Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File W. 18203, for Lodowick Pramer, New York

SERVICE
NUMBER
New York
Pramer, Leodowick Van Schoonhoven, Dolly
W. 18203
Former widow
CONTENTS

New York - 3898 -
Dolly Van Schoonhoven, formerly the widow of Lodowick Kramer -
who died on the 22 d June, 1822. -
of Schoharie Co in the State of N. Y C
who was a private in the _____ commanded by Captain N.Y. of the Regt. - commanded by Col. Willett - in the N. York line for 9 months -
Inscribed on the Roll of Albany -
at the rate of 30 Dollars _____ Cents per annum, to commence on the 14th day of March, 1834.
Certificate of Pension issued the 30 th day of September 1844 and sent to J. E. Hawey Present.
Arrears to the 14th of March, 1845 $ 420. 00
Semi-annual allowance ending 4 Sept: - 15. 00
$ 435. 00
{ Revolutionary Claim, Act July 4, 1836, Section the }
Recorded by Wiltsen Clerk Book C - Vol. 1 - Page 133 -

5830
Dolly Van Schoonhoven wid. Ludwig Kramer
NY.
abt 4 July 36
m 80. d 23.
adm 9 mo pr
30 $
from 14 May 1840 when she became a widow.
Wm B. Pierce Albany NY.

Declaration
In order to obtain the benefit of the Provision made by an act of Congress passed July 4. 1836. and the act of 1837.
State of New York.
On this 27 th day of February 1843 Personally appeared before me Robert Eldredge one of the judges of the Court of Common Pleas in & for the County of Schoharie in said State. Dolly Van Schoonhoven aged 83 years, of the town of Schoharie who being first duly sworn according to law doth on her oath make the following declaration in order to obtain the benefit of the Provision made by an act of Congress passed July 4. 1836 & an act amendatory of said act passed
That she is now the widow of Henry Van Schoonhoven of Schoharie aforesaid, who died on the 14 th day of May 1840 That she was married to the said Henry Van Schoonhoven in the Month of April 1828 That at the time of her marriage to said Henry Van Schoonhoven she was the widow of Lodowick Pramer her first husband. That she was married to the said Lodowick on 25 th of April 1780. and during the war of the Revolution. That both before & after said marriage he the said Lodowick was on duty, as a soldier in the war of the Revolution and served upon divers occasions, among which she more particularly remembers that he was out after said marriage with the troops under the command of Colonel Willett for a period of nine months. That during said war her husband the said Lodowick lived in said town of Schoharie and served not only with the State Troops before mentioned but upon divers occasions with the militia of said County, but of this service with the militia she is entirely unable to give a

correct account, but knows only that he went out as often as called upon, and more particularly that he was an intimate associate of Timothy Murphy known in history as the "benefactor of Schoharie", with whom he was often out on duty.
And Declarant further saith that she was married to the said Lodowick Pramer as aforesaid at Schoharie by the Rev Mr Sommer field on the 25 th day of April 1780. That after said marriage, she continued to live with said Lodowick as his lawful wife until the 22 nd day of June 1822 when he died. That afterwards, to wit, on the month day of April 1828 she was married again to Henry Van Schoonhoven who died as aforesaid on the 14 th day of May 1840 since which time she has remained a widow. Single. Unmarried. (See also unmarried)
Subscribed upon the day of your aforesaid before me & I Certify that said declarant is unable to attend court by reason of old age & bodily in- firmity
Robert Aldridge Judge of Schoharie County Court -
Dolly true Van Schoonhoven mark
Ex D om c c 7 22 7 7 7

State of New York Schoharie County ss.
I do hereby certify that the following is a true copy of the record of the marriage of Lodowick Pramer and Dolly Caps as the same appears from the register of marriages solemnized by the Rev. P. Nicholas Sommer at the time thereof Pastor of the Evan. Luth. Church of the town of Schoharie in said County. anno 1780 "den 25 April Ludwig Pramer ein Braunschweiger und Dorothea Copen"
from which it appears that the said Lodowick Pramer and Dolly Caps were duly married according to the rites of said Church on the twenty fifth day of April One thousand seven hundred eighty by the Rev. P. Nicholas Sommer then Pastor as aforesaid G. A. Smith
In the above matter for I G. A. Smith - being duly sworn do depose & say that I am Pastor of the said Evangelical Lutheran Church and hold the records thereof and that the above is a true copy thereof as certified by me. And further that the date of said marriage of Lodowick Pramer and Dolly Caps is expressed in said legible figures. Subscribed & sworn the fifth day of March 1843 before me Note "Anno 1780" interlined John G. Leh and Jrw. Justice of the peace

State of New York } Schoharie County }
I Thomas McArthur Clerk of said County do hereby certify that Robert Oldridge before whom the foregoing declaration of Dolly Van Schoonhoven purports to have been sworn was at the time thereof a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in & for said County duly Commissioned & sworn & that John Gebhard Jr. before whom the annexed Ranging affidavit of Ros & G. A. Linter purports to have been taken was at the time thereof a Justice of the Peace in & for said County duly elected & sworn. And I further certify that I am acquainted with the hand writing of the said Judge & Justice & truly believe that their respective signatures to said declaration & affidavit are genuine. Witness my hand & official Seal This fifth — day May A.D. 1843. Thos. McArthur Clerk.

State of New York } County of Otsego } ss Town of Oneonta }
Michael Hilsinger of said Town, County, & State being duly sworn deposeth and saith that he knew and was acquainted with Lodowick Pranger in the time of the Revolutionary War and this deponent further deposeth and saith that said Pranger enlisted and served with this deponent in the same Company under Captain Dubois in Colonel Willets' Regt - And that said Pranger served in said Regt nine months And that this deponent has known said Pranger since the war for several years in Schoharrie County And has called upon him at his house And this deponent further deposeth & saith that he was acquainted with the wife of said Pranger previous to her marriage with him her name previous to her marriage was Polly Oss - That subsequent to that time he has known them to live together as husband & wife for a great number of years As to the dates of the time of Enlisting & Service this deponent cannot distinctly
remember Subscribed & sworn this 29 th day of Dec 1840 Before me Adarn Brown Justice his Michael Hilsinger mark
I hereby certify that I have been acquainted with Michael Hilsinger & that he has no education he therefore signs his name with a cross & that he sustains a good moral character in the community in which he resides and that he is a man of truth & veracity and is to be believed under oath Adarn Brown Justice

State of New York
Albany County Clerk's Office p 3 I, Samuel Russell Clerk of said County Do hereby certify that Adam Brown Esq. before whom the within affidavit purports to have been sworn me on the date of the same a Justice of the peace in and for said County and duly authorized to take the same and do further that I am well acquainted with the hand writing aforesaid Justice and believe that the signature subscribed to the within affidavit and certificate of credibility to be his genuine signature In Witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand seal of Office Jan 26. 1841
Samuel Russell Clerk

State of New York County of Albany 3 rd Jacob Laraway of the town of Bethlehem in said County aged 84 years and upwards a pensioner of the United States under the Act of Con- gress passed June 7. 1832, being duly sworn deposes and saith, that during the war of the Revolution during the year 1781, this Deponent served in the com- pany of New York Lines or State troops commanded by Capt Benjamin Dubois for a period of nine months That said Dubois was a Captain in the Regiment of Colonel Wetlett and was engaged during said year 1781 for said period of nine months in doing garrison duty at the upper and middle forks of Schoharie. That during said term of nine months both Michael Hilsinger and Lodowick Pramer served at said forks in company with him. That said Michael & Lodo- wick enlisted as deponents thinks together in Scho- harie & served for the full period of nine months. That said Hilsinger had a brother who also enlisted at the same time and served for a like period by the name of Hans or John Hilsinger all being from Schoharie or its vicinity And Deponent further saith that said Lodowick Pramer is the identical person whose widow Dolly Van Schoonhoven now lives in Schoharie as De- ponent has been credibly informed & verily believes
Subscribed & sworn this 22 nd day of March 1843 before me I certify that said Jacob is a credible witness R L G Bancroft Clerk of Deed
his Jacob X. Laraway mark

State of New York County of Albany ss Jacob Laraway of the town of Bethlehem in said County aged 84 years and upwards a pensioner of the United States under the Act of Con- gress passed June 7. 1832, being duly sworn deposes and saith, that during the war of the Revolution during the year 1781, this Deponent served in the com- pany of New York Lines or State troops commanded by Capt Benjamin Dubois for a period of nine months That said Dubois was a Captain in the Regiment of Colonel Wetlett and was engaged during said year 1781 for said period of nine months in doing garrison duty at the upper and middle forts of Schoharie. That during said term of nine months both Michael Hilsinger and Lodowick Pramer served at said forts in company with him. That said Michael & Lodo- wick enlisted as deponents thinks together in Scho- harie & served for the full period of nine months. That said Hilsinger had a brother who also enlisted at the same time and served for a like period by the name of Hanse or John Hilsinger all being from Schoharie or its vicinity And Deponent further saith that said Lodowick Pramer is the identical person whose widow Dolly Van Schoonhoven now lives in Schoharie as De- ponent believes.
STATE OF NEW-YORK, } ss. City and County of Albany, Clerk's Office, }
I, Henry B. Haswell, Clerk of the said City and County, do hereby CERTIFY, that R Le Grand Bancroft  away whose name is subscribed to the Certificate of Proof or Acknowledgment of the an- nexed instrument in writing and endorsed thereon, was at the time of taking such proof or acknowledgment, a Commissipner in and for the County aforesaid, dwelling in the said County, and duly authorized to take the same: And that I am well acquainted with the hand-writing of the said  R Le Grand Bancroft and verily believe that the signature to the said Certificate of Proof or Acknowledgment is genuine.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed my official seal, the Sixth day of
May
1843
H. B. Haswell Clerk.
is to be returned

Received New York 29 th Sept r 1784 of Col Marenus M c Lell the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds nine Shillings and four pence in full for my Services in the year 1781
£ 150. 9. 4
Benj m Dubois Capt
Comptrollers Office Albany March 13 th 1843
I hereby certify the above to be a correct copy of a receipt now remaining on file in this office.
Philip Phelps Deputy Comptroller
the 8 th

New York 3898-
Rept to July let to Mr B Pierce Aug 10 1843 " " " " " Sep 29. "
Dolly Van Schoonhoven formerly widow of Lodowick Prame
who died on the 22 d June, 1822 of Schoharie Co in the State of N. York who was a private - in the _____ commanded by Captain _____ of the Regt: - commanded by Col: Willett - in the New York line for 9 months -
Inscribed on the Roll of Albany _____ at the rate of 30 Dollars _____ Cents per annum, to commence on the 1 st day of March 1832 15 th : May, 1840, when she became a widow -
Certificate of Pension issued the 8 th day of July, 1843 - and sent to Wm B. Pierce Albany, N. Y. C -
Arrears to the 1 st of March 43 - $ 84 10 Pen-annual allowance ending 4 Sept: 15 00
$ 99 10
{ Revolutionary Claim, Act July 4, 1836, Section the 9 th - }
Recorded by W. H. Stearns Clerk. Book 6 - Vol. 9 - Page 133 -

Mr & J. E. Harvey Aug. 16. 1844

Rev WIDOW, &c.
File No. 18203
Dolly Van Schoonhaven Former wid. of Lodowick Pramer Priv. Rev. War
Act: July 4, 1836
Index:—Vol. M , Page 296
[Arrangement of 1870.]

J. E. Harvey

Washington
July 21. 1844.
Sir.
I have the honor to submit the following Claims for Pension to Your Consideration.
1. John Porter. Claiming to have his Certificate issued under the act of May 15. 1828, which will entitle him to difference of Pension from 4 th March 1826 to 4 th March 1831. He alleges to have enlisted during the Revolution and be- ing to the discharge of Gen. Washington as fit in Your Office to prove that he served until the close of the War , which service I believe is sufficient to substantiate his Claim.
2. Polly Van Schoonhoven, who was pensioned under the act of July 4. 1836 and has received the allowance from 1840. when her last Husband died. The last Husband was not a soldier or Pensioner and she therefore Claims the difference of Pension from the 4 th March 1831, ac- cording to the Provisions of the act above referred to - The Cases of Prudence Smithkins whose Husband died in 1835 and Content Allen of Vt. whose Husband died in February 1837 are cited as being directly Analogous to

That Now in question and it is thought establish a legitimate precedent for its allowance.
3. George Warner. Whose Name was suspended in 1835, after being pensioned under the act of June 7. 1832, Claims to be restored and to have his arrearages allowed. I refer to an Original roll of Prisoners filed in Your office to prove that he was a Prisoner in Canada and to the testimony of John King (also filed) to prove that he was taken prisoner whilst in the discharge of his duty as a soldier. An objection has been heretofore made to this allowance on the ground, that his Name did not appear upon the public records at Albany; which difficulty it is presumed must now be obviated, from the recent decision in the Case of Henry Beteley, who was a prisoner, Whose Name is registered on the same roll of Prisoners and does not appear upon the books at Albany. It is Contended that the Cases of Warner and Beteley involve the same principle and rest upon the same evidence.
4. Samuel Southworth, through his Administrator Claims an increase of Pension under the act of June 7. 1832, as Sergeant. He received an allowance of $96 per Annum. It is believed that he was attached to Sheldon's Dragoons. He may have belonged to some other Corps
and

You are referred to the papers already filed for the Newbury testimony in that respect, should be not be found enrolled in "Sheldon's Dragoons".
5 Jonas Gates, Claims increase of Pension under the act of June 7, 1832, and refers to the evidence enclosed for the proper allowance.
I have the honor to be Sir
Very Respectfully
Your obedt Servt.
James E. Harvey
Mr. J. L. Edwards Commissioner of Pensions.

Washington
Sept. 27. 1824.
Sir, I have the Honor to enclose the Pension Certificate of Sally Van Schoonhoven to be re- issued under Your decision recently communicated to me.
I have the Honor to be Sir. Yours ab st Serv t James E. Harvey
Hon. J. L. Edwards Commission of Pensions.

Aug 9 1843
My
Schooner
Mr. [unclear]
J. L. Edwards
Commissioner of Customs Washington D.C.

In the matter of Dolly Van Schoonhoven a pen- sioner under the act of July 4 1836.
Albany August 7 th 1843
Sir
I would very respectfully request a re-examination of the above claim. I do so from the impression that a mistake has occurred in making out Mrs Van Schoonhoven's Pension Certificate. According to said certificate she is entitled to pension only from the 15 th of May 1840. This she has drawn. I would now inquire whether she is not entitled to pension from the fourth of March 1831. to said 15 th of May 1840. her last husband, Van Schoonhoven, not having been a pensioner ?
She is evidently entitled to these arrears unless the decision of the Hon Benj m F. Butler of April 13. 1837. has been reversed. Said decision is as follows "I am of opinion, that in all cases, where the husband was in the receipt of a pension under any of the revolutionary pension acts, until the time of his death the pension of the widow under the act of the 4 th of July 1836 can only commence from the date of her husband's death . This is evidently the general principle of the law"
I would therefore respectfully submit

whether we are not to infer from this decision that where the husband was not in the receipt of a pension until the time of his death , the widows pension should not be effected, but should commence as in other cases from the 4 th of March 1831. If this is not so to be understood, I can see no propriety in the specification of the Attorney General "where the husband was not in the receipt of a pension ."
Henry Van Schoonhoven, the applicants late husband, was not a pensioner , and no pension has been received since March 4. 1831 except that which she has recently been allowed under the act of July 4. 1836. I would therefore inquire whether she is not entitled to pension from said 4 th of March 1831 to May 15 th 1840 ?
I have the Honor to remain With Great respect Your M c Offert
Wm. D. Pierce
Wm L. Edwards Commissioner of Pensions

Aug 16 '43
Mrs
W. Johnson Esopus
FREE
Mr. John J. L. Edwards Commissioner of Pensions Washington D. C.

In the matter of the application of Dolly Van Schoonhoven under the Act of "July 4. 1836"
Albany August 14 th 1843
Sir,
I would respectfully inquire whether I am to understand that the above applicants late husband (who was not a soldier of the revolution) had a claim under the Act of June 7. 1832. in consideration of the applicants first husbands services ? If so, (this being a novel case to me) I would respectfully request information, how the widow should make application, and whether she may be sworn by a justice of the Peace.
I am very Respectfully Your Hon or Obedient
Wm D. Pierce
Now J. L. Edwards Counsel of Petitioner

Payment to be made at Albany by T. W. McColl Agent for paying Pen- sioners, in the Agency of
from new certificate New-York
9 mo pri 30- from 4 march 36- deducting what has been paid -
Recorded in the Pension Office, in Book 6 - Vol. 3 2 -
Page 133 by Telegram
J. E. Harvey Present
Clerk.

WAR DEPARTMENT.
REVOLUTIONARY CLAIM.
I certify that, in conformity with the 3d section of the law of the United States, of the 4th July, 1836, Dolly Van Schoonhoven of New-York, formerly the widow of Lodowick Prame who was a private in the Revolutionary War — is entitled to receive Thirty ———— dollars and ———— cents per annum, during the time she may remain unmarried, commencing on the fifteenth of May, 1840 — ———— and payable semi-annually on the 4th of March and 4th of September.
Given at the War Office of the United States, this 8 th  ———— day of July — one thousand eight hundred and thirty forty three.
John B. Porter Secretary of War.
Examined and } Countersigned. }
J. L. Edwards Commissioner of Pensions.
Carlisle. 12 years Nanow. Chautauqua Co. N.Y.

Nov. 20. 1843.
Dolly Ann Schuchman for answ.
Wm Lloyd Commissioner of Pensions Washington D.C.
\frac{1430}{4.20}

In the matter of the application of Dolly Van Schoonhoven for arrears of Pension under the act of July 4. 1836 Albany Nov 16. 1843
Sir, I would very respectfully inform you that the accompanying declaration was prepared previous to the receipt of your last letter in which you inform me that the applicant's claim is adjusted. I beg leave however to submit the declaration for further consideration, being unable to give a satisfactory explanation to the applicant who inquires why she does not receive pension from March 4. 1831 as per the provisions of the act. First from the 14th of May 1840, the day of her last husband's (who was not a pensioner) death. I beg to be excused in offering a few considerations, which satisfy me that the claimant should be allowed pension from March 4. 1831.
The act of July 4. 1836 provides that widows shall receive the amount to which their husbands would have been entitled, if living, under the act of June 7. 1832. Now if the claimant's first husband (for whom she has applied) had been living, he would have received pension from March 4. 1831. - Why then is the applicant allowed from 1840 only?
The words of the law, under which the applicant claims are, that widows receive from 1831 as aforesaid, "during the time they may remain unmarried." In the more recent enactments, giving pension to those married a second time if widows when they apply, it is not provided that their pension commences from the day of the death of their last husband, & I am able to discover nothing from which such a construction can be made. It is true that the above applicant was in the married state from March 4. 1831 to May 14. 1840, but how can this operate to deprive her of her pension during this

time? If such be your decision, I am at a loss to know upon what principle Prudence Simpkins of this city was pensioned. Others which I have in mind. Mrs Simpkins last husband lived till 1835. She too was in the married state from 1831 to 1835 & yet she was pensioned from 1834. Why was she allowed pension from 1831 & the present applicant from 1840 only?
The Hon Pen o F Butler when in office, decided "that in cases where the husband was in the receipt of a pension until the time of his death, the pension of the widow under the act of July 4, 1836, should commence from the date of her husband's death."
This decision was clearly intended to provide against the payment of two pensions, for the same service during the same time, but from inference, it is equally clear that where the husband was not a pensioner at the time of his death the widow's claim should not be prejudiced, but that she should receive from March 4, 1831 as she would have received had she not married again. It is evident that Mr Butler considered that widows whose husbands were not pensioners at the time of their death, should receive from March 4, 1831, or he would not have deemed it necessary to make a special decision in the case of those whose husbands might receive pension after 1831 until the time of their death.
In the present instance the applicant is denied nine years pension to wit, from 1831 to 1840, from the misfortune of having had a second husband & share her poverty during that period. From a careful examination of the present laws & existing decisions, I am compelled to conclude that it was the intent of Congress to grant pensions to widows from March 4, 1831 providing that the husband from whose services they become entitled, died before that time. That a second or subsequent marriage does not effect this claim, it being necessary only, that they be widows when they apply.

The law in effect that they receive pensions from the 21 st of March 1831 during their life, or as long as they remain unmarried . It appears that in some cases they are allowed from 1831 although their husbands lived afterwards, as in the case of Mrs Simphins already cited whose last husband died in 1835, but that in other cases, as in the present, they are allowed only from their last husbands death.
Now it is evident that there is want of harmony in these conflicting decisions under the same law, if I properly understand them, and as I have been instructed to appeal from your decision in the case of the present applicant, I have taken the liberty to trouble you with the arguments upon which I should found the appeal.
If I properly understand your decision that the applicant is entitled to pension from 1840 only, I would very respectfully request to be informed upon what grounds this decision is made, that I may satisfy the applicant & her various advisers, or be able to make a proper representation to the Secretary of War.
I Have the Honor to Remain With Great Respect Your Mo. Obedient W. H. Pierce
Wm J. S. Edwards Commissioner of Pensions

Dolly Van Schoonhoven Applicant Act of July 11. 1836. & act amendatory
  3. 15.  2.50    4  3     7.50     1.60     9.10     15—     60     84.10     15     99  
Agent Mr. B. Pierce Albany N.Y.

In the matter of the application of Dolly Van Schoonhoven for a pension under the Act of Congress passed July 4. 1836. & 1837.
Albany May 6 1843.
Sir,
I beg leave to submit for your consideration the accompanying papers of Widow Dolly Van Schoonhoven. You will observe that the affidavit of Michael Hilsinger was made in Dec r 1840. The widow then meditated applying for a pension but was informed that the pension laws did not embrace her case.
Her declaration of the date of her marriage to her first husband Lodowick Pramer is supported by the certificate of Rev G. A. Lent .
Witnesses Michael Hilsinger & Jacob Laraway both served in company with Lodowick Pramer nine months in 1781 & have made affidavit accordingly. They have both received pensions for their services. The Comptroller's books contain no account of Captain Dubois company in 1781. (at least so reports the clerk,) neither Dubois nor Hilsinger nor Laraway nor Pramer being found. From an old document on file in the Comptroller's Office, it appears that Capt Benj o Dubois did serve nine months in 1781. I send a certificate thereof. I believe that the papers contain all the proofs required. I can at present find no proof of Pramer's service in the militia.
Am Very Respectfully
Your O bt Servant W. H. Pierce
Hon ble J. L. Edwards Commissioner of Pensions.

Dolly Van Schoonhoven
Applicant for arrears of pension under the Act of July 4. 1836
Agent. Wm. Pierce Albany N.Y.

Declaration.
In order to obtain pension under the act of July 4. 1836, from the 14 th of March 1831. to the 14 th day of May 1840. the day of the death of the declarants last husband Henry Van Schoonhoven.
State of New York, Schuylkill County } ss.
On this twelfth day of October 1843 personally appeared before Henry J. Noack a justice of the Peace in & for said County Dolly Van Schoonhoven a resident of the town of Carlisle in said County of Schuylkill aged Eighty three years & upwards, who being first duly sworn according to law doth on her oath make the following declaration in order to obtain the balance of pension due to her under said act of July 4. 1836. to wit, from the 14 th of March 1831 to the 14 th day of May 1840. being the day of the death of her last husband Henry Van Schoonhoven.
That this Declarant is the identical person to whom a pension was recently awarded under said act of July 4. 1836. commencing on the said 14 th day of May 1840 at the rate of $30. per annum, in consideration of the revolutionary services of Declarants first husband Lodowick Pramer to whom she was married on the 25 th day of April 1780 & who served nine months under Colonel Willett in the year 1781. to wit, during said war of the revolution. That her first husband the said Lodowick Pramer died on the 22 d day of June 1822 having never received a pension. That afterwards, to wit, in the month of April 1828, she was again married to Henry Van Schoonhoven her second husband, who was not a soldier of the revolution & who never received a pension from the United States. That her last husband the said Henry Van Schoonhoven died on said 14 th day of May 1840 from which time Declarant has received said pension. That she makes this Declaration in order to obtain the arrears of pension due to her

from the fourth of March 1831 to the 11 th day of May 1840, the said day of the death of her last husband the said Henry Van Schoonhoven. That Declarant has been informed that in her last declaration she stated her residence to be in the town  county of Schoharie. That if so, she committed a mistake, her residence being & having been in Carlisle, near Schoharie, but not within the present boundaries of the town of Schoharie.
Subscribed & sworn the day & year aforesaid before me. & I certify that I am acquainted with the said Dolly Van Schoonhoven & know her to be the identical person who has recently obtained a pension as stated in the within declaration. Note "county" erased & "town" interlined before execution.
Dolly Van Schoonhoven per W. John Kramer made her mark hereon having learned to write during her childhood.
Henry J. Moak Justice of the Peace.
Schoharie County Clerk's Office } p: I, Thomas McArthur Clerk of said county do hereby certify that Henry J. Moak, before whom the above affidavit purports to have been sworn and whose name also appears to the preceding certificate of identity was at the date of the jurat to the said affidavit, and certificate a Justice of the peace in and for said county, and that I am well acquainted with the hand writing of the said Justice and verily believe his name subscribed to the said jurat & certificate to be his proper hand writing and signature. Witness my hand and Official Seal the 15th day of November A.D. 1843. Thos. McArthur, Clerk.
W. Schoonhoven

In the matter of the applica- tion of Dolly Van Schoonho- ven for arrears of pension un- der the act of July 4, 1836
Albany Nov 16. 1843
Sir
I would very respectfully inform you that the accom- panying declaration was prepared previous to the receipt of your last letter in which you inform me that the applicant's claim is adjusted. I beg leave however to submit the declaration for further con- sideration, being unable to give a satisfactory explana- tion to the applicant who inquires why she does not re- ceive pension from March 4. 1831 as per the provision of the act & not from the 14 th of May 1840, the day of her last husband (who was not a pensioner) death. I beg to be excused in offering a few considerations which satisfy me that the claimant should be allow- ed pension from March 4. 1831.
The act of July 4. 1836 provides that widows shall receive the amount to which their husbands would have been entitled if living under the act of June 7. 1832. - Now if the claimant's first husband (for whom she applied) had been living, he would have received pension from March 4. 1831. - Why then is the applicant allowed from 1840. only
The words of the law under which the applicant claims are, that widows, receive from 1831 as aforesaid, during the time they may remain unmarried . In the more recent enactments, giving pensions to those married a second time, if widows when they apply, it is not provided that their pension commence from the day of the death of their last husband. & I am able to discover nothing from which such a construction can be made.

It is true that the above applicant was in the married state from March 4, 1831 to May 14, 1840 but how can this operate to deprive her of her pension during this time? If such be your decision, I am at a loss to know upon what principle Prudence Simpkins of this city was pensioned & others which I have in mind.
Mrs Simpkins last husband lived till 1835. She too was in the married state from 1831 to 1835 & yet she was pensioned from 1831 & the present applicant from 1840 only?
The Hon Benj o F. Butler when in office decided " that in cases where the husband was in the receipt of a pension until the time of his death, the pension of the widow under the act of July 4, 1836 should commence from the date of their husbands death "
This decision was clearly intended to provide against the payment of two pensions, for the same service, during the same time, but from inference it is equally clear that where the husband was not a pensioner at the time of his death the widows claim should not be prejudiced, but that she should receive from March 4, 1831 as she would have received had she not married again. It is evident that Mr Butler considered that widows whose husbands were not pensioners at the time of their death, should receive from March 4, 1831 or he would not have deemed it necessary to make a special decision in the case of those whose husbands might receive pension after 1831 until the time of their death.
In the present instance the applicant is denied nine years pension to wit from 1831 to 1840 from the misfortune of having had a second husband to share her poverty during that period. From a careful examina
Ms A 11. 20. 11

tion of the present laws & existing decisions, I am compelled to conclude that it was the intent of Congress to grant pensions to widows from March 4, 1831 providing that the husband from whose services the become entitled died before that time. That a second subsequent marriage does not effect this claim it being necessary only, that they be widows when they apply. The law is express that they receive pension from the 4 th March 1831 during their life or as long as they remain unmarried. It appears that in some cases they are allowed from 1831 although their husbands lived afterwards as in the case of Mrs Simpkins already cited whose last husband died in 1835 but that in other cases as in the present, they are allowed only from their last husbands death.
Now it is evident that there is want of harmony in these conflicting decisions under the same law if I properly understand them and as I have been instructed to appeal from your decision in the case of the present applicant I have taken the liberty to trouble you with the argument upon which I should found the appeal.
If I properly understand your decision that the applicant is entitled to pension from 1840 only. I would very respectfully request to be informed upon what grounds this decision is made that I may satisfy the applicant & her various advisers or be able to make a proper representation to the Secretary of War.
I Have the Honor to Remain With Great Respect Your Most Obedient
None J. Edwards
Commissioner of Pensions Wm. P. Rice

Declaration
In order to obtain pension under the act of July 4. 1836 from the 4 th day of March 1831 to the 14 th day of May 1840 the day of the death of the declarant's last husband Henry Van Schoonhoven
State of New York Schoharie County ss
On this twelfth day of October 1843 personally appeared before Henry J. Mook a justice of the peace in & for said County Dolly Van Schoonhoven a resident of the town of Carlisle in said County of Schoharie aged eighty three years & upwards, who being first duly sworn according to law doth on her oath make the following declaration in order to obtain the balance of pension due her under said act of July 4. 1836 from the 4 th of March 1831 to the 14 th day of May 1840 being the day of the death of her last husband Henry Van Schoonhoven
That this Declarant is the identical per

person to whom a pension was recently awarded under said act of July 4, 1836 commencing on the said 14 th day of May 1840 at the rate of $30 per annum in consideration of the revolutionary services of Declarant's first husband  Lodowick Pramer to whom she was married on the 25 th day of April 1780 who served nine months under Colonel Willett in the year 1781 to wit during said war of the revolution That her first husband the said Lodow- ick Pramer died on the 22 nd day of June 1822 having never received a pension. That afterwards to wit in the month of April 1828 she was again married to Henry Van Schoonhoven her second husband who was not a sol- dier of the revolution & who never received a pension from the United States. That her last husband the said Henry Van Schoonhoven died on the 14 th day of May 1840 from which time Declarant has received said pen- sion That she makes this Declaration in order to obtain the arrears of pension due her from the fourth of March 1831 to the 14 th day of May 1840 the said of the other last husband the said Henry Van Schoonhoven. That Declarant has been in- formed that in her last declaration she stated her residence in the town of Schoharie. That if so she committed a mistake her residence being & having been in Carlisle near Schoharie but not within the present boundaries of the town of Schoharie.
2) Dolly Van Schoonhoven Sent to Washington Nov 18. 1843
Subscribed & sworn the day & year aforesaid before me certify that I am acquainted with the said Dolly Van Schoonhoven & know her to be the identical person who has recently obtained a pension as stated in the within declaration. Note "County" erased & "town" entered before execution
her Dolly Van Schoonhoven mark I know John Pramer made her mark never having learned to write Henry J. Mook J.P.
Henry J. Mook Justice of the Peace Clerk Certificate