Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File W. 18,143, for Alexander Leitch Miller, New York

SERVICE
NUMBER
Quartermaster's Dept (New York)
Miller Alexander Leitch Tiers Margaret Former Widow
Mr. 18.143
CONTENTS
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....

3129 New York City
Margaret Dyer, deceased widow of Samuel Miller who died on the _____ of _____ Co., in the State of N. Y. who was a Captain in the _____ commanded by Captain _____ of the _____ commanded by _____ in the _____ for _____ days!
Inscribed on the Roll of New York City at the rate of 411 Dollars 66 2/3 Cents per annum, to commence on the _____ day of March, 1831 & ending 1 st Februy 1840
Certificate of Pension issued the 3 rd day of April 1852 and sent to S. A. Pugh
Arrears to the 4th of Present Semi-annual allowance ending
Revolutionary Claim, Act July 4, 1836, Section the 3 rd Recorded by _____ Clerk, Book 1 Vol. 2 , Page 359
3671.
Report H. Lee, Galena, Sept. 23/52. G. C. Whiting Aug 27/53

No 1.
Felicity French
Marrid to Alex L. Miller January 20. 1774 — who died
April 1839
Aug 9. 39 Williams 10. Sept 39

after of an now for a Pension, et. Tiers; Tiers, her Guardian
The Petition of Peter Tiers, Guardian of Margaret Tiers
Respectfully sets forth, that Margaret Tiers is his mother; that her first husband, was Capt. Alexander Miller, always understood and believed by him to have been in the Revolutionary Service a Captain of Artificers; that he has always understood and believed that Capt. Miller died, at or near the close of the War — his mother has been a widow for the last seven or eight years; — She is now so infirm and has so lost her mind, that petitioner has been appointed her Guardian — that she is unable to understand any deposition; that deponent is a journeyman cabinet maker and works at his trade, and can ill afford to support the said Margaret Tiers, or supply her with all she requires; but he has supported her in his family for a great many years — that he has given security to apply her pension money to her benefit under the direction of the Court of Chancery of the City of New York — That the papers now forwarded were all found among their old family papers, and he believes them genuine and what they purport to be — He prays for the allowance of the Pension and that the same may be forwarded to Samuel Stevens Esq of the City of New York
New York April 1839.
Peter Tiers
Sworn to before me this 19 th
day of April 1839.
Peter DeWitt
Commissioner of Court

Can be burnt before the Aldergangen, or any other
Mr. Pease
Dear Lieutenant
History of the Machine Gun into existence.

These certify that in the Register of marriages of the First Presby- terian church in the city of New York & which are now in my possession on page 100 - is the following entry viz - under date of Seventeen Hundred & Seventy four January Twentieth were married - Alexander Leach Miller to Margaret Demelch. a true extract from the record of marriages kept by Mr. Freck - excepting that the dates are in figures. Thus 1774 - Jan. 20.
H. B. Williams Pastor of The First Presbyterian church in The city of New York Given at New York This 27 th day of July 1839.

City & State of New York
I N. W. Phillips whose name is subscribed to the annexed certificate doth depose & say that I am  the the Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, in the City of New York, and that the Register of Marriages of said 1 st Presbyterian Church are now in his possession, as the proper keeper thereof and that the certificate on the other side contains a true extract from the Marriage Register of the said Church
Known to be true this day of July 1839
No 3 New York July 29
Certificate of Marriage in the case of Margaret Field William Miller Elizabeth - James E. Field

City & State of New York
Peter Tiers being duly sworn doth depose & say that the annexed Certificate of a Record of Marriage was given to him by the Revd W m Phillips the present Pastor of the 1 st Presbyterian Church in the City of New York and he cannot then affirm to be annexed and applied to both same known to, by the said Phillips but that he declined saying he had always objected, to having to his certificate, and for the truth whereof
Sworn to be for me } in open Court } the 29 th day of Feb 1839 }
Peter Tiers
Judah Hammond } Justice of Marine Court }

In the matter of an applicant for a Pension by Peter Tiers in behalf of Margret Tiers formerly Margret Miller. — cc —
City & State of New York. Y s :
Alida Seaman being duly sworn deposeth and saith that M rs Margret Tiers (formerly Margret Miller) on whose behalf the application for this Pension was made, departed this life on the 31 st day of January 1840 — and further saith not.
Sworn to before me this fifth day of September 1840.
Alida Seaman
Sylvester Spencer Notary Public

The case of Margaret Liers, now on appeal before the Department of the Interior, is certainly remarkable in one respect as being the only case of an Artificer in the Revolutionary Service (except those who were joined with him if whose claim to a pension has been rejected). The services are admitted. The character of those services is fully disclosed in the evidence. And yet from the particular character of the contract under which those services commenced his claim has been rejected. The case is a little remarkable in another respect: viz: the extreme eagerness which is shewn in the Report made in this case by the Sec'y of the Interior, to convict the author of a certain " Brief " which was made in the Pension Office on a former examination, of error; as if it were of but little consequence what became of the poor pensioner's claim, so a triumph could be achieved by one of the Examining Clerks in the Pension Office over another.
Now I do not intend to enter into any investigation of the matter whether the Author of the " Brief " or the author of the " Report " was right, on whether  on whether the case which was referred to as an admitted case + precedent, had in reality become a suspended case — but to shew that both that case if suspended, and this case if rejected, ought to have been admitted.
In the first place, let us examine into the character of the service in which Miller & his company were actually engaged — the

Kind of employment which devolved on them, the time & the place when and where their duties were discharged. This we shall discover from the testimony.
And I first refer to the Affidavit of Francis Gant who after stating that in 1775 he went up North River with his Father, a Shipwright, and well recollects Capt. Alex r S. Miller who had charge of the Shipwrights, or a company of them, he says "Deponent's Father went with said company under Capt. Miller to Fort Pitt, Penn. and Respondent recollects when his father and the whole company departed, he also recollects when they came back. They were absent about 7 or 8 months." ..... The Company after their return in 1779 went to work on the North River at different places, still in the Continental service . This company of Artificers under Miller was also at Fort George & Ticonderoga, was there 4 or 5 months" &c
The next is the Affid t of Joseph White who was acquainted with, though not in the same company as Miller. That Miller & one Stoddard had each charge of a Company of Artificers & that in June of Miller's being engaged in building the Montgomery upwards of a year, he says "The nature of the service was that we volunteered and enrolled for some given time, sometimes 6 months, sometimes 6 & sometimes 9 months. We had monthly pay and always rations . We were subject to the orders of the officers of the Army ; carried arms when necessary; always liable to do duty on an emergency with the Troops . This was the nature of the service and Capt. Miller did this duty , like all the company. .... We were asked to sign the rolls for duty, and were Volunteer Artificers : Our services were considered more valuable than Soldiers, and we got higher monthly pay. We were under the orders of the Continental Officers . Capt. Miller & James Seaman & Witness

" enlisted as Volunteers to go from Poughkeepsie to Fort Pite, en- " listed in March 1778; departed think in March, about 40 " strong, marched through New Jersey (snow on the ground), to Phil- " adelphia, then joined & enrolled anew in Phil? under Col " Ayers, who appeared to act as Quartermaster. The men of " Philadelphia were about 70 or 80, they armed with muskets, " that is to say the said Seaman & Miller's companies were 70 or 80 " strong; and on this duty said Capt Miller & James Seaman and my- " self were engaged eight months & upwards, and then returned with our " respective companies to Poughkeepsie; and then continued on duty in " the Continental Service, as stated in Depositions previous. Depositions. " These two Companies of Artificers were subject to military " discipline, and when we stood sentry (as we did in Pennsylvania " as well as in other places, we had the sign & countersign of the Port."
Gen? Morgan Lewis, Capt Governor of New York in his certificate on file
in the case of Joseph White says " there were " several companies of Artificers on the North River; they " were enrolled and not unfrequently did duty with muskets " as soldiers during the Revolution"
And in the Book labelled "Artificers" (p 6 in pencil) there is a full & explicit declaration of the particulars of this kind of service by Genl. Morgan Lewis. In the first part of this Certificate he speaks of Seaman and his Company. and says " This company was attached to the Continental Establishment or Army and were subject to the " discipline of the Camp or Fort wherever doing duty; and this des- " cription of men were in the habit of doing duty with muskets, in " cases of emergency, and frequently performed useful military " duties; they signed Rolls for particular periods, and for special " duty, and received rations as soldiers. They were Volunteers or " mechanics who enrolled to follow the Army , and to perform the " duty of Artificers, but they were certainly subject to the Military " discipline . And we were in fact ordered to enroll no Ar- " tificers except they consented to subject themselves to such " discipline . The undersigned thinks this was by Resolution " of the Continental Congress.
The undersigned recollects the name of Alex r Smith Miller as being connected with the Army, and not his person etc. . . . . and the undersigned believes Miller performed the like service

(4) " with Stephen Seaman, and if he did he certainly belonged to " the Continental Military Establishment , and was subject " to Military discipline ."
There are also some old documents filed which go conclusively to confirm all that is said in the affi- davits preceding & in the certificate of Genl. Heiden  Levis . Among others the following " Sir,
You will im- mediately proceed with the men under your Command to West Point in order to repair the Continental Boats, as soon as you arrive you'll apply to the Honorable Major Genl Greene and take his instructions respecting the business.
I am your Ob t member Philad l a Aug. 29. 1779 Lerdt. Benjamin G. Eyre S. B. D
To Capt. Miller "
There is also the Order of Gov. Clinton that Mess rs Miller & Seaman with their respective companies should be permitted to pass Kings Ferry. Also certain rolls containing the names of the men their pay & rations and an allowance for every twenty miles travel.
Such then is the evidence as to the character

of the services actually rendered by Miller & Seaman and their Artificers. This evidence is entirely un- controverted. All the testimony in the case is not only consistent but corroborative, and of the highest & most satisfactory kind. If then we are to take this service as it is represented to have been not in theory , but in actual practice , can there be any doubt that within the meaning of the pension laws it was military service? Here is a body of men enrolled under a man who is recognized as their Captain, who enter the Con- -tinental service pledged to follow the Army , often times carrying arms, frequently acting as sentries having the countersign committed to them, doing duty in their own peculiar calling at the Forts or in the Camps or military stations, always in those places most exposed and most inviting to the attack of the enemy, subject to military discipline. - incurring just as much danger as the regular soldiery, on many occasions as useful a portion of the Army as the soldiery - and yet forsooth because these men happen to come into the service under a civil contract (as it has been called) that civil contract is to give a color to the whole affair

and to take from them any right other than what any mechanic would have who is hired to work for the Government any where under any civil contract in time of peace. It is revolting to the moral sense, it is repugnant to the common sense of mankind so to treat it. And I lay out of the case those extra-services which they performed, such as carrying muskets, acting as sentries &c. and I say that in their own peculiar occupation of Artificers, they were (and especially in the straits & emergencies of our Revolutionary struggle) and still are an essential portion of a well ordered Army; a fact which I suppose no one would dispute since Napoleon crossed the Alps, or made such effective use of the Sappers & Miners & Pontoniers which formed a grand element in his military appointments - and moreover since we have introduced the same as a permanent part of our own Army. Nor does the importance of this kind of service seem to be denied in the Report from the Pension Office, for in it it is said that there were Artificers employed in the Continental Service, but they were under the regular Officers, such as Kosciusko

and not attached to the service by a mere civil contract. It is then not the character of the service , but the nature of the contract under which that service was to be obtained which gives to the serv employment of these different classes of Artificers a military or unmilitary character. And yet strange as it may appear these very Artificers who served under Kosciusko derived are admitted to be entitled to pensions for military services - were attached to the army by just such a contract, as Miller & his men. [See Artificers Book] The contract of those Artificers was in every sense a civil contract . So that if Miller & Seaman are to be excluded from the benefit of the Pension Law, because they came into the service under a civil contract , then the whole course of the Pension Office, in regard to all Artificers & Boatbuilders &c , has been without exception wrong . But this pretext that the contract determines the character of the services, is totally groundless & fallacious. Every enlistment of every soldier (in this country) is a civil contract . Every soldier when he enlists contracts to serve his country against her enemies. It is purely a civil contract to do military 

Service . In his contract he binds himself to go where he is bid to, to abide by the rules & articles of war, to submit to military discipline. And he is subjected to this military discipline only because of his civil contract to do so. The whole matter rests in a civil, personal contract .
Now if what Gen l Lewis says is true , and his testimony is above impeachment, then there is an end of this question. If it is true that "they were Volunteers or Mechanics who enrolled to follow the Army " that they " received rations as soldiers " that they " were certainly subject to the Military discipline " and that the officers " were in fact ordered to enroll no Artificers except they consented to subject themselves to such discipline " what is all this but just such a contract as every enlisted soldier makes at the time of his enlistment. The enlisted soldier contracts to go with the Army & to be subject to military discipline. These Volunteer Artificers enrolled themselves to follow the Army , and to submit to Military discipline & no such Artificer could be enrolled without engaging to submit to military discipline. And we find in fact that they were ordered from Post to Post & Fort to Fort always employed in those works which were necessary to the immediate safety & purposes of the army. How then any distinction can be set up

to the prejudice of these Artificers whilst all others have been admitted to Pensions is a matter of surprise.
I would refer also to the communications from the State Department showing that among the returns of companies & ship companies & Artificers are included, and various other matters. Miscellaneous.
I would also remark that this question was at one time intended to have been brought before the Hon. Joel Poinsett, Secy of War for his decision - but the Report from the Pension Office having not been made to him till the 27 th February 1857 only four days before his retirement from office, of course it did not then meet with the examination or decision which was desired; nor has any decision been made since on this subject either in the War Department or the Dept. of the Interior.
A. H. Lawrence

Washington, January 10 th 1853.
Sir:
At the request of S. A. Peyle Esq. I beg leave to address you a short communication on the subject of the claim of Margaret Piers, formerly widow of A. L. Miller decd. for an increase of pension, which has lately been before you on appeal from the Pension Office.
I understand that you have decided adversely to said claim, upon the ground that the allowance by the Commissioner of Pensions, of a pension at the rate of $411.66 2 / 3 per annum, having been acquiesced in by the claimant, is a final adjudication of the claim, and a bar to any application for an increase.
I would not venture to request you to re-consider a case which you had once decided, unless I had reasons for believing that some material facts , in the case had not been presented to your notice, when you had the case under consideration. Such I believe to be the case in regard to the claim of Mrs. Piers.
The material facts in this case which

I suppose were not presented to your notice, are, 1 st That the certificate for pension at the rate of $411.66 2 / 3 per annum, was received under protest . 2 o That immediately after it was received, the claim for an increased allowance was filed in the Pension Office by Mr. Pugh, Agent for the claimant. These facts were not brought to your notice on the former hearing, for the reason that it was not known or apprehended that the point upon which your decision turned, would be raised in the case. No objection on that point was made by the Pension Office, and of course no attempt was made in the argument submitted to you, to meet and obviate an objection which the Attorney had no reason to anticipate.
It has been the uniform practice heretofore, to entertain applications for an increase of pension, at any time within five years of the original allowance; and even after the expiration of five years, upon the filing of new and material evidence.
So far as your decision is designed to effect a change in this practice, and to

make an allowance of a pension, which has been  has  requested in by the claimant, for a  less time  than five years , a bar to any further prosecution of the claim, I have nothing to say against it.
But I presume you did not intend to decide, that a pension certificate received under protest , and immediately followed up by a claim for a further allowance, should operate as a bar to all further claim.
The original allowance in the case of Mrs. Piers was made on the 3 d day of April 1852 , as I am stated in the Brief submitted to you by the Commissioners of Pensions. I do not know the day on which the certificate  it was received by the Attorney of the claimant, but I suppose it was not until several days after the allowance was made. On the 16 th day of the same month Mr. Pugh filed an application for an increase of the pension allowed on the 3 d . Unfortunately the letter of Mr. Pugh, demanding a further allowance, has been lost, and cannot now be found in the file.

I present however, herewith, an affidavit of Mr. Pugh, setting forth, that upon the allowance of $411.66, he protested against it as being insufficient, and gave notice that he should insist upon the balance which he claimed to be due, and immediately on the receipt of the certificate, filed a claim for a further allowance. That he did file such a claim, on the 16 th of April, is shown by letters from the Pension Office herewith enclosed, marked A & B.
It is very clear, that the allowance of $411.66 was never  acquiesced  in , for  any  time , by the claimant.
If you should consider, as I doubt not you will, that these facts take the case of Mrs. Piers out of the operation of the rule you intended to prescribe, I respectfully request that you will reconsider the case upon its general merits.
I have the honor to be
Very respectfully
Your obt servt
J. P. Gouly
Hon. Alex d H. H. Stuart,
Sec'y of the Interior.

August 2
Mr. G.
add. post Margaret Sicro-
44 69 Recd 20 i/p
Edwards Esquire Pension Office Washington Dist. of Col.

Sir
I enclose the certificate of Marriage of Mrs Margaret Trent former the Widow of Alexander Leach Miller whose papers you have had forwarded to your office, but I believe they have not yet been amended.
Yours respectfully
Samuel Starnes
61 State Street
New York
July 30. 1839
P.S.
Mr Phillips declined making any affidavit on the subject saying you had taken his certificate without any such aff.
J. L. Richardson.

no) March 23/43
March 27 1843
J. L. Edwards Esq.
Wm. Lewis Esq.
Commission of Pensions Washington
D. C.

New York March 23 d 1843. —
To J. S. Edwards Esq. Commissioner of Pensions Sir.
I take the liberty of asking you to review your suspension of the case of Mrs Fiers, formerly Margaret Miller, by Peter Fiers, Guardian —
This case was originally attended to by yourself — Alexander Lates Miller was a Captain or head of a company of Artificers in the Revolution — He amply proved the performance of his service — The subsequent objection was, that Mrs Fiers had married again; — But her second husband being long since dead, this finally was not judged to be fatal —
Then we could not proceed, because Mrs Fiers, being so old, could make no declaration — This was obviated by the appointment of a Guardian or Commissioner of Lunacy in charge at additional expense to a poor family —
These were the great difficulties to surmount, which took 6 or 8 months to do — After however clearing away all these difficulties, presented by your Department, and removed on behalf of this widow and who when she expected to obtain the Certificate — an Objection is urged, that the Department doubted if Miller was subject to Martial Law — In answer to this, the Resolution of the Continental Congress, together

with a full and particular statement from Geo. Lewis (General of the Revolution) under whom, the new act and who knew this Company and the said Miller was forwarded to your Department W. Crump, in your absence and I believe, the Secretary of War, admitted that we had fully made out our case, and "that the proofs were deemed suffi- cient to establish the military character thereof and to show that he is properly embraced in the Act," as will appear by his letter to me of 21. December 1839 and more particularly, one previous, which I have not at hand to refer to.
Your proceeding, by your letter of 29 June 1840 to me, virtually approved of the previous decision. And under your Authority, we submitted to a reduced allowance of time from what we supposed ourselves entitled to, and obtained a pensionary certificate. The disappointment and surprise, consequent upon your suspension (in Sept. I think, of 1840) can hardly be realized. The case had been fully considered and the right of pension, admitted both by yourself and W. Crump, and I think the then Secretary of War — these poor people and myself were put to much trouble & expense in the proof of details and proceedings in chancery — Some of the parties residing so far from this City (of New York) that the application was not renewed until now.
Now my good Sir, I shall feel greatly obliged for the reasons on which all these pro-

-ceedings were suspended; and to know if these reasons still exist.
There are two or three cases involved in this principle and the parties are all so poor that these cases have not lately been attended to.
If, unfortunately, you decide against the widows claim, may I ask you to put this letter with the original papers, before the Hon the Secretary of War
Very Respectfully
Your Ob Servant
Samuel Stevens Mr N. A. H. N. Falls.

Sept 7. 1840
ms. add paper
Margt. Lewis,
J
James L Edwards Pension Commissioner Washington D.C.
Sept 40
Sept 6

City of New York Septm 5 th 1840.
Sir
I duly received your letter relating to the application of M rs Margret Tiers , for a Pension, I had intended by my previous letters to leave the proofs as forwarded for the final decision of the Department.
I have not for a long time seen any of the parties interested in this application.
I now send you a Certificate of her death by a Witness whose character is certified to by the papers on file. This old Lady has been enjoying her Pension in anticipation, and I presume her Son and Guardian will be authorised to receive the same up to the time of her death, as he has given security to account for it.
I remain your ob d Serv t .
Samuel Stevens No 2 Wall St. N.Y.
James L Edwards Pension Com: Wash n

Report to be submitted for Washington.

Old documents going to substantiate the depositions, taken in the case of Mr. Tins - & Miller

Margaret Tiers dec d . wid of Alex r L. Miller
N. Y.
Acc 4 July 1836.
ann o .
16. Mo. 14 Dp Capt Antipies $411. 66 2 / 3
per An. to 1 Feby 1840 when she died.
Payable to
Peter Tiers, only surviving child.
S. A. Rugh Present.

Department of the Interior Washington July 28 th 1853
Sir
Eleven papers, numbered consecutively, 1 to 11, in the case of Margaret Piers, are herewith returned to your Office, in compliance with the request made in your note, of yesterday.
I am, respectfully,
Your obedient Servt.
Geo. C. Whiting Chf. Clerk.
Hon J. P. Waldo, Commissioner of Pensions

Brief in the case of Margaret Tiers, widow of Alex. L. Miller County and State of N. York. act 4 July 1930.
Claim, ("original," or " for increase. ")
Proof exhibited, (if original.)
Is it documentary, traditional, or supported by rolls? If either, state the substance.
Evidence of service; Recds, documentary and parole - of marriage. Recds.
(If for increase.)
Has additional evidence been filed since the admission of the claim? If so, what?
Name and residence of Agent
S. A. Pugh Present,
Kirby Examining Clerk.

Pension Office Receipts of Margaret Lees.
22 nd April 1852
B

PENSION OFFICE,
April 22 1852.
Sir:
Your communication of the 15 th inst. relative to the case of Margaret Liers, as widow of A. G. Miller,
is received, and will be fully considered as soon as it can be reached in its proper order.
Very respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
J. E. HEATH, Commissioner of Pensions.
Samuel A. Peugh Esq Present.

no 3 April 21/52
Rel: to case of Margaret Tiers as widow of A. G. Miller
H. Kirby
W. H. ss Leigh Present,

Washington City D.C., 16 th April 1852,
The J. E. Heath Court of Pensions
Sir,
In the Case of Margaret Hers widow of A. L. Miller, You will find additional evi- -dence contained in a Book marked D, (in pencil) on the back showing additional evidence in the Case, The Book it contains Miscellaneous N.H. service, & has been dis- cussed to be entirely without the power of the parties to produce here to you. I respectfully ask that disallow the pension may allow it at the rate of $600, per annum as Captain of Artificers,
I am very Respectfully
Your W th
J. A. Pugh

Department of the Interior. OFFICIAL BUSINESS.
Hon. Alex d H. H. Stuart
Secy. of the Interior.

4469
Long and Sons N.Y.
See let to Saml. Stevens 17 Oct '39 " " 21 Dec " " " 29 June '40 " " 11 Sept '40 " " 29 March '43.

No 8
Arg AD u
Margaret Piers
No 10
Cole!
Fold May 28/57
Mr Pugh

POWER OF ATTORNEY—Revolutionary Pension Claims.
Know all Men by these Presents, That I, Peter Diers only child of Margaret Diers (deceased)
hereby constitute and appoint Samuel A. Bough of Washington City D.C. my true and lawful Agent and Attorney, to prosecute the Claim of my deceased Mother, for any amount of Revolutionary Pension, or Increase of Pension, that may be due; and I hereby author- ize my said Agent to examine all the papers and documents in relation to said claim, on file in the Depart- ments at Washington City, or elsewhere; to file additional evidence or arguments; and to receive the Cer- tificate which may be issued for said Claim, which Certificate I wish made payable to myself at the Pension Agency in New York City to appoint one or more substitutes under him for the purposes herein expressed; and to do all things that I might or could do were I personally present. Hereby ratifying and confirming all that my said Attorney and Agent shall lawfully do in the premises. and revoking all other powers,
WITNESS my hand and Seal this 19th day May A. D., 185 1 .
Peter Diers
Signed and Sealed in the presence of E. A. C. H. [Signature]
State of New-York, City and County of New-York, } ss.
I, GEORGE W. RIBLET , Clerk of the City and County of New-York, and also Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas for the said City and County, being a Court of Record, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, That E. A. C. H. [Signature] before whom the annexed deposition were taken, was at the time of taking the same, a Com- missioner of Deeds for said City and County, duly appointed and sworn, and authorised to administer oaths to be used in any Court in said State and for general purposes; and that his signature to thereto are genuine, as I verily believe.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed the Seal of the said Court and County, the 19th day of May 185 1 .
Geo: W. Riblet Clerk.

POWER OF ATTORNEY—Revolutionary Pension Claims.
Know all Men by these Presents, That I, Peter Tiens only child of Margaret Tiens (deceased)
hereby constitute and appoint Samuel A. Brough of Washington City D.C. my true and lawful Agent and Attorney, to prosecute the Claim of my deceased Mother, for any amount of Revolutionary Pension, or Increase of Pension, that may be due; and I hereby author- ize my said Agent to examine all the papers and documents in relation to said claim, on file in the Depart- ments at Washington City, or elsewhere; to file additional evidence or arguments; and to receive the Cer- tificate which may be issued for said Claim, which Certificate I wish made payable to myself at the Pension Agency in New York City to appoint one or more substitutes under him for the purposes herein expressed; and to do all things that I might or could do were I personally present. Hereby ratifying and confirming all that my said Attorney and Agent shall lawfully do in the premises. and revoking all other powers, WITNESS my hand and Seal this 19th day May A. D., 185 1 .
Peter Tiens
Signed and Sealed in the presence of
A. W. Nelson
STATE OF New York } CITY & COUNTY OF New York } ss:
On this 19th day of May A. D. 185 1 before me, the subscriber, a Justice of the Peace  Commissioner of Seals in and for the County aforesaid, personally appeared Peter Tiens and acknowledged the foregoing Power, of Attorney to be his act and deed, for the purposes therein mentioned.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand, } the day and year aforesaid. }
A. W. Nelson  J. Peace Commr of Seals

Claim of Act of
STATE OF New York, COUNTY City of New York } ss.
Be it known, That on this 19 th day of May A. D., eighteen hundred and fifty one , before the undersigned, a Justice of the Peace  Commissioner of Deeds in and for the County and State aforesaid, personally appeared Peter Tiers a resident of the City of New York in said County, and made oath according to law that he is the only surviving Child of Margaret Tiers, (formerly widow of A. L. Miller deceased)
who was a Revolutionary Pensioner applicant for a Revolutionary Pension
at the rate of _____ Dollars per annum; that he has been informed that the said Pension ought to be increased; that he is directly interested as a claimant in said Pension, and makes this affidavit to be filed with such additional evidence or arguments as my Agent may use in prosecuting said claim.
Sworn to and subscribed, the day and year aforesaid, before me.
E. P. Peterson Commissioner of Deeds
Peter Tiers
I, Peter Tiers Justice of the Peace, in and for said County do hereby certify that who executed the foregoing paper is a respectable resident of this County, and is, I believe, directly interested in said claim as therein set forth.
J. Peace.
I, _____ Clerk of the _____ Court in the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that _____ before whom the foregoing papers were executed, was, at the date of the same, a Justice of the Peace in and for said County, duly authorized by law to administer oaths; and the name thereunto subscribed, is _____ signature.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my official Seal, this _____ day of A. D. 185 .
Clerk.

STATE OF New York, City & COUNTY OF New York, } ss.
It is hereby certified that satisfactory evidence has been exhibited before me Alexander W. Bradford Shepperton of the County of New York applicant for Revolutionary that Margaret Tiers was a Revolutionary Pensioner of the United States at the rate of $ _____ per annum and that she died on the first day of February eighteen hundred and 50 leaving surviving her an only child, whose name is Peter Tiers, who is now surviving. and that the said Peter Tiers, is
the only surviving child _____ of the aforesaid. Margaret Tiers (deceased)
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal of office this Nineteenth day of one thousand eight hundred and fifty. One
W. Bradford Shepperton

(No. 11)
Little & Howes
April 18 1839
Washington A.C.
Henry Chapman
J. B. S. (Dumas) Esq.

To S. L. Edwards Esq Commissioner etc.
Waukegan April 19. 1839
Sir
Enclosed, I forward you an application from Margaret Tiers, formerly Margaret Miller wife of Alexander L. Miller, a Captain of a Company of Artificers in the Revolutionary War, by Peter Tiers her Guardian and Son. You will perceive that from age she is imbecile, and that the Court of Chancery has appointed her a Guardian.
The papers in the case of Joseph White and James Seaman prove fully the services of Alexander L. Miller, as Captain. I also annex an original order of Gov. Clinton showing that Miller's company was to be forwarded by the publick as a Company of Shipwrights .
Her marriage with Tiers, I presume does not forfeit any rights; but if it did, the decease of the last husband, makes her now the widow of her first husband.
I do not know what his pay was, but I presume you have the necessary information on this point. He was at the head of the two companies which went to Philadelphia and to Fort Pitt Pennsylvania. The men have carried their muskets as the previous papers show.
I could have added additional papers but I presume the order of Gov. Clinton would be all sufficient, particularly as White & Seaman show all their service under him without his being named.
Very respectfully
Your obedt Servt Samuel Stevens
No. 61 John St.
New York April 13. 1839
P.S. I have supposed that the Law of 1838 so far as relates to discontinuing the pension, under the second marriage, would not apply to the case of this applicant. For she was the widow of her first husband, when this act was passed, she having long previously lost her second husband. Now our case

is embraced even by the letter of the Law, that she was and is — Miller's Widow But the spirit and intention of the law of '38 was to discontinue in the event of the marriage of the widow, the payment of the pension during her life because she, during said marriage, had the support of a second husband — But after his death this was not the case: the widow therefore would be again entitled to what was discontinued , not annulled and permanently taken from her — But this whole clause applies not to persons applying for a pension, but to those who having had a pension marry again: But this is not our case; we apply as the widow of Miller . And the instruc- -tions of the 17 th of July '38 which requires that we must show that the applicant never afterwards married are broader than the law, under which they were given But in addition to this, this case is brought under the provision of the 3 d Section of the Law of July 4. 1836 and in that case, the applicant is to receive while unmarried
In relation to Capt. Miller's service we find — first. — An original document, — a memorandum in his handwriting by which it appears that he was in January '77 paying for timber for the ship Gen. Montgomery, then building at Kingston That he paid for timber etc. — That he had charge of the building of this vessel — He credits £40 from Mr. Peirce for the ship Gen. Montgomery — Receipt from Dally for timber on the 6 March '77 Again at Albany March 25 '77 original receipt from his son for money received in behalf of General Philip Schuyler. Old pay Roll dated 7 th August 1777 — Pay Roll then
Dr. Clinton's order 2 nd March 1799 was to for- -ward Miller's Company to Pennsylvania, and the original Monthly pay Roll from 20 August to 19 Sept. 1799 finds Miller then in service in Penn ce — Fort Pitt and as Captain: The last period is about the time of his arrival back from the State of Penn ce for on the 20 Sept. 1799 he was ordered as appears by note 20 Sept. 1799 with his Artillery as he had promised to serve on some new work — He is addressed by said letter as Colonel of Artillery
His character and credibility of Mr. Dally & Mr. Peirce are testified by the Court in the case of Mrs. Catherine Peirce forward a few days since to Gov. Office. and Dally also in this case by Judge Preston

I also annex a paper called a Return from Fort Pitt in this Return honestly himself. also  Little Miller capt d & on the Books at 20/6 he paid for a list of articles delivered over by him for the Boat service — We appear by one of the Returns of the Men without date in which capt Beaman heads the List to be called his but it will be perceived in other that he has charged double the price of the men that is £66. 2. 8 while the men are entitled £33. 1. 4 —
The Court of Chancery before granting a injunction the grounds of course better, and itself that Mrs Fiers' Mind was gone and also required Bonds & further whatever came from this Defendant should be appropriated for the Benefit of Mrs Fiers formerly Mrs Millers —
By one of the Returns it appears that capt Millers pay for 183 days was £58. 12. 6 —
Then also said in proof the above proved the deposition of Thomas Grant who further was one of the Company his recollection of these circumstances, and his testimony applies to the case of the Return of James Beaman where papers went over a few days since.

Washington, Jan'y 6 th 1853
Sir:
Will you please inform me at what date I filed an application for an increase of the Pension of Margaret Tiers, dec d formerly widow of A. L. Miller dec d . My letter on the subject I do not find in the files, and I am desirous of having a statement from your Office showing when it was filed.
I am, very resp y Your obt serv t
H. E. Hutton Esq
S. A. Peugh
Court of Pensions
Letter filed April 16 th 1852 resptg claims of Margaret Tiers widow A. L. Miller re: pension.
P. C. Johnston, Clk B. Ck.

Affidavit of J. A. Pugh, in reference to the claim of Margaret Pugh.

City & County of Washington District of Columbia
On this Seventh day of January 1853, before me the subscriber a Justice of the in & for said County personally appeared S. H. Pugh who being by me duly sworn, deposes and says, that as the authorized Agent & Attorney in the Case of Mar- garet Piers, formerly widow of Alexander L. Miller, he prosecuted said claim for pension, that being informed at the pension office that a partial allowance of said only would be made he insisted that the evidence was ample to admit the whole claim & refused to take the allowance made in full satisfaction thereof, and informed the office that he would upon the receipt of the allowance made, waive no right to the residue of the same, that upon the receipt of the Certificate, he filed a writ- ten request for the same, demurring to the allowance made and requesting the office to grant the increase claimed. and was informed that receiving the allowance made would be no bar to any further allowance & upon these conditions, only, received what was then allowed, upon the agree- ment I would not
S. H. Pugh
Subscribed & sworn to before me the day & year first above written
M. Callan
Justice of Peace

No 4 In the Cause of M rs Tricia V. Miller
Francis Gantz depositor.
Jan 1840

In the matter of 16 th Dec r (late Seaman) & Mrs. Seaman widow of James Seaman
City of New York. ss-
Francis Gantz being duly sworn, deposeth & saith, that he is the son of Francis Gantz, an artificer under Capt. Stephen Seaman and Alexander L Miller — Captain Seaman & Miller both went from the City of New York in the Spring of 1776 as deponent believes — deponent went also with his father and Mr. Shipwright, & a Blacksmith, — landed at Poughkeepsie and Alexander L Miller & Stephen Seaman, went immediately, into the employ of the Continental Service in building the two vessels Montgomery & Schuyler — They remained on this work until they were called off for a special tour of duty at Fort George (Lake George) building boats for the forces at Ticonderoga and remained Capt. Miller & Seaman remained on this duty until about the end of July, as did deponent's father; they then came to Poughkeepsie and went with their Companies to work at Wappinger, Creek near Poughkeepsie, building and repairing flat-bottom boats; some of the Company following the Army to Fort Edward; cannot say precisely how long they were there; but thinks they were there at Wappinger, Creek from five to six months, to a twelve months — they were Certainly  certainly there for some time in 1778. and believe they were certainly there until the

middle of Summer 1778 - Believes that Miller & Seaman Company were engaged at Wappinger's Creek and the adjacent ports until they both went with their Compa- nies into Pennsylvania - Thinks deponents father and their bro. Companies volunteered to go into the Winter of 1779 and they left Poughkeepsie, he thinks about the first of March - The two Companies were eighty four strong - they were over six months gone; cannot say how much - After the return of these Companies, they some of them including deponents father returned to Philadelphia; Continued in the Continental service on a frigate called the South Carolina and other Vessels of War - Deponent went with his father on the last service - then a boy of Eleven Years of Age Deponent then lost sight of Capt. Miller & Seaman (but always understood they continued in service) until he saw Seaman in the City of New York at the Peace.
James Seaman was the son of Captain Stephen Seaman and was on the foot of duty in Pennsylvania and deponent believes also on the foot of duty at Fort George - Being showed an Account of pay to Captain Seaman at Fort George for two men; he says he has no doubt there are Capt Seaman's two sons - James and Jacob who were then men grown, but lived with their father and he probably received their pay - They were both

on the Rolls for Fort Pitt, as deponent believing Recollects James Seaman going to Fort Pitt and afterwards recollects him at Poughkeepsie and at — Wappinger Creek with his Father Company, and un- -derstood him to have been in service with his Father until the close of the war —
Knew James Seaman from 1776 up to the time of his death — Was not the least doubt but that he served a series of Five Years. & Miller more than Five years —
Francis G. Smith
Shown to before me the 3 d day of January 1840.
Peter De Witt Commissioner of Deeds.

S. Stevens "Mum" due to Washington - Rec'd June '40

Address the answer in this case to Mr. Samuel Stevens, New-York.
Will you ask what has become of the case of Mrs Margaret Tiers Widow of Capt Alexander Litch Miller That case was decided in Mr Miller's Tiers favor (when Mr Edwards, was absent from his duties) for a time less than the two years , subsequently Mr Edwards (that is the last winter) addi- tional evidence as to time, since which some 6 months back nothing has been heard from the Commission. Mr Readcliff
General Stevens

Mr. M. Tiers
Appe. for Increase of Pension

Margaret Tiers - Widow of Capt. Alexr L. Miller - Application for an increase of pension - on appeal -
The widow was admitted to a pension of $411:66 2 / 3 for 16 months and 14 days' service of her husband as Captain of a corps of Artificers in the war of The Revolution. An allowance for two years' service is now claimed.
The Court expresses the opinion that this claim is not provided for by the pension laws, and was originally admitted through an oversight of the examining clerk - that the service was not military , but was rendered under a civil contract with the Quarter Master's Department.
The evidence shows that there were a number of Companies of Artificers attached to the Continental Army, and that they were organized under the Quarter Master's Department, with the approbation of the Commanding General. From an order of Gen. Greene, Quarter Master General, dated Fredericksburg, Nov. 16. 1778, in relation to the "Establishment of the Artificers, employed in the Qr. Master's Department," it is required "that each company of Artificers consist of 1 Captain at $50 per month, 1 Lieut. at $37.50, 4 Foremen at $33 1 / 3 , one Clerk at $33 1 / 3 , and from 33 to 43 workmen at $30 per month each. The Captain and Lieutenant to be entitled to receive the rations and subsistence allowed to officers of the Army of equal rank. " &c.
These companies were employed in building, or repairing ships, boats, fortifications & bridges and in repairing roads, and were subject to be ordered on duty to any point the public service required.
Gen. Morgan Lewis, Qr. M. G. Quarter Master General of the Northern Dept of the U. States in the Revolutionary War.

Thur. speaks of a company of artificers (Capt. Teeman's) with which it appears Capt. Miller frequently acted - "This company was attached to the Continental establishment or army, and was subject to the discipline of the camp or fort where ever doing duty." x x x "They were in the habit of doing duty with muskets in cases of emergency, and frequently performed useful military duty." x x "They were volunteers , or mechanics, who enrolled to follow the army, and to perform the duty of artificers." Gen. Lewis farther says he "recollects the name of Alexander Leitch Miller as being connected with the army, and being shown a bill of Capt. Miller made out against him. (Lewis) "for Transportation of the Forty-seven men from Albany to Poughkeepsie, dated July, 1777, he says "he believes it is an original bill for the services therein mentioned."
Gen. Lewis gives it as his impression that these companies were raised under the authority of a resolution of the Continental Congress. - This is confirmed by the fact, that we find in the "Schedule of Monthly Pay of the Army at the close of the War, in 1783, two grades of officers in these corps recognized "Director of Artificers - $40 - Sub. Director $26.66.
The Commissioner admits that there was a regularly organized corps of artificers, commanded by commissioned officers, viz; Colonels Roscisco, Flowers and Baldwin, in the Revolutionary service and that their service was military; but at the same time he contends that the service of Capt. Teeman and Miller was not being under civil contract.

How he makes this distinction, I cannot perceive - The companies of artificers, shown to have been under the direction of the Colonels mentioned, were raised and officered precisely in the same way as Seaman's and Miller's , by enlistment in the 2. Master's Department; nor were they, in any sense, more under the command of Commissioned Officers . Seaman & Miller, although commanding their own companies, were subject to the orders of the Commissioned Officer in charge of the post or place where they were on duty. - The papers show that Capt. Miller was at one time acting under the command of Gen. Schuyler, at other times under Maj. Ely, Capt. Treadon, Maj. Gen. Greene, and Gen. Broadhead.
As to the length of Capt. Miller's service, I am induced to conclude that it was at least two years. - We find him in the service as early as 1775 or '76, and at different times on till Oct. 1779, so as to raise a presumption that it may have been nearly continuous. I conclude, therefore, that two years may safely be admitted.

Report to the Commissioner
In the case of Margaret Lees Widow of Ab d Litch Miller N.Y.

Pension Office
August 24. 1853
Sir,
Upon an examination of this case (Margaret Fier, widow of Alex Litch Miller of N.Y.) I find the whole matter has been passed upon by the late Secretary of the Interior - and the claim might properly be considered as closed against any further examination. Yet in compliance with what I understood to be your wishes on the subject, I have taken the case up de novo , and examined it stripped of prejudices and extraneous matter.
In my investigation of the case, three points of enquiry presented themselves:
1 Did Miller perform service & how long? 2. What was the character or grade of service? 3. Was this service of such a character as to bring his widow within the provisions of the Pension Laws?
In consequence of some few of the papers in the case having been misplaced

or lost, which had been offered as evidence of service, I shall have to admit the service as previously allowed (16 Mo. & 14 days) although the evidence now on file would not justify it.
The next important enquiry is, "What was the character or grade of the service admitted?"
The claimant alledges that the said Sgt. Peter Miller was a "Captain of Artificers" &c. To determine this question we will enquire if there were Artificers — and if these Artificers constituted a regularly organized part of the revolutionary army — Under what kind of Officers they served, and to what division of the Army were they attached?
By reference to the Journals of the Cont. Congres, Vol. 4. p. 64, — We find that a corps of Artificers, known as "Artillery Artificers" was commanded by Col. Kosciusko Chief Engineer, and Col. Flower & Baldwin Asst. Engineers. On the 65th page — we find

the following resolution of Congress:
"Resolved, that a Commission of Captain in Col. Flowers Regiment of Artillery Artificers, be granted to Wallory Meng.— That Lieut. Wylie be promoted to rank of Captain."
From these extracts it is clear that the Artificers , connected with the Army, were under Officers of Artificers regularly appointed, and Commissioned by Congress. Was Alex. Litch Miller ever so appointed & Commissioned? The claimant does not even contend this. It is no where intimated that Seamen or Miller held a Commission of any kind.
The facts as I am able to gather them from the testimony are simply these: Stephen Seamen, Alex. Litch Miller, and some several others, Ship Carpenters by trade, left New York when that city was taken by the British, and removed to Poughkeepsie— They there received employment upon a vessel then building at this place, and as Master-workmen, were placed over certain

divisions of the Journeyman Carpenters. They may sometimes have been styled "Captains" from Courtesy - being Master-Carpenters & heads or overseers of divisions or companies. But that they were not, Captains, really, I think I have already shown. I would call attention to the fact that Capt. Nicholas Veeder - who also had charge of a large Company of Carpenters, and whose pay rolls are now in this Office, always signs himself "Master Carpenter", never Captain . Veeder occupies the same position, precisely, with Seamen & Miller - with this difference in favor of Veeder - his pay rolls are made out thus - "Pay Rolls of Captain Nicholas Veeder" - but signed always by "Nicholas Veeder Master Carpenter."
We then concluded that Messrs Seamen & Miller were Master Ship Carpenters, in the employment of the the U.S. at Poughkeepsie

Fort George & Fort Pitt. The rolls & correspondence of these men substantiate this view of their service. Their rolls are headed thus: "Gen Morgan Lewis to the undermentioned persons debtor for work done" The list of names is headed by "Captain Stephen Seamen", "Alex d Litch Miller".
Now, if Miller & Seamen were both Captains , it is a little singular that Miller whose name follows next to Seamen's did not receive his title. The claimant, however, contends that as they received the same pay — therefore they were both Captains . I am willing to admit they received the same pay (although the pay roll shows an evident alteration ) yet this was only the pay of Master-workmen or foremen.
Gov. Clinton in his passport says — "Permit M rs Miller & Seamen, Shipwrights, to pass" — Certainly, Gov. Clinton knew to whom he was granting passports, and

would not have offered such an indignity to two Captains in the service as to have styled them in their passport "Messieurs". Genl. Morgan Lewis' (whose certificate is not shown to be genuine ) no where intimates that either Seaman or Miller held the post or rank of a Captain . He says: "Seaman was at the head of a Company of Ship builders". If he was a Master-carpenter or foreman, this would place him there. The claimant also files two receipts from workman, beginning thus:
"Receipts of Alex d Litch Miller &c" which rebut the idea that Miller was regarded as a Captain by his journeymen. Again, a bill is filed, beginning thus: "Col d Morgan Lewis — To Alex d Litch Miller Dr. for work &c"
In contrast with all this I find that Captain Jacob Low, of the Artificers, who had command of a Company of Carpenters, & who was appointed, as shown by his pay rolls, on the 8 Dec. 1777,

always signs himself "Jacob Low, Captain"
The Agent of Claimant refers to Genl. Greene's instructions, dated Fredericksburg Nov. 16. 1778 - relative to artificers in Qr. Masters Dept. in order to show that Artificers were connected with the Qr. Masters' Department, of the Army.
The record shows that these very companies were recruited by Captain Jacob Low, to whom the instructions are addressed, and that Capt. Low and his men were immediately under the control of the Col. of Artificers who were attached to the Commissary's Department as required by the regulations of Congress (Journals Vol. 4. p. 154) - and not under the Qr. Master's Department.
We have now shown that whilst the Artificers were attached to the Commissary's Department, M st Miller & Seamen were Master Carpenters in the Qr. Master's Department.
The remaining enquiry then is:

"Was the service of Sgt d Peter Miller of such a character as to entitle his widow to the benefit of the Pension Laws?"
It is clear that the Act of Congress of 1818, does not embrace within its provision any of the civil employees of the Government, connected either directly or indirectly with the Army. That Act says, "Every Commissioned Officer, Non Commissioned Officer, Musician and private soldier; and all officers in Hospital Department and Medical Staff" — who served &c. The principle of "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" — rebuts the idea that this act can embrace any except those specified. The "discriptio personae" of the Act of 1832 is equally plain, and to bring one within its benefits he must have been regularly enlisted in the Army, by which I mean, subjected to Military law, enlisted for a period of time, and liable to arrest for desertion.
Was this the case with the Ship Carpenters employed by the Govern-

- ment at Poughkeepsie and other places during the Revolutionary War? Here, the Claimant has offered some Evidence , to establish this fact that they were so enlisted. Several witnesses give it as an opinion that they were, but not one single fact is brought forward in support of the proposition.
Now, to show that these witnesses are mistaken, and that the Ship Carpenters at Poughkeepsie were not enlisted in the sense contemplated by the Pension Laws, and as the Corps of Artificers already described; It is only necessary to quote the following from the Journals of Congress - Vol. 2. p. 60, dated February 14. 1776 (about the time Seamen Miller were at work, at Poughkeepsie, on the Frigate) —
"Application being made by some of the Master Carpenters (not Captains) employed in building the Continental Frigates, to some members of this house, informing them that about fifty of their journeymen and apprentices had engaged as volunteers to march with a battallion &c."

which I think settles the question. Had these journeymen ship Carpenters been enlisted as contended for by Claimant — they could not have re-enlisted as volunteers in another branch of the service. This is a self evident fact and requires no argument. They were quitting the ship building, and enlisting so rapidly that the work upon the Frigates was likely to stop, and a representation of this fact to Congress was deemed advisable. Why were not these men arrested as deserters? The answer is easy. They were employed under a civil contract only, and could violate it with impunity, quitting when they pleased, and engaging in other occupations — being liable only in a civil action.
This being the case we are clearly of the opinion that Mr. Fier's case is not within the provisions of the Pension Law.
Very Respectfully Yr. Ob. Servant A. H. Evans
Mr. Waldo Comd. V.N.

16 No 154 Pension Office Sept. 23/52
Commissioners of Pensions
In relation to the case of Margarette Fins; act July 4th. 1836 —
Decision of the Court of Pensions is affirm- ed in regard to increase of Alex. H. H. Stuart Jan'y 3 rd 1853
Mc-Coomb
Rec d Jan. 29. 1852.

Pension Office Sept. 23 rd 1852.
Sir,
In compliance with your directions, I have the honor to make the following report in the case of Margaret Tiers, dec. formerly widow of Alexander Leitch Miller, in which Mr. G. A. Pugh, has appealed from the decision of this Office, and claims an increase of pension for two years service as Captain of artificers, or at the rate of $600 per annum, instead of $411.66 2/3 per annum, for 16 months and 14 days, for which the claim was admitted under the act of July 4. 1836. In my opinion the claim is not provided for by the pension laws, and was originally admitted through an oversight of the examining clerk, as will be seen by the following statement of facts in relation to it!
On the 22 nd of April 1839, Samuel Stephens, Esq. of New York, filed a declaration made by Peter Tiers, also of that city, son and guardian of Margaret Tiers, a lunatic, claiming in her right the benefits of the act of July 4. 1836, on the ground

that Margaret's first husband, Alexander Leitch Miller , served as a Captain of Shipwrights, or carpenters, in the War of the Revolution. The averments of the declaration were sustained by parole testimony, and certain old letters, receipts, &c, said to have been found among the effects of Mrs. Hiers. The claim was examined on the 17 th of Oct, 1839, and Mr. Stephens informed that doubts were entertained whether the service was military, as provided for by the act of June 7 th 1832. It was, therefore, required to be shown that Miller and his company belonged to the military establishment and were subject to martial law, &c. Mr. Stephens, in his reply to the communication of this office, admitted that Miller did not belong to the Continental Line of the Army, but served in connection with Stephen Seaman; also claimed to have been a Captain in the same company of artificers or carpenters, as an "enlisted volunteer"! That is, the company had two captains, Miller & Seaman. He, however, filed a certificate from Genl. Morgan Lewis See artificer Book page 6, in pencil formerly D. M. Genl. of the Northern Department of
Recd. Mar. 29. 1852.
Mr. Coombs

the Army of the Revolution , in which, after stating the duties performed by Miller and Seaman as boat builders , &c he expressed the opinion that their company belonged to the military establishment , and was subject to martial law . Mr Stephens, in his letter to this office, also placed much stress upon the case of Joseph White , an affiant in the case of Mrs Tiens , who had been pensioned on the 19 th of March 1839 , as an artificer under Miller & Seaman , at the rate of $144 per annum, for two years service. The certificate of Gen l Lewis , as will be seen by the endorsement in the handwriting of the late Commissioner of Pensions on the envelope containing the certificate of that officer, also in the Artificer Book above referred to, was deemed satisfactory as to the military character of the employment of Miller & Seaman and their company of Ship Carpenters ; and Mrs S. was informed that Mrs Tiens' claim would be admitted for 16 mo 14 days as Captain of Artificers, viz for 9 mo 13 days in 1777-'8 , and 7 mo 1 day in 1779 , if the party representing her would consent to receive a pension for that amount of service. This tender was made on the 21 st of Dec, 1839 .

4 On the 29 th of June 1840, in reply to a letter from Mr Stephens, that gentleman was informed that no proof of further service had been received since the date of the last letter addressed to him, or any intimation that the party would accept the proposition of this Office. Thus the case remain- =ed until the 11 th of September 1840, on which day a letter was addressed to Mr S, stating that since the date of the letter of the 29 th of June 1840, it had been discovered that the company of Shipwrights, or Carpenters, in charge of Miller & Seaman, was in the employment of the Quartermaster's Department under civil contract; hence its service was not military and the claim rejected! That decision was again communicated to Mr Stevens on the 11 th of Sept. 1840, and regarded as a final disposition of the case! In consequence of the investigation which led to the rejection of the claim of Mrs Tiers on the ground that the service of her husband was not military, the pension of Joseph White , {the witness in her case, previously referred to, who had been pensioned for service under her husband and his associate Seaman} was suspended on the 25 th of Sept 1840. In addition to Joseph White there was a widow Catherine Seaman ,

widow of James Seaman, a son of Stephen Seaman, the associate of Miller, whose claim for service under him had been admitted under the act of July 7 th 1838, and also for arrears due her husband under the act of June 7 th 1832, at the rate of $65.20 cts per annum for 10 mo 26 days as an artificer. Mrs Seaman's pension was suspended on the 7 th of September 1840. Thus this Office had, so far as its action could go, expressed the opinion that the service was not military; and, notwithstanding numerous efforts to induce it to change that opinion, one of which led to a thorough reexamination of the subject, at the instance of the Hon. J. R. Poinsett, Secretary of War, on the 27 th of February 1841, still adhered to it. On the 18 th of June 1857, Mr G. A. Peugh of this City, filed a power of Attorney constituting him the agent to prosecute the claim of Catherine Seaman, then deceased which, as stated above, had been suspended on the 7 th of Sept 1840. On the 22 nd of Sept 1857, the suspension was removed, and certificates issued in her favor under the acts of July 7, 1838, March 3 rd 1843, June 17 th 1844, and 2 nd of Feb 1848, at the rate of $144

per annum - and also for the arrears, at the same rate, due to her late husband under the act of June 7 th 1832. [The service originally admitted, as stated above, was only 10 mo 26 days, which gave a pension of $65. 20 per annum. The reasons for this reversal of the deliberately expressed opinion of this office, are stated in the Brief marked No 1, which I found filed with the papers in Mrs Seaman's case; But, as I shall presently show, the reasons assigned in that Brief manifest an entire misconception, or ignorance, of the facts in the case, and are not sustained in a single particular by the Records. In the first place the Rolls of Seaman and Miller had not then, or even within a brief period, been produced. They were filed in this office as early as February 15 th 1839, as will be seen by the deposition of Alida Seaman, which was filed with the papers of Joseph White aforesaid, and is herewith transmitted marked No 2, and were also referred to by Catherine Seaman, the other suspended pensioner, in her declaration under the act of July 7 th 1838, made on the 6 th of April 1839, also herewith transmitted.

marked No 3. But those Rolls do not contain the name of James Seaman , the husband of Catherine, said were, as I shall prove, the main grounds, in connection with other equally demonstrative facts for the rejection of the claims of Margaret Siers, and the suspension of those of the said Catherine Seaman and Joseph White ! The second reason assigned in the Brief is equally the result of misconception. Joseph White , the party referred to, was not at that time a pensioned under the act of June 7, 1832, and "drawing a full pension as an artificer of $1244." He was stricken from the Roll, as stated, on the 25 th of Sept 1840, and has never, to this day, been restored. See the memorandum from the office of the 3 rd Auditor marked No 4. The claim of Catherine Seaman, widow of James, having been thus admitted, it was, evidently regarded as a precedent for the admission of the claims of all the parties, or their representatives, who were employed under Milled and Seaman; and on the 28 th of May 1857. Mr G. A. Peugh, the same agent who presented a power of attorney authorizing him to act in the case of Catherine Seaman, filed a power of attorney authorizing him to call up

8 the rejected claim of Margaret Tiers. Under that power the claim was taken up, and admitted on the 3 rd of April last, for 16 mo 14 days as Captain of artificers, at the rate of $411.66 2 / 3 cts per annum, commencing March 4 th 1831, and ending February 1, 1840, when Mrs Tiers died. The only additional testimony filed previous to this admission was embraced in the papers marked No 5, No 6 & No 7. The first is a letter from the State Department stating that there is among the Army returns filed in that Department, a return of all the men employed in the Boat Department in actual service at Fort Pitt, &c, made by Benjamin G. Eyre, Superintendent of that Department, on the 26 th of July 1779. The second, is a certificate from the office of the Register of the Treasury, shewing that certificates were issued in 1779 & 1780 for debts due Alexander L. Miller, amounting in all to $133.63 cts. The third, a copy of a letter from Gen l Morgan Lewis, made from the original in this office by Mr Viral Luce, when employed in it as a Clerk, showing the manner in which various persons employed in the Quarter Master's department were appointed. That testimony, if not altogether

irrelevant, could have added no force to the evidence among the old papers previously filed in the case; and, in my opinion, was not entitled to the slightest consideration. It was, evidently, so regarded by the Clerk who admitted the claim of Mrs Tiers, and who, seeing that all the other requirements of the law were complied with, felt himself bound by the precedent established in the case of Catherine Seamen, admitted as stated, and that of Joseph White, who in the Brief was, erroneously said to be drawing a full pension for the same description of service. Without those precedents, the real and the alleged, I am satisfied the claim set up for Margaret Tiers would not have been admitted; for a review of all the testimony in the case, and especially of the correspondence of this office, would have only more fully confirmed its previous decision that the service was not military within the meaning of the pension laws. The above is believed to be a faithful and impartial statement of the incidents which preceded the admission of the claim of Mrs Tiers at the rate of $411.66 2 / 3 cts per annum. — The grounds for the claim to an increase at

the rate of $600 per annum, as stated in the brief herewith sent, marked No 8, signed F. J. Evans, attorney for L. A. Pugh. In that brief, on argument, it will be perceived that the cases of Catherine Seaman and Joseph White are relied on to sustain the claim for two years service. How the first was admitted, and why the last was suspended, have been already stated; and I will now state the reasons for my opinion that the service was not military, and, therefore, not embraced by the pension laws. The act of March 18, 1818, was the first which granted pensions to officers and soldiers of the Revolutionary War for service therein. The only officers who did not serve in the line proper embraced by it, were those which belonged to the Hospital Department and Medical Staff; and in considering service under it, except that rendered as aforesaid, we regarded the service which was strictly military. The next act which gave pensions for Revolutionary service was the act of June 7, 1832. It embraced a larger description of persons and service; but was also construed to exclude all applicants who had not rendered service in "field or garrison" or in an

enlisted corps, raised by the competent Executive authority. No provisions were, however, gradually construed so as to embrace numerous persons in the different departments of the Staff of the Army. The prerequisites, were record evidence of appointment and service, if the applicant claimed as an officer - and of enlistment and service, if the applicant claimed as a soldier. That portion of the General Staff of the Revolutionary Army comprising the Quarter Master's Department, embraced numerous employees. Some of whom held regular appointments - but a large majority were merely hired to perform certain offices, or performed them under contract. The duties of that department were necessarily manifold, and not the least important was that of furnishing means for transporting troops and munitions of war. The duty of transportation necessarily carried with it authority to procure boats, & Waggons, &c and even ships, or smaller vessels, if the exigencies of the service required them. Large numbers of both were furnished under contract, and contracts were also frequently entered into for their construction under the more immediate direction of the Quarter Master's department.

and it is precisely that description of contract service for which, as shewed by the Rolls and documents referred to, that the claims of Margaret Tien, Catherine Seaman and Joseph White were rejected. The Corps of Artificers attached to the Army, and which among other duties, built boats for transport- ation, gun boats, floating batteries, bridges, &c was a regularly organized Corps, com- =manded by commissioned officers, Viz Colonel's Roseiusko, Flowers and Baldwin, as Chief Engineers, and as such recognized by Congress. See Journals of the Old Congress, Vol 2. p.p. 323, 441, Vol 3. p.p. 389, 392. American State papers, volume "Claims" p.p. 9 & 10. also Rolls, &c in the artificer Book herewith sent. The service of those officers, and that of the men employed under them, was military, and pensions are granted for it. But the service of Seaman and Miller was purely civil, and such as might be rendered at this day under a contract with the Quartermaster's Department, and was rendered by divers

persons during the late War with Mexico: As proof of this opinion I would respectfully invite your attention to a few of the "Old documents" filed in the case of Mrs. Tiers; and, especially, to the Rolls, which, according to the "Brief" in the case of Mrs. Seaman, had been so recently produced. The first in order, are contained in the package endorsed Bills and receipts 1777! The employment in that year appears to have been under the direction of General Philip Schuyler. The receipts are dated at Albany, Poughkeepsie and Kingston, N. York - The employment was that of Shipwrights and Carpenters; but they give no clue to the terms of the contract under which the parties were employed. For this we must go to the Rolls referred to in the "Brief." They are contained in the Artificer Book and marked page 8 also in pencil. The caption of the Roll is as follows: Colonel Morgan Lewis to the undermentioned persons debtor for work done in the Continental Service at Fort George from the 11 th of March 1777, with allowing one days pay for every twenty miles distant "from home" A very cursory examination of that Roll, shows that it

is a mere account for work done under certain stipulations—a civil contract and nothing else—for there is not one word which would authorize the conclusion that the men were enlisted, or paid, differently from the manner in which Journeyman Carpenters and Shipwrights are now paid: And not only thus paid, but it appears from the Rolls, that John Dally one of the Journeymen, had a man employed & his negro man probably & was paid for work done by him at 10 d and 8 d per day. But if a doubt remains as to the character of the employment of Seamen and Millers, it is removed by reference to the old papers in the package marked "Contract; Letters, &c 1779 & 80, Please see the papers with the Caption." We the subscribers, Shipwrights, Sawyers and House Carpenters do enrol ourselves under the command of Captain Alexander Leitch Miller agreeable to articles entered into with Benjamin Eyre, A. B. L. That paper contains the rate of wages and the amount advanced agreeable to the articles entered into "Viz. The articles of contract not the articles of War! Much reliance was, however, placed by Mr Stephens, who originally filed the papers

in the case of Mrs Tiers, on the permit or order of Gen Geo Clinton, also filed in the last named package, dated March 24. 1779, to show that the service was military. Instead of proving that fact, it proves the reverse; for it is very evident that if Messrs Alexander G. Miller and Stephen Seaman were commissioned and regarded as officers, Gen. Clinton would have thus considered them, and, instead of terming them Messieurs , would have given them their military title; for Kings Ferry and Tappan were strictly guarded, and, as military officers, greater facilities would have been extended to them on their route to Philadelphia! I would also refer to the letter in the same package from W. W. Betts, A.D. Q.M. dated at Fishkill, Sept. 20. 1779. It is an assurance that the present pay will be continued to Miller's artificers for one week (longer) which will terminate the time for which they promised to serve; the work in which they were engaged requiring despatch & Miller's men are, it is true, termed "artificers" but the true nature of his employment is shewn by the superscription.

Viz Mr Miller , Overseer of artificers "Wappens Creek". But it is useless to go further into an examination of this subject for I am satisfied that if the service of Miller & Seaman was military within the meaning of the Pension laws, there is not a contractor who furnished any munition of War for the Revolutionary Army, from a wagon to a cartridge box, who is not also embraced by them, if it could be shewn that he was thus employed for the period of six months. And it is also my deliberate opinion that, instead of increasing the pension of Mrs Siers, it would be the duty of the Government, if it were practicable, to institute proceedings for the recovery of the amount already paid. The amount paid in her case was $3.670; The amount paid in the case of Catherine Seaman was $2,808: in all $6,478. The list of Seaman & Miller contains the names of fifty two men - but no opinion can be formed as to the number, if any, now living, or their representatives, who might be entitled, if the employment is decided to be military. The papers numbered to 9, are herewith forwarded. I

I have the honor to be Very Respectfully your Obedt Servt J. E. McCall Comm r of Pensions
Hon. A. H. N. Storch, Secretary of the Interior.
to under aimed and had for by 4. for will tion unnel ade of h.

Rev
WIDOW, &c.
File No. 18143
Margaret Fiers Former widow of Alexander L Miller Captain Rev War
Act July 4 th 86
Index: Vol. m , Page 276
[Arrangement of 1870.]

Documents in the Case of Margaret Tiers also applicable in the case of the widow of James Seaman

4469
Margaret Tiers N.Y.
acts - 21 July 1836

4469 nyc apl 22.
4 July 1836.
Mayt. Siers
of Miss Miller

E. H. K. Edwards Esquire
Consequences of Denton's Washington D.C. Col.

W. J. Brief Margaret Tiers formerly Miller.
Mo. 1880-1881 not

Brief in the case of Margaret Tiers formerly widow of Alexander Leek Miller who was a Captain of Artificers during the war of the Revolution.
A pension is claimed for two years service as a Captain of Artificers. Act 4 July 1836 Peter Tiers the only surviving child is the claimant.
Married 20 th January 1774. Record proof Mrs Tiers died 1 st February 1840.
The pension Office has admitted a service of 18 Months and 15 days , viz 9. Months & 14 Days in 1777. 78 and 7 Months and 1. day in 1779.
As the rolls in relation to the services of Captain Miller & Capt Leaman, are so blended and as they served together, I am obliged to unite these two cases; for all the docu- mentary proof comes from the widow of Capt Miller. No papers of Leaman's company are preserved, excepting as kept by Capt Miller.
The Captains are frequently styled Captain Miller and Leaman, and the receipts so taken when the companies were together.
There is ample proof that Capt Miller and James Leaman, were shipwrights, and left the City of New York for Poughkeepsie in the Spring of 1776. The British fleet arrived early in July.
Joseph White (a pensioner on New York roll as Artificer, Act 7. June 1832 for two years service) in his last deposition, sworn to at Oyster Bay, (procured to prove the nature , not

the period of the service) he knew Miller having charge of a company of Artificers engaged in building the Ship Montgomery upwards of a year at Poughkeepsie; Thence this was in 1776. 7.
Governor Lewis, (Who was Later Master Genl) certifies that Seaman's Company was engaged during the early part of the war, building the Ship Montgomery. The two receipts, dated the 25 & 26 January 1777 show that Capt Miller paid for loads of baggage and timber to the "Strand & shore", purchased probably some time previous.
Also Dabbs Certificate, deposing that this same service was upwards of a year, confirms this. There is ample proof that he was upwards of four months at Lake George, building Boats. This service is in our bill, credited to new for, (one time only) four months, from the last of the winter till 19. July 1777, to which period the men's bills were made for. He no doubt continued in service at Poughkeepsie; for on the 12 th August 1777, we prove by the original bill against the Convention of the State of New York, forwards for the masts of the Ship Montgomery , then building at Poughkeepsie.
Gov. Clinton's pass is dated 24 th March 1779. While thought that it was "1778", but it no doubt was 79, that they passed thro' New Jersey to Pennsylvania. Gantz, says, they enrolled during the winter — The original note from a Master —, shows an application to Capt Miller immedia- ately on his return from Pennsylvania

in October, to go into other public duty, and says the funds would be provided for his men. This corroborates the depositions.
There is also an original receipt, dated 5 th March 1777, for £4 18 for transportation of the Carpenters baggage, and a bill for Mr. Trees, at 6 s each, and 5 days riding; which I think is the transportation for the "Montgomery". This shows that he was in service at Poughkeepsie in January previous to proceeding to Fort George, which duty commenced the 9 th March at the furthest, (for the men are allowed for 62 days, and the 10 May) and continued to the 19 th July at least, being 4 Months and 10 days. To sustain this, I refer to an original receipt of one of the men up to the 19 th July 1777.
White's previous testimony states, that they were at Lake George in October. The British abandoned Ticonderoga in Sept r 1777. After hearing of the capture of Burgoyne, (the two posts not being over 70 or 80 miles apart) renders this probable.
If White, Dallys & Gantz's testimony is to be taken as good proof for one year service at different points, at Poughkeepsie, Wappingers Creek, (which is in its neighborhood) with the 4 1/2 Months at Lake George, (paying his men at Poughkeepsie 12 th August) and say only 7 Months, for the enlistment and service in  in Pennsylvania, it would make up two years . But these papers should be taken to establish White's testimony. That he served the whole war up to his death, at near its close.

That he continued to work with his company at the Montgomery until she was burnt - and Ganty swears that Miller served five years .
In the case of James Seaman, (the son of Captain Seaman, who was an associate Captain of Artificers, with Captain Miller) a pensioner on the New York roll, as an Artificer for 2 years . This was precisely the same service in which Capt Miller was engaged, at the same time, and the same places.
Gen Lerris says, that Seaman's company was engaged building the Montgomery. There are no papers, exclusively of Seaman's Company. We are indebted to Miller's company papers for the little documentary evidence produced in Seaman's case. Not a paper of Capt Seaman's Company remains, if we except the roll made at Philadelphia. Yet Joseph White and James Seaman have been pensioned for 2 years service as Artificers in Capt Seaman's Company, when it is shown that Miller's & Seaman's Companies served together.
As far as the records in the Pension Office furnish evidence, Capt Miller received precisely the same pay as Capt Seaman. See new Book Artificers, Vol 1 Niles roll.
Gen Morgan Lerris, certifies to Miller's service, and its military character, and the Office admits the same, by the

all arranged of the pensions of White and Seaman.
I would also refer to the case of Captain Joseph Peck, Act 7. June 1832 N o 28. 572, and the letter of Gen Morgan Lewis, who was the 2 o Master General.
Gen Lewis says, in regard to the service being Military, "a written authority, (call it a Commission, Warrant or whatever you please) was issued by the principal of the Department, to the person designated for the purpose, appointing him Captain of a company by him to be raised, to be employed in the public service as Carpenters, Smiths, Shipwrights, Boat Builders &c &c."
I would also refer to the papers in the case of Peter Schultz, a pensioner in the New York roll, and he says that he saw the ship Montgomery when it was building.
No Canuckian. The service is shown to be Military. — The documentary evidence establishes a service of more than 2 years . The record proves him to have been of the same grade, receiving the same pay as Captain Seaman. Two of Captain Seaman's men have been pensioned for 2 years service, and it is established beyond a shadow of doubt, that the two companies served at the same time, the same place, and for the same periods. We therefore ask a pension as a Captain of Artificers under the Act of July 4 th 1836, from 4 th March 1831. to the
Wysten 12y, (procured to prove the nature , not

1 st day of February 1840. The day of Mrs Millers death.
H. P. Eraw. Atty for L. A. Pugh.

In Chancery
Before the Vice Chancellor
In the Matter of of Margaret Fiers a Lunatic.
Exemplification.

The Records of the State of New York by the Grace of God free (and Independent) to all to whom these presents shall come or may concern Greeting Know Ye that we having Inspected the Records and Proceedings in the Office of the Assistant Register of the Court of Chancery of our said State do find a Certain Order there remain- ing which is in the words following to wit,
The Court of Chancery held for the State of New York at the City of New York on the Seventeenth day of April. one thousand eight hundred and thirty Nine.
Present
William T. McCorn Vice Chancellor of the first Circuit
In the Matter
of Margaret Tiers a Lunatic by Peter Tiers her next of kin. } On reading and filing the Petition of Peter Tiers praying to be appointed the Guardian to take charge of the person and effects of Margaret Tiers and on reading and filing the deposition of Abraham Dally and of Catharine Leaman and Huldah Leaman by which it appears that the said Margaret Tiers is a Widow, aged Ninety Years and that Peter Tiers is her Son and now supports her in his family and that the said Margaret Tiers is from age and infirmities of unsound Mind and unable to attend to any business, and it further appearing that she has no estate except a claim on the United States Government for a pension, it being alledged that her hus- band was in the Revolutionary War and it appearing that said Peter Tiers her Son is a Suitable person to be appointed a Committee to take charge of her Estate and said Claim on the Government for a Pension. On motion of Samuel

Stevens Solicitor for said Peter Pierson ordered that said Peter Pierson be and he is hereby appointed the Guardian of the person and effects of the Widow Margaret Pierson and to provide for her support, that he give security to be approved by the Vice Chancellor of the first circuit in the sum of Five hundred dollars well and faithfully to perform said Trust.
All which we have caused by these presents to be exemplified and the seal of our said Court of Chancery to be hereunto affixed. Witness Reuben H. Walworth Chancellor of our said State at the City of New York on the eighteenth day of April one thousand eight hundred and thirty nine and the Sixty third Year of our Independence.
John Walworth Clerk
In Chancery
Before the Vice Chancellor
In the Matter of Margaret Pierson a Lunatic.
Exemplification.

Marine Court of the City of New York
In the matter of an application by Margaret Tiers, formerly Margaret Miller by Peter Tiers, her Guardian
Personally appeared in open court, Abraham Dally of the City of New York, and being sworn, saith: That he is well acquainted with M rs Margaret Tiers, formerly Margaret Miller — That he was acquainted with her in the Revolutionary War, and that she was then the wife of Alexander L d Miller of Poughkeepsie, State of New York; and that he was a shipwright, and was an overseer of a range of fires  and was employed in the building there for the Continental Congress  building there for the Continental Congress And that he afterwards, went into Pennsylvania to Fort Pitt; as deponent has frequently heard then during the last fifty years — That he was connected by marriage with said Miller's family and acquainted with the circumstances relating to the said Alexander L d Miller, the first husband of said Margaret Tiers; who died, at about the close of the Revolutionary War; and that she subsequently, married again to M r Matthew Tiers, but who has been dead for about thirty  many years; And that she now goes by the name of Margaret Tiers — deponent is well acquainted with her and her family — She is a very old woman, now in her Ninetieth year, and of unsound mind; And the Court of Chancery appointed Peter Tiers her guardian with a view to his procuring her pension — She is unable to appear in any court, or understand any deposition, from age and infirmity — Deponent has no manner of doubt that the present Margaret Tiers, the applicant, was regularly a few years before married during the Revolutionary War to Alexander L d Miller afterwards Captain of Artificers, then attached to the Continental service, and for more than two years and up to the time of his death doing duty at Newburgh, Poughkeepsie and Wappinger's Creek, at Fort George and marched with his company from Newburgh Philadelphia to the Fort Pitt in Pennsylvania
Legally,

Deponent knew the children and the grandchildren of the said Alexander L. Miller, as well as his wife and widow; And he believes the papers now shown him, to be genuine; and is informed and believes that they were found among the old papers of Alexander L. Miller, in the possession of the said Margaret Tiers, his wife and widow.
Sworn to before me E Abraham Dally this 16 day of April 1839 J. W. [unclear] Justice of the Peace
City of New York, April 16 th 1839 I do certify that I am acquainted with Abraham Dally & that full faith & credit should be given to any statement made by him under oath he being a man of good character for veracity & truth.
Edward Bensen Joseph Cunn Commissioners

In the matter of the application of Margaret Tiers, late the widow of Alexander L Miller for a Pension
On this sixth day of April 1839 personally appeared before the Municipal Court of the City of New York in the City of New York Mrs. Catharine Seaman who being duly sworn deposeth and saith that she is well acquainted with seventy five years of age or thereabouts; and that she is well acquainted with Margaret Miller late the widow of Alexander L Miller - That deponent was a little girl but remembers in the Revolution, both the said Alexander L Miller and his wife the said Margaret Miller, who after the decease of said Alexander L Miller who died in or at the close of the Revolutionary war married subsequently Mr. Tiers and that she is now known as the widow Margaret Tiers, and that she the said Margaret now lives in the City of New York in Suffolk Street and is now a widow in her ninetieth year and is too infirm to appear in any court and has lost her mind and is in poor circumstances and dependent on the bounty of others - said Tiers her second husband died a long time since
Deponent saith that Alexander L Miller was reputed to have been a captain of a Company of Shipwrights and that he was for a long time engaged as such at Newburgh & Poughkeepsie and enlisted a company of men & proceeded with them to Philadelphia - there enrolled and went to Fort Pitt as deponent has understood and believes
Deponent saith that she believes the accompanying order from Gov. Clinton dated Poughkeepsie 24 March 1779 is an original document given by the said George Clinton and that said Alexander L Miller went on the service then referred to as captain of a company of Artificers, and she has also understood and believes that the papers presented to the Pension Office about seven years since by James Seaman and Joseph White show that they served under or with said Alexander Miller and that they all carried their muskets from

Philadelphia to Fort Pitt in the Company referred to in Gov. Clinton's order —
Given to me in Open Court This 6 th day of April 1839.
Catharine Seamen
J. M. Hutton Justice of the Peace Court —

In the matter of an application by the Guardian of Margaret Tiers for a Pension
City & State of Virginia To Alida Leaman being duly sworn deposes & saith that the Mrs Margaret Tiers & her for many years she being distinctly connected by marriage of deponents sister with one of her family - That she is very aged and unfirm and has always been known as the former wife & Widow of Alexander L Miller a ship wright - That deponent is intimate with Mr Miller family and that she hunted up & selected certain old papers & orders now about to be sent to Washington from among the old papers in the house & possession of Mr Miller Tiers formerly Mr Miller and that she has no doubt they are genuine -
Deponent has known Mrs Tiers for the last fifteen or twenty years and she has always been during that time a Widow - and deponent also knows a daughter of said Mrs Tiers by her first husband, but this said daughter is now dead, as are all the children of said Miller that deponent knew, or ever heard of - in the year 1839,
Sworn the 16 April 1839
before me
Alida Leaman
Peter DeWitt Commissioner
Andrew Tiers

(No. 10)
Pale Tuesday on April 1839
Francis Gault & other depositions

In the matter of an application for Pensions by Margaret Tiers and also the Widow of James Seaman
City & State of New York
Francis Gantz of the City of New York being duly sworn deposes and saith that deponent left the City of New York in the year 1775 when the Ship Asia fired on the City of New York; that he went up the North River to Poughkeepsie, with his father, who was a shipwright; — that he well recollects while up the North River, Capt. Alexander L. Miller, who had charge of the shipwrights, or a company of them, at work on the ships building there — that he well recollects James Seaman and most of the company of artificers who helped to build the Frigates General Schuyler and Genl. Montgomery and deponent remembers when the ships were burnt
Deponent's father went with said company under Capt. Miller, to Fort Pitt Penn. and deponent recollects when his father and the whole company departed; he also recollects when they came back; they were absent on this duty seven or eight months; deponent's father was with them, and James Seaman, went with them — The Company after their return in Seventeen Hundred and Seventy nine went to work on the North River at different places, still in the continental service — This Company of artificers under Miller was also at Fort Pitt George and Ticonderoga, was there four or five months and built a vessel which they afterwards burnt when Burgoyne approached from Canada; this was in the in the Spring and Summer of Seventeen Hundred and Seventy seven. Both Alexander L. Miller and James Seaman, with most of this company, and deponent's father's family went from the City of New York, they being Rebels of that day , when the British took possession of the City — They were all mechanics and immediately went to work for the public and continued artificers building the Frigates and flat bottomed boats and in other services until the Peace — Deponent recollects that four families with four of these men who afterwards worked with Capt. Miller

went in the same Sloop, with deponent — Deponent saith that he has examined certain old papers now shown him, one of which is signed by his father's proper signature and the others he believes to be genuine old papers and what they purport to be
Deponent knows that the widow of Capt. Alexander Miller is still alive; — he knew her in the Revolution as the wife of Miller — This Mrs Miller, now Mrs Tiers, fled from the City with deponent — he saw the old Lady about Ten years since, has been informed and believes she has also lost her mind — She lost her second husband at least fifteen or sixteen years since
Sworn to before me this nineteenth eighteenth day of April 1839 — Elijah York Census of Sued, N. York
Francis Gantz

No 2 Tears widow of Alf d Litch Miller
Dec 1839
Joseph White depositor

In the matter of Mr. Tiers (widow of Lt. Miller and Mrs. Seaman (widow of James Seaman)
Oyster Bay Queens County State of New York Joseph White being sworn, deposeth and saith, that he was acquainted with Captain Alexander Miller, — tho' this depou- -sent was not in the same Company with him — That he knew said Miller before the Revolution; he went up from the City of New York before or about the time the British took possession of the City of New York, Miller and one Stoddard had each charge of a Company of Artificers, who were engaged building the Ship Mont- =gomery at Poughkeepsie — knows of said Miller's being engaged in building this Vessel upwards of a year — This was in the first part of the Revolutionary War; thinks it must have been in 76 The nature of this service was that we volunteered and enrolled for some given time, sometimes four months; sometimes six and sometimes nine months — We had monthly pay and always rations; we were subject to the orders of the officers of the Army; Carried Arms when necessary; always liable to do duty on an emergency with the Troops — This was the nature of the service and Capt. Miller did this duty, like all the Company Believing Capt. Miller had doubled the pay of his men —
(Witness was in Fort George for four months and Capt. Miller and Capt. Seaman were there with their Companies some time and for four months, say from April to October and upwards; subsequently burnt the Boats which we had made at Lake George, and we were transported at Public Expense to Poughkeepsie and went on duty there

About during the winter of '77 and '78 — Also well knew James Seaman, the husband of the present Widow Seaman; he was on duty in same Company with witness during most of the war, and was subject to the like military discipline and order —
We were asked to sign the Rolls for duty and we were Volunteer Artificers; our services were considered more valuable than soldiers and we got higher monthly pay — We were under the orders of the Continental Officers —
Capt. Miller and James Seaman and Witness enlisted as Volunteers to go from Poughkeepsie to Fort Pitt — enlisted in March '78. — departed thence in March, about forty strong marched through New Jersey (I now on the Ground) to Philadelphia there joined and enrolled anew in Philadelphia under Col. Ayres, who appeared to act as Quarter Master The men at Philadelphia were about 70 or 80 and they armed with Muskets — That is to say the said Seaman and Miller, two Companies were 70 or 80 strong — and on this — duty said Capt. Miller & James Seaman and myself were engaged Eight months upwards and then returned with our respective Companies to Poughkeepsie; and there continued on duty in the Continental Service — as stated in deponents previous depositions. These two Companies of Artificers were subject to military discipline and when we stood Sentry (as we did in Pennsylvania as well as in other places, we had the sign & Counter sign of the Post — Deponent himself is a pensioner for the services he rendered in said Seamans

Company - and further this deponent saith not Joseph White
Sworn to before me the fifth day - of December 1838 Thos. L. Monfort Justice of the peace of Queens County
I, John Simonson clerk of the county of Queens also clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of said county do certify that Thos. L. Monfort is a magistrate as above and that the foregoing signature purporting to be his is genuine.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto affixed my seal of office and subscribed my name this 21 st day of December in the year 1839
John Simonson clerk
From Samuel Stevens Esq.

Dec 26
J. P. Edwards Esquire the Acting Pension Commissioner Washington  Mrs. Miller per the Acting Pension Commissioner  N.Y. Adolph