied on this point.]
3. He says that if the payment was made to Mrs. Lovins's husband, it was more probably for supplies than for services. In addition to this hypothesis being con- trary to all the established usages of the Office, it is too absurd for serious dis- cussion. The Assistant Commissioners then, as now, made their own purchases with the public money, retaining the receipts as vouchers, and the Commissioners settled with them, as the Auditor does now. There was not a County in the U. S. nor hardly a town, in which there was not an Assistant Commissioner, each of whom, in a moderate computation, must have had dealings with 100 men. Bur- well was Commissioner for the whole Western Department, including 5 States, and if he had to settle with them who

had furnished supplies, instead of those who bought them, Math would his years would not have sufficed him.
4. But he says there is no evidence that her husband was this Almer Loomis. The witness swears that her husband, Almer Loomis, was her military in the Northern Department, and 15 years after it is found that she recd a settlement with Almer Loomis as her military. There can be no stronger evidence in the nature of things, unless Loomis & Burrall could both be revived and come in person to the Pension Office. An applicant swears that he served in the 1 st Massachussetts Regiment; his witness testifies him, and his name is found in the rolls. Yet according to Mr. Dikes's theory the man has not identified himself! But such trash is not worth answering. He closes this argument with the gratuitous assertion that the character of the

Certificates issued by Burrall, show that some of them were given for supplies furnished. I deny it, and call for the proof. I doubt if he can produce another certificate of Burrall's, except in this case and in Finlay's.
5. He says that the documentary evidence of appointments is always required, data produced, as I have already said, yet showed you the other day a resolution of Congress dispensing with the necessity of any commission to a commissionary. There is this trace of any grade. In the case of Mary Elderkin the present Secretary affirms a decision of Mr. Ewing that parole testimony shall be deemed sufficient to establish any character of service, and I can produce 30 cases allowed at $600. per annum, in which there was not a little of record or documentary evidence.
6. But the record does not show the

length of service. An hour it is in our case in one hundred. He is aggrieved, when aggrieved at all, simply to sustain and make way for parole testimony. If an officer produces his commission or evidence of payment to him as such, his term determines the length of his service, but this is to be rebutted by verbal evidence. 7. But the parole testimony is in- sufficient, he says.
John Loomis thinks that Abner was a commissionary, but is not certain. He thinks he became commissionary in 1778. This, of itself, would not be sufficient, I admit, but it is certainly to be taken as corroboration of what other witnesses seem to testify. There is there any reason the officer discrediting the testimony of witnesses not perjured. The evidence of witnesses and of persons who have often heard a party speak of his service, is often received.
Simon Loomis swears positively that Abner was a commissionary in 1778.

and long after. His declaration was filed many years ago and its truth is fully proved that he was admitted as a pensioner. He seems that in '77 Simon Loomis enlisted in Childers dragoons, but was discharged after 3 months service. He so says in his declaration. The next year he served 2 short terms, for which he was allowed. Is there any thing inconsistent in this statement? Did his discharge in '77 make it im- possible for him to serve in '78? On what ground, then, is he to be branded with perjury? The service in '78 was not in the regular army, but in the Connecticut Light Horse militia, and he was placed under the same command, as all such militia was in his vicinity. There is a perfect conformity between his declaration and his evidence, and it is the rule of humanity as well as of law that perjury shall not be presumed a- gainst any man.

John Patten knew that in December 1780, he knew Simon Loomis as Com-missary at the same place where Simon Loomis knew him as such in 1778. But Mr. Niles says he was too young to know any thing. Yet the Pension Office admits he served 4 1/2 months, and the rolls show he was discharged in December, 1780. If he was old enough to serve, he was old enough to know who if not the rations he ate. Nor is the fact that he claimed for more service than the rolls show enough to discredit him. Soldiers of the late war find great difficulty in naming their officers or the exact period of their service.
Mr. Niles thinks, indeed, that these men could not know whether Loomis was a Com-missary. His handling of Revolutionary claims may be ignorant of the principles of the system he administered, but

no soldier can fail to know who is beneficiary.
It will be seen that there is nothing to impeach the testimony of any of these witnesses and that their testimo- ny is supported by record evidence. It is fully proved by John and Simon Loomis that Starr was beneficiary in 1778; by John Porter that he was beneficiary in 1780; by the record that he was beneficiary in 1782. As he was in the regular service, it was continuous, and if it be shown that a period of 2 years elapsed between the commencement and close of his service, he must be allowed for that 2 years.
Very Respectfully Yours as ever A. A. C. Inspector

Loomis.

Loomis's case
Col. Miles will make me a special report in this case as soon as convenient.
H. H. Keith → Gen

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.
Hampshire ss.
I, Samuel Wells, Clerk of the Judicial Courts of the Commonwealth, for the County of Hampshire, do certify, that Samuel L. Hinckley Esquire, whose signature is affixed to the certificate on the paper hereto annexed, was, at the date thereof, one of the Justices of the Peace, within and for said County, duly commissioned, and acting under the authority of this Commonwealth; and that full faith and credit is and ought to be given to his acts and attestations done in that capacity; and that I am acquainted with the hand-writing of the said Samuel L. Hinckley and believe his signature to said certificate is genuine.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas for said Commonwealth, this Sixth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty nine
Samuel Wells
Clerk.

Stephen Loomis Recd 23 March 1847
Henry Matthew C Loomis Leonard Loomis Sally Andersen Wm Loomis

John Findley act 32 Ky
Benj o B
Abigail Bartholomew Ohio act 36
Joseph Dexas act 32 Pa New York
Sarah Linnington N.Y. act 36.
M rs Findley a parallel case admitted by the commissioner - act 32 Pa Ky

Sept 29/72
Rec. to claim of Alma de la vida with interest
Sim. L. Hovey Northampton Mass.
Mr. J. H. Heath Council Governor of Peabody Washington D. C.
FREE

Brief in the case of Zephania Loomis dec widow of Abner County and State of Massachusetts act July 7 1858
Claim, ("original," or " for increase. ")
Proof exhibited, (if original.)
Is it documentary, traditional, or supported by rolls? If either, state the substance.
Proof of Service Record & Parole & the testimony of Pensioners -
Proof of Marriage Record
(If for increase.)
Has additional evidence been filed since the admission of the claim? If so, what?
Name and residence of Agent
D. D. Addison.
Present
Thornton Triplett
Examining Clerk.

Certificate of the Young Men's Assoc n 1853

   Name Letter N o Date Amount When due     Abner Loomis D. 801 August 4 1788 $400. January 1. 1782  
Treasury Department Register Office Nov 12 1852
I certify the above to be a true extract from the "Register of certificates issued by Jonathan Buel, Commissary for settling the accounts of the Commissary and Quarters Master Department from the 22 August 1782 to the 7 May 1789"
N Sargent Register
No 1106 \

11.414
Massachusetts Phoebe Loomis deceased widow of Abner who died on the
of in the State of who was a Commr in the  Isaac commanded by Captain of the commanded by in the time for Revolution
Inscribed on the Roll of  Boston at the rate of 600 Dollars Cents per annum, to commence on the 4th day of March, 1836.
Certificate of Pension issued the 18 day of Ap 1833 and sent to D D Addison Arrears to the 4th of Present Semi-annual allowance ending
{ Revolutionary Claim, } { Set July 7, 1838. }
Recorded by R. M. Rae Clerk. Book Vol. 1 Page 71

11. 44 44
Massachusetts
Zilpha Loomis deceased, widow of Abner Loomis who died on the
of _____ in the State of _____ who was a Commr. in the Service commanded by Captain _____ of the _____ commanded by _____ in the _____ line for Revolution
Inscribed on the Roll of Boston at the rate of 100 Dollars Cents per annum, to commence on the 4th day of March, 1836.
Certificate of Pension issued the 1st day of Decemr. 1852 and sent to _____
As to the 4th of _____ Semi-annual allowance ending Present
{ Revolutionary Claim, } Act July 7, 1838. }
Recorded by _____ Clerk, Book _____ Vol. _____ Page 71

Rev WIDOW, &c.
File No. 13637  en
Zilpha Loomis Widow of Abner Loomis Comm d Boer War
Act: Mar 3 rd 1843
Index:—Vol. a , Page 442
[Arrangement of 1870.]

Q. 300 Massachusetts
Zilpha Loomis dec d , widow of Abner Loomis who was a Commissary of Issues in the Revolution
Inscribed on the Roll at the rate of 100 Dollars Cents per annum, to commence on the 4th day of March, 1843. Ending 23. March 1847.
Certificate of Pension issued the 14 th day of Decem r 1852 and sent to
S. D. Addison Present
[Acts of March 3, 1843, & June 17, 1844.]
Recorded in Book Vol. 2 Page 33