Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File S. 45659, John Burnham, Continental Mass.

SERVICE
NUMBER
Continental Mass.
Burnham, John
S. 45659
{ B.L. M. 95-400 Major Issued Jan. 29. 1790 No papers
see envelope No 2. for extra papers
CONTENTS

BURNHAM, JOMI (CONT. MASS.) S-45659

23 Jan 1828 Notation sent to Hon. S. Bell 27
Q. 11.104
New Hampshire John Burnham.
of Litchfield in the State of N. Hamp. who was a Major in the — by Captain — of the Regt by Colonel Brooks, in the — line, for the term of nine months from — 17- to —
scribed on the Roll of New Hamp. at the rate of 20 Dollars per month 7 day of April 1818.
Certificate of Pension issued the 25 of May 1818 and sent to Saml. Bell, Esq. Judge Rochester, N. Hamp.
Restored to the Roll on the 9 day of Febry 1828 and notification sent to Hon. S. Bell at Senate U. States — Pen commencing on the 8th of February 1828
Amount due on 4th of March 1828 } $16.7
{ Revolutionary Acts March 18 and May 1 1781

John Burnham Major Massachusetts Line 1775 - War
on col Admitted -

I John Burnham of Londonderry in the County of Rockingham and State of New Hampshire testify and depose that I was in the revolutionary war upon the continental establishment as soon as it commenced from May 1775 until January 1784 without any intermission or even being absent on furlough or for private purposes. In 1775 & 1776 I was first Lieutenant in Captain Nathaniel Warner's Company Col. Moses Little's Regiment Massachusetts line, which commission as Lieutenant is mislaid or lost. In 1775 I was in the battle of Bunker's hill after that stationed on Prospect hill Genl. Green's Brigade In 1776 stationed on Long Island Genl. Green's Brigade where I was in several partial engagements and skirmishes and also on the retreat from New York & its vicinity to White Plains & through the State of New Jersey to Pennsylvania and at the close of that campaign I was in the actions of Trenton & Princeton January 1777 Then I received order from Lieut. Col. John Brooks to raise a company which I executed in the course of the Winter and in the Spring marched with the company to Ticonderoga and on the retreat from that place under Genl. St. Clair lost all my baggage of every kind. Then I joined the eighth Massachusetts Regiment to which I belonged under the Command of Col. Brooks: at the German Flats. We were attached to Genl. Arnold's command to raise the siege at Fort Stanwix. Then joined the main army under Genl. Gates. I was at the capture of Burgoyne's Army & in the actions of September & October previous to its surrender. We then made a rapid march to join Genl. Washington's Army in Pennsylvania when a general action was daily expected but the British army soon returned to Philadelphia & on to Valley Forge for winter quarters. I was in the action at Monmouth June 1778. In 1779 I was with Genl. Mance at the capture

of the British garrison at Stony Point by storm It was near the middle of January in the hard winter of 1780 when my company arrived to winter quarters at West Point. In the campaign of 1780 I was under the command of Col. Gennett in New Jersey. In February 1781 my company was put under the command of the Marquis La Fayette and in the summer we were opposed to the British Army under Cornwallis in Virginia and at the close of the campaign I was at the siege of Yorktown & had a command in forcing the British out works by storm. My commission gave me rank as Captain from the first day of January 1777 and my command and my command was the light Infantry company eighth Massachusetts Regiment which commission is hereto annexed. I received the commission of Major in the Massachusetts line, taking rank from the seventh of January 1783 which is signed by His Excellency Elias Boudinot Esq. President of the Congress of the United States at Phila- delphia sixteenth day of June A.D. 1783. & counter- signed by B. Lincoln Secretary at War. I have which commission is hereto annexed. I have no particular discharge except by the the disbanding of the Army by Congress. The letter from the Secretary of War dated March 7 th 1791 shows that I left the service in 1784 in good standing.
I further testify that I am very infirm in health and have no doubt my great infirmities have arisen from the fatigues hardships which I indured in the revolutionary war. I further testify that I always since have been and now am a citizen of and resident in the United States and that I am in reduced circumstances in life and in need of assistance from my country for support. I further testify that no pension has heretofore been allowed me under the laws of the United States -
John Burnham

Rockingham ss. State of New Hampshire.
On this seventh day of April 1818 before me the subscriber one of the Judges of the Superior Court of Judicature of the State of New Hampshire personally appears John Burnham resident in Londonderry in said State who being by me first duly sworn according to Law doth on his oath make the preceding declaration in order to obtain the provision made by the late act of Congress entitled "An act to provide for certain persons engaged in the land and naval service of the United States in the Revolutionary War".
Samuel Bell Asst. Jus. Sup. Court of New Hampshire
I, Samuel Bell judge &c as aforesaid do certify that it appears to my satisfaction that the said John Burnham did serve in the revolutionary war as stated in the preceding declaration for nine months at one time on the Continental establishment against the common enemy and that he is in reduced circumstances and stands in need of the assistance of his country for support, and I now transmit the proceedings and testimony taken and had before me to the Secretary for the department of War pursuant to the directions of the aforementioned act of Congress.
April 7th. 1818.
Samuel Bell Asst. Jus. Sup. Court of New Hampshire

John Burnham
Walter
very particular case
11.024
Sept 1819
Unto Hon J Butler
Essex Place
Jan 23. 1821

The farm on which he now lives consists of one hundred acre lot one sixty acre lot and five acres of meadow land -
1 pr old oxen 1 pr five yr old Steers 4 Cows two two yr old heifers 2 young calves 1 yr old Calt 1 two yr old Calt 1 three yr old Calt 1 old Horse 1 Sow with four pigs 16 Sheep 10 lambs 4 Horns 2 Harrows 3 Chains 1 pr Horse traces Collar 1 Ox waggon 1 old chair 1 Sleigh 1 Sled 2 Staples & Rings for ox yoke 1 Iron Bar 1 Bit 1 two pronged fork 1 Crow 1 Shave 2 Shovels 2 Hoes 2 Dung forks 2 Hay forks 2 Scythes 2 Rakes 1 ax 1 Cart body 1 Stub Scythe 1 Saddle & Bridle 1 nail hammer 10 Bushels Indian Corn 1/2 Barrels Flour 1/2 Barrels Salt Pork 10 Bushels Potatoes a number of old Casks 1 Mahogany Desk 2 small Tables 4 looking Glasses Rocking chair 17 Chairs 1 pine Stand 2 Candlesticks 1 Hearth Brush 2 Maple Tables 1 Bureau 1 Case of maple Drawers 1 Small Pine Table

1 1/2 Case of Knives Forks — 9 Milk pails 4 Cream pails 1 Wash dish 2 Wash Tub, 1 cheese tub 2 Spinning wheels 1 reel Lot Hook & Haulage 2 pr Andiron Shovel & Bongs 1 " Iron dogs 1 Dinner pot 1 Iron Kettle 1 P. ass Kettle 2 Milk pails 1 Water pail 1 Tea Kettle 1 Coffee pot 1 Griddle 1 Toaster
John Burnham A mortgage on land in State of Ohio dated February 1808 to secure the payment of a promissory note of Seventeen hundred Dollars for the benefit of myself & three others given by James Prontiff who sold and suffered the land to be sold for the payment of the taxes and has himself absconded for nine or ten years - This demand has been abled of Expirate - whether the final result will be a total loss or otherwise it is at present altogether uncertain - much pains has been taken to obtain something for it but hitherto without success The foregoing is a schedule of all the estate and income which I have in possession but I am indebted to a large amount which I intend to exhibit to the war department with satisfactory evidence of the correctness of the debts and the particular amount of the same
John Burnham

STATE OF NEW-HAMPSHIRE.
ROCKINGHAM, ss.
ON this Eleventh day of July , 1820, personally appeared in open court, at Chester , before John Harvey and Hale Durgin , Esqrs. Justices of the Court of Common Pleas for the said County of Rockingham, being a Court of Record for the said County of Rockingham, having the power of fine and imprisonment, John Burnham aged sixty six months years, resident in Londonderry , in said county, who being first duly sworn according to law, doth, on his oath declare that he served in the Revolutionary War as follows: — viz From the beginning to the end thereof in the year 1775 & 1776 was a first Lieut in Captain Nathl Warner's Company, Col Morse , Little's Regt Massachusetts Line from January 1777 to January 1783. a Captain of a Light Infantry Company in the eighth Regiment in the massachusetts line from January 1783 to January 1784 as a Major in the second Regiment Massachusetts line as well more fully appears by my original declaration made in order to obtain a pension which declaration is dated the 7th Day of April 1808 That I have received a pension the number of my pension certificate is 11,104
And I do solemnly swear that I was a resident citizen of the United States on the 8th day of March, 1818; and that I have not since that time, by gift, sale or in any manner, disposed of my property, or any part thereof, with intent thereby so to diminish it, as to bring myself within the provision of an Act of Congress, entitled "An Act to provide for certain persons engaged in the land and naval service of the United States in the Revolutionary War," passed on the 18th day of March 1818; and that I have not, nor has any person in trust for me, any property or securities, contracts or debts, due to me; nor have I any income other than what is contained in the schedule hereto annexed, and by me subscribed. My occupation is that of a farmer but I am not of sufficient ability to pursue it by reason of rheumatism which was contracted in the Revolutionary army which has prevented me from doing but very little labour for 15 or 20 years — I have — in family residing with me my wife Abigail aged 56 years who has been long sick two daughters Eliza aged 24 years Abigail Maria  24 years of age who do the work of the family and take care of their sick mother — and two sons John aged 26 years has the care of my farm and George aged 18 years Their capacity to contribute to their support is nothing except what arises from their labour John Burnham
Sworn to and declared at Chester on the Eleventh day of July 1820 before John Harvey & Justices of the Court
I, Peter Chasewick Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas for the County of Rockingham do hereby certify that the foregoing and the schedule thereto annexed, are truely copied from the record of the said court; and I do further certify that it is the opinion of the said court that the total amount in value of the property exhibited in the aforesaid schedule, is 2590 dollars and 25 cents. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed the seal of the said court, on this 14th day of July , 1820.
P Chasewick
Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas for the County of Rockingham.

Rev. War Section.
March 13, 1923. Ch
Mrs. Joseph Matters, 1105 10th Street, Fargo, North Dakota.
Madam; He died June 5, 1823.
In response to your letter of January 31, 1923, you are advised that from the papers in the Revolutionary War pension claim S. 45659, it appears that John Burnham enlisted in May 1775 and served as a 1st Lieutenant in Captain Nathaniel Warner's Company, Colonel Moses Little's Regiment, Massachusetts troops. January 1, 1777 he was commissioned a Captain of Light Infantry and served under Colonels Michael Jackson, Brooks and Gerratt; in the campaign around Yorktown in 1780 and 1781 he served under Marquis de Lafayette. January 7, 1783 he was commissioned a Major and served in Colonel David Cobb's Regiment until January 1784. He remained in the service as Major of the 3d U. S. Regiment until 1791. He was in the battles of Bunker Hill, Long Island,

Trenton, Princeton, Siege of Fort Stanwix, both battles of Saratoga, Monmouth, Stony Point, Siege of Yorktown.
He was allowed pension on his application executed April 7, 1818, while a resident of Londonderry, Rockingham County, New Hampshire, aged sixty eight years and six months. He died June 8, 1843.
In 1830 soldier referred to his wife Abigail aged fifty six years; and children, Eliza aged twenty six years; John aged twenty six years; Abigail Maria aged twenty four years; George aged eighteen years. In 1837 son John was living in Cincinnati, Ohio. A grandson, Charles A. son of George Burnham, was living in E. Derry, New Hampshire, in 1905. In 1893 a great grandson is mentioned, no name stated.
Respectfully,
Commissioner.
In the service as Major of the 2d U. S. Regiment until
1791. He was in the Battle of Long Island,

BURNHAM, JOHN (CONT. MASS.)
S-45659

11.106 Q New Hampshire
John Burnham Londonderry in the state of N. Hampshire Major in the regiment commanded by Brooks of the Massachusetts of Nine Months
of New Hampshire at the rate of twenty Dollars per month, to commence the 7 th of April 1818
Certificate of Pension issued the 25 th of May 1819 Sent to Sam l . Bell Esq. Judge Dover; New Hampshire
as to 4th of March 1819 108.20 31 - 218:58 Semi-ann. all'ce ending 4 th Sept 1819 120: -
338:58
27 { Revolutionary claim, { Act 18th March, 1818. }
Discontinued

John Titcomb affidavit
No. 8.

I John Titcomb of Londonderry in the county of Rockingham & State of New Hampshire do hereby say that by occupation I am a Blacksmith, I further say that I have done work in that line for Maj. John Burnham for several years past and on settlement in Nov r last there was due to me from him thirty seven dollars and forty three cents which I received in cash. The whole amount of acct. being $41. 93
Londonderry Feb y 23 d 1827
John Titcomb
State of New Hampshire
Rockingham ss February 23-1827
Personally appearing the above named John Titcomb and made Oath to the truth of the above affidavit by him signed. Before me.
Peter Patterson, justice of the Peace

I Enos Blake of Londonderry depon and say in the county of Rockingham and state of New Hampshire depon and say that in the spring of the year 1824 I agreed with John Burnham of said Londonderry that my son Will m who was under age should work on his farm for seven months at six dollars p r month which agreement was fulfilled and his wages paid to me by said Burnham. I further say that I rec d of said Burnham in Nov r last another balance of four dollars forty three cents the whole $44.43. I further say that in haying time in 1823 I worked for said Burnham by the day, worthy Lock was then working for said Burnham by the month and continued with him until the fall he has since left this state and I have no doubt but his work that season must have been worth thirty five dollars Enos Blake
State of New Hampshire Rockingham ss. } May 2 nd 1827
Personally appearing the above named Enos Blake and made solemn oath that the above affidavit by him signed is just and true before me, Peter Patterson Justice of the Peace

E Blake affidavit
No. 18
1851 Oct 23rd I have been thinking of the past and how things have changed since we were children. It seems like a lifetime ago. I hope you are well and hope to hear from you soon.

John L. Edwards Esquire Chester Sept 10. 1827
Sir,
I transmit you the accompanying papers at the request of Maj r John Burnham a meritorious Officer of the revolutionary Army. Maj r Burnham is a man of irreproachable moral character. He has resided about five miles from this place for fifteen years, during this time I have been acquainted with him, and from my knowledge of his circumstances (as to property) and character, have no doubt that he is fairly entitled to a place on the list of revolutionary pensioners.
Should there be any informality or deficiency in his evidence be pleased to inform me of it as early as convenient.
I am respectfully & Samuel Bell

Having Been requested By Letter from my Father Dated at Londonderry March 3 d 1827 To State under Oath, what I know In relation to the following subject therefor -
I John Burnham Jr Late of Londonderry State of New Hampshire & County of Rockingham, now of Cincinnati Ohio & County of Hamilton Depose & say That I lived with my father John Burnham Jr at Londonderry until I was 25 years of age & for a number of years had the management of his for- -ming Business owing to his being lame & In Bad health - I further say that In the month of March 1823 we came to a settlement & there was then Due to me three hundred two Dollars \frac{60}{100} for which he gave me his note, I continued In the same Business on wages until the June following - 15 th day - when I left for the Western Country on my departure my father paid me one hundred ninety eight Dollars which was endorsed on the note the residue of note & the amount Due me for labor from March up to the time I left remaind unpaid - I further say that In 1826 I visited my father I found him In a Bad state of health and my mother extremely lame - My father deeply In Debt, he had sold a part of his farm and it now appeared necessary that the remainder of the farm & all his other property must be sold to

To satisfy the debts, he requested me to stay and assist him in selling his property & paying the proceeds over to his creditors - accordingly in October we effected a sale - the remainder of the farm sold for , with the hay, for $2100 the stock forming utensils household furniture & crops sold for about three 300 Dolls - a mortgage deed on land in Ohio sold at Auction for $305.00 - more than $2000 of the money was paid over to creditors before I left my father I was employed by my father to assist in settling his accounts they were not all settled when I left him. There was due to me on the old note $135.09. for labor before I left in 1823 $36.30 for my services in selling property settling accounts & for money paid him mon $13.00 $15.55 all of which I received and gave a receipt for in full at Belpre $200.00
I further say that I perfectly recollect that in the year of 1819 my father rec d - Pension money - the Principle part of which was put into my hands for the purpose of paying persons he owed - the same I paid over as I was directed
The State of Ohio City of Cincinnati 3 rd ss:
John Brownhorn
I, Isaac Burnett, Mayor of the city of Cincinnati aforesaid do hereby certify that John Brownhorn here personally came before me this day & made oath to & subscribed the foregoing affidavit.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of said city this twenty second day of March eighteen hundred and twenty seven
Isaac Burnett, Mayor

John Burnham.
Free Eggs Washing Washing

Oct 1828 Settled at Treasury Cons n with Invalid file 45.659
DERRY N H JUNE 28
Revolutionary War Hon. Richard D. Webb Secretary of the

DERRY. N H. JUNE. 28
Revolutionary Claims Free
Hon. Richard Rush Esquire Secretary of Treasury Washington
Burnham

I may not be correct as to the number of the regiment in which I served as may d but my commission was forwarded to the War department with my application for the pension under the act of 1878 and its presumed to be now on file in the pension and can be seen John Burroughs
draft on Branch in Boston would be most convenient

3 rd Auditor's Report
[Faint, mirrored handwritten text, likely bleed-through from the reverse side]
[Faint, mirrored printed text, likely bleed-through from the reverse side]
[Faint, mirrored printed text, likely bleed-through from the reverse side]
[Faint, mirrored printed text, likely bleed-through from the reverse side]
[Faint, mirrored printed text, likely bleed-through from the reverse side]
[Faint, mirrored printed text, likely bleed-through from the reverse side]
[Faint, mirrored printed text, likely bleed-through from the reverse side]
[Faint, mirrored printed text, likely bleed-through from the reverse side]

no of orig Pay 289-
REVOLUTIONARY CLAIMS.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
July 26. 1828.
John Burnham , of Derry , _____ in the County of Rockingham , in the State of New Hampshire , has applied to the Secretary of the Treasury for the benefits of the act, entitled "An Act for the relief of certain surviving officers and soldiers of the army of the Revolution," approved on the 15th of May, 1828. He states that he was as an officer on the Continental line, and served as such to the end of the war,
at which period he was a Major — in the fifth regiment of the Massachusetts line; and that he received commutation certificates for the five years full pay granted by the resolve of 22 March, 1783; and, further, that he has received as a pensioner since the 3d of March, 1826, fifteen dollars and 66 2/3 dollars, paid to him by the agent in the State of New Hampshire .
The Third Auditor is requested to report how far these several statements are corroborated by the records in his office.
By order of the Secretary, A. Dickinson
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
THIRD AUDITOR'S OFFICE,
30 th July 1828
It appears by the records in this office, that final settlement certificates have been issued for the commutation of five years full pay to John Burnham — Major in the Massachusetts line, amounting to Three Thousand dollars.
It further appears that John Burnham — is now on the pension list of the New Hampshire — agency, and has been since the 8 th  February 1828 at the rate of Twenty Dollars per month.
John Hagner Aud.
1000000 1000000 1000000

Copy of Deed
paid 3/
Burnham to Kimball
Rockingham Records
Recorded Lib. 249. Vol. 137.

Peter Chadwick clerk of the Court of Common Pleas for the County of Rockingham in the State of New Hampshire do hereby certify that Seth Walker is the Recorder of Deeds for said County of Rockingham and that his signature to the certificate on this paper is in his own handwriting
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this fifth day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty seven.
Chadwick Clerk

Know all Men by these Presents, That
I John Burnham of Londonderry in the County of Rockingham and State of New Hampshire, Esquire.
For and in consideration of the sum of twenty one hundred dollars to me in hand, before the delivery hereof, well and truly paid by Benjamin Kimball of Londonderry aforesaid Blacksmith.
the receipt whereof I do hereby acknowledge, have given, granted, bargained, sold, and by these presents, do give, grant, bargain, sell, alien, enfeoff, convey and confirm unto the said Benjamin Kimball, his heirs and assigns, forever,
a certain tract of land in Londonderry aforesaid, being the farm on which I now live, containing one hundred acres be the same more or less, bounded as follows (viz) beginning at the Northwest corner of John Stinson's land, thence Northwardly and Westwardly by land of Atanson Tucker Esq. to land of Simeon Titcomb, thence Northwardly by said Titcomb's land to land of Elder William Choate, thence Eastwardly, Southwardly, and Eastwardly crossing a highway by land of said Choate to a highway at the East end of said tract, thence Southwardly by said highway to the Northeast corner of John Stinson's land, thence Westwardly by said Stinson's land to a highway, thence Northwardly by said highway twenty four rods to land improved as a garden on said tract, thence crossing said highway Westwardly by said Stinson's land to the first mentioned bound.
To have and to hold the said granted premises with all the privileges and appurtenances to the same belonging, to him the said Benjamin Kimball, his heirs and assigns to and their only proper use and benefit forever. And I the said John Burnham for myself, my heirs, executors, and administrators, do hereby covenant, grant and agree to and with the said Benjamin Kimball, his heirs, and assigns, that until the delivery hereof I am the lawful owner of the said premises, and am seized and possessed thereof in my own right in fee simple, and have full power and lawful authority to grant and convey the same in manner aforesaid; that the said premises are free and clear of all and every incumbrance whatsoever, and that I, my heirs, executors and administrators, shall and will warrant the same to the said Benjamin Kimball, his heirs and assigns against the lawful claims and demands of any person or persons whomsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the thirteenth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty six - and Abigail wife of the said John Burnham doth by these presents relinquish her right of dower and power of thirds to the above described premises - Signed, Sealed and Delivered in presence of
The word "belonging" interlined before signing Christopher J. Shom. George Burnham - Witnesses to Abigail Burnham's signature J. George Burnham
John Burnham Abigail Burnham
State of New Hampshire, Rockingham ss. Londonderry Octbr 20 th 1826.
Then personally appeared the aforementioned John Burnham and acknowledged the above instrument to be his free act and deed, before me,
Christopher J. Shom. Justice of the Peace.
Received & Recorded 4 th November 1826.
Seth Walker. Recorder.
a true copy from the Record. Compared -
Attest Seth Walker Regr.
Exeter 19 th April 1827.

Know all Men by these Presents, That
I John Burnham of Londonderry in the County of Rockingham and State of New Hampshire Esquire -
For and in consideration of the sum of eleven hundred dollars to me in hand, before the delivery hereof, well and truly paid by John Stinson of said Londonderry, Husbandman -
the receipt whereof I do hereby acknowledge, have given, granted, bargained, sold, and by these presents, do give, grant, bargain, sell, alien, enfeoff, convey and confirm unto the said John Stinson his heirs and assigns, forever, the two following pieces or parcels of land situated in said Londonderry containing eighty acres more or less.
and bounded as follows, to wit. the first piece lies on the Westerly side of the road leading from Daniel Kimball's house to said Burnham's house, beginning at the Southeasterly corner thereof at the angle made by said road and the road leading to the East Meeting-house in said Londonderry. thence Northerly by the Westerly side of the first named road to the first stone wall running Westerly. thence Westerly by that wall to land of John Stinson this day to be sold to Anderson Tucker. thence Southerly by the same lands and the land of A. S. Readhead now occupied by the widow Readhead, to the said road leading to the said East Meeting-house. thence Easterly by the same road to the bounds first mentioned. The second piece lies on the Easterly side of said road leading to said Burnham's, beginning at the Southwesterly corner thereof at the angle formed by the two roads above named. thence Northerly by the said road leading to said Burnham's about half way from Daniel Kimball's house to said Burnham's house, to the stone wall making the Southerly side of a lane. thence Easterly by the same stone wall to the end thereof, and continuing the general course and direction of the same wall Easterly to the road leading from William Harr's to the widow M c Farland's. thence Southerly by the same last mentioned road to land of Enoch Evans. thence Southwesterly by said Evans' land to the road leading from Hampstead to said East Meeting-house. thence Westerly by the same last mentioned road to Nathan Johnson's land. thence Northerly, Westerly and Southerly bounding on said Johnson's land to the last mentioned road. thence Westerly by the same road to the bounds first mentioned - excepting and reserving thereout, the Blacksmith's shop standing thereon, now belonging to Daniel Kimball, which he has the right to take off, and must take off within a reasonable time, and also excepting the one undivided half of a cider mill and press standing on the same premises, which half belongs to said Daniel Kimball, and the other half I hereby convey to said Stinson, and the said Stinson and Kimball will become joint owners of the mill and press, but said Kimball has no right or title to the land on which the same now stands -
To have and to hold the said granted premises with all the privileges and appurtenances to the same belonging, to him the said Stinson and his heirs and assigns to his and their only proper use and benefit forever. And I the said John Burnham and my heirs, executors, and administrators, do hereby covenant, grant and agree to and with the said Stinson and his heirs, and assigns, that until the delivery hereof I am the lawful owner of the said premises, and am seized and possessed thereof in my own right in fee simple, and have full power and lawful authority to grant and convey the same in manner aforesaid; that the said premises are free and clear of all and every incumbrance whatsoever, and that I and my heirs, executors and administrators, shall and will warrant the same to the said Stinson and his heirs and assigns against the lawful claims and demands of any person or persons whomsoever.
And I Abigail Burnham wife of the said John Burnham in consideration of ten dollars to me paid by said Stinson do hereby release and forever quitclaim all my right of dower in the premises to said Stinson and his heirs -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals the this thirteenth day of November in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty four -
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in presence of us -
John Burnham - Abigail Burnham -
(The word "Stinson" erased and the word "Kimball" interlined before signing - Samuel Kimball - James Thorne.

Rockingham fs. November 13 th A.D. 1824. Then said John Burnham and Abigail Burnham severally personally acknowledged the above instrument to be their free act and deed - before me James Thon. Justice of the Peace -
Received & Recorded 11 th January 1826. Seth Walker. Recorder -
a true copy from the Record. Compared -
Attest Seth Walker Register
Exeter 19 th April 1827.
I Peter Chadwick Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas for the County of Rockingham in the State of New Hampshire do hereby certify that Seth Walker is the Recorder of Deeds for said County of Rockingham and that his signature to the certificate on this paper is in his own hand writing
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this fifth day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty seven.
Chadwick Clerk

Copy of Deed
paid 3/
Burnham to Stinson
Rockingham Records
Recorded Lib. 244 Fol. 294.

The undersigned, as a Notary Public, duly commissioned and sworn, and dwelling in Gloucester, in the County of Essex, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts; hereby certifies that Henry Phelps Esq. now is, and for a long time past, has been, an acting Justice of the Peace, duly Authorized and sworn; - and that full faith and credit is, and ought to be given to his Official Acts and Declarations. —
In Testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed my Notarial Seal, this eighth day of May, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand eight hundred and twenty seven. —
John Rogers. N y Public

I Eben Burnham of Gloucester County of Essex, of lawful age, testify & say that John Burnham of Londonderry, County of Rocking- ham & State of New Hampshire, was indebted to me by a note of hand, in the year eighteen hundred & eighteen, which had been given for money lent him for some years before; & there was due at that time about the sum of one hundred & twenty dollars.
I also depose that in several subsequent payments, I have received one hundred & ten eight dollars.
There now remains due me from said Burnham, a bal- ance of forty four dollars.
Eben Burnham
Essex ss: Gloucester March 6 th 1827
Then Eben Burnham Junr. made oath to the truth of the above affidavit by him subscribed.
— Cor. Henry Phelps, Jus. Peace. The undersigned, in his official capacity, hereby certifies that he this day saw H. Phelps Esq. who declared the above to be his signature, written with his own hand and (if necessary) He further declares, that he should have no doubt, or hesitancy, in certifying to the truth of the fact, of its being his signature, Having been long and very familiarly acquainted both with the hand & his writings, both official and otherwise. — In Testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed my No- tarial Seal, at Gloucester — this first day of November, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred & twenty- seven. — John Rogers. N.Y. Public.

I George Burnham of Swedenbury in the County of Rockingham State of New Hamp- shire Depose that on settlement with Major John Burnham of said Town in 1823 in August there was found to be due to me for labour on his farm according to agreement two hundred Dollars for which he gave me his note. I fur- -ther say that I was employed by said Burnham to labour on his farm from the first of September to the 10 th of December 1823 at ten Dollars per month I was also employed by said Burnham in like manner from the first of April 1824 for seven months at twelve Dollars per month during this time I lent to said Burnham several small sums of money and that on settlement in April 1825 there was due to me three hun- -dred and fifty seven Dollars of which I received from the proceeds of land sold by said Burn- -ham two hundred eighty nine Dollars 66 cents leaving a balance of sixty seven Dollars 33 cents which was paid me of said Burnham for labour on his farm further say that I was employed by said Burnham to labour on his farm from the first day of July 1825 to the first day of November following and that I was also employed by him in like manner from the tenth day of May to the tenth day of Novr 1826 at ten Dollars per month making the further sum of one hundred Dollars which sum with the balance of sixty seven Dollars 33 cents said John Burn- -ham has since paid me making in the whole the sum of four hundred and fifty seven Dollars that said John Burn- -ham has paid me the whole of said sum of $457.00 said John Burnham paid me out of the sums he received for the sale of his estate estate - George Burnham State of New Hampshire Rockingham ss. April 21. 1827. Person

ally appearing the within named George Burnham and made Oath to the truth of the foregoing affidavit by him signed
Before me Peter Patterson, Justice of the Peace
[Faint, mirrored bleed-through text from the reverse side of the page] [Faint, mirrored bleed-through text from the reverse side of the page]
[Faint, mirrored bleed-through text from the reverse side of the page]

Josiah Stowell of Londonderry in the County of Rockingham & State of New Hampshire depose & say that in the year 1819 Mayor John Burnham of said town owed me twenty one Dollars & sixty one cents and in the year 1822 there was the further sum of sixteen Dollars & thirty eight cents due me for dressing cloth carding wool &c which two sums being thirty seven Dollars & ninety nine cents said Burnham paid me in cash in 1822. I further say that between the 1 st of July 1823 up to the 15 th day of January 1824 I had a further account against said Burnham for carding wool and dressing cloth of the sum of forty eight Dollars & twenty four cents of that sum said Burnham paid me in cash about three years ago ten Dollars and the balance thirty eight Dollars & twenty four cents he paid me in cash in 1827 - I further depose that I have been in partnership with Clark Barnes since July 14. 1824 & that we had an account against said Burnham for carding wool, dressing cloth &c for thirty four Dollars & sixty six cents which last named sum said Burnham paid in cash within six months last past - making in the whole that said Burnham has paid me since the year 1821 the sum of one hundred twenty Dollars & eighty nine cents -
Josiah Stowell
State of New Hampshire } Rockingham ss. } April 30 th 1827
Personally appearing the above named Josiah Stowell and made oath to the truth of the above affidavit by him signed
Before me Peter Patterson Justice of the Peace

John Croghan affidavit No. 13

24 I John Crocker of Londonderry in the County of Rockingham and State of New Hampshire depose & say that I received of Mrs. Margaret Crocker a note signed by Major John Burnham of said town dated December the 27 th 1847 for one hundred & sixty Dollars In April 1826 said Burnham paid me forty Dollars in part of said note & in December last he paid me the balance due being one hundred twenty seven Dollars & forty cents making the sum that he paid me one hundred sixty seven Dollars & forty cents in cash - Said note was payable with interest annually and it appeared by the endorsements on the note that the interest was paid annually and the amount of interest paid between July 1820 & April 1826 was about fifty five Dollars & twenty cents - John Crocker
State of New Hampshire Rockingham ss. } April 25 th 1847
Personally appearing the above named John Crocker and made oath to the truth of the above affidavit by him signed
Before me, Peter Patterson Justice of the Peace

Benj m Kimball affidavit no. 16

I Benjamin Kimball of Londonderry in the County of Rockingham State of New Hampshire testify & say that on the second day of May 1820 when John Burnham owed me on settlement of account sixteen Dollars & fourteen cents for which sum he gave me his note which note he afterwards paid me in cash & I think that I held said note one or two years but the particular time I don't recollect Benjamin Kimball
State of New Hampshire } May 1 st 1827 Rockingham ss.
Personally appearing the above named Benjamin Kimball and made oath to the truth of the above affidavit by him signed Before me Peter Patterson Justice of the Peace

Philip Russell's Affidavit No. 4.
1 0 0 1 2 1 6 8 1 2 1 4

Philip Nowell depose that some time in March 1826 May-John Burnham of Londonderry paid me a note due from him to me amounting to about fifty Dollars The consideration of said note was a note which was originally given to Samuel Nowell and endorsed to Elizabeth Nowell - Said Elizabeth Nowell died and said note which was given said Samuel Nowell went into the hands of Nathaniel Nowell sole heir of said Elizabeth and I received it from said Nathaniel Nowell for a debt due from said Elizabeth to me -
State of New Hampshire Philip Nowell
Rockingham ss February 23-1827 Personally appearing the above named Philip Nowell and made oaths to the truth of the above affidavit by him signed. Before me Peter Patterson justice of the Peace

Sam. Kimball affidavit No. 17.

I Samuel Kimball of Londonderry in the County of Rockingham State of New- -Hampshire testify & say that Major John Brown here of said Londonderry owed me on a note eleven Dollars I think which he paid me in cash in the year 1825-
Samuel Kimball
State of New Hampshire Rockingham Jr. } May 1 st 1827
Personally appearing the above named Samuel Kimball and made oath to the truth of the above affidavit by him signed
Before me Peter Patterson Justice of the Peace

Samuel Nowell Affidavit No. 5.

Samuel Vawell of Londonderry in the county of Rockingham State of New Hampshire depose that I have kept store in said town for many years. I further say that I have supplied Maj. John Burnham with goods since 1810 necessary for family use to the amount of one hundred seventeen Dollars and sixty two cents & that the amount has been paid to me by the said Burnham that the balance of one hundred five dollars thirty five cents, was paid to me in 1826 in money.
Samuel Vawell
State of New Hampshire
Rockingham ss February 23-1827
Personally appearing the above named Samuel Vawell and made oath to the truth of the above affidavit by him signed.
Before me
Peter Patterson, justice of the Peace.

A Tucker's Affidavit Chisvert

I Alanson Tucker of Londonderry in the county of Rockingham State of New Hampshire, depose & say that in January last at public Auction held at Lewis Bly's Tavern in said Londonderry I purchased a mortgage of land in the State of Ohio given by Sam l Prentiss to John Burnham to secure the payment of a promissary note of $1700 - dated Feb y 6 th 1808 - It was struck off to me for $305 - There had been several payments made on said note & a suit instituted on the mortgage for the residue - Said Burnham assigned to me the mortgage deed & received of me my notes on demand for the payment thereof a part of which I have already paid
Alanson Tucker
State of New Hampshire Rockingham ss. May 25 th 1827
Personally Appearing the above named Alanson Tucker and made Oath to the Truth of the above Affidavit by him signed
Before me Peter Patterson, Justice of the Peace

I Samuel Adams of Londonderry in the county of Rockingham and State of New Hamp- shire depose & say that I was in partnership with Charles Redfield for a number of years prior to the year 1820 & so continued partners until March 14 th 1825. On the 5 th day of July 1820 there was due from Major John Brown here of said town to said Redfield & myself as partners the sum of one hundred Dollars and sixty cents and I further say that from the the 5 th of July 1820 to the 14 th of March 1825 we the said partners sold and delivered to said Brown here groceries & other articles meaning for family use amounting to four hundred thirty five Dollars & thirty four cents. In June 1823 we lent to said Brown here one hundred fifty Dollars & when he paid the lent money it amounted to one hundred seventy six Dollars, making in the whole seven hundred eleven Dollars & ninety four cents all which has been paid the principal part thereof in cash within two years by said Brown here - I further depose that I was in trade alone in said town from March 1825 to the present time and up to the 27 th of Nov r 1826 I sold & delivered to said Brown here groceries and other goods meaning for family use amounting to one hundred eighteen Dollars & ninety eight cents all which said Brown here has paid to me and one hundred ten Dollars & ninety five cents he paid me in cash since October 1826.
I further testify & say that I was treasurer of the Town of Londonderry in 1826 and before that time and I find that from the year 1820 to the year 1826 inclusive the amount of said Brown here taxes for town, county, State & school amount to the sum of one hundred, six Dollars and ninety

eight units and as there are no outstanding taxes, due the town that sum has been paid by said Burnham -
Saml Adams
State of New Hampshire
Rockingham Co.
May 2 d 1827
Personally appearing the above named Samuel Adams and make oath that the above affidavit by him signed is just and true
Before me Peter Patterson Justice of the Peace

Leonard Hales Affidavit No. 9.

I Leonard Hale of Sandown in the County of Rockingham and State of New Hampshire, testify and say. That I am a Cabinet-maker by trade and have furnished Major John Burnham of said Sandown with furniture between the first of January 1823 and the first of October 1826 to the amount of twenty two dollars and seventy five cents. In the fall of 1826 I sent a boy for my pay and received by his hand nine dollars. a few weeks after I received seventy five cents of Major Burnham, and shortly after received the balance by the hand of John Daland who formerly lived with said Burnham.
Leonard Hale
State of New Hampshire
Rockingham ss April 20-1827
Personally appearing Leonard Hale and made oath to the truth of the above affidavit by him signed Before me Peter Patterson, justice Peace
April 20

George Farnan affidavit
[Faint, mirrored handwritten text, likely bleed-through from the reverse side of the page. The text is mostly illegible but appears to be a continuous narrative.]

I George Farrar of Londonderry in the County of Rockingham and State of New- Hampshire depose and say that I have for the last twenty years been the attending Physician in the family of Major John Burnham of said town. I made a settlement with him in the year 1820 and he owed me eighty eight Dollars & Thirteen cents and he then paid me thirty two Dollars & sixty cents and gave me his note for the - balance being fifty five Dollars Fifty Three cents. On the 3 rd of January 1825 I again settled with said Burnham and he owed me the said note and interest with my account the sum of one hundred twenty Dollars and twenty nine cents and at that time he paid me in cash in part eighty eight Dollars and fifty eight cents & gave me his note for the balance being thirty one Dollars Seventy one cents. In January and February 1827 said Burnham paid me twenty five Dollars said last named note & interest and in part of my account forty six Dollars making in the whole that said Burnham paid me in cash the sum of one hundred sixty seven Dollars and eighteen cents and he now owes me no note about fifteen Dollars
George Farrar
State of New Hampshire
Rockingham ss. May 2. 1827
Personally appearing the above named George Farrar and made oath to the truth of the above affidavit by him signed. Befarious
Peter Patterson Justice of the Peace

J. N. Smith affidavit No. 6.

I Thomas Kennith of Londonderry in the county of Rockingham and State of New Hampshire do hereby certify that being in trade in Londonderry and doing business under the firm of T & J Kennith have furnished M c John Burnham of P o Londonderry groceries and other necessaries for him self and family to the amount of Fifty seven dollars and eleven cents from June 25 th 1822 up to January 15. 1824 and from May 21. 1824 up to December 22 nd 1824 Thirty one Dollars and thirty one cents in good for him self and family and since doing business under the firm of Thomas Kennith He has sold him goods to the amount of one hundred and sixty one Dollars and sixty one cents up to January the 9. 1827 amounting in the whole to $250.03 wherein he has some previous 13 for the defor that said Burnham owes T & J Kennith a note of hand for twenty one Dollars and twenty one cents with interest dated August 12. 1826
Thomas Kennith
State of New Hampshire } May 2 nd 1827 Rockingham ss -
Personally appearing the above named Thomas Kennith and made oath that the above affidavit by him signed is just & true
Before me Peter Patterson Justice of the Peace

I George Farren of Londonderry in the county of Rockingham & state of New Hampshire testify & say - That at the request of Miss John Burnham of Londonderry in company with General Elias Haskell Derby on this 14 th of October 1820 we made a full in- vestigation of sundry demands which are justly due from said Burnham to sundry individuals, and on that investigation I fully believe and have no doubt he justly owes the sum of twenty seven hundred and eighty five dollars and forty two cents, which debts have arisen and grown gradually from supplies to his family in silvers & from nursery bills of mechanics and from many help which he has been obliged to employ about his domestic concerns
I do further say that I have lived a near neighbor to Miss John Burnham for the last sixteen years and have all that time been his family Physician - on my first acquaint- ance with him, his right leg was shorter than his left owing to a rheumatic complaint which has long afflicted him, that rendered him unable to labor on his farm - in addition to the above complaints he is frequently attached with severe spasms of the head chest and other parts of his body, which so far weaken him that he is confined to his house for weeks together

His complaints more particularly of his legs, keep him in constant pain, the bones of both legs are very much distorted, and the right hip joint dislocated, and the muscles so rigid that he is obliged to support himself with a staff in walking —
I do further say that Maj r Burnhames wife sixteen years ago was afflicted with a severe cough, and frequently attacked with hemoptosis, pain in the side, and so feeble that she could not attend to her family concerns. These complaints still continue to afflict her, some times more severely than others — Eleven years ago, she was attacked with a rheumatic affection of the joints — she was many months confined with fever at this time — but the joints of her wrists, hands, fingers and the smaller joints of her lower extremities are still much enlarged & distorted — she is now unable to perform any labor in her family — nor indeed has she ever been able to dress herself since she was attacked with this rheumatic affection. George Farrar
Rockingham Is. Londonderry Oct r 16. 1820
Personally appeared George Farrar who signed the above Deposition and made solemn oath that the above Deposition by him signed is just and True.
Before me Christopher S. Moxon Justice Peace

I James Thorne of Londonderry in the County of Rockingham and State of New Hampshire testify and say that I have been engaged in trade in Londonderry since the year 1814, and have had dealings with Mayor John Burnham of said town and from inspection of my accounts with said Burnham I find that on the 29 th day of Decr 1817 he owed me on note eighty four Dollars & nine cents and on the seventh of January 1818 he commenced a new account in my store for the various necessaries for his family concerns and that account was not settled until the 28 th day of June 1820 and at that time the whole amount of the account was three hundred, thirty one Dollars & twenty one cents. On the 4 th of July 1820 he commenced a new account which was not again settled until the first day of December 1823 and the amount then of that account for the various necessaries for his family was five hundred sixty four Dollars & eighty one cents. On the fifth day of December 1823 he commenced a new account for similar articles which was not settled till Novr 13 th 1824 and the amount then was one hundred fifteen Dollars & seventy three cents. On the 28 th day of Novr 1824 he commenced a new account for similar articles which was not settled until the 13 th of January 1827 and at then amounted to one hundred ten Dollars & fifty four cents
I further testify that I am one of the executors of the estate of Isaac Thorne deceased and there was one note due his estate dated March 28 th 1822 of $100.00 and another note due said estate dated Decr 12 th 1822 of $20.00. These two notes were

given up said Burnham gave a note to the executors John Bell. Harrison Tucker & myself dated August 30. 1826 for $152.35 which note with the interest said Burnham paid me on the 13 th day of Novr 1826 being $154.00 -
I further testify that said Burnham has paid the several orders above stated as having been due to me amounting to twelve hundred six Dollars & thirty eight cents at sundry payments with the accumulation of interest thereon but as the accounts were at the various settlements principally settled by notes and those notes were paid by sundry indorsements and as I have no record of the indors- ments of those notes I can not particularly describe the payments or the times of payments on the amount of the interest he paid me.
I further testify that I have been Treasurer of the First Parish in Londonderry more than six years about seven years and have had charge of the funds of the Parish. On the second day of October 1820 I loaned to said Burnham one hundred Dollars. On the second of March 1821 I loaned to him one hundred Dollars & on the fifth of April 1821 I loaned to him seventy four Dollars out of the funds of the Parish: the two first notes were paid on the seventh of November last and the other note was paid on the thirteenth day of January last the interest was paid annually on the above notes on the second of March and the whole amount of interest paid on them was ninety six Dollars & twenty nine cents - making of principal & interest three hundred seventy Dollars & twenty nine cents -
State of New Hampshire James Thorne
Personally appearing the above named James Thorne and made oath to the truth of the foregoing affidavit by him signed
Before me Peter Patterson, Justice Peace

Inventory of property sold in 1827.

Lot Brought up $302 14
  11 These Pops — — — — — 20   Lot Dreamer these safe B Kimball — — — — — 2-35   Kettle M Carlton — — — — — 1   Jars J Stinson — — — — — 20   Cabin apples B Kimball — — — — — 45   Bread tub N Johnson — — — — — 6   Lot cheese J Warner — — — — — 1-60   Lot cheese C Cunningham — — — — — 94   Lot cheese B Kent — — — — — 50   Lot do J Kimball — — — — — 50   8 cheese L Bly — — — — — 56   Young Wheel B Kimball — — — — — 85   2 Wheels & Snuffs E Black — — — — — 51   Wheels E Blake — — — — — 31   Bedstead B Kent — — — — — 9   1 Bedstead B Kimball — — — — — 55   Bed sack E Blake — — — — — 36   Wheel Red and Wheel — — — — — 17   Lot Planks E Black — — — — —   Large Hatch and Barrel J Reynolds — — — — — 1-60 
$314 94
Joseph Morrison Clerk at Auction State of New Hampshire
Rockingham ss May 13-1827
Personally appeared the above-named Joseph Morrison and made oath to the truth of the foregoing affidavit by him signed. Before me
Peter Patterson Justice of the Peace

A Schedule of the property sold at Auction belonging to Mary John Burnham taken by — — one Joseph Morrison — December 12 th 1886 202-38
   2 Plough E Black 2 75   Small do B Kimball 1 65   1 Grindstone D Buffett 65   Ox yoke J Crocker 1-20   ox yoke & dung fork C S Taylor 95   Dung fork E Johnson 25   Shovel W Harr 80   Shovel J Crocker 60   Hoe B Kimball 25   Adzes J Moor 25   Dung hook D Kimball 13   Hay fork J Crocker 25   Shuffle & Ring C S Taylor 25   do Natt Woodell 15   " Rings and Wedge 17   " " " " " " " " " " J Tucker 25   " Post ax J Moor 25   " Harrow teeth J Clark 94   Tree M Hout 40   Lofts W Harr 36   Lot Hous D Kimball 12   Spinningax J Adams 20   Shuffle & Ring C S Taylor 15   fore plane J Moor and Lane 70   Double Whefluten J Adams 62   Shovel E Black 12   Barrel D Kimball 12   Whefluten W Hout 29   2 Suckers J Morrison 25   Sigun 45   Suckers B Kimball 71   Lot Shears J Crocker 30   Box Iron J Adams 55   do J Adams 40   Lot old Hous J Crocker 40   Sythe E Black 14   Spear M Morse 39   Horse Waggon C S Taylor 8-25   8 Sheep D Kimball 9 30   2 Sheep J Clark 2 55   1 cow J Kimball 10 —   Black cow B Kimball 10 —   Red cow D Buffett 9-75   Red cow M Pillsbury 10-50   1 yoke oxen L Bly 38-50   ox Waggon C S Tucker 32 —   Lot Oats J Storrell 4 —   Lot Corn J Doe 48 —   Old Casks J Stinson 34   Lot Bark Ladder 57   Lot Casks B Kimball 8   Ox drag and hubs C S Tucker 75  
252 38
   1 Horse C S Thorn 41 —   Lot Knees C S Taylor 2-70   Ox Cart E Black 5-60   Body and Tong 2-35   Slee J Reynolds 50   1 Shoal B Melvin 4 —   1 Skate J Adams 4 —   4 Casks B Kimball & others 95   Lot Clapboards D Kimball 12   Ladder B Kimball 26   Churn Chase 80   Lot Carrots D Kimball 50   Lot Cabbage East side of Johnson 1 —   Lot do J Clark 1-75   Lot Potatoes B Kimball 11-50   Lot Red do C S Crop 2 —   Lot do J Moor 1-90   Lot do J Warner 1-90   Lot Turnips C S Tucker 32   Lot do C S Crop 16   Remainder of Turnips C S Tucker at 15c   Churn J Reynolds 12   Sythe B Kimball 35   Synthes and Bakes B Kimball 79   Hay Poles C S Tucker 6   Bakes B Kimball 30   Old iron C S Taylor 23   " Chains L Bly 35   Carpent saw E Blake 25   Old Harp B Jenkins 1 —   Brest Plate L Bly 33   Lot Harrow teeth 40   1 Trap C Bedfield 10   Horse harness Jaggs box B Kimball 18   Lot Brock C S Johnson 14   4 Churn Mrs M Grogone 1-08   Light Stand J Cunningham 13   Light Stand B Milner 26   1-4 foot Table C Bedfield 2-35   High chairs B Morse 4 —   Pad irons J Clark 95   Pair Waiters C S Cunningham 12   Lot Jug Bucket & W Hout 40   Lot do Lantern L Bly 2-5   Pistol M Morse 1-05   Bells B Kent 23   1 Keg D Buffett 18   Measuring Shamm B Kimball 10   Table J Moor 55   Table M Carlton 13   Churn apratus B Kimball 7  
99 76 302 14

State of New-Hampshire.
To All whom it may Concern.
KNOW YE, THAT Peter Patterson was, on the fifth day of August Anno Domini eighteen hundred and twenty three and ever since has been, a Justice of the Peace and of the quorum for the County of Rockingham
in said STATE, duly constituted and sworn, and that to his Acts and Attestations, as such, full Faith and Credit are and ought to be given, in and out of Court, within and out of the STATE.
The said Peter Patterson is the only Justice of the peace of that name in said County.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto affixed the SEAL of the STATE, at Con- cord, this twenty fourth day of January in the year of our LORD one thousand eight hundred and twenty seven and in the fifty first year of the Independence of the United States of America.
Richard Bartlett
Secretary of State.

B. Piers off Ward
[Faint, mirrored handwritten text, likely bleed-through from the reverse side of the page]
[Faint, mirrored handwritten text, likely bleed-through from the reverse side of the page]

I Benjamin Pierce of Hillsborough in the county of Hillsborough and State of New Hampshire depose and say; that in the Revolutionary War I served in the eighth Massachusetts Regt from seventeen hundred & seventy seven to seventeen hundred & eighty one; that I was well acquainted with John Burnham Esquire now of Londonderry New Hampshire; that he commanded the Light Infantry company of the same Regiment from the year seventeen hundred & seventy seven until about the first of January seventeen hundred & eighty three when he was promoted to the rank of Major. He was esteemed a most worthy vigilant officer, always at the post of duty. In my opinion second to no man of his rank in Massachusetts since. Benjamin Pierce.
Hillsborough p 3 April 4 th 1827
State of New Hampshire Personally appeared Benjamin Pierce and made oath that the above affidavit by him subscribed is just and true.
Before me J. M. Merrill Justice of the Peace

I John Doland of Londonderry in the county of Rockingham and State of New Hampshire do hereby certify that I was employed by Maj. John Burnham of said town to labor on his farm for one year from the first of April 1821 for the consideration of sixty dollars and that I received of him what was due to me at the expiration of said term. I further say that I was employed by the Burnham for the same purpose nine months from April 1822 for the consideration of nine dollars per month that at the expiration of this term he gave me a note of fifty dollars the balance then due me. In Nov. 1823 I loaned to said Burnham fifty dollars. I was further employed by him to labor at farming for one year from Nov. 1824 for the consideration of one hundred two dollars fifty cents. I was further employed by said Burnham fourteen days for four dollars and settlement of accounts and notes in 1826 there was found due to me including a note indorsed to me by E. Adams of thirty eight dollars, the sum of two hundred & sixty two dollars which I rec d of said Burnham in money. I further say that I have rec d of said Burnham in consideration of board room & victuals furnished himself & wife from Nov. 1826 at three dollars pr. week the sum of thirty nine dollars the whole amount of accounts & notes being three hundred seventy four dollars $ 374 not including interest
  Part  60    25  13    30  262     39     374  
John Doland

State of New Hampshire
Rackingham ss February 22-1827 Personally appearing the within named John Coland and made oaths to the truth of the within affidavit by him signed.
Before me Peter Patterson, justice of the Peace
John Coland's affidavit
No 10 John Coland's Affidavit

John Dolands Affidavit N o 10
John Dolands affidavit
State of New Hampshire Peachtree 22-1827 Personally appeared the within John Dolans and made oath to the truth of the within affidavit by him signed. Before me Peter Atkinson qualified as the Clerk

John DeLand affidavit
No. 11.

I John Doland of Londonderry depose to say that Major John Burnham and his wife now board with me and they are both invalids Mrs. Burnham has been confined to the house a long time - since giving my last affidavit Board Burnham has paid me the further sum of twenty seven Dollars for board.
John Doland
State of New Hampshire } May 22 1827 Rochester N.H. }
Personally appearing the above named John Doland and made solemn oath that the above affidavit by him signed is just & true
Before me / Peter Patterson Jus tice of the Peace

I James Thorn testify Asay that since the 13 th day of March last Major John Burnham of said Londonderry in the County of Rockingham has taken & had out of my store sundry articles necessary for himself & wife amounting to eleven Dollars & thirty five cents which he has paid me in cash -
I further testify that I am Treasurer of the first Parish in Londonderry & have been since the year 1820 including that year & I find that the amount of taxes in those years against said Burnham who has been a member of said Parish amounts to the sum of twenty seven Dollars & ninety five cents which he said Burnham has paid -
I further testify that for my services and advice in assisting in sale of Ohio Mortgage writing assignment power of Attorney &c & for assisting in writing Affidavits for pensions and expenses in preparing papers the said Burnham has this day paid me the further sum of twenty five Dollars -
James Thorn
State of New Hampshire Rockingham ss. May 2 nd 1827
Personally appearing the above named James Thorn and declaring on oath that the above affidavit by him signed is just and true Before me, Peter Patterson Justice of the Peace

I William Choate Jr. of Londonderry in the County of Rockingham & State of New Hampshire testify & say that during the years 1817-1818-1819 & 1820 I was in trade in Londonderry and that during those years I sold & delivered to Major John Brownham of said Londonderry groceries & other articles necessary for his families use amounting one hundred eighty two Dollars & sixty eight cents which from said  was  he paid and since 1820 I have sold & delivered the same kind of articles amounting to one hundred fifty two Dollars & thirty nine cents and during the summer of 1826 I lent him $20.00 to pay to his hired men all of which sums were paid paid to me by said John Brownham the principal part paid me since 1826 with interest on the whole of said sums but not having taken an account of the interest it is not in my power to state the amount of interest.
I further testify that I have examined the vouchers of payments to the persons hereafter named where it would be difficult to obtain affidavits and I find that payments were made to the following persons to wit -
   To James leaf in 1822 18.25   - Isaac Hill in 1826 2.00   - Andrew Moore in 1827 2.25   - Sarah Whidden in 1825 paid in 1826 1.34   - Eben Johnson in 1823 5.92   - John Moore in 1825 paid in 1826 4.00   - James Adams in 1827 2.25   - Eben Johnson in 1825 paid in 1826 2.83   - Same Moore in 1824 & 1826 and paid 9.78  

To James Culef in 1827 ————— 6.50 - Edward Dodge in 1827 ————— 9.91
I further testify that I paid John Porters bill against said Burnham of seven Dollars this day and I further say that said Burnham this day paid me my account against him as an attorney and for other necessary articles the further sum of twenty two Dollars thirteen thirteen cents —
I further testify that I said said Burnham pay Peter Patterson this day for taking affidavits to get pension the sum of five Dollars —
William Choate Jr
State of New Hampshire } Rockingham ss. } May 22 1827
Personally appeared the above named William Choate Jr and made oath to the truth of the above affidavit by him signed
Before me Peter Patterson Justice of the Peace

W m Choate Jr. Affidavit
State of New Hampshire Rockingham ss. 3 May 2 d 1827
Personally appearing the within named William Choate Jr. and made oath to the truth of the within affidavit by him signed
Before me Peter Patterson Justice of the Peace

Auction
Will be sold at public auction on Friday the twentyth day of January instant at eleven o'clock in the forenoon at the tavern of Lewis Bly in Londonderry in the County of Rockingham N. H. a mortgage deed of three shares in the Ohio Company's purchase given by James Prentiss to John Burnham dated February the sixth A. D. 1808 to secure the payment of a promissory note of that date given by said Prentiss to said Burnham on which note is now due twenty one hundred seventy eight Dollars & thirty seven cents
William Choate Jr Auctioneer
Londonderry January 2 d 1827
I William Choate junior testify say that the foregoing advertisement was published in the New Hampshire Journal printed in Concord N. H. on the 8 th instant and that a copy of the same was posted at Melvins tavern in Londonderry and another copy posted at Lewis Bly's tavern in Londonderry both publick places from the 3 d of January till the day of the sale and that I sold the same property for three hundred and five Dollars to Harrison Farkin who was the highest bidder and the same property was sold publickly and fairly and there were a considerable number of persons who bid on the same
William Choate Jr

We the Subscribers all of Derry lately a part of Londonderry in the County of Rockingham and State of New Hampshire, Testify and say, that we have been intimately acquainted with John Burnham of said Town for many years. He moved from a Sea Port Town in Massachusetts, purchased an Estate in this place and commenced farming about thirty years ago; but he was entirely unacquainted with the business and with the Farmers mode of living, was unable to labor himself, had a family for more than twenty years out of health and a farm that required much labor and principally to be hired. To these causes it may be imputed, and not the want of prudence that he became so much involved. We further testify that two of said Burnhams Sons, in their own time, were employed to labor on his Farms and had the management of it under him for a long time, we believe to their own injury. We are not knowing to any written contract between the Father and Sons. It is not here the practice to make written Contracts in such cases. We believe they were hired as farmers usually hire their Sons or other help which is done by verbal contract and that they were entitled to as much as was usually paid to others for the same length of services. It is our further opinion that the measures pursued by said Burnham in the disposition of his property was the most advisable that could have been adopted for the interest of his creditors. We further testify, that from our knowledge of the honesty and pure integrity of

of said Burnham, that we are confident that no deception or fraud was intended or practised in the disposition of the property of said Burnham and in the liquidation and payment of his debts. We know that said Burnham and his wife are now destitute of health and unable to do anything towards supporting or taking care of themselves, and that neither of their children are able to afford them assistance; and we have no doubt that said Burnham and his wife are almost entirely destitute of property. We further testify that said Burnham has always been of the first respectability and has uniformly sustained the highest character for purity, integrity, and honesty and deservedly retains the entire confidence and affection of all his acquaintance and more especially of the church of which he is a worthy Elder.
Derry November 10 th 1827.
Christopher S. Thorne
James Choate
William Choate
Stephen Reynolds
John H. Mittiman
James Thorne
Hanson Tucker
Geo. Ferriss
Sam Adams

State of New Hampshire } November 10 th 1827. Rockingham ss. }
Then the before named Christopher S. Thom James Choate, William Choate Stephen Reynolds John H. Mittimore, James Thom Alanson Tucker Samuel Adams and George Farnes all of Derry in said County personally appeared and made solemn Oath that the foregoing Deposition by them subscribed is just and true Before me Peter Patterson Justice of the Peace

I Elias Haskell Derby of London Derby in the County of Mochingham, State of New Hampshire testify & say that at the request of Major John Burnham of London Derby, in company with our mutual friend & respectable Physician Doct r George Farrar on this 11 th Oct r 1820 have made a full investigation & examined the vouchers & items of sundry demands, which I consider as justly due from d e Burnham to sundry individuals; & on a careful inves- tigation of the same, I fully believe & have no doubt he justly owes the sum of twenty seven hundred & eighty five Dollars & forty two cents; which debts appear to have arisen & grown gradually from supplies to his family in sickness & extra labour in managing his small Farm; & in consequence of his & his Wife's extreme infirmity - with the bills incumbent on managing a small Farm. - I do further state that I have lived a near neighbour to Major Burnham for five years last past; that I have always felt a great interest in his welfare from his known military services during the revolu- tionary War; & from the manner in which he has preserved his well earned military character, by his moral & valuable example in civil life, while struggling with extreme adverse circumstances; such as very small means ; His & his Wife's limbs very distorted by Rheumatism, accompanied with old age, so as to incapacitate them from the ordinary farming duties; - inability to hire the

the necessary labour to manage his little Farm to advantage or even to prevent its going to waste, & these difficulties increasing - so as in my mind to portend a speedy state of extreme penury. -
Elias Haskett Derby
Rockingham J. Londonderry N.H. Oct 16 th 1820
Personally appeared Elias Haskett Derby, and made solemn Oath that the foregoing Depo- sition by him signed is just and True.
Before me Christopher S. Hovey Justice Peace

United States of America - New Hampshire District Circuit Court = May Term = 1827.
I, Charles Whittier Clerk of the Circuit Court of the United States for New Hampshire District, do hereby certify that it appears to the satisfaction of said Court that the said John Burnham did serve in the revolutionary war as stated in the preceding declaration against the common enemy for the term of nine months under one engagement on the continental establishment. I also certify that the foregoing oath and the schedule thereto annexed are truly copied from the records of said Court; and I do further certify that it is the opinion of the said Court that the total amount in value of the property exhibited in the aforesaid schedule is one hundred and eighty five dollars of forty three cents.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto caused the seal of said Court to be affixed, and do set my hand, this ninth day of May A.D. 1827.
Charles Whittier, Clerk of the Circuit Court of the United States for the New Hampshire District

Let him be allowed his Pension Pension Office 8th Feb.

Washington Feb 8. 1828
Hon James Barbour Secretary of War
Sir
I respectfully take leave to state some circumstances connected with the application of Major John Burnham for a pension, which are within my own personal knowledge, in addition to the evidence which is already before you on that subject.
I have been personally acquainted with Maj r Burnham more than twenty years. During the last sixteen years, I have resided within five, and part of the time within two miles of his residence. For many years he has been unable to labor, in consequence of severe rheumatic complaints, and is now unable to walk without the aid of crutches.
His wife has been sick for several years, and is so enfeebled

by age and disease as to be incapable of taking care of the ordinary concerns of a family. When Major Burnham became unable to labor, it was necessary in order to provide the means of supporting his family from his farm to hire labor to carry it on. He was unable to give any property to his sons to aid them in setting out in life, and when they attained the age when young men begin to think of providing making provision for settling themselves in business, they were unwilling to labor for him otherwise than as common laborers for wages. It was more desirable and advantageous to him to hire them than strangers, and he did so as I have always understood.
I well know that this labor was performed, and from my personal knowledge of the family and their circumstances I have no doubt that it was upon contract for wages as stated in the testimony exhibited by him.

Major Burnham has always sustained an irreproachable character.
I take the liberty to add that from my personal knowledge of Majr. Burnham, character, his family, and circumstances, I cannot hesitate in expressing my entire belief in the truth of his statement, and that his property has been fairly and honestly appropriated to the payment of his just debts.
I will only add that I am personally acquainted with the signers of a memorial setting forth the character and circumstances of Majr. Burnham, and that they are persons of the highest respectability and character in the town in which he resides.
I have the honor to be very respectfully Your Obed servt Samuel Bell

Medford, Mass. Oct. 19 th 1820.
Sir,
I beg leave to bespeak your attention for one moment to the case of Major John Burnham, one of the best disciplinarians & gallant soldiers of the revolution. I knew him well. He entered the army as a Lieutenant, & was at the battle of Bunker's Hill. He afterwards served as a Captain in the 8 th Mass. Regiment, was at Storming the Lines at Saratoga, & the British forts at Stoney Point & York Town, besides being engaged in numerous other actions. But, although he is as good a citizen, he as was a brave soldier, he has through personal sickness, the misfortune to be in reduced circumstances. And if any man in the nation is entitled from his meritorious

For the purpose of obtaining the benefits of an act, entitled "An act for the relief of certain surviving Officers and Soldiers of the Army of the Revolution," approved on the 15 th day of May, 1828, - I, John Burnham, of Derry, in the county of Rockingham, in the State of New Hampshire, do hereby declare that I was an officer in the Continental Line of the Army of the Revolution, and served as such, to the end of the war, of which period I was a Major in the Fifth Regiment of the Massachusetts line -
And I also declare, that I afterwards received certificates (commonly called commutation certificates) for a sum equal to the amount of five years full pay, which sum was offered by the resolve of Congress, of the 22 nd of March, 1783, instead of the half pay for life, to which I was entitled under the resolve of the 21 st of October, 1780 - And I do further declare, that I have received of the United States, as a pensioner, since the 3 rd day of March, 1826, Sixteen Dollars and I think Sixty six Cents paid to me by the agent for paying pensions, in the State of New Hampshire -
Witness my hand, this Sixteenth day of June, in the year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and twenty eight - John Burnham
My commission as Major, has been in the War Department since the year 1818

Before me, Christopher S. Thorne Esquire Justice of the Peace, duly empowered to administer Oaths, in the county of Rockingham, in the State of New Hampshire, personally appeared, this day, James Thorne, and David Mac Gregor of the said county, who did, severally, make oath, that John Purdie, by whom the foregoing declaration was subscribed, is generally reputed and believed to have been an officer in the army of the Revolution, in manner as therein stated.
Witness my hand, this sixteenth day of June, in the Year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and twenty eight.
Christopher S. Thorne Justice of the Peace.

I, Peter Chadwick Clerk of the Court of the County of Rockingham, in the State of New Hampshire, do hereby certify that Christopher S Thom Esquire before whom the foregoing Affidavits were sworn, was at the time, a Justice of the Peace and duly empowered to admin- ister oaths.
In testimony whereof I have here- unto set my hand, and affixed the Seal of the said Court, this 23 rd day of June, in the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty eight.
P. Chadwick Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas for the County of Rockingham N.H.

Schedule
Containing all the property of John Burnham of Londonderry (his necessary clothing and bedding excepted) by him exhibited to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Hampshire on the eighth day of May Anno Domini 1827
  1 Desk 2 tables & 1 Looking Glass  $10.00    8 chairs fine Shovel, tongs & dogs  2.75    Old brockery & Old Books  1.50    half Pew in the meeting house  15.00    Iron hollow Ware  1.50    Warming pan two tumblers & decanters  .75    1 pair Iron handlesticks, 5 knives & forks  .50    1 Old chaise out of use  5.00    Note of hand signed by Hanson Tucker  $48.45     $185.43  
John Burnham
United States District of New Hampshire
At the Circuit Court of the United States holden at Portsmouth within and for the district of New Hampshire on the eighth day of May in the year of our Lord one Thousand eight hundred and twenty seven Before
The honorable Joseph Storer personally appeared John Burnham resident in Londonderry in the County of Rockingham and District of New Hampshire aged seventy seven years Who being first duly sworn according to Law

Law doth on his oath make the following declaration in order to obtain the provision made by the acts of Congress of the 18th March 1818 and the first of May 1820 that the said John Burnham Entered as first Lieutenant in April or May 1775 a company of Infantry Company of Infantry commanded by Capt Nath Warner in a Regiment commanded by Col Moses Little in the line of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts which Regiment was pla- ced upon the Continental Establishment shortly after its Organization; that he ser- ved in said Regiment for the term of two years, that he was then promoted to the Ranks of Captain in the Eighth Regi- ment of the Massachusetts line , on the Continental Establishment which regiment was command- ed by Colonel Michael Jackson and served in said Regiment until the month of Jan'y 1783 he was promoted to Major in a Regiment commanded by Colonel David Cobb and served in said Regiment until January 1784 when he was honorably discharged at West point in the State of New York that he was in Bunker hill battle the Engage- ment with the Enemy on Long Island previous to their taking possession of New York and on the several skirmishes in the neighborhood of York Island and also in the skirmish with the Enemy the day previous to the battle at Princeton and also in the battle In 1777 he was with the army in its retreat from Sconderaga where he lost all his bag- gage that he was in the battle of the 19th September and 7th October previous to the Surrender of Burgoyne's Army immediately

after the surrender of that Army he joined the Army under General Washington at White Plains That in 1778 he was in the battle of Monmouth That in 1779 he was in a detachment under General Wayne which Stormed Stony Point That he was under the Command of Genl Lafayette in the campaigns of 1780 & 1781 when he commanded the Light Infantry and was at the capture of Cornwallis and engaged under Genl Lafayette in Storming the Enemys Works That he never had a furlough during the War That he has been placed on the pension list and dropped therefrom on account of property
John Burnham -
And in pursuance of the act of the first of May 1820 I do Solemnly swear that I was a resident citizen of the United States on the 18th of March 1818 and that I have not since that time, by gift, Sale or in any manner - disposed of my property or any part thereof with Intent thereby By so to diminish it as to bring myself within the provisions of an act of Congress Entitled An act to provide for certain persons engaged in the land and Naval Service of the United States, in the Revolutionary War passed on the 18th of March 1818 and That I have not nor has any person in trust for me any property or securi- ties contracts or debts due to me nor have I any income other than what is contained in the schedule hereto annexed and by me subscribed
My schedule contains the following items viz

Wig 1 Desk 2 tables 1 Looking Glass 8 Chairs fine Shovel & tongs pair Doyles Old Crockerery Old Books half Pew in Meeting house Iron Hollow Ware Warming pan two tumblers one decanter pair Iron Candlesticks 5 Knives & forks 1 Old Chaise and a Note of Hand Signed by Hanson Tucker amounting in the whole to $185.43
John Burnham -
Farming is my occupation but by reason of lameness occasioned by the Rheumatism am unable to perform any labour I have no family Except my Wife Abigail who is Sixty Three years of age and who has been so Sick for several years that she has been unable to feed or dress herself We have no house nor home but are boarding out upon the most Economical terms; but owing to the Extra trouble on account of our ill health we cannot board for less than four or five dollars per Week - that I have resided in Londonderry afore named for the last thirty years.
That since the Execution of my first Schedule the following changes have been made in my property
Wig

Viz I
   Description of Property Names of the persons to whom disposed of Time of Sale - Amount of money on description of property received in return and how disposed of.     80 acres of land more or less being part of the 100 acres lot mentioned in my former schedule and known as the McSaffee Farm To by Grant as originally laid out, but containing more acres by admearsement John Stensen Nov 13, 1824 For the sum of eleven hundred dollars cash and paid out to discharge debts I was justly owing to the following persons vizt To said James Thom 400.77 To said Adams & Redfield 176.26 To said Phillip Norwell 50.00 To said George Burnham 289.67 To said John Crocker 40.00 To said Eben Johnson - 5.02 To said George Warren - 72.28 To said Merthy Lock 35.00 To said Samuel Kimball 11.00   100 acres of land more or less being the residue of the 100 acre lot the 60 acre lot and the 5 acres of meadow land mentioned in my former schedule known as the Mc Gregor farm together with the Hay on said farm * same amounts apply here as to the 100 acre lot Benjamin Kimball Oct 30, 1826 For the sum of twenty one hundred dollars money and paid out to discharge debts I was justly owing the following persons vizt To said James Thom $596.75 To said Sam Adams 377.00 To said Sam Norwell 105.00 To said Thomas Kimball 250.00 To said Eben Burnham 48.00 To said John Titcomb - 37.43 To said Leonard Hall 22.75 To said John Daland - 67.00 To said George Burnham 167.33 To said John Crocker 127.40 To said Jonas Hamill 72.90 To said John Burnham 28.42   All my personal property except my To sundry persons as Will November 1826 For the sum of three hundred fourteen dollars ninety four cents money  

my necessary Will of Clothing bed linen by doing said the ad the articles in ac- contained in the an- ed Schedule by Joseph for substituted Morris- for such as the Clerk had been of the worn out Auction or otherwise disposed of said at Auction
money which amount was paid out to discharge debts I was justly owing to the following persons viz To paid John Burnham $176, 64 To paid Mr Choate 143, 30 NB The money for the sale of the last mentioned farm & the personal property was received about the same time and the money so mingled that I may not
The small To Hannon Jany against Tucker 12, 1827 James Poet caused by Mortgage on Land in the State of Ohio sold at auction and the mortgage assigned
have been perfectly accurate in the distribution as above stated but accurate in the general result
for the sum of three hundred five dollars $132, 43 of which sum was paid out to dis- charge debts I was justly owing the following persons
viz  To paid William Choate 6, 09  To paid John Delane 27, 00  To paid Isaac Hill - 2, 00  To paid Andrew Moore 2, 25  To paid Sam Whelden - 1, 34  To paid John Moore 4, 00  To paid James Perkins - 2, 25  To paid Ebenezer Jensen - 2, 83  To paid June Moore 4, 83  To paid James Calif - 6, 50  To paid Edwin Deleyn 9, 91  To paid John Pater - 7, 00  To paid Peter Paterson - 5, 00  To paid George Warner 46, 00  To paid Enos Blake 4, 43  To paid Joseph Morris 1, 00 
my expenses attending Court to make the discharge and fees to the Clerk and small matter paid out at various times of which I have kept an account about $25 and now due to me on account of the sale of said demand from Hannon Tucker and is the same note contained in the an- exed Schedule $148, 43

And I further State that since executing my former Schedule and previous to the sale of the printings demand I have received on said demand the sum of $1065 - that with the money so received I have paid the following persons debts I was justly owing them to wit To James Thorne $378.36 to Adams & Redfield $33.64 to John Burnham Jr $168, to William Choute Jr 152, to James Galt $18.25 to Jane Moore 4.95 to Benjamin Kimball $16 to Ebenezer Burnham $60, - to George Harner $48.90 to John Doland $45 to Samuel Adams and Adams & Redfield $140 on the examination of the affidavits accompanying this declaration it will appear, that I have paid out more money to the deponents than appears I had received by the sale of my property for explanation I would State that I had to borrow some money to meet the most pressing demands against me and that some of the demands were paid by sale of stock & produce of the farm (I then owned but the particulars it is impossible for me to state as from my almost constant confinement from bodily indisposition I could not give that attention to my uncovers  means which I otherwise should have done for the same reason it is impossible to account for all the changes which have been made in my personal property since executing my former Schedule but I can State generally that some part of the stock & all the provisions mentioned in that Schedule were consumed for the support of my family & that other parts of the stock and furniture utensils were disposed of and worn out and the places supplied by purchases and exchanges to enable me to keep my farm stocked and to carry it on. John Burnham

United States of America
Circuit Court New Hampshire District May Term 1827 Then the above named John Burnham personally appeared and made oath to the truth of the above declaration
Charles Wheeler Clerk
United States of America at the Circuit Court of the United States holden at Portsmouth within and for said district of New Hampshire on the eighth day of May A.D. 1827, The above named John Burnham appeared in the said Court and was duly sworn to the truth of the foregoing declaration and I the undersigned Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States allotted to the said Circuit Court and now performing the duties of the District Judge of the said District during his disa- bility to perform the same according to the act of Congress in such case provided do hereby certify that upon examining witnesses in the said Court it is my op- inion that the value of the property stated in the schedule is the said Burnham here in before described as amounting to one hundred and eighty five dollars & 43/100 is the true and fair value thereof Witness my hand the day & year above written
Joseph Story Justice of the Supreme Court of the U States
A true copy of the original declaration on file.
Charles Wheeler,
of the District Court of the United States for New Hampshire District.

1775.
1105 - 10th St. S.
Fargo N. Dak.
Jan. 31 - 1923
United States Pension Bureau Revolutionary Dept. Washington D. C.
Gentlemen: — as I am considering joining the D.A.R. I write asking you to send me notes concerning my Revolutionary ancestor — Maj. John Burnham — his name spelled Burnane first — part of service as I remember being told by my father John W. Burnham.
In a newspaper scrap I have, it says he was Capt. in the 8th regiment — which first entered the enemies lines at Saratoga — war service 1775-1783.
My cousin Mrs. Margaret Burnham Eggers, Plainview Minn. is a member of D.A.R.

so I suppose you have plenty of data at hand. Maj. Burnham's son Geo. Burnham: my father John W. B. And Oblige yours
Mrs. Jos. Mathews (Eliza Burnham Mathews)
1105 10th St. S.
Fayson N. D.
P.S. My Great- grandfather's name was placed on the pension list in conformity with an act passed Mar. 18 - 1818. he drew semi-annual payments till Mar 4 1820 until each pensioner was obliged to furnish a schedule of his property and because he owned property to value of $2590.25, his pension was taken from him until he proved he owed more than that sum and also had dependents. Pension was restored Feb. 8, 1828. Maj. Burnham also a (E.B.M.) member of Cincinnati Society.

O. W. H.
C
Burnham Homestead, Derry, N. H., May 17, 1906. Hon. V. Warner, Commissioner of Pensions, Washington, D. C. Sir:
Last year you promised to give me all the information you could concerning my case, namely, Was it according to the Rules of the War Department in the execution of the Pension Act of May 1, 1820, to introduce foreign and prejudicial matter into the Pension Papers of Revolutionary Pensioners under the Laws of March 18, 1818, and May 1, 1820, and to strike an officer from the Pension List under the number and title of a private soldier as was done in the

case of my Grandfather, Major John Burnham, Pensioner No. 11,104. I had got through with correspondence with the Pension Department on this subject, but as the Department itself reopened the correspondence by first writing to me I thought I would rewrite and ask the question. It is an important question and matter — it would have been an act of true courtesy under the circumstances , and of wisdom too , to have given me a prompt and truthful answer. But there may have been no appropriation made by Congress for sending free of postage such information, I therefore inclose a stamped and addressed envelope for a reply.
Yours, very respectfully, Charles A. Burnham,
P.O. Box 95, East Derry, N.H.

O.W.& N.
AW
July 27, 1905.
Sir:
In response to the enclosed letter dated July 21, 1905, and received July 24, 1905, you are advised that the Regulations of May 1, 1820, relative to Revolutionary pensions, are not published in pamphlet form, but are incorporated in the printed Pension Laws of the United States, and, therefore, cannot be furnished you by this Bureau.
Very respectfully,
Commissioner.
Mr. Chas. A. Burnham, P.O.Box 96, Burnham Homestead, Derry, N. H.

JRC
Inv. F. 45659: Rev. War. John Burnham.
Sept. 18, 1905.
Mr. Charles A. Burnham, P. O. Box 95, East Derry, N. H.
Sir:
Sept 18 - 1905 In reply to your letter of August 29, 1905, filed in this Bureau September 2, you are informed that neither the law nor the rules of this Bureau provide for furnishing copies of evidence on file in Revolutionary pension claims; that such information as is given relating thereto is furnished through courtesy; and that the Bureau is constrained to decline to comply with your request.
Very respectfully,
Commissioner.

O.W.& N.
AW
July 13, 1905.
Sir:
In response to the enclosed letter to the Librarian of Congress, dated June 30, 1905, and forwarded to this Bureau July 11, 1905, you are advised that a typewritten copy of the Regulations of May 1, 1820, relative to Revolutionary pensions, cannot be furnished you, the clerical force of this Bureau being inadequate for such purposes.
It is suggested that you look up the printed Pension Laws of the United States at some library and make a copy therefrom.
Very respectfully,
Commissioner.
Mr. Chas. A. Burnham,
P.O. Box 95,
Burnham Homestead, Derry, N. H.

Department of the Interior, BUREAU OF PENSIONS. OFFICIAL BUSINESS. Any person using this card to avoid the payment of postage on private matter of any kind will be subject to a fine of Three Hundred Dollars.
Chas A Burnham, Henry, N.H.
_____ Co.

Department of the Interior,
SI
BUREAU OF PENSIONS,
MAR 24 1892
189
Sir :
Your communication containing stalingued papers in relation to the claim of Major John Burroughs, Rev. War
has this day been received and filed. The case will receive consideration as soon as it can be reached in its turn.
Very respectfully,
No. 11,104
Geo B Ramm
Commissioner.

Sept 18 1888
Sir:-
In reply to your letter to the President, which has been referred here for answer, I have to advise you that copies of papers, except of discharge certificates, are only furnished to individuals for historical purposes, not as the papers desired by you, to wit those of Joshua Burnam, a private soldier, in no way refer to your grandfather, Major John Burnham, they can have no interest for you
You have been repeatedly advised that there by this Bureau that there is no law under which you can be paid any money on account of pensions or

2)
damages for withholding pension for the services of your grandfather and this action has been affirmed and reaffirmed by the Secretary of the Interior, and I fail to see what is to be gained by further correspondence in the matter,
Chas. A. Burnham, Esq.
East Derry
N. H.

Bureau of Pensions
Accessions of Records and official correspondence

File 45559
RECORD DIVISION
Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF PENSIONS.
aw
Briefed by
e e e
Claim No.
Certificate No.
1104
Claimant
Chas A. Brumham
Soldier
John Brumham
Service
Rev War
Additional Service
No Claim, New Records
No Claim, Old Records
REMARKS:
File with original answer

Old war
Mr Wilkinson, A grandson of this pensioner has repeatedly persisted in claiming against adverse decision that no arrears of pensions were due to the heirs, until informed that no notice would be taken of his communi- -cation in regard to said claim.
Mrs Caroline E Burnham does not state that she is a descendant or what use would be made of the schedule - It was upon the exch. of property that caused the pensioner to be dropped from the pension roll in 1820
This schedule was made in Court & appears to have been known to, & discussed by, the grandson & may have been familiar to other the heirs
Under these circumstances, it is submitted for special directions -
Prior
Aug 7 7, 1893

Bureau of Pensions.
Mr Wilson
In this case one Chas a Burnham, a grandson of the Pensioner, has been persistently presenting a claim for some supposed arrearages of pension which has been rejected several times by the Hon Secretary, and the claimant finally notified of the uselessness of further correspondence with the Department. She admits to have had a full knowledge of the case and the alleged schedule which is referred to in the various decisions of the Secretary.
Mrs Caroline A Burnham now asks for information in reference to this schedule, and upon being asked for what object she makes the inquiry and her relationship to the pensioner, she commences with the statement that it is desired to be used as evidence in a certain lawsuit between her husband & one Edmund Adams, and that she writes at her husband's request. She does not so state, but it would appear probable that her husband, is Chas A Burnham.

Bureau of Pensions.
As a matter of fact and law the tax lists of the Town in 1820. or at any other date will show the list of taxable property of the Pensioner and would be better evidence in any event than this no part schedule.
Havnes made this explanation she foresees to give an entirely different version but fails to show her relationships to the pensioner.
She says she had a son. 13 yrs old. who with his father & mother is now living in a part of his great grandfathers. (the Pensioners) farm there at the age of 21- he will come into possession of a lot of money. that has been entitled to him & she wants him to know about the old estate.
There seems to be room for a strenuous sacrifice then this is merely an attempt to revive the old controversies.
10/5/92.
S.M. Co.

Judge -
Advise the lady that she can get the desired informa- tion from town records.
W,

Copies of Secretary's decision for future use

of Pensions.
er.
In response to the letter of Mr. Charles A. Burnham and the copies of papers filed through you. I have the honor to state, that similar copies have heretofore been filed at various times, and I respectfully refer you to the accompanying copy of the decision of the Hon. Secretary of the Interior of May 5, 1890 - denying a motion to reconsider the case which contains a full statement of the facts, and the action in the case - of which action Mr. Burnham was duly notified, and he has since been notified that no special re-hearing which would warrant any change of action.
Hon. L. A. Bullock - H. R.
Dec 17/96 -

Committee on Invalid Pensions, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
No 11104
Name of Claimant, _____
Name of Soldier, John Bursham Major, Revolutionary War
TO COMMISSIONER OF PENSIONS:
Please transmit, for the use of this Committee, the papers in the above-entitled claim.
By order of the Chairman:
H. Gann Clerk. for Page 229

18
267 Law Division, BUREAU OF PENSIONS,
Washington, D. C., Feb 6, 1888.
No. Claim, Wf. 11.10X Claimant, Chas A. Burnham Soldier, John Burnham Co. Major. Rev. Stationary War.
Respectfully referred to Gen C. C. Chief of Old War Division to be applied to case.
Copy of departmental letter this day mailed to claimant.
File with no 45.659
J. M. Ward Chief of Law Division.
Smith L Examiner.

Bureau of Pensions.
F 45. 659
John Burnham (N.H.) sent Sept 12. 1889 Law Division & from there to Secretary Interior When returned bring the case & these papers to
J. N. Prior
old war
Law Div
Sept. 12- 89

(The President addressed)
Thos. A. Burnham,
Derry, New Hampshire,
Aug. 23, 1888.
Asks the President to remove the Commissioner because he refused to allow him, for pay, to have copies of papers he was entitled to; and because he insulted the memory of his grandfather Maj. John Burnham of the Rev. War, by not allowing an investigation of the case; the Major having been fraudulently excluded from the pension rolls, another Burnham drawing the pension, &c. (1820).
Quotes the Commissioner's decision in the case; the appeal to the Secretary and the reply of the Asst. Sec. sustaining the action of the Commissioner; also copies from the War Dept. records relative to his grandfather's pension, together with the acts granting same.
Major John Burnham,
No. 11,104.
War of 1812.
over file

Dr. G. Hamblin
thinks no answer
needed L B N
Jan 11/98

Dept. of the Interior,
March 2, 1883
Respectfully referred to the Com'r of Pensions.
Glenn H. Wood Chief Clerk.

Derry News February 16, 1894.
PENSION LEGISLATION.
Some Plain Statements Concerning the Changes that Have Been Attempted by the Pension Department.
Editor of The News:
After all the new orders from the Pension Bureau, soon followed by other orders rescinding the former; after court proceedings and popular clamor and very great deal of "backing and filling," which has characterised the administration of the pension laws for nearly a year, there may be some very natural curiosity, on the part of those interested, to know about how the matter stands at the present time.
There have been three distinct episodes in the history of these events for the last year. First, There was the effort to nullify the pension law of 1890 by a wholesale suspension of soldiers with a sudden stoppage of pay. But before this movement had proceeded farther than to affect about 13,000 veterans the supreme court of the District of Columbia brought the whole thing to grief and compelled the commissioner to take his hands off the pensioners' money until notice and some proof of fraud or error.
This is a great gain for the pensioner and is the most stunning rebuke that any administration ever received at the hands of a court, so far as I can recollect.
Secondly, The most injurious attack on the veteran was in a new rating of the degrees of disability which, had it been pursued to its natural result, would have deprived more than four-fifths of all under the law of 1890 of their pension however fair the trial given. For it was said, with some semblance of truth, that under that wicked re-rating "no one who had not had his head shot off" could receive a pension anyway. It is very gratifying to know that at the very time (Sept. 3, 1893) of the session of the National Encampment of the G. A. R. at Indianapolis this cruel endeavor to nullify a law of congress was desisted from under a menace of the formidable hostility being manifested by the grand and venerable body of men there assembled and who were so plainly in earnest in their determination that the national guarantees to their former comrades must be observed. Thus again the administration was humiliated and discountenanced through the Interior department and Bureau of Pensions.
Thirdly. The two first attempts hav.

comrades must be observed. Thus again the administration was humiliated and discountenanced through the Interior department and Bureau of Pensions.
Thirdly, The two first attempts having failed by reason of the courts and an adverse public sentiments the third and last effort is the most cowardly and the most pernicious of all. This is "to do nothing." Worthy veterans are kept out of their pensions by simple inaction. Widows who have the clearest cases under the law of 1890 are called on for more and more proof as to matters which have no bearing on the case and the manner in which the evidence is required to be prepared is almost a sure guaranty that more can be furnished. The printed order sent abroad giving instructions how evidence must be prepared in order to be even received and placed on file is so technical that not one man in five nor one woman in ten can prepare the simplest statement of fact, and the same rule seems to about cut off the possibility of any friend giving them aid or assisting them in preparing their testimony. I have known them to demand from a widow who was an applicant under the law of 1890 for testimony as to her dead husband's army service and disabilities, although he was a pensioner at the time of his death and had, of course, made the needful proofs himself, and his widow could by no means comply with the demands of a department which has fully made its plans to do nothing. To indicate that the administration expects to succeed in this effort to carry on a masterly campaign of inactivity it is to be noticed that the estimates for pension appropriations for the ensuing year are $15,000,000 less than for the year past, though so many applicants are now waiting for their cases to be reached. Nothing is plainer than that without further legislation they will not be reached by this administration, so plainly hostile to the veteran and all that is in sympathy with him. The widows and other applicants can only bide their time and it looks as though they would be compelled to wait three long years before they shall be able to come into possession of that which the government has so plainly made theirs by law. If there are (and I know there are right here in our town) widows or veterans who are in extreme need of the $8 or $10 to which they are entitled, let me call their attention to a law of New Hampshire which makes it the duty of the selectmen or county commissioners to afford needed aid until such time as the general government performs its promises to those who saved not the state but the nation from the bloody assaults of its foes. This state aid will be their only recourse.
It will be found that our selectmen and county commissioners will cheerfully recognize their duty to supply what the United States government withholds.
Respectfully, L. H. PILLSBURY.
This is Meant for You.
It has been truly said that half the

Burnham Homestead, Derry, N.H., Dec. 31, 1897.
To the Hon. Commissioner of Pensions Sir:
Your communication to Senator Chandler, of this State, of the 17th inst. in relation to my claim against the Pension Department that of my Grandfather Major John Burnham, Revolutionary Pensioner No. 11,104, Senator Chandler sent to me. And I thought I would write you one more letter in regard to the case, and I hope this time with God's blessing to succeed in opening your eyes to the justice and propriety of the

to the fact claim, and that you have the means placed in your hands with which to pay it and that you are in every way authorized by law to pay it. I am talking business now. I hold that when D. L. Edwards, Commissioner of Pensions, did, on the 25th day of May 1819, place, and "in the absence and on behalf of the Secretary of War" Major John Burnham on the Pension List, Roll of the New Hampshire Agency, he made no mistake but fully understood his business and the intent of the Pen- sion Law in every particular. That is the Law of March 18, 1818. To say nothing about the Con- stitutionality of the Act of May 1820, any subsequent
examination (as the last men- tioned Act required) by the Sec- retary of War, of this case at least, was a reflection upon the ca- pability of Mr. Edwards and his Pension Department. But what did such an examination or investigation of this case by the Secretary of War reveal? It revealed that the said Major John Burnham, Pensioner No. 11,104, was more than seventy years of age (the general limit of man's age), that his occupation was farming, but having for the preceding fif- teen or twenty years been deprived of health and the use of his legs by reason of Rheumatism known to have originated in the service of his country in the Revolutionary Army, he was unable to pursue it but had to hire another to do it
* I demand to know who has been opposing this claim after minutes and and how they have done it. I am entitled to know who have done it I doubt it not, and

— That his wife in the fiftieth sever seventh years of has age had was and had "long been laboring under con- sumptive complaints frequently bleeding from the lungs for twelve or fourteen years" and that instead of being able to labor he required some one to take care of her instead — That the full valuation of his available property by himself and Dr. George Farrar, and I think a Committee of Appraisers, was $2590.25; and valuation of the same together with his Mortgage on three shares in the "Ohio Company's Purchase" which was not available, was by the two Judges of the Court before which he exhibited his Schedule and took his oath, John Harvey and Heall Burgin, appraised at $2590.25. That was his exhibit of property in come, health and other circumstances,
they are, what they have done, and the reason they give for

opposing the claim. It is but right and proper that
subject to the following in his Schedule: "The foregoing is a schedule of all the estate and income which I have in possession but I am indebt- ed to a large amount which I intend to exhibit to the War department with sat- isfactory evidence of the correctness of the debts and the particular amount of the same." And he did so and proved by the very best of evidence and witnesses that he had been one of the best of Revolutionary officers and of American citizens and that his just indebtedness was $2785.42 , exceeding the whole

of his property by $195.17. The Secretary of War (if that was the matter under consideration) must have had a wonderfully discriminating judgment if he could see how an old soldier of Major John Burnham's age, health, and circumstances could without assistance from his country "support him- self" according to the meaning of the makers of the Loans of March 18, 1818, and May 1, 1820! By the way did the old sol- dier's $2590.25 of real and perso- nal property and its meagre in- come amount to any more with the poor health of himself and wife than a "grateful country" should have allowed — even without any indebtedness — an officer of his rank? Why was $10
should be informed in regard to it and I have a right to know this, and may show why they oppose the claim
per month pension paid to an officer and only $8 per month to a private if it was not regarded as proper that the officer should be in better circumstances than the private, however correct that view of the subject might have been? Recently a proposed Pension Law was opposed be- cause that it required that the pensioner should not have a yearly income of his own a- side from his pension of more than $600. The opposers of the law said that it would be "humiliating for the soldier to make such a con- fession of poverty as that!" However worthy the soldiers of the Northern States of 1861 — 2 wherein are they better than the American Revolutionary offi- cers and soldiers of 1774-1784?

The pension withheld, and which I now demand, was a legal part
The conclusion of everyone of common sense must be that Major John Burnham, Revolutionary Pensioner, No. 11.104, was as much if not more entitled to a Pension under the Laws of March 18, 1818, and May, 1820, as any other man. In fact the Pension Provision was made for just such men as he was, especially, — those who had been good soldiers and good citizens, but through misfortune reduced in circumstances by indebtedness. Notwithstanding the opposition with which I have been met in this case I found his original schedule, Oath etc. and obtained attested copies of them. They and the copies of them sent by him to the Secretary of War in 1820 have no figures "11.024" on

of Grandfathers legal estate while living where I now live and
them, nor allusion in any way whatever to the case of Joshua Burnam, of that number them . Of those figures are found on the copies in the Pension Office they are foreign matter introduced by some evil disposed third party with the intention of prejudicing the examiner or the Secretary of War against the case and confirms the statement of one Hanson Tucker that he told them that if they were going to give a pension to any one to give it to Mr Joshua Burnam as he was a poor man but that Major John Burnam had property enough. Tucker was a wealthy and influential man in the prime of life. He was brother-in-law and next

neighbor to the lawyer who did Grandfather's Pension business, and it was easy for him to learn about it and work against him if so disposed. The trouble arose about Grandfather's Ohio mortgage it was said by one of his (Tucker's) connections. It was said that when Grandfather was trying to get his Pension that Tucker asked him: "But what are you going to do with your Ohio Claim, Major?" — thinking that perhaps per- haps that Grandfather would intrust it to him, he was out there about that time. The question did not suit Grand- father, and he replied "That is my business." Tucker was mad but evidently said noth- ing to Grandfather and still pretended to be friendly to him.
But do not say the withholding of it was the cause of his being compelled against his will to sell the rest of his estate.
But it appears that he was not so. D—d old fool," he is reported as saying, "fix him!" And so this man of about 48 years of age, of great wealth and con- siderable influence, conspir- ed without just cause to rob a poor and old worthy Revo- lutionary soldier out of his Pen- sion to which he was justly en- titled and to defraud him out of his Ohio lands where he had been a useful pioneer and which probably included the county lands to which he was entitled as a Revolutionary Officer. A man here by the name of Reimbell was probably after then after Grand- father's farm here which he afterwards then ob- tained, the Ohio Legislators be- ing themselves in debt had pass- ed laws hindering for some time

the collection of such debts while Ephraim cutter  state one of them and Earl Sprout of that state were try- ing themselves to get the claim. But things had surely come to a pretty pass if an old soldier and pensioner after being unjustly subjected to the trouble, labor, expense, and humiliation, of proving that he was poor and was entitled to the Pension which had been granted to him "in conformity with the Law of March 18, 1818 22 , could not have the full benefit of his own statement when he was subject to imprison- ment if he swore or stated anything false! But such was the way it was in this case if the Notice of Exclusion from Pension, dated Jan'y 23 d 1821,
anything about this claim being unworthy" (as has already

been done by (your Bureau) — that is, not so long as you
and received by him was intended for him by the Secretary of War. Of course when other and foreign matter was by a third party introduced or added to the copy of Schedule and oath sent by him they ceased to be his true copy . That act, when done with the acceptance of the War Department , vitiated the whole thing , and rendered all proceedings against him in the case null and void! This you know as well as I do. But the notice of exclusion from Pension does not allude to the John Burnham who had been pensioned at

Keep the Major that I have spoken of at the close of this letter, and many others I could mention, on the Pension List!
4 A.M.
the rate of twenty dollars per month and whose Pension Certificate as stated in his Schedule was numbered 11.104. The said Notice of Exclusion from of Pension, by sign and by universal practice irrevokably bound the War and Pension Departments of the United States of America to the case of Pensioner No. 11.024. Major John Burnham, Pensioner No. 11.104, was left unscathed. This you know. But if there is any thing that is not plain to you, I can make it so. But he was made to believe that he had been stricken from the Pension List. My Father who was then a boy of about 19 recorded the facts concerning about how that
when Grandfather and Grandmother were feeling keenly the loss and outrage "friends" appeared and got him to commit the case to business  his management. And they managed him out of his Ohio Claim, which was what they were after in the first place. And Grandfather, he too, has left written statements concerning it. Now from 1850 to 1853 at least, and long after Grandfather died, our family letters from Washington, from Pension Agents there, assuring us that there was still Pension there due Major John Burnham and offering their services to recover the same for a certain per cent if successful. I have recently sent some of these letters to good hands in Washington, Mr. Mervin who had been to help

Clerk in the Pension Office had resigned that position to prosecute Pension claims against the Government. This was in 1850, and as he then refers to D. L. Edwards, Commissioner of Pensions who was the one who granted to Grandfather his pension in 1819, he (Meerret) might have been a Clerk when the fraud was perpetrated upon Grandfather in 1821. At Mer. True and a Mer. Knight, Pension Agents both wrote us in 1852 and 1853 that there was pension due Grandfather which they offered to get for a certain per cent. if so. I am Major John Burnham's heir and representative. As a part of his legal estate while living here there is now due me from you for the United States $1439.33 1 / 3 . Pension from March 19th 1820, to March 3rd 1826. After coming into legal possession of the estate of said Pensioner, I was officially recognized as my claim as the Pensioner, by John P. Black, Commissioner of Pensions. You have abundantly millions with which to pay it (which I hereby demand), and the act of May 1, 1820, and Sec. 4742 U.S. R. L. authorize you to pay it. Very respectfully, Charles A. Burnham

W.S.
You will please to notice that I do not claim this pension under any recent law, but under the Law of May 1, 1820 , the one in force when Grandfather lived where I now live and was in possession of the real estate which has legally descended to me and which I have taken formal possession of , and Section 4742 of the Revised Statutes of the United States which also authorizes its payment because the Pensioner did during his life establish his claim to it , and did not leave it  undrawn but applied for it . Such a course  unjustly and irregularly  was  held . Such a course on your part would meet properly a just demand

and properly vindicate the ac- tion of the Pension Department in this case in the first place. The pension ($20 per month) from the time of its suspension March 4th, 1820, to March 3rd, 1826, the date of the com- mencement of his pension under the Law of May 15th, 1828, $1439.33 3 / 4 is all I ask or expect from you. It is the oldest and perhaps the most just Pension Claim in the United States, and has the first claim for payment. There is a Major of the last war living not a thousand miles from where I do whom I know and seen much of during the last 27 years who for ten to fifteen years has been drawing $20 dollars it is said per month pension for an "interesting kind of heart disease" which I and his neighbors (as far as I know (and I have heard it spoken of) never heard of until after he got his pension. It has been considered a case of fraud by those who have known of his good health and large amount of labor since 1871. The People who have furnished you with means with which to pay pensions will not object to paying Major John Burnham just as

with to be sent
Scien... notice of continuance - There is no mistake in identity etc
1883 June 7. C.A. Burnham (See Copy of letter within) of similar form to that sent only more full.
23 To same reference to above. No 17 title under such law. omnibus cir. par. 3. etc.
1884 July 17. C.A. Burnham that this Dept is powerless to afford relief
1884 Dec 9 C.A. Burnham that there is nothing to communicate from previous letter.
1885 Oct 28 Hon H.W.B. Law with history of withholding pension on account of property & error in no of No that the office has no authority to restore pension withheld
1886 May 29 C.A. Burnham That copies of papers or other information cannot be given upon which to base a claim against the government
1886 June 14 C.A. Burnham that his statements contain nothing new & that further correspondence cannot be continued
1888 Sept 18 C.A. Burnham - And copies of the papers of Joshua Burnham cannot be furnished as there is no law to pay the withheld pension - St. Robinson Agt. Ch. of Devn

45659
Rev
INVALID.
Due June 8, 1843
File No. 45659
John Bunnham Major Rev War
Act: 18 March 1818
Index:—Vol. 3, Page 70
[Arrangement of 1870.]
Report & case to Rev. March 5-87 Chk. noted May 9 87 Case 5-87 May 97

[Arrangement of 1870.]
Index:—Vol. 3, Page 75
Act: 18 March 1818
John Dunham Myles Rev Wm
File No. 45-659
45 659 Very INVALID.
Report & case to Rec. March 5-875
Clerk notified May 78 Case to D. 78 May 78

4/87 Rep. I Ct See 9 " Action of 0 " Court ad
1882 After with history Coke from 1818
1889 March 28 - C A Burnham of the letter Sept 18 1888 on A Burnham - Prior of letter with m.
Sept. 18, 1905 - Col. Burnham info - copy of papers cannot be furnished - Copy to 1923 March 13 - this is the only matters. AWS
1889 May 2 to 2
11. L. J. Mc Kenney in brief of the action on the to 1888 - Prior copying mainly the copy
C. A. Burnham - regard for more of the Sec. in
May "
5 - 90 - Set re-aff d. 7 - " Atty. in f d.

4/87 Rev. P.E. Lee 1911 action of the Church at...
1882-1888 March 28 - C. H. Burnham of the letter Sept 18, 1888 on the subject of the action of the Church at...
Sept. 18, 1905 - Col. Burnham info - copy of papers cannot be furnished - Copy 6 MB 1923 March 13 - H. L. to Mrs. Joseph matters, AWS.
11. F. J. Mc Kenney in brief of the action on the to 1888 - Prior A. Burnham referred for records of the Secretary
May 5 - 1901 - Not re-acted Atty. in d...

INVALID. (Series
Keokuk
Cert. No.
Name,
John Burnham
Rank,
; Service,
Original P.
Age
enst'd
, 18
, to
"
, 18
, to
45657
Issued
, 18
Mailed
, 18
Rate and Period, $
, from
, 18
New jacket
Deductions:
Disability:
Issued
, 18
Mailed
, 18
Rate and Period, $
, from
, 18
Deductions:
Disability:
Mailed
Rate and Period, $
, from
, 18
Deductions:
Disability:
Issued
, 18
Mailed
, 18
Rate and Period, $
, from
, 18
Dec. 17/97. Complete status sent to Hon. W. E. Chandler U.S. Senate -
Deductions:
L. W. B.
Disability:
ENDORSEMENTS.
April 8/92 The Hon Sec. of the Navy directs that no further attention be paid to claimant letter on matter
April 19/92 To Hon. L. F. McKimney
Aug 18/92 Mrs. E. B. authorizes signature
10/7/92 Mrs. Burnham signature in full

1894 Feb 12 Sched. of property account to be made at Chester N.Y. Shaperly
Dec 17/1896. Hen to be Selloway - Copes of Decision of Secy of May 5/90 - No change of action contemplated.
Gas Utilities furniture paid An account April 19/92 Aug 18/92 Mrs. E. B. Anthony 10/7/93 Miss Brewham

No. 136
18 3-67
Motion for Re-consideration of a Former Departmental Decision.
Received June 14, 1889.
From Chas. A. Burnham, Derry, N. H.
H.C. PENSION CLAIM.
Cft. No. 11 104 John Burnham
SEP 16 1889
D.A.S.
No. 136
Motion for Re-consideration of a Former Departmental Decision.
Department of the Interior,
AUG 31 1889 , 18
Respectfully referred to the Commissioner of Pensions for papers in the case.
Cyrus Busse
Assistant Secretary.
Docket No. 1146 , 18 86
Decision affirmed May 5 , 18 87
Letter Book (187) , Page 440
Initials, H.B. D. G.
ACTION.
May 5 , 18 90
Motion for re-consideration Overruled
TER

EXECUTIVE MANSION.
The within communication is respectfully referred to the
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.
By direction of the President :
DANIEL S. LAMONT,
Private Secretary.
[Handwritten initials: HLD]

4195
N 98
Appeal received Nov. 29, 1889.
Dated _____, 18_____
From C. A. Burnham, Derry, Rockingham Co., N. H.
SUBJECT:
Appeal in his pension claim No. 11,104
claim of John Burnham, Revolutionary War.
(OVER.)
H. C. W. 4195, 1889.
Docket No. _____, 18_____
Department of the Interior,
DEC 9 1889, 18_____
Respectfully referred to the Commissioner of Pensions for report.
Myron Bussey Assistant Secretary.
Report received _____, 18_____ and filed herewith.
FINAL ACTION:
May 5, 1890 Action Affirmed

Hew
Department of the Interior,
Dec. 10, 1889
Respectfully referred to the Commissioner of Pensions. The enclosed letter to be filed in the case of John Burukaus, No. 11,104, Old War. Re- port called for Dec. 9, 1889.
Reynolds Burgess
Assistant Secretary.
Dated _____, 188__
From _____
SUBJECT: _____

John Burnham (Major)
Word
[1-460 b.]
ONM
File 45,659 (File in care)
Department of the Interior,
May 14, 1890
Respectfully referred to the Commissioner of Pensions
Ebenezer Ebenezer Bussey.
Over
Assistant Secretary.
_____, 188__
♦♦♦
[OVER]
(6099-1 M.)

  2091  DEPARTMENT  RECEIVED    OF THE INTERIOR, P. & M. DIV.  MAY 24 1886  
[1-460.]
Department of the Interior,
May 24 1886.
Dated May 19 th 1886.
From Burnham, G. A. East Derry NH
SUBJECT:
Relative to the pen- sion at one time paid to Major John Burn- ham, Revolutionary War.
Respectfully referred to the Commissioner of Pensions
G. M. Northwood Chief Clerk Secretary.

511
18/267
#1146
April 30, 1886 Charles A. Burnham, East Berry, N. H.
Appeal in the claim of his Grand Father, John Burn- ham, Major in the Revolutionary War, and who was pen- sioned in 1819, un- der Certificate No. 11.104.
(11 Enclosures.)
(1-460 b.)
E. Root Department of the Interior,
May 19th, 1886
Respectfully referred to the Com- missioner of Pensions, for a report, after consideration of the enclosed papers.
H. H. Alderton
1 st Assistant Secretary.

Docket No. 1146 , 188 6
Department of the Interior,
BOARD OF PENSION APPEALS.
Received May 11 , 188 6
Appeal of Chas A. Burnham Heir of John Burnham
No. 45.659
Referred to Commissioner of Pensions for report May 19 , 188 6
Report received April 30 , 188 7 and filed herewith. R. D. F.
FINAL ACTION:
May 5-1887
Rejection affirmed
See
Additional letter
June 28, 1887, decision adhered to; re-hearing denied.
NOT TO BE TAKEN FROM FILES.

  D  DEPARTMENT  RECEIVED.    OF THE INTERIOR     1146  Bd. Pens. Appeals.  MAY 11 1886  
Copy of Letter of Gov. John Brooks to John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War, 1820.
Copy of the Letter written to Secretary of War Calhoun by Gov. John Brooks of Massachusetts.
Bedford Oct. 19th 1820.
Sir,
I beg leave to bespeak your attention for one moment to the case of Major John Burnham one of the best disciplinarians and Gallant Soldiers of the Revolution. I knew him well he entered the ser- vice as a Lieut. and was at the Battle of Bunker's Hill. He after- wards served as Capt. in the Eighth Mass. Regiment was at Storming the lines at Saratoga Sar- atoga and the British Forts at Stony Point and Yorktown be- sides being engaged in numerous other actions. But although he is as good a citizen as he was a brave

soldier he has through personal and family sickness the misfortune to be in reduced circumstances and if any man in the Nation is entitled from meritorious service and present distressed circumstances to the consideration of Government no one can present stronger claims than Major Burnham whose situation will be distinctly stated to you by the affidavits of the Hon. E. H. Derby Esq. and Doct. Geo. Farrar -
With Great consideration & regard I have the honour to be, Sir, Your Obt. Humbl Servt, J. Brooks.
To Hon. John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War.

through personal and family sickness the misfortune to be in reduced cir- cumstances and if any man in the Nation is entitled from meritorious services and present distressed cir- cumstances to the consideration of Government no one can present strong- er claims than Major Burnham whose situation will be distinctly stated to you by the affidavits of the Hon. E. H. Derby and Doct. Farrar."
The above mentioned letter together with the affidavits of the men within named and the statement of grandfathers property and indebtedness I think had an influence and led the Secretary of War to decide that his name should be continued on the Pension List. I think that if you will be kind enough to examine the subject

according to my direction that You will find that it was so. If you will do so you will confer upon me a great favor. I am willing to pay You for your time and trouble. I claim that the Secretary of War ordered No. 11024 and not No. 11104 to be stricken from the Pension List. Secondly, that the under-secretary or clerk by mistake or otherwise struck the wrong man's name from the List. Thirdly, that an examination will show that there was more reason for striking from the Pension List the name of the officer whose number was 11024 than there was for striking off the name of the officer whose number was 11104. Fourthly, that the officer whose number was 11024 continued to draw his pension. Please see if I am not correct and inform me of the facts as soon as possible and I will make it satisfactory to You. I do not
want to accuse the Government of turning my grandfather out of house and home and of depriving him of his Ohio claim unless it was really true. Possibly the name of the officer whose number was 11024 was also stricken from the List, but I think not . Yours, very respectfully, Chas. A. Burnham.
P.S. In my letter to the President I enclosed copies of grandfather's pension certificates, and a copy of his notice of the discontinuance of his pension. The numbers as you will see do not agree. The principal reason why I am so anxious to know about the matter is this: I expect in a few weeks to publish a book in which will be an account of grandfather losing his home and my recovery of it at the end of  in fifty years. If as you say there was no mistake then I inherited for myself alone . But if there was a mistake as I think then I inherited it for all the heirs of Major Burnham. Please inform me how it is. C. A. B.

1 East Derry, N. H., May 23, 1883.
Hon. William W. Dudley, Commissioner of Pensions, Washington, D. C.
Sir: As you will I trust pardon me for writing to you again in reply to your letter to me of the 21st of last March in answer to one I wrote to President Arthur on the 14th of last February in regard to the discontinuance of the pension of my grandfather, Major John Burnham, under the law of May 1, 1820.
Since writing to you I have made a discovery, viz; that the amount of grandfather's property (not including his Ohio claim) according to his schedule given in 1820 was $2590.25, and that his indebtedness was $2985.42,

exceeding his property by $195.17. His Ohio claim or mortgage was not available; it was then and had been for many years of no pecuniary assistance to him, and ought not to have been taken into consideration. There was due on it on the 12th of January 1827 the sum of $2178.37 but it brought at public auction but $305. There had then been made on it two considerable payments and there was a prospect of the law-suit in which it was involved being soon brought to a close so its real value was less in 1820 than in 1827. If under these circumstances the Secretary of War felt justified in striking grandfather's name from the Pension List and the names of other soldiers who were like situated then the law of May 1, 1820 was no credit to the Congress which passed it, the President who signed it or the Secretary of War who executed it.
At the present day when the Government is so liberal to the soldiers it appears despicably mean. But I think there must have been a mistake and that the Secretary of War did not intend to deprive grandfather of his pension. This is certainly a charitable view to take of the case. On the 19th of October 1820 Gov. Brooks of Massachusetts wrote a letter to the Secretary of War in regard to grandfather's case. After pronouncing him one of the best disciplinarians and gallant soldiers of the Revolution he said: "I knew him well. He entered the service as a Lieut. and was in the Battle of Bunker's Hill. He afterwards served as Capt. in the Eighth Mass. Regiment, was at storming the lines at Saratoga and the British British forts at Stony Point and Yorktown besides being engaged in numerous other actions. But although he is as good a citizen as he was a brave soldier he has

W.H.W. Div. AWG Ex'r. Old War No. 45659 John Pumbauer Co. _____ Reg't. Res. Star
Department of the Interior. BUREAU OF PENSIONS.
Return this letter with your reply.
Washington, D.C. April 19, 1892
Sir:
In reply to your reference of the enclosed papers, I have the honor to state that this claimant has been repeatedly advised that he has no title to the accrued pension alleged to be due on his grandfather's pension, and why. His numerous and voluminous communications on this subject, and upon others, over which this Bureau has no jurisdiction, necessitate the loss of a great deal of time and labor of clerks, which should be devoted to meritorious claims. He has appealed against the action of the Bureau, and re-appealed, and said action has been affirmed in each instance.
I enclose a copy of the Hon. Secretary's last decision in the matter, which gives the full

Status of the case, and which is conclusive, as far as this Bureau is concerned, and from the wording of same, as far as the Department of the Interior is.
This letter is addressed to you for the reason that the Bureau does not deem it necessary to hold further correspondence with the claimant on the subject.
Very respectfully
Deputy Commissioner
Hon L. P. McKimney House of Representatives

J.N.B.
Old war
Department of the Interior. PENSION OFFICE.
Washington, D.C. October 28 th , 1885
Sir,
In reply to your note, received on the 21 st inst. with the letter of your correspondent, C. A. Burnham of East Derry, N. H. relative to the Revolutionary pension of his grandfather, John Burnham, Certificate No. 11.104, which he claims was erroneously withheld after the passage of the act of May 1. 1820, I have the honor to state that said act required all pensioners under the act of March 18. 1818, to file, before receiving farther payments, a schedule of the income they received, and of property owned by them -
The exhibit filed by John Burnham in July 1820, was so large in amount - $2.785 42 without including the Ohio property of $1.700 00 mentioned by him - that the Secretary of War notified him Jan'y 23. 1821 that he did not "on account of his property, consider him entitled to his pension under the acts of March 18. 1818, and May 1. 1820; and he has, therefore, directed his name to be stricken from the pension list" thereupon, the word "discontinued" was written upon the jacket enclosing his pension papers, in red ink. As the notice of discontinuance of his pension had on it the figures 11.024, your correspondent seems to think, notwithstanding the address thereon it was not intended for his grandfather, but for some other person who held a pension certificate with that number, who has been found to

be Joshua Burnam of N.H. who having filed a schedule of his property amounting to only $54. 75 was informed September 7, 1820 that his pension would be continued, and the word "continued" was at that date endorsed in red ink on the face of the jacket enclosing his pension papers, being over four months prior to the action on the schedule of John Burnham. It was hardly probable, under the uniform practice of the office, of endorsing the date of "notice" of final action and the endorsement of "continued" or "discontinued" both, conspicuously, in red ink on the jacket, to have made an error as is alleged. Both parties specified in their schedule of property, the respective numbers of their pension certificates, but on the outer fold of a paper in the case of John Burnham, are the figures 11.024 with no word or sign connected with, or in explanation of what they represent, or why placed there. It is probable they were made as a memorandum to remind the examiner to look into the case 11.024, the pensioner being in the same state.
At the request of your correspondent this case has been examined and re-examined, and he has been repeatedly informed of the adverse result, as well as that it was out of the power of this office under existing laws to restore the pension withheld.
Very respectfully
Hon. H. W. Blair U. S. Senate
Commissioner

The following was added to the letter written in place of the concluding paragraph (erased)
It is immaterial, however, as to whether claimant was notified of the action in his case under the number 11104 or 11024. The facts in the case show that it was discontinued under the laws existing at that date and even then, the statement of the correspondent shows that it was the discontinuance of the case so justly discontinued was warranted.
But if, even, claimant's name could be restored to the rolls, and it could be shown that the correspondent is entitled to anything, there is no appropriation out of which monies for such a purpose could be paid.

13- Clymer
O. W. & N. JUL 15 1891 RECEIVED
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PENSION OFFICE JUL 8 1891
Part of the Interior.
Respectfully referred to the Com't of Pensions.
L. M. Bussey ASST. SECRETARY
Petition to the Pension Roll

copy
War Department,
Pension Office, Feb. 9th, 1828,
Sir:
In conformity with the Law of the United States of the 1st March, 1823, authorizing the Secretary of War to restore the names of certain persons to the List of Pensioners, You are hereby notified, that your name has been this day restored to the Pension Roll of the New Hampshire Agency, and that, agreeably to the provisions of said Act, your allowance as a Pensioner, will commence on the eighth day of February 1828, the day on which the evidence was closed, upon which you obtained a restoration to the List.
I am, respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
J. L. Edwards
To Mr. Major John Burnham, United States Pensioner.
Care of Hon. S. Bell, Senate United States.

Copy of the Deposition of Christopher S. Thom, 1818.
What Major John Burnham says in his Schedule, given in 1820, of his Ohio Mortgage.
Copy of the Affidavit or Deposition of Christopher S. Thom.
I Christopher S. Thom testify and say that I have been acquainted with Major John Burnham of Londonderry about Twenty years and know that his health is extremely bad, and that he is entirely unfit for any kind of corporeal corporeal labor and his wife is an invalid, and in consequence of his advanced age and his bodily infirm- ities he has become reduced in his circumstances, and I verily believe that he is absolutely in need of assistance from his country for support and decent and comfortable maintenance.
Christopher S. Thom.
State of New Hampshire } Londonderry June 5th, 1818. Rockingham ss. } Then the above named Christopher S. Thom person

ally appeared & made solemn oath that the above deposition by him subscribed is just & true
Before me James Thom Justice of the Peace
Copy of what Grandfather says of his Ohio Mortgage in his Schedule given in 1820,
"A Mortgage on land in State of Ohio dated Feby 1808 to secure the payment of a Promissory note of seventeen hundred dollars for the benefit of myself and three others given by James Prentiss who sold and suffered the land to be sold for the payment of taxes and has himself absconded for nine or ten years. This demand has been a bill of expense whether the final result will be a total loss or otherwise is at present altogether
uncertain Much pains has been taken to obtain something for it but hitherto without success."
John Burnham."

Copy of a Letter written to John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War, by Gov. John Brooks of Massachusetts.
"
Bedford Oct. 19th 1820.
Sir,
I beg leave to bespeak your attention for one moment to the case of Major John Burnham one of the best disciplinarians and gallant soldiers of the Revolution, I knew him well he entered the service as a Lieut. and was at the Battle of Bunker's Hill. He after- wards served as Capt. in the Eighth Mass. Regiment was at Storming the lines at Saratoga and the British Forts at Stony Point and York Town besides being engaged

in numerous other actions. But although he is as good a citizen as he was a brave soldier he has through personal and family sickness the misfortune to be in reduced circumstances and if any man in the Nation is entitled from meritorious service and present distressed circumstances to the consideration of Government no one can present stronger claims than Major Burnham whose situation will be distinctly stated to You by the affidavits of the Hon. E. H. Derby Esq. and Doct. Farrar
With Great consideration & regard I have the honour to be Sir Your Obt. Humbl. Servt, J. Brooks
Copy of Gen. Derby's Affidavit. I Elias Hasket Derby of Londonderry in the County of Rockingham & State of New Hampshire Testify
and say that at the request of Major John Burnham of Londonderry with our worthy friend & respected Physician Doct. George Farrar on this 14th of October 1820 have made a full investigation and examination of the vouchers and items of sundry demands which I consider as justly due from said Burnham to sundry individuals, and on a careful investigation of the same I fully believe and have no doubt he justly owes the sum of twenty seven hundred & eighty five dollars and forty two cents which debts appear to have arisen and grown gradually from supplies to his family in sickness and extra labour in managing his small farm and in consequence of his and his wife's extreme infirmities with the bills incumbent on managing a small farm. I do further state that I have lived a near neigh-

bor to Major Burnham for five years. last part that I have always felt a lively interest in his welfare from his known Military services during the Revolutionary War and from the man- ner he has preserved his well earned Military character & valuable example in Civil life while struggling with extreme adverse circumstances such as his & his wiver limbs very much distorted by the Rheumatism accompanied with old age so as to incapacitate them from the or- dinary farming duties, inability to hire the necessary labour to manage his little farm to advantage even to prevent its going to waste, and those difficulties increasing so as in my mind portend a speedy state of ex- treme penury, Elias Hasket Derby." The above was sworn to October 16, 1820, before Christopher S. Thom, Justice of the Peace.

Dept of the Interior. Oct 19 1889 Respectfully Referred to the Com'r of Pensions.
Cyrus Bussey ASST. SECRETARY.
Derry, N.H., Oct. 14, 1889.
To Mr. Cyrus Bussey, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D. C.
Sir:
Some days ago I received a letter from you saying that my letter to the Hon. Secretary of the Interior re-appealing from the decision of the Commissioner of Pensions in my claim that of my grandfather, Major John Burnham, Claim No. 11.104 under the Pension Law of March 18, 1818, had been referred to the Commissioner of Pensions for report. I am very glad that you have decided to have the matter and the appeal reconsidered. I am especially glad because I now have evidence in the case which I did not have when it

was examined before by the Department. I will under this date send this additional evidence to the Commissioner of Pensions that he may consider it before making his report to the Hon. Secretary of the Interior. When I appealed before, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior told me that that that was the way to do with additional evidence. In making his report I want him to send you this additional evidence also. It will all go to show that Grandfather was justly entitled to his pension from March 4 th 1820 to March 3 rd 1826; that he while living established his claim to said pension and was not stricken from the Pension List according to the Act of May 1, 1820; that I am his legal heir and representative and what he was wronged or defrauded out of should be now be restored to me as such as near as possible. They also show that he was the victim of a conspiracy to defraud him.
And that having been placed on the Pension List as much in conformity with the Law as any other pensioner he had as much right to a continuance thereon as any one had.
I hope there will be a thorough examination of the case this time and no misrepresentation of the it case by the Commissioner of Pensions as was done before.
If necessary I should be most happy to answer any questions or furnish any facts to promote a thorough examination of the case.
By mistake your letter to me of Aug. 31, 1889, was directed to Derry, Vt. instead of to Derry, N.H., but it reached me all right after a few days. The town where I live is Derry N.H. , which before 1828, was a part of Londonderry, N.H. A letter directed to Derry or East Derry P.O., will reach me without any trouble. Yours, very respectfully, Chas. A. Burnham.

  D  DEPARTMENT  RECEIVED.    OF THE INTERIOR     1146  Bd. Pens. Appeals.  MAY 11 1886  
Copy of Exclusion from Pension
War Department, (11.024.) Pension Office, Jany 23d 1821.
Sir,
You are hereby informed that the Secretary of War does not, on account of the amount of your property, consider you entitled to a Pension under the Acts of the 18th March, 1818, and 1st May, 1820; and has, therefore, directed your name to be stricken from the Pension List.
I am, respectfully, Your obedient servant, B. Lo. Edwards.
To Mr. John Burnham, Londonderry New Hampshire
Exclusion from Pension

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
ADDRESS ONLY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.
WASHINGTON, May 5, 1887.
Handwritten: R. H. C. J. M. [unclear] J. G. [unclear]
Handwritten: Chas. A. Burnham
In re
Handwritten: East & Co. N.H.
CHARLES A. BURNHAM, ) grandson of John Burnham, ) Major in Col. Brooks' Mass. ) Regt., Revolutionary War. )
On Appeal.
Rejection Affirmed.
Certificate No. 11,104, Docket No. 1146-- 1886.
1. P E N S I O N S. W I T H H E L D.      2. D A M A G E S.
1. There is no vested right to a pension: Congress may grant, withhold, or recall it at discretion. 2. The Department has no jurisdiction to consider a question of damages suffered in consequence of a pension being withheld.

The Commissioner
of Pensions.
Sir:-- Herewith are returned the papers which accompanied your report in the matter of the appeal of Charles A. Burnham, a grandson of John Burnham, deceased, who was a Major in Col. Brooks' Mass. Reg. in the Revolutionary War.
After a patient review of all the facts the Department finds that they sustain in every particular your report submitted under date of March 5, 1887, and will thank you to send a copy of that report to the appellant, together with a copy of this letter.
Two points are presented in the correspondence of Mr. Burnham which hardly call for a reply from your office, but they will be here noticed as it is hoped he will thereupon see the utter hopelessness of further consideration at the hands of this Department.
1. That Congress had no power to recall a pension once granted.
2. That the pensioner was materially endamaged by the recall of his pension under the Act of May 1, 1820, and his heirs

should now be made whole by the Interior Department.
In reply to the first proposition it is sufficient to say that the point was duly considered in the case of the widow of Genl. Ward B. Burnett, Ctf. No. 3,851, January 3, 1887, and it was therein held that there is no vested right to a pension, that it is a bounty which Congress may give, withhold, or recall at its discretion.
And as to the second: The Law has not clothed this Department with jurisdiction to consider a question of damages suffered in consequence of a pension being withheld.
Very respectfully,
D. L. Hawkins Assistant Secretary.
Docket No. 1146-- 1886.

Done to Type-writer. J. J.
(East) Derry, N. H., Jan. 25, 1888.
To the Hon. Secretary of the Interior,
Sir:—
On the 30th of June 1887 there was sent me from the Pension Office a letter of which the following is a copy as near as I can make it.
Law Division,
A. H. W.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Pensions, Washington, D. C.,
June 30, 1887,
18. H. 7
Charles A. Burnham, Esq., East Derry, N. H.
Sir:
By direction of the Hon. Secretary of the Interior, I have the honor to inform you that his decision under date of June 29, 1887, upon your appeal from the action of this Office in the rejection of your

claim, #11,104, for pension, is as follows:
"The claimant, dissatisfied with the affirmation by the Department of your rejection of his claim, has sent in a lengthy communication reiterating the grounds of his complaint,
It only remains to inform him that nothing more can be done for him in this Department, and, if he believes he has suffered a wrong, he must seek some other tribunal for his supposed remedy. And I am, very respectfully," (Signed) "D. Le. Hawkins, Assistant Secretary,"
Very respectfully, John C. Black Commissioner.
Now I don't know that any such communication as the above was sent to the Commissioner of Pensions but I have no special reason to doubt it. In reply to you I will say that I do believe that I have suffered a wrong from the Department of the Interior. First , By its rejection of my claim, Second , By its allowing itself to be influenced in its decision by the the a report of the Acting Commissioner of Pensions.

of March 5th 1887, which I plainly showed it (the Department of the Interior) was based upon a false statement . And in the third place , by its not giving the subject that thorough examination , which I waited about a year for , which it (the Department of the Interior ) promised me .
I can appeal to some other tribunal. But it might lead to the abolishing of the Pension Department . If myself and others should state what we know about that Department it would probably lead to its abolishment. It is not so difficult thing to do as you may think. It as well as the whole Department of the Interior is but a servant of the people, designed by them to carry out their will, and it was not the will of the people or of Congress that a man in such circumstances as my grandfather was should be deprived of his pension nor of all his rights as a pensioner . I can and shall , Providence permitting, appeal to some other tribunal if no one else does. But it is not my business to do so now. That is Your duty . The crime against my grandfather, Major John Burnham, pensioner 11.104 under the Law of March 18, 1818, was committed by the War Department which the

Department of the Interior now succeeds in pension matters. This case was first referred to the Department of the Interior by President Arthur and has been considered by no other Department. Now if you have no power to do the heirs of Major John Burnham justice you should ask that Department of the Government which has the power to do it. If it is the War Department because the wrong was committed by that Department then you should hand the matter over to that Department. If it is Congress, that Department is now in session and would probably vote such an appropriation as you recommend. Your attention is asked to the following part of a paragraph in a circular sent me from the Pension Office July 17, 1883.
3. The following section of the Revised Statutes shows the only condition under which any allowance can be made to any heirs of a Revolutionary soldier, to wit: "Section 4742. From and after the 2d of April, 1862, no claim for a pension or for an increase of pension shall be allowed in favor of the children

Derry, N. H., June 11, 1889.
Hon. John W. Noble, Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D. C.
Sir:
The inclosed letter was received a few days ago in answer to my letter to you of the 22nd ultimo. Now if you will please examine my letter to you you will find that it was not referable to the Pension Bureau. That is unless that Bureau "runs" the Government. There are other Departments of the Government I believe while the Pension Department is only the opposite party in the contest and not the Judge or Court before which the case is to be tried. I hope that your name will not prove to be a misnomer in this case. But I hope that you have that governing principle which all men in your high office should have and which is the very essence of justice, viz:— "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," and are willing that all men should be Nobles in fact if not in name . I know that you have

sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States and that Constitution has forbidden the granting of all titles of nobility . But that Constitution was "ordained and established" to, among other other things, to "establish justice" and "secure the blessings of liberty", and the prohibition of the granting of titles of nobility in the United States was really because the surnames of all citizens of the United States  are  titles of nobility . President Lincoln at Gettysburg in 1863 said in substance of those present that they should "highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom; and that the government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth." This he said when the nation was "four score and seven years" old. Now when can this nation better have, under God, have the "new birth of freedom", of which he spoke, "that government of the people, by the people, and for the people" shall not perish from the earth, than this year of our Lord and Saviour 1889 when our Constitutional government like Abraham at the birth of Isaac is a hundred years old ? But there is another Constitutional prohibition pertaining to this case of mine to which I would call

your attention, viz: the prohibition of ex post facto laws and laws impairing the obligation of contracts . And if there is any doubt in your mind that you should restore to me the property foreed by the Government from my grandfather, Major John Burnham, pensioner No. 11,104, under the Act of March 18, 1818, you should refer the case to the United States Court of Claims or the Supreme Court. My claim is his pension certificate of the above number. I am his representative and on the ground he was turned out of, while I have been officially recognized by John C. Black, late Commissioner of Pensions, as the pensioner above named. I make no irreverant comparisons but I say that the promise made to grandfather in the above mentioned certificate  under the above mentioned Act , the "law" of May 1, 1820, which took effect nearly two months before its own passage, (1) could not " disannul ". Especially so when the Notice of Exclusion from Pension bore only the number and title of a private soldier . Nor can it be said that the "law" of May 1, 1820, was "added because of transgressions" because the Revolutionary pensioners under the Act of March 18, 1818, had transgressed no law, neither had Congress at

that time had any  no power to pass such a law for those on the Pension List. Besides, if it had it (but it had not), it was hardly becoming in the legislators of a new country to thus instruct the poorly paid venerable fathers of the Republic in good behavior ! If "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun," it what will that country which thus treated the Revolutionary pensioners do with those of the last war (" war for the Union ") now on the Pension List ? But perhaps it may be thought that the Grand Army and Sons of Veterans will compel support. My Dear Sir, let them but try force and the people will grind them finer than a pinch of snuff . The Pension Department has wilfully opposed my claim, and has hid the residence of Pensioner No. 11,024 under the Act of March 18, 1888, if not other important facts. This probably to shield a set of rascals who defrauded grandfather or to spite me. But their course has been suicidal, for while nearly all the people respect Revolutionary claims there is a fast growing sus- picion that "the war for the Union" was the greatest curse ever visited upon this country. I have

a regard for the feelings of the soldiers of the war for the Union, but still I think they saved the Union as if the devil was in them, this is, saved it by destroying it in all but a territorial sense. This is a free government , and is unlike the four great monarchy which have preceded it. Union is a voluntary affair . Force does not save but destroys it. Perhaps that was the intention . Anyway the honest and patriotic Northern soldiers (and there were plenty of that kind) were the dupes of the enemies of the Country. In showing what a "strong government we had," to convince foreign nations, we greatly pleased despots . You came from St Louis I see. That was the place from which started the two great movements which finally terminated the war. Gen. Fremont was the leading brain of the war in spite of all that has been said, and he started the two moves, viz.: Emancipation and putting iron clad gun boats on the Western rivers . And it was quite proper that he should, as he had years before "lifted up an  the ensign on the mountains" (see Essay XVII, 3.) "spring of mighty rivers" and was the first National standard-bearer of that party formed to oppose the "extension" of slavery. Now what did Fremont in his letter of

withdrawal as a Presidential candidate in 1864 do? He blew the trumpet of Jubilee! He declared that this country should be "a home and an asylum for the oppressed" and that the American continents should be divided up among it into homes and homesteads for the people. Now that is just what I am trying to have done, and for which surnames were invented.
You are a native of Ohio , I see. Now my grandfather not only labored as hard as any other man to bring this nation into existence but he was one of the men who led the van of Western emigration north of the Ohio, and a compeer of Rufus Putnam and Daniel Boone. I have been credibly informed that he named the first permanent white settlement in that State - Marietta . I had a large number of Boone papers, but most of them have been destroyed. I have however, quite a number of papers given him by Gen. Putnam. Among others are two letters from Gen. Putnam and Dr. Manasseh Cutler earnestly soliciting him and empowering him to raise a company of men and march them to Ohio ("Ye Western Country") to protect make settlements and to protect a party of foreign emigrants from the Indians. He did so and among other things commenced the settlement of Gallipolis . In consequence of this business he became

He the owner of three shares in the "Ohio Company's Purchase". This he afterwards sold, receiving as pay, a little money and a mortgage on the land. This property was involved in a lawsuit when he gave his schedule in 1820 and was not available. It was in law a great many years. The legislators of Ohio being themselves in debt passed laws hindering the collection of such debts. The Secretary of War or the "Chief of the Pension Department" forced grandfather to sell this Ohio claim at public auction before he would "restore" his name to the Pension List. It brought at auction Jan. 12th, 1827, the sum of $305, which was less than one seventh of what was due on the note. Could he have kept it about two years longer he would have recovered the whole amount due, as did the man who bought it, who was the one who got grandfather's pension taken from him that he might be forced to sell this claim that he might buy it. I have evidence of this. And the Pension Bureau probably now has evidence of it and that is probably partly the reason why they have tried and are trying to keep the facts from me.
Please attend to this matter, for there is more to this case than you are aware of — the even the blessing and birthright of Israel. To whom were they bequeathed? See Gen. XLIX, 26; Deut. XXXIII, 16, 17. *
Yours, very respectfully, Chas. A. Burnham Separate from his brethren.

* I know that I have law and justice on my side in this case. But there is one way in which I can be compromised with. That is that the people of this Country be all considered as heirs of the Revolutionary soldiers and that the Country be now divided up among them and retained by them according to justice and equity, that is, "according to the number of names." This perhaps I have already intimated in what I have written on the preceding pages. Chas. A. Burnham.
1887-1140 P. 1887-1140 R. D. 9. May 5/87 June 29/87 P. 1887-1140
RECEIVED. DEPARTMENT 1146 OF THE INTERIOR 1886 JUN 14 389 Bd. Pens. Appeals.

Burnham Homestead, Derry, N. H., Dec. 18, 1905, Hon. V. Warner, Commissioner of Pensions, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir:
Your favor of Sept. 18, was duly received. It was in an- swer to a request of mine for copies of two written statements made by Senator Bell of this State to the Hon. Secretary of War, in 1828, and in regard to the Pen- sion claim of my Grandfather, Major John Burnham, Revolu- tionary Pensioner No. 11,104 under the Pension Law of March 18, 1818. You declined to furnish me with the copies asked for al- though I offered to pay for them in advance.

But the important thing I asked for, and which I was led to believe from what you wrote me on the 24th of last August you would grant me, was an answer to the question: Did the Rules adopted by the Secretary of War in the execution of the Revolutionary Pension Law of May 1, 1820, allow him or any one in his Department to introduce foreign, or prejudicial matter into a Revolutionary officer's Pension Papers and to strike him from the Pension List under the Number and title of another Pensioner, and a Private Soldier? After patiently waiting and not having received any answer to the question I now very respectfully write to you again and ask you to soon kindly inform me how it was. As yours, very respectfully, Charles A. Burnham.

or other descendants of any person who served in the war of the Revolution, or the of the widow of such person, when such person or his widow died without having established a claim to a pension. 277
Now grandfather, the Major John Burnham, above mentioned, did establish before he died a claim to a pension and that the very pension which I have asked and do ask for. He established his claim to a pension under the Law of March 18, 1818, which was the law under which the pensions were paid until that law was wholly or in part succeeded by the Law of May 15th, 1828, and he received more than one payment under that law, that is the Law of March 18, 1818. In the Second place he established his claim to a pension after the passage of the Act of May 1, 1820, by meeting every requirement of the law and by proving that he was in such indigent circumstances as to be unable to support himself without the assistance of his Country . And there is no proper and sufficient and satisfactory evidence that

the Secretary of War caused or ever intended to cause his name to be stricken from the list of pensioners. It is my turn now to judge of the evidence . I shall be more easy, reasonable, fair and just than the Secretary of War was with my grandfather in 1827 & 8. He (the Secretary) exacted unusual evidence in writing from grandfather that he (grandfather) hired his own sons to labor on the farm in his possession. He would not accept their statements in writing under oath that there was such a contract between them unless unless accompanied by the contract in writing made prior to the performance of the labor. That was something not likely to exist in contracts made between a father and his son or sons in this Country . I shall exact nothing but the usual evidence furnished by the Government in such cases that he was stricken from the Pension List. I have his pension certificate who which says he was entitled to a pension of twenty dollars a month, and the Law of March 18, 1818, says this pension was to be continued through his life, and that law, (even if modified) was in force until succeeded by the Law of May 15th, 1828, and through the lives of many pensioners .

The usual evidence furnished by the Government that a pensioner was stricken from the Pension List was the Notice of Exclusion from Pension sent him. Now the Notice of Exclusion from Pension received by grandfather and by which he was misled into believing that he was stricken from the Pension List because it was addressed to Mr. John Burnham, Londonderry, New Hampshire, has no evidence that he was the man intended that is of any account, but on the contrary states in writing that it was intended for pensioner No. 11,024 , whose name if we can believe what the Pension Office says was Joshua Burnham Burnham . I know that the Pension Office or Department tries to make me believe that grandfather was the person intended but what it has said "cannot be considered  accepted as regular testimony." Besides I have already received from that Department several false and contradictory statements. In the Third place he established his claim to a pension by evidence which closed February 8th 1828. This evidence not only proved that

he was entitled to a pension to commence on that date but that he was entitled to one in 1820 and 1821 . It showed conclusively that he was in such indigent circumstances in 1820 and 1821 that he was unable to support himself without the assistance of his country even though he received after 1820 from an unexpected source two considerable sums of money . It is not at all necessary to prove to the United States that the pensioner starved to death in consequence of his pension being withheld in order to show that he was in such indigent circumstances as to need the assistance of his country.
I might ask more but the amount I claim of the United States as justly due the heirs of Major John Buruham is: $10.59 paid William Choate Junior for helping get pension restored in 1827 and interest on the same from January 27, 1827 until paid, $25.00, paid to James Thom, Esq., for helping get pension restored and interest on the same from May 2d 1827 until paid. Pension lost between March 3rd 1820 and March 3rd 1826 with lawful

and proper interest on each semi-annual payment until paid. The loss on the sale of his Ohio mortgage (which sale was exacted by the Government before it would pay him the pension or any part of it due him), viz.: $1873, 37, with lawful annual interest on the same until paid, from January 12th 1827.
When the Secretary of War "restored" his name to the Pension List on the 9th of February 1828 he commenced the payment of the pension with the day before when the evidence in the case closed. He should have commenced it with the time  when  he  ceased  to  draw  the  pension  in  1820 .
But it remains for you to do justice in the case. Please attend to it as soon as possible for the heirs of Major John Burnham have been kept out of what belongs to them long enough.
Yours, very respectfully, Chas. A. Burnham.

East Derry, N. H., Sept. 7, 1885. Hon. H. W. Blair.
Sir:
As you are the senior U. S. Senator of this State, the representative of and the most prominent soldier of New Hampshire, I thought I would write to you today.
I would call your attention to a part of your Oration delivered at Manchester on Decoration Day. It is this: "True, it may be said, and is said, that pensions are a gift, and that they may be conferred, revoked or wholly refused, even after service rendered and disability contracted, while the law expressly provided for them;

but no one can seriously claim this, save upon the ground that if the Nation becomes too poor to carry the burden of taxation, then the obligation may be repudiated; just as in like case, the individual is discharged in bankruptcy, so the State may refuse from necessity to pay its debts." I too believe that if possible the Nation should fulfill its promises to the soldiers of the last war. But let us see if they are willing to "do unto others as they would have others do unto them." By the Act of Congress of March 18, 1818, the officers and soldiers of the Revolution who were in reduced circumstances were placed on the Pension List for life, the officers at the rate of $20 per month and the soldiers at $8 per month. By the Pension
Law of May 1, 1820, new requirements were made of those on the Pension List in order to entitle them to pensions under the Act of March 18, 1818. The Nation was not then so poor that it could not fulfill its contract with the pensioners. "At the commencement of Monroe's term, the country had just begun to rally from the depression occasioned by the war; and, during the three years that followed, it enjoyed uninterrupted prosperity." — History of United States, by G. P. Ludekenbos. I am no lawyer but it seems to me that the Pension Law of May 1, 1820, was a repudiation of its contract with the Pensioners under the Law of March 18, 1818, by the United States Government. It also looks like a retrospective, post facto or ex post facto law such as is not

approved of by the Constitution of the United States. This I think appears from what is said of such laws by James Madison, the "father of the Constitution," in the 44th No. of the "Federalist," pages 207-8; also from what is said in the Constitution of New Hampshire, Part First, Art. 23. I represent one of the victims of the Law of May 1, 1820, and that is the reason why I write to you to-day. I enclose with this copies of papers that will show his character, circumstances at the time, and the way he was stricken from the pension list.
I will give you a brief statement of his services in the Revolution and his circumstances when stricken from the

Pension List; In the year previous to the commencement of the Revolutionary war he was a sergeant in a Co. of Minute-men in Gloucester, Mass. In the spring of 1775 was sick, and supposed by some to be in a consumption, but enlisted and the first was appointed 1 st Lieut. in a Gloucester Co., Col. Leittles regiment. Was in the Battle of Bunker's Hill, and served as 1 st Lieut. in this Regt. until after the Battle of Trenton when he was appointed Capt. in another Regt. and served as such until January 1783 when he was appointed Major in another Mass. Regt. and served as such until the last regiments were discharged at West Point, in 1784. He, however, was retained in the service as Major in the 2nd U. S. Regt. until the last of December 1791, when he re-

signed his commission and was honorably discharged. When he entered the service he was the owner of considerable property but his pay being inadequate he spent it all in providing suitable things for himself. He gave all his time, not having a furlough or leave of absence for any purpose of his own from the time he entered the service in 1775 until the last he was discharged in 1784. He, however, raised many men for service in the winters of 1775-76 & 77-78. He was in many of the important battles of the Revolution and in every action fought by any part of the Army to which he belonged. He had the honor of commanding in the Regt. (the 8th Mass.) which was most successful at and which first entered the enemy's lines at Saratoga where the original American flag of thirteen stars was first triumphant. ("Frost's Pictorial History of the United States", Vol. 3, page 33; "Heywards Gazetteer of New England", Art. Needford, Mass.,
"Household Reading", page 186.) At the Siege of Yorktown served under Gen. Fayette and had the honor of actively assisting Col. Alexander Hamilton in the capture of the first redoubt taken from the British. After the Revolution he was one of the first settlers of Ohio, and gave the name to the first white settlement in that State. It is said that he was offered the Governorship of the Territory there but declined. He returned to his home in Mass. where he remained a short time when he removed to this town and bought the farm where I now live. Soon after making his purchase here he received an unsolicited appointment of Collector of Customs for the District of Gloucester, from President Washington, which he also declined. When he became advanced in years his health became very poor and in consequence of it and the sickness of his family and other mis-

fortunes he became very much reduced in property and was placed on the Pension List after the passage of the Law of March 18, 1818. I enclose a copy of his pension certificate, also a copy of the affidavit of one of his witnesses, Christopher S. Thom, Esq. It will be seen that the number of his pension certificate was 11.104 . This is the correct number. After the passage of Pension Law of May 1, 1820 he was required to furnish a schedule of his property. He did so. He was then more than seventy years of age, was sick and unable to labor on his farm which was his only means of support, and had a sick and helpless wife. The whole of his property at that time, both real and personal, amounted to $2590.25. This was

all of his available property excepting his necessary clothing and bedding which was exempted from appraisal by law. The amount of his indebtedness as was proven by the affidavits of E. H. Derby and Dr. George Farrar was $2785.42, exceeding his property by $195.17. I enclose a copy of Gen. Derby's affidavit; also a copy of a letter written to the Secretary of War by Gov. John Brooks of Mass., who was Lieut. Colonel of the regiment (the 8th Mass.) in which he was a Captain. He had, however, a mortgage deed of three shares in the "Ohio Company's Purchase," but this was not available . The land was originally his and had been sold by him in 1808 for two thousand dollars, he receiving as pay three hundred dollars in money and a mortgage on the land. This mortgage

had been a great source of trouble and expense and no income to him, nor did he receive anything from it until long after he gave his Schedule in 1820. He had for many years been trying to sell it or get some payment of principal or interest but it was so situated that he could do nothing. I have plenty of documents to prove the truth of this statement. On the 23d of January 1821 there was sent him from the War Department a notice that the Sec. of War did not, on account of the amount of his property, consider him entitled to a pension under the Acts of the 18th March, 1818, and 1st May, 1820, and had directed his name to be stricken from the Pension List. I enclose an exact copy of the notice. This caused him and his wife (they were my grandfather and grandmother) great distress , and compelled him to sell his farm and personal property in order to pay his
debts. His farm was sold in parts to three men, a part to each, sales made in the years 1823, 4 & 6 and his personal property was sold at auction. He then made application for a pension but was told by the Pension Department that if he would sell his Ohio Claim and furnish satisfactory evidence that the proceeds were used towards paying his debts that his name would be restored to the Pension List. The Claim was accordingly sold at public auction on the 12th of January 1827, and after much delay and torture and trouble the pension was granted him on the 9th of February 1828. I enclose a copy of the certificate. He was then more than seventy eight years of age, sick and unable to labor and his wife had been for several years so sick as to be unable to dress or feed herself. They were without house or home and were boarding out on the most economical terms, with property (when he applied for the pension) amounting to only about $185. He would have been sooner compelled to make

the sales he did had he not succeeded in obtaining two payments on his Ohio mortgage. This mortgage was involved in a law-suit, and to show the value in which it was held I will say that there was due on the note at the time of the auction the sum of $2178. 37. but it brought but $305. Could he have kept it as he wanted to he would have received in about two years the whole amount due. I will say that he received in reality nothing for this sacrifice of prospective property because he received a pension under Act of Congress of May 15th 1828 and back pay to March 3rd 1824, but if he received any other pension it was to be deducted from this  back  pay .
I have plenty of documents to prove the truth of the above statements.

Now comes the most interesting part of my story. The man who bought the part of grandfather's farm that had the buildings on it found it a barren sceptre in his gripe, no lineal heir of his succeeding. He had six children but they all died in infancy or childhood. Some people have thought that the loss of his children was a punishment sent on him because at one time when he was a young man he was traveling in the eastern part of the country and found a little child alone on an island and went off and left it to perish with cold or hunger. In 1853 his wife died. In the fall of 1854, he married my mother then a widow then a widow and brought me a little boy of seven years with her to live on the old place. He was appointed my

guardian and a cruel one he proved. But he did not show his cruelty much until my three brothers who were much older than I went West to live. As soon as the law would allow me (at 14 years) I chose a new guardian and left home. In 1863 my step-father died. He was afraid I would succeed him and made a will in order to prevent it. When he married my mother he promised her all of his property. When he found he must die he made his will and after making a liberal allowance to improve his lot in the cemetery he left the remainder to be divided among his heirs according to the laws of N. H. in intestate estates. There were seven families of these heirs, thirty-one heirs in all. My Mother died in the fall of 1867 after a long sickness, which was probably caused by ill-treatment received from this man and his heirs. She willed me the part of the farm which
came to her. It took me six years to extinguish the titles of these heirs, which was done by purchase and otherwise. In 1874, fifty years from the time it was sold, I was in full possession of the part of grandfather's farm which this man had at the time of his death . Now it turns out that grandfather was not stricken from the Pension List after all. Copy No. 2 will show you that the notice was intended not for Major John Burnham whose number was 11.104, but for the pensioner whose number was 11.024. 11.024 was the number of another pensioner by the name of Burnham whose given name was somewhat like grandfather's. Grandfather's eyesight was probably failing at the time or he would have noticed the mistake. He died about 22 years after and for more  than seven years before his death was totally blind . He is "friends" who got his name

"restored" to the Pension List were too well pleased with his losing his pension, as it helped them to get his Ohio Claim into their possession, to point out to him the mistake . When his name was "restored" in February 1828 it was done by a new Secretary of War, Calhoun being Vice-President. So the mistake escaped notice. My father at the time grandfather lost his pension in 1821 was a young man about 18 years old. He died in January 1851. The following which is copied from something he wrote a short time before he died together with other documents of his show that he expected I would go back on to the old place. "He was then struck from the Pension Roll on account of his Ohio Claim which was then in a due course of law, consequently of no present

pecuniary assistance. What then must have been the feelings of my parents their present all their infirmities and decrepitude of age, their future prospects, the contemplation of their own wants and infirmities, to be the only sufferers of that glorious Revolution which has given us the inestimable blessing of civil, political and religious liberty and to the world an example a beacon of light — to grow old in poverty wretchedness and contempt — to wade through the vile mire of dependency, and owe the miserable remnant of that life to charity, which was previously spent in honor, to be the jest of all, the scorn of all — the ridicule of all and what is worse the pity of the whole world. I repeat it what must have been their feelings. Full well do

I remember their sufferings, their griefs, their distresses, their anxieties. In such a state of feeling induced by their present condition and future prospects friends appeared for them and they flung themselves into their arms to do for them as they chose, and how did they do it, the sequel will tell the story. Full well do I remember their sufferings, their tears, their griefs. It was my lot and my duty to live with them to do all I could so far as circumstances would permit to smooth down their rugged path."
The "friends" mentioned above got grandfather's name "restored" to the Pension List after turning him out of house and home. I have facts and very good reasons for believing that they contrived to have his name stricken from the Pension List in order to force him to sell his property especially his Ohio Claim. I don't know that Senator Bell
had any hand in it. Of course if he could have got what was due him on his Ohio Claim he would not have expected any pension in 1820. I will here say that grandfather was one of those officers who were entitled to Half-pay for life, that is, $300 a year by resolve of Congress of October 21st, 1780. And after deducting the face value of what he may have received as "Commutation Pay" and the whole amount he received as pension under Act of May 15th 1828, there was due him as principal more than $4000 at the time of his death, June 8th, 1843.
But I said he was not stricken from the Pension List. Two or three years ago a gentleman in Boston wrote to me to give him an account of grandfather's Revolutionary services. In looking over his papers I found among them his pension certificate and notice of exclusion from pension. The thought occurred to me to look and see if the numbers on them agreed,

and I found that they did not . Not know- ing who had charge of the  the old Revolution- ary Pension papers I wrote to President Arthur to have the matter investigated, knowing that he would lay it before the proper officer. It was referred to the Pen- sion Office, and I soon got a letter from there saying that the action of the Government in grandfather's case was entirely in harmo- ny with its action in numerous other cases. I wrote again, and in reply they told me  said grand- father in his Schedule that said he had 3 farms , and in regard to the number on his notice, the writer said that that there was endorsed on his Schedule the figures 11.024 as the number of his pension certificate, and the writer of the the notice sent him copied that erro- neous number instead of 11.104. His statement about the 3 farms I knew to be

false as I had two copies of his Schedule and nothing was said about his having more than one farm, and I knew  he  had  not . The statement about the numbers I did not believe . The soldiers of the last war tell me that a pensioner cannot be stricken from the Pension List under another pensioner's number , and that the number and not the name of the pensioner is the principal thing by which he is distinguished from another. This seems reasonable as there may be more than one pensioner of the same name . It looks as if the Secretary of War ordered pensioner, Number 11.024, to be stricken from the List and the Clerk looking for his address and finding his number endorsed on grandfather's Schedule sent the Notice to him. Of course if he (the clerk) made such a mistake he would not

care to correct it afterwards. Anyway Abba- for John Both schedules were in the same file I am told. Anyway Major John Burnham, pensioner number 11,104, was not  never stricken from the Pension List and consequently could not be restored . His farm if he had not lost his pension would have probably remained without interrupt- ion in the hands of his family until the present day. Now as he was unjustly deprived of it by an act of the United States Government it is but right and proper that the Government restore it to his family. Providence has pointed out who the heir is. My father and mother took care of him in his old age, and father would have probably had his farm at his death. I am as near a relative as he has living. My brothers and myself are the only heirs of the name, and I am with the exception of my little boy the only de- scendant of the name east of the Mississippi
river. I want it as a family homestead, my brothers to have shares if they want them, but as they think Minnesota and Dakota are so much better than New Hampshire they may not be induced to come here to live.
Sept. 22, 1885.
Was interrupted in writing this letter. Since writing the above I have learned that my father has a sis- ter still living though at the advanced age of ninety years. I had heard that she died last winter or spring and wrote to learn if it was true. I am happy to learn that it was a false report and that she is still in good health in body and mind though nearly blind. She will probably be a good witness in this case.
The whole of the farm grand- father owned on the 23rd of January 1821. I want restored to me to be held as

a family homestead . It will cost less , considerable less , than what the Government justly owes Grandfather's heirs. The land was sold in consequence of a mistake made by the Government and ought to be restored to the family or some member of the family. I ask that it be restored to me to to be held as an earnest and pledge of Universal Brotherhood , and an as- surance to the people of the United States that as soon as possible they will all be invited with full and equal citizenship . I mean a citizenship becoming equal sovereigns in a Government of the people, by the peo- ple and for the people . I look upon the Dec- laration of Independence as a reproduction of the Mosaic Bill of Rights intended for all nations and families , and should be carried out according to the inscription on the Liberty Bell because of the atonement made by Jesus Christ . I ask your aid. Very respectfully Yours, Chas. A. Burnham.

P. S.
It is but proper that I explain more fully what I mean. As you are one of the men who preserved the Union you would perhaps like to know what you preserved it for. You will see in the speeches made by President Lincoln at Trenton, N. J., and Philadelphia when going to Washington to assume the duties of his office, (the first term) that he thought this Union had been preserved for some very important purpose . He did not know exactly what , but concluded at Philadelphia that it was that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence but he did not appear to clearly see what that sentiment was. At Trenton he declared us almost God's Chosen people. If he had left out that word almost there would have been no war. The trouble with Mr. Lincoln was

Letter to Senator B. Cour, as to the
Claim made
he was a believer in "Capital and Labor" or "Free Labor," and could not see beyond it. This is shown by a speech he made just before his election as President. The South would not have fought for Slavery if the North had not clung to its free labor ideas. "Free Labor" is of course preferable to Slave Labor, but both systems are incompatible with God's law and opposed to the Kingdom of his Son. The freeing of the Slaves and the investing them with citizenship was a step preparatory to the investing of all men in this country with full citizenship . This country cannot be done until every family has property which is not permanently alienable . It will be done and will lead to the conversion of the Jews and their reestablishment in their own land and the gathering of all nations to Christ as their Priest and King . C.A.B.

Copy of Pension Certificate.
War Department. Revolutionary Claim.
I certify that, in conformity with the Law of the United States, of the 18th of March, 1818, John Burnham late a Major in the Army of the Revolution, is inscribed on the Pension List, Roll of the New Hampshire Agency, at the rate of Twenty dollars per month, to commence on the 7th day of April one thousand eight hundred and Eighteen.
Given at the War Office of the United States, this 25th day of May one thousand eight hundred and nineteen.
(L. S.)
J. L. Edwards, in the absence and on behalf of the Secretary of War.

Barnham
Payable Semi-annually. The first payment on this certificate will be made on the 4th of September next, in Portsmouth N. Hampshire at the United States Branch - bank.
Recorded
RECEIVED. JUL 12 1886 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Ed. Pens. Appeals.

Copy of Exclusion from Pension.
War Department, 11.024. Pension Office, Jany 23d 1821.
Sir,
You are hereby informed that the Secretary of War does not, on account of the amount of your property, consider you entitled to a Pension under the Acts of the 18 th March, 1818, and 1 st May, 1820; and has, therefore, directed your name to be stricken from the Pension List.
I am, respectfully, Your obedient servant, G. L. Edwards
To Mr. John Burnham, Londonderry New Hampshire.

Exclusion from Pension.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bd. Pens. Appeals. RECEIVED. JUL 12 1886

Copy of Pension certificate
War Department.
Revolutionary Claim.
I certify that, in conformity with the Law of the United States, of the 18th of March, 1818, John Burnham late a Major in the Army of the Revolution, is inscribed on the Pension List, Roll of the New Hampshire Agency, at the rate of Twenty dollars per month, to commence on the 7th day of April one thousand eight hundred and Eighteen.
Given at the War Office of the United States, this 25 th day of May one thousand eight hundred and nineteen.
A. L. Edwards,
in the absence and on behalf of the Secretary of War.
(L. S.)

  RECEIVED.  MAY 11 1886    DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR  Bd. Pens. Appeals.    1146   
Burnham
Payable Semi-annually. The first payment on this certificate will be made on the 4th of September next in Portsmouth N. Hampshire at the United States Branch - bank
Recorded

East Derry, N.H., July 7, 1886.
Hon. J. Q. L. Leamar, Secretary of the Interior,
Sir:—
Your letter of the 28th ultimo, signed by Your Assistant Secretary, Mr. D. L. Hawkins, was duly received. In it I am told that if I have any additional evidence to file in the case of my grandfather, Major John Burnham, a Revolutionary Pensioner under the Law of March 18th, 1818, to send it to the Commissioner of Pensions. The enclosed letter of his of the 5th ultimo, shows that he declines all additional evidence . This shows that he is determined to oppose the claim right or wrong. As he has thus judged and prejudged

it You are of course free to consider the evidence already presented which or may be adduced.
Heir (the Commissioner's) letter is unreasonable, unjust and untrue. All the facts in the case have not been told me even once . It would be too bad to make him tell the same story repeatedly . But one trouble with the Pension Office is that they don't always tell things as they are or the same story twice alike. As for their fully and repeatedly explaining the facts to me, the statement is not true. There are some very important facts in the case which they have been entirely unwilling to give me though I have asked them to do it many times. But three days before they wrote the enclosed letter they refused to inform me what were the exact name , rank , and residence of Pensioner No. 11.024, whose num-
ber was on the Notice of Exclusion from Pension received by grandfather. This was an important fact and would have tended much towards clearing the matter up. In the same letter they refused for pay to let me have copies of the papers filed in grandfather's case. These things show that they have not been willing and are not willing to do the right and square thing in the case.
I appeal to You from the decision the Commissioner of Pensions has made and that which he has made in the enclosed letter of his regarding the evidence sent in my letter to You of the 19th of May last. In that letter I called Your attention to two important facts viz; 1st. That Grandfather did every thing the Law of May 1, 1820 required of him, and was consequently entitled by that law itself to a continuance of

his pension if the Secretary of War did not strike his name off of the Pension List. 2nd. The Secretary of War did not strike his name off. The papers on file in case in the Pension Office will show that he did everything the Law of May 1, 1820, required of him, and that he gave in his Schedule of his estate the correct number of his Pension Certificate and the same number under which he had drawn his pension . The enclosed exact copies of his Pension Certificate and Notice of Exclusion from Pension will show whether he was stricken from the Pension List or not. You can judge whether the latter cancels the former or not.

"Figures won't lie," and the figures on the Notice of Exclusion from Pension say that it was Pensioner, No. 11.024, whom the Secretary of War directed to be stricken from the the Pension List, and I guess the present Commissioner of Pensions, Clerks and all, think that was the way of it or they would not refuse to tell me his name, rank and residence , or refuse to let me have copies of the papers filed in grandfather's case.
My letter to You of the 19th of last May, which the Commissioner of Pensions speaks of near the lower part of the first page of his letter, did contain something new and which the Secretary of War had not

chance to consider. When he says that the Secretary of War ordered grandfather's pension discontinued he makes a statement the truth of which he cannot prove . But if even he could do this it would not prove that grandfather was stricken from the Pension List. To be effective the Notice of Exclusion from Pension must have the same number as the Pension Certificate. This is according to a certain principle of law and according to all past and present practice . I would remark here that it seems strange to me that the soldiers of a war to "preserve the Union" should oppose the claims of those who under God brought the Union into existence. I am afraid that they are not "birds of the same feather".
This matter of difference in the numbers of the Pension Certificate and
the Notice of Exclusion from Pension ought to have been attended to at the time, but the man grandfather employed wanted him, it is very probable , to lose his pension rather than save it. It was the fault of the Government of the United States and not his fault that he was misled into believing that he was stricken from the Pension List. The Notice was addressed to Mr. John Burnham, Leondonderry New Hampshire, which led him to believe it was intended for him.
The Commissioner of Pensions says truly in the enclosed letter that "that Office has no authority to restore his name to the Pension List," because he was never struck from it . The Law of May 1, 1820 did not operate in his case but to preserve his pension . He was cheated out of it while he lived but it is still due his heir together with a certain

amount of damages. I claim that as he sold his farm here and his Ohio Mortgage in consequence of the Government of the United States misleading him into believing that he had lost his pension, and its withholding the same from him, that it is the duty of that  the Government of the United States to restore to me his heir and representative his farm here and the balance in money. The Department of the Interior has full authority to do this. It had probably, that authority before 1883, but there is no question about it now , because the New Hampshire Legislature in 1883 passed a law ceding jurisdiction to lands to the United States for certain purposes . What

I ask for, would be an Act of simple justice , and one approved of by the law of the land. I have faith in the justice and integrity of the Department of the Interior and its officers. I, therefore, submit the case to You, hoping that it will receive Your favorable consideration,
Very respectfully, Chas. A. Burham.

(Copy No. 1.)
War Department, Revolutionary Claim.
I certify that, in conformity with the Law of the United States, of the 18 th of March, 1818, John Buraham late a Major in the Army of the Revolution, is inscribed on the Pension List, Roll of the New Hampshire Agency, at the rate of Twenty dollars per month, to commence on the 7 th day of April one thousand eight hundred and Eighteen.
Given at the War Office of the United States, this 25 th day of May one thousand eight hundred and nineteen.
H. L. Edwards, in the absence and on behalf of the Secretary of War."
(Seal)
This was numbered on the opposite side of the page 11, 104 and was recorded. F That 11.104 was the number of this Certificate I have other evidence to prove. C.A.B.

(Copy No. 2)
War Department. (11.024) Pension Office, Jany 23d 1821,
Sir,
You are hereby informed that the Secretary of War does not, on account of the amount of your property, consider you entitled to a Pension under the Acts of the 18th March, 1818, and 1st May, 1820; and has, therefore, directed your name to be stricken from the Pension List.
I am, respectfully, Your obedient servant J. L. Edwards.
To Mr. John Burnham, Londonderry
New Hampshire." That part of Londonderry where the Pensioner lived is now Derry. etc. From the above copy

it will be understood that it was the officer whose number was 11.024 that the Secretary of War wished to deprive of a pension and not my grand- father whose number was 11.104.
C.A.B.

(copy No. 3.)
War Department, Pension Office, Feb. 9th, 1828,
Sir:
In conformity with the Law of the United States of the 1st of March, 1823, Authorizing the Secretary of War to restore the names of certain persons to the List of Pensioners, you are hereby notified, that your name has this day been restored to the Pension Roll of the New Hampshire Agency, and that, agreeably to the provisions of said Act, your allowance, as a Pensioner, will commence on the eighth day of February 1828, the day on which the evidence was closed, upon which you obtained a restoration to the List.
I am, respectfully,
To Hon Major John Burnham, United States Pensioner.
Your obedient servant, P. L. Edwards.
Care of Hon. S. Bell, Senate United States.

ack Feb 28-83.
Interior
East Derry, N. H., Feb. 16th, 1883.
Your Excellency:
I write to you because I think that you will give me a hearing and because there is no man but the President of the United States that I would trust this matter with. The following subject to which I would respectfully call your attention, improbable as it may at first appear, is of interest and importance to the country.
In the year previous to the commencement of the Revolution my grandfather John Burnham, late of this town (Derry) deceased, was a sergeant in a company of minute men raised in Gloucester Mass. In the spring of

1775 he was sick but enlisted and was appointed about the last of May that year first Lieut. in Capt. Warner's Co., Col. Moses Little's Regiment, and served two campaigns. Jan. 1st, 1777 he was appointed a Captain and served as a captain in the Eighth Mass. Regt. and served as such until Jan. 9, 1883 when he was promoted to Major in the regiment commanded by Col. David Cobb of Mass. and continued as such until the last regiments were disbanded at West Point, N.Y. in Jan. 1784. He was at the same time Major in the second U. S. regiment and continued as such until Dec. 29th, 1791, when he resigned his commission and was honorably discharged. He spent what property he had (considerable) in the service and gave all his time, not having a furlough or days leave of absence for any purpose of his own during the War.
He was in the Battle of Bunker's Hill and in the larger part of the important battles of the Revolution and in every action fought by any part of the Army to which he belonged at the time. He commanded in the regiment which was most successful and which first entered the enemy's lines at Saratoga. At the siege of York-Town he served under Gen. Fayette and actively assisted Col. Hamilton in the capture of the first redoubt taken from the British. It will be remembered that it was at Saratoga that the original American flag of thirteen stars was first triumphant. After the Revolution if all accounts are true he led the van of Western emigration north of the Ohio. It has been said that he started the first settlement in that State (Ohio) and named the

first town. In 1790 he was again employed by Gen. Rufus Putnam to raise another company of men to make settlements farther to the west on the Ohio and to protect a party of foreign emigrants from the Indians. While out there he became acquainted with the Kentucky hunter and pioneer, Daniel Boone, who helped furnish him with venison and other game and provisions for his men. Boone and his brother built the first cottage in Kentucky and it has been believed that grandfather fell the first tree in commencing the settlement of Marietta Ohio. He was offered the Governorship of the territory there but declined, and returned to his home at Essex or Gloucester Mass. In consequence of his being out there he became the owner

of three shares in the Ohio Company's Purchase." In 1795 President Washington appointed him Collector for the District of Gloucester but he declined he had just bought a farm here intending to make a permanent settlement. As he became advanced in years he became reduced in circumstances in consequence of the sickness of himself and his family and other misfortunes and was placed on the Pension List under Act of Congress of March 18, 1818. After the passage of the law of May 1st 1820 he was required to exhibit a schedule of his estate to the Secretary of War, which he did together with a statement of the debts he owed. In October that year (1820) he sent to the Hon. Secretary of

War the affidavits of two of the best citizens of this town, Hon. E. H. Derby and Dr. Geo. Farrar stating the amount of his indebtedness and his distressed circumstances. Gov. Brooks of Mass. his Lieut. Col. in the 8th Mass. Regt. also wrote to the Secretary of War in regard to his services and impoverished condition but on the 23rd of January 1821 he was notified that the Secretary of War did not think that he was entitled to a pension and had directed his name to be stricken from the list of pensioners. (Enclose with this copies of his pension certificate, the Notice of his name having been stricken from the pension list, and his certificate when his name was restored to the list in 1828) In consequence of his loss of pension he was compelled to sell his land here and nearly all of his personal property in order to meet the demands of
his creditors. His necessities again forced him to apply for a pension. It was granted him on the 9th of Feb. 1828 but after much trouble and long delay perhaps it never would have been granted had not Senator Samuel Bell of New Hampshire been prepared to bring the subject before Congress and obtain a special act for his relief. He was then at the advanced age of seventy-eight years without house or home in a state of extreme penury unable to labor because of bodily infirmities caused by age and his sufferings and privations in the service of his country and his wife had been an invalid for many years. I have evidence to prove that the Government about a year before had exacted from him the sale of his Ohio lands, of which he then held a mortgage deed, and held forth the promise that if he would sell them and furnish satisfactory

evidence that the proceeds were applied to the payment of his debts that his name would be again restored to the Pension List. This Ohio Claim had for many years been involved in a law-suit, was a bill of expense and of little or no pecuniary assistance. It was accordingly sold at public auction and the for required necessary evidence furnished. It brought but a trifle, less than one seventh of its face value.
If I am not mistaken the bounty lands to which he was entitled as a soldier in the Revolution were included in this Ohio Claim. Now it happens after all that his name was never stricken from the Pension List by the order of the Secretary of War. that it was all an error or mistake of the under secretary or Clerk as the

accompanying copies will show. I have wondered that with the evidence Sec. Calhoun had before him that he should have directed his name to be stricken from the list of pensioners. It appears that he directed that the number 11.024 be stricken from the list and that the under secretary or clerk, S. L. Edwards, mistook my grandfather's number, 11.104 for it and struck his name from the list.
It may be asked why this error was not detected before. I will say that the Pensioner was an old man and probably his eye-sight was not very good. He was totally blind for seven years before his death which took place about twentytwo years after. Another reason is that the documents were num-

bered on opposite sides of the page, and he was probably so overcome by the apparent ingratitude of his country that he did not stop to see if it was not a mistake. If the clerk could make the mistake it is not to be wondered at, that the Pensioner under the circumstances failed to detect it. Besides all these there is a propriety in the mistake being discovered now for the first time. I inherited part of the old home which the Government turned grandfather out of, and after it had entirely passed out of the possession of the family or name. A gentleman in Boston, a few months ago requested me to furnish him a statement of grandfather's Revolutionary services. This led me to examine his old papers and finally to discover the error. I suppose the evidence upon which he was placed on the Pension List in 1819, that furnished in 1820, and the copies of the deeds of real estate which he sold and the evidence upon which his
pension was restored in 1828 are still on file at Washington. Of course it cannot be claimed that those deeds of real estate were free acts and deeds of his.
Now I respectfully ask the Government of the United States to thoroughly examine this case and to restore to the heirs of Major John Burnham what he was deprived of by this mistake or error of the Government official. He did not want to sell his farm here nor his Ohio claim and he could and would have kept both if he had not been deprived of his pension. He was pensioned under act of May 15th 1828 at the rate of six hundred dollars a year with two years back pay. This would have enabled to have held his lands.
This is no ordinary case. If it was I would not trouble you with it. Chester A. Arthur, Boars, very respectfully, President of the U.S. Chas. A. Burnham. United States,

East Derry, N. H., June 10, 1886. Hon. J. L. Lamar, Secretary of the Interior.
Sir:—
Your letter of the 19th ultimo in answer to mine to you of the 30th of last April was du- ly received.
If it would not be improper I would like to put in some addition- al evidence to show that there is un- paid pension due. Since receiving your letter, signed by your 1st Assistant Secretary, in looking over my father's and grandfather's papers I have found documents from gentlemen in Washing- ton and elsewhere which show that there was a balance of unpaid pension due.
L. B. True of Washington wrote

as follows on the 17th of June 1852.
United States Pension Agency, Washington City, D. C.
Sir: An amount of pension has been already granted for the revolutionary services of John Burnham as Major in the forces of the State of Mass. but we are satisfied we can obtain a larger amount still, due for the same services, by means of Army Rolls and Records of the Revolution now in our possession. The Revolutionary pensioner, or his widow, or a child of the same, will have the goodness to sign the enclosed Form , before some Justice of the Peace, obtain the seal of the Court upon the same, and return the paper at the earliest convenience." He enclosed with this letter a Power of Attorney to be signed Authorizing him to examine the papers on file at Washington and collect the pension due. My Father had died the year before and
my Mother and older brothers did not seem to understand what he meant and so did not employ him. They appear to have thought that he referred to the Revolutionary "Half-pay" claims, which is not probable . He wrote again in April 1858 saying:
"We have lists of thousands of Revolutionary pensioners, and among them, find reason to believe we can obtain a certain amount more of money for you, which we will obtain the usual Government draft for, in your favor, payable to you, and with but little trouble on your part. Please write us promptly, telling us if the pensioner yet lives in this case, but if dead, then give us the names and Post Office address of each of the living children, or of the administrator, if there be any in the case." This was at least the third letter he wrote to us about this case and was very as anxious to have us employ him but it was not done. S. M. Kenight, Agent

for Government Claims, at Washington also wrote on the 10th of May 1853 wish- ing to be employed to collect what was due Grandfather, but he was not employed I have letters from other Gentlemen, but the document to which I would call your especial attention to is a circular letter from one John A. Rockwell, and James G. Berret, who had been Chief Clerk of the Pension Office but had resigned and was then an Attorney for Claimants . It appears they were in com- pany, and they asked twenty per cent on what they could obtain. Their letter was dated on the 1st of July 1850. If they had not thought that grandfather had a good claim against the Government they probably would probably not have probably sent the letter to him or his children." Mr. Berret probably

knew as much about what was in the Pension Office as some of the Clerks there now do. He perhaps was the very clerk who made the mistake I spoke of in my other two letters to you. If he did not he perhaps knew of it. I see that J. or J. L. Edwards was commissioner of Pensions in 1850. If he was, as is probable, the J. or J. L. Edwards who was in the Pension Office in 1819-21 & 28 it is not improbable that Mr. Berret was Clerk in the Pension Office on the 23rd of January 1821 , and was continued in employ there until he became Chief Clerk if he was not that then. Any way it looks as if he knew of the mistake . I can send you these letters if you would like to

see them. It don't seem to me that the men I have spoken of would have put themselves to so much trouble if they had not thought that there was some pension due Major John Burnham whose certificate number was 11.104 . Soldiers tell me that the Commissioner of Pensions cannot now strike a Pensioner off of the Pension List under another Pensioner's number . Perhaps that was the rule in 1821 . If so it ought to have been observed for truly the officers and soldiers of the Revolution had as good a claim on the Country as the officers and soldiers of the last war.
It appears that I am heir to what may be due grandfather in this case. If there is anything due I think I am as much entitled to it as some people here are to what they receive on account of some of the
Soldiers of the War for the Union. Anyway I have poorer health than any man on the Pension List in this town (and there are plenty of them), and I have a family to support. I have been a sufferer from Asthma of the worst kind ever since I was a little child, and during the year am unable to do no more than a third part of the physical labor of a common man. In the cold months I cannot do but little work. My Asthma is probably a Revolutionary inheritance as grandfather had it (the asthma) after he left the Army. The late Capt. Simon Macerrill of Chester, this State, who was at Valley Forge with grandfather, also had the Asthma badly and he said it was caused by his sufferings and hardships at Valley Forge.
If there is any more evidence needed to prove that grandfather was entitled to his pension from 1820 to 1826 I think I can furnish it. But I have a little

Claim on the Country on my own account. I did not go to war, but that little idea of mine about Surnames , expressed in my last letter to you, is worth more to this Nation than all the victories of Gen. Grant and his Armies. No man knows what a hour may bring forth, but history seems to be a succession of events and all history seems to point to the liberty, equality, and true Christianity of the race. My idea is that the United States is the beginning of the Fifth Empire, and its flag the ensign of the model republic . My Grandfather saw the flag it at Saratoga triumph for the first time , and he contributed not a little towards that event.
You have perhaps read of the " prevision " of Abraham Lincoln?

146 152 14    1146  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bd. Pens. Appeals.  RECEIVED. JUN 7 1886    86    
John Burnham Appealed May 11/86
17 file G May com
June 28/86
Letter to him. Send all evidence to Pension Office
not recd. 10.7 W 11.10 4 10/26/87
Pension appeals for reply. file E.P.H.
3
I spoke of the victories of Gen. Grant and his armies. I am something on Union myself — Union of State and Union of Church — but I tell You that there can be no true liberty and Union until the sacred right of secession is recognized . Why, Sir, the word Union , in every sense, implies voluntary consent . It can only be preserved by love and a common purpose . I have always been a Republican but I never fully realized the enormity of the last war until I witnessed the greed and selfishness of the soldiers, recently. They seem to act as if it were little consequence how a Revolutionary Pensioner or his heirs are treated . It is all " Veterans " and the

Children of "Veterans" . Of course no one can object to the Country providing for the widows of those killed in the service, or for the soldiers wounded or made permanently sick while in the service , but to change the whole Grand Army of the Republic into and their families into a Grand Army on the Public is more than we have gained for. Southern Secession having been justifiable under the circumstances (I don't mean Southern Slavery) my humble opinion is if the Government does not provide for the needy widows and children of those who died in the service, and for the sick and wounded "rebels" themselves there will not be a Northern soldier or widow on the Pension List five years from today. Now let us have a specimen of Southern justice , not for my sake merely, but for Christ's sake, and the Country's.
Yours, very respectfully, Chas. A. Burnham.

Copy No. 2.
War Department, (11.024.) Pension Office, Jany 23d 1821.
Sir,
You are hereby informed that the Secretary of War does not, on account of the amount of your property, consider you entitled to a Pension under the Acts of the 18th March, 1818, and 1st May, 1820; and has, therefore, directed your name to be stricken from the Pension List.
I am, respectfully, Your obedient servant, A. L. Edwards
To Mr. John Burnham, Londonderry New Hampshire

Burnham
Payable semi-annually, The first payment on this certificate will be made on the 4th of September next, in Portsmouth, N. Hampshire at the United States Branch bank - bank
Recorded
Copy 1, An exact copy of Pension Certificate, number 4c,
War Department, Revolutionary Claim.
I hereby certify that, in conformity with the Law of the United States, of the 18th of March, 1818, John Burnham late a Major in the Army of the Revolution, is inscribed on the Pension List, Roll of the New Hampshire Agency, at the rate of Twenty dollars per month, to commence on the 7th day of April one thousand eight hundred and Eighteen Given at the War Office of the United States, this 25th day of May one thousand eight hundred and nineteen.
A. Le. Edwards, in the absence and on behalf of the Secretary of War.
(Seal)

Copy No. 3. War Department, Pension Office, Feb 9th 1828,
Sir:
In conformity with the Law of the United States of the 1st March, 1823, authorizing the Secretary of War to restore the names of certain persons to the List of Pensioners, You are hereby notified, that your name has been this day restored to the Pension Roll of the New Hampshire Agency, and that, agreeably to the provisions of said Act, Your allowance, as a Pensioner, will commence on the eighth day of February 1828, the day on which the evidence was closed, upon which you obtained a restoration to the List.
I am, respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
S. L. Edwards,
To Hon. Major John Burnham, United States Pensioner, Care of Hon. S. Bell, Senate United States.

Copy of the Affidavit of Christopher S. Thom.
"I Christopher S. Thom testify and say that I have been acquainted with Major John Burnham of Londonderry about Twenty years and know that his health is extremely bad, and that he is entirely unfit for any kind of corporeal labor and his wife is an invalid, and in consequence of his ad- vanced age and his bodily infirmities he has become reduced in his circum- stances, and I verily believe that he is absolutely absolutely in need of as- sistance from his country for support and decent and comfortable maintenance. Christopher S. Thom."
This was dated at Severn to in London- derry, N.H. on June 5th, 1818, before James Thom, Justice of the Peace.

A Copy of a Statement which I have which was written by Governor Benjamin Pierce of New Hampshire.
To Whom it may concern this may certify that John Burn- ham Esquire of Londonderry in the State of New Hampshire was a Captain in the Eighth Massachusetts Regiment commanded by Col. Michael Jackson from the First of the year 1777 untill the close of the War except- ing the time he was in Genl. Mearquis Lea Fayette's Division in Col. Gi- mots Regiment he was a most Excellent disciplinarian & allways had the Honor of commanding the Leight Infantry Company he was not Second to any man in the army of his rank he was allways at his post Ready to meet any event in a word Duty with

him Superseded every other consideration I was in the Eighth Regiment with him about Six years and a witness to his indefatigable Services
B. Pierce"
Hillsborough 2 d April 1827 "
I by mistake got the date below the his Signature. With the exception of that the above is an exact Copy. C, A, B.
Copies of letters relating to services as soldier

John Derry, N. H., Sept. 1, 1890.
Mr. President:
About the 18th of last month I wrote you a letter, and sent you a copy of a newspaper, entitled, The Gloucester Daily Times . Both of which showed how my grandfather, Major John Burnham, pensioner No. 11.104 under the Law of March 18, 1818, was defrauded out of his pension after the passage of the Pension Act of May 9, 1820. I thought I would write you one more letter on the subject that you might see more clearly if possible the propriety of action on your part in the case.

I bring the matter to the attention of Your Excellency because it pertains specially to the Executive Department of the United States Government and You are the honored head of that Department, and because the above mentioned Law of March 18, 1818, was peculiarly the work of a President of the United States . I presume that You are as willing that justice should be done Re. revolutionary soldiers as was the President who was the author of the Law and that the intention of the Law in this particular case should be carried out . Now this is all I ask.
The following which I have copied from President Monroe's First Annual Message is what led to the passage of the Law of March
18, 1818:
"In contemplating the happy situation of the United States, our attention is drawn with peculiar interest, to the surviving officers and soldiers of our revolutionary army, who so eminently contributed, by their services, to lay its foundation. Most of those very meritorious citizens have paid the debt of nature and gone to repose. It is believed that among the survivors there are some not provided for by existing laws, who are reduced to indigence, and even to real distress. These men have a claim on the gratitude of their country, and it will do honor to their country to provide for them. The lapse of a few years more, and the opportunity will

"be forever lost; indeed, so long already has been the interval, that the number to be benefitted by any provision which may be made, will not be great."
It is quite probable that he especially referred to those men who had been good soldiers and were good citizens but who through misfortune were in reduced circumstances. In response to this recommendation of President Monroe Congress passed the Pension Law of March 18, 1818, which granted a pensions for life to those soldiers who furnished the required evidence that they were in reduced circumst

circumstances. If an officer $20 per month. If a private $8 per month. That grandfather acted well the part assigned him and was consequently one of the best of American soldiers the documents of the Army and the testimony of his brother officers has fully established. That he was reduced to indigent and most distressed circumstances through misfortune and was unable to support himself without the assistance of his country was fully established by the schedule of his property and indebtedness given by him in 1820, and by the statements and affidavits given the Secretary of War by Christopher S. Thom, Gov. John
Brooks of Massachusetts, Hon. E. H. Derby and Dr. George Farrar, and by subsequent events. That he was and had been a good citizen was also shown by the statements of the above mentioned persons. That he was not stricken from the Pension List is shown by the Notice of Exclusion from Pension received by him and which he was misled into believing was his. The Government was improperly tampered with in his case by some men who had been plotting to get his pension away from him and to defraud him out of some lands in the State of Ohio which were not then available but likely in time to be valuable. The principal conspirator who succeeded — by action of the

Government of the United States! — in defrauding him out of his pension and Ohio lands, afterwards said, as I have heard my Mother tell, that "he told them that if they were going to give a pension to any one to give it to Me . — Burnam , as he was a poor man, but that Major John Burnham had property enough." If the statements of the present Pension Department (or that in existence within a few years) can be believed it was the number and title of one Joshua Burnam , a private soldier, that was and is on the Notice of Exclusion from Pension received by grandfather. But that Department has done its best to conceal his residence and other facts concern-

concerning him. (Why this if every thing was right ??) But fortunately I happen to know an old lady who remembers him in this old town of Londonderry . It appears from what I have heard that he was a kind of a worthless sort of a man. If he was intemperate the pension was probably more of a curse than a benefit to him. Of course the Pension Law of March 18, 1818, was not  passed for the benefit of such a man simply because he was  poor . But I think his pension should have been allowed him if he was once placed on the Pension List in conformity with "that Law. The probability is that this principal conspirator to defraud grandfather, who was quite wealthy and an enemy through a secret one, might perhaps have bribed some one in the Pension Office to
send this man's Notice of Exclusion from Pension to grandfather, that is, if the Angel of the Lord did not cause the alteration in the numbers .
But who influences that Department now to oppose this claim? I hope that they are under Divine influence because if they are every thing will be settled right even though Hee  Hee hardens their hearts as he did and for the same purpose that he hardened the heart of Pharaoh! If Major John Burnham was not entitled to his pension no one is entitled to one. I am his heir and representative, and I want the United States Government to restore to me what it deprived him of "without due process of law," and what it forced him to sell. Please attend to this matter before Congress adjourns. To the President, I have the honor to be, Sir, Executive Mansion, Your obedient servant, Washington, D. C. Charles A. Burnham.

File with No 45,659 John Burnham Reorg
No answer required JR
4,
N. B. - 1. Pensioner No. 11,104 complied with the Law of 1820 . 2. Please take notice that if the Executive Department of the United States Government, to which the adjustment of this matter be- longs, takes action in this case I would like to have it do it soon , this month if possible . This is because I have been put to a great deal of expense of time and money in this case and greatly need what the Nation justly owes me . For seven or eight years I have been try- ing hard to obtain justice in the case but without success. Early in 1883 I asked President Arthur for a thorough investi- gation of and a proper adjustment

of this matter. He referred it to the Secretary of the Interior. That Department has made no adjustment of the case. Neither has it made or allowed a thorough investigation of it. Therefore I think that I am entitled to a voice in fixing the time when it is to be settled. After waiting until the close of this month without any favorable action in this case I think that I will be warranted in assuming that the United States Government don't intend to do justice in this claim. Then you may expect that the subject of pensions will be considered by the people.
Please write me what your decision is that I may govern myself accordingly. Respectfully, Edward Burnham.

Burnham Homestead, Derry, N.H., June 21, 1898. To the Hon. Commissioner of Pensions, Washington, D. C., Sir:
Your communication to me of April 4th, 1898, signed by Mr. J. L. Davenport, First Deputy Commissioner, was duly received, and it was a complete reversal of the decision made by Wm. E. McLean (then First Deputy Commissioner) on October 29th, 1882, and from which I appealed to the Hon. Secretary of the Interior. Had Mr. McLean's decision been the same as that of Mr. Davenport above mentioned, there would have been no appeal .

For it would have been in ac- cordance with common sense, and the law and practice of the United States in all such cases. But Mr. McLean lied and per- haps willfully lied, and I appealed to the Secretary of the Interior and that Department sustained him in it as long as it had the face to do it . — Then if I am not mis- taken referred it back to your Bureau to settle . This in was in 1892, I believe. But the — I will not say devil — still hung around the Pension Bureau un- til I had got the fox  fully unearthed . No, they opposed the claim, but the Lord's hand was in it . Our decision of April 7th, 1898, agreed ex- actly with what I claimed in the first place, viz.: That Certificate
PENSION JUN 24 1898 No. 11.104 was and is the only and correct number that could be used in the case of Major John Burnham, Revolutionary Pension- er under the Laws of March 18, 1818, and May 1, 1820, and that the number 11.024 applies to another case having no reference to him. Mr. McLean, the then First Deputy Commissioner, said my Grandfather's the Major John Burn- ham's mentioned, Schedule of Property filed in 1820 was so large in amount $2785 \frac{42}{100} with- out including his Ohio property of $1700, \frac{00}{100} mentioned by him that the Secretary of War did not consider him entitled to a pension and directed him struck off the list And notified Jan'y 23, 1821, etc. These statements as to his property and more are false . I have found his orig- inal Schedule, Oath, etc. on file.

and have certified copies of them from the Clerk of the Court in whose Office they are filed. The amount of his real and personal property as exhibited by him and not including his Ohio property which yielded no income was fixed by the Committee appraising and himself at only $2590, 25, $195, 17 less than what Mr. McLean said it was. But that is not all—The two Judges of the Court of Record before whom the Schedule of Property was exhibited and the Oath taken, whose business it was to fix the value of said property, took the same assets of real and personal property and added the Ohio property to it and then appraised the whole at only $2590, 25. But this

is not all . The said Pensioner stated: "The foregoing" (meaning his Schedule) "is a schedule of all the estate and income which I have in possession but I am indebted to a large amount which I intend to exhibit to the War department with satisfactory evidence of the  correctness of the debts and the particular amount of the same". And he did so. The Secretary of War and no one else would care to gainsay the evidence he furn- ished (Dec 2, 1920) that he was justly indebted and liable to demand to the amount of $2785 \frac{42}{100} . Under  those circumstances for what  amount of property could the 

Secretary of War strike him from the Pension List? That is when he had given the exact amount of his property and with the statement given due notice of his indebtedness and afterwards proved the same . And it not only proved that but it proved that Mr. Edwards, the then Commissioner of Pensions, understood his business when he placed him on the Pension List in the first place. The case was to him a just and clear one or he would not probably have ventured to do it in the absence and on behalf of the Secretary of War, and to give that official a chance afterwards to strike the Pensioner
off the List was a reflection upon the action of Mr. Edwards and the Pension Office or Department. And the opposition with which this claim has met, since I have been engaged in its recovery, in the Pension Bureau has been but a stultification, without grounds, of its own former action in this case — showing that the judgment of the Pension Department was  is  not sound , that appeal by Congress have been  should be taken from it to the Secretary of War. But the facts have proved then its judgment sound . Mr. McLean said it was immaterial whether claimant was notified of the action in his case under the number 11,104 or 11,024. But I am glad that you have at last told the truth in the matter. (See other side also.) Yours, very respectfully, Charles A. Burnham.

P.S. — You blame me for appealing to the Secretary of the Interior but you would have done the same thing had you been in my place. When they lied and decided contrary to law and the practice of the United States in all Pension cases, what could I do but appeal ? And I think you will find that the Hon. Secretary of the Interior practically sustained my appeal when he referred the whole matter back to your Bureau for settlement of which you I believe notified me March 23, 1892. Your decision of April 4th, 1898, settles the matter that the Pension is still justly due. Feb. 6, 1888, my appeal was officially recognized by John C. Black, then Commissioner of Pensions as "the appeal of John Burnham Revolutionary War, Ctt. No. 11,104." It is due me under Section 4742 Revised Statutes of the United States and without any special Act of Congress, that is the only amount of Pension is. So please pay it as soon as possible. Very respectfully, Charles A. Burnham.

copy
War Department.
Revolutionary Claim.
I certify that, in conformity with the Law of the United States, of the 18th of March, 1818, John Burnham late a Major in the Army of the Revolution, is inscribed on the Pension List, Roll of the New Hampshire Agency, at the rate of Twenty dollars per month, to commence on the 7th day of April one thousand eight hundred and Eighteen.
Given at the War Office of the United States, this 25th day of May one thousand eight hundred and nineteen.
(L. P.)
D. L. Edwards, in the absence and on the behalf of the Secretary of War.

Burnham
Payable semi-annually, This first payment on this certificate will be made on the 4th of Septem- ber next, in Portsmouth Hampshire at the United States Branch-bank.
Recorded

Copy -
War Department, (11. 024)
Pension Office
Jany 23 d 1821.
Sir,
You are hereby informed that the Secretary of War does not, on account of the amount of your property, consider you entitled to a Pension under the Acts of the 18 th March, 1818, and 1 st May, 1820; and has, therefore, directed your name to be stricken from the Pension List.
I am, respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
J. L. Edwards
To Mr. John Burnham,
Londonderry
New Hampshire

Excluded from Pension

Derry, N. H., March 8, 1892.
To the Hon. Secretary of the Interior. Sir:
The inclosed document is respectfully returned with the request that you decide the question submitted to your consideration by me on the 11th of June, 1889, and then notify me according to your promise by means of the Commissioner of Pensions what your decision is.
There are two reasons why I do not accept the inclosed as a decision of the question by Your Honor. One is that its the inclosed, envelope contained no information from the Commissioner of Pensions that the document was genuine . Consequently it cannot be accepted as your decision . The other reason is that the question decided is a different one from that submitted to your consideration . — a still stronger reason why I should reject it.
The whole tenor of my communi-

Communications with your Department shows that the question submitted by me for your consideration and decision was not whether the Secretary of War committed an error of judgment in striking Major John Burnham from the Pension List but, Did he do it? I claim that he did not . And those competent to judge tell me that he did not. Why do you neglect or refuse to decide the question? and neglect to pay me his pension from March 4th, 1820, to March 3rd, 1826? He established his claim to said pension by complying with the Law of May 1, 1820 and was not stricken from the Pension List, and it is due me as his heir and representative. According to Section 4742 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, it is due me and no special Act of Congress for a fund for its payment is necessary . because he left no widow The Laws of March 18, 1818, and May 1, 1820, are, in this case , still in full force and virtue . The proceedings in the case were simply an unjust, unlawful, and abortive interference in my grandfather's affairs. I am in possession of his estate and was on the

1888
6th of February, officially recognized as the pensioner himself by John C. Black then Commissioner of Pensions. Had he (the pensioner) himself applied for the balance of pension mentioned, the Government could not have refused him any time after the 15th of May, 1828, because he by the Pension Act of that date was considered a U. S. Pensioner from March 3rd, 1826, which prevented a break of six years in his pension account with the Government. Now if it was due him it is still due me because I am on the same ground and occupy the same house that he occupied May 1, 1820, and March 3rd, 1826, and have by law acquired his estate. Therefore return these papers for your decision, hoping that you will judge the case as you would have God judge you. The inclosed copies of his Pension Certificate, the Notice of Exclusion from Pension, and his Restoration to the Pension Roll, will show what the Government considered his number , his title —that is, name as a U. S. pensioner .
Yours, very respectfully, Charles A. Burnham, (over)

As this is probably the last time I shall write to Your Department on this subject it is my duty to now make the case as plain as possible to you. Grandfather was under God deprived of his pension in consequence of the War Department having been improperly tampered with by one Alanson Tucker who wanted to get his pension stopped that he (Tucker) might buy his Ohio mortgage for a trifle, it being involved in a lawsuit. Tucker himself told afterwards what he said to the Department, and an endorsement on the copy of Grandfather's Schedule in 1890, and now filed in the Pension Office confirms the truth of Tucker's statement. Tucker's friends professed to be Grandfather's friends and soon after the latter had received the Notice of Exclusion from Pension got him to commit the business to their care and they managed it so he could not get his pension  name restored without selling the mortgage for a mere trifle to Mr. Tucker . I have proof of all these things. Do the rules and practice of the Departments of the Government since the Nation begun warrant the decision that Major John Buruham , pensioner No. 11.104 , could be stricken from the Pension List as private , No. 11.0248 ? G.A. 13.

a
DEPARTMENT RECEIVED. OF THE INTERIOR MAR 18 1892
U. S. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR MAR 2 1892 FILED WITH PAPERS P.
Dept of the Interior.
Respectfully Referred to the Court of Pensions.
Cyrus Bussey ASST. SECRETARY
Law Division March 29 th 1892
Respectfully referred to the O and U Division for filing. These letters have been to the Department and it is evident no further notice will be taken of Mr Burnham's letters.
W B Bailey Law Clerk
RECEIVED. B. MAR 28 1892 P. LAW DIVISION
OFFICE OF THE PENSION MAR 25 1892

War Department, Pension Office, Feb 9th, 1828.
Sir:
In conformity with the Law of the United States of the 1st March, 1823, authorizing the Secretary of War to restore the names of certain persons to the List of Pensioners, you are hereby notified, that your name has been this day restored to the Pension Roll of the New Hampshire Agency, and that, agreeably to the provisions of said Act, your allowance, as a Pensioner, will commence on the eighth day of February 1828, the day on which the evidence was closed, upon which you obtained a restoration to the List,
I am respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
To Mr. Major John Burnham, P. L. Edwards
United States Pensioner.
Care of Hon: S. Bell,
Senate United States,

Restoration to the Pension Roll
(copy)

Derry, N. H., May 16, 1890, To the Hon. Secretary of the Interior, Sir:
I want this business finished. I mean the business which I have for some years past had with your Department concerning my claim against the United States. It is time to push things. Not as Grant told Sheridan to "push things", but as the one "separate from his brethren" pushes things. If you want to go on record as opposed to God and my right you can do so. But I will give you this one chance more to do what is right and what you have lawful authority to do.
My claim is that of my grandfather, Major John Burroughs, pensioner No. 11.104 under the Law of March 18,

1818. On the 6th of February 1888, after I had been more than twenty years in peaceable possession of the said pensioner's estate and was properly and lawfully his heir and representative, I was Officially recognized as the said pensioner by John C. Black the then Commissioner of Pensions in a communication or letter sent to me by him by direction of the then Hon. Secretary of the Interior. It was in reply to my second motion to the then Hon. Secretary of the Interior for a reconsideration of my appeal to him concerning my said claim. (Docket No. 1146--1886.). It was in their words: In the appeal of John Burnham Revolutionary War  ctf No. 11,104. And you treated my appeal as the appeal of the said pensioner when you received and granted my motions of June 11, 1889, for a reconsideration of the
said appeal. But you entirely misapprehend the real question presented for your consideration. The following are your words of May 5th 1890:
The question presented resolved itself into this: Did the Secretary of War commit an error of judgment in holding that the aforesaid John Burnham was not in such indigent circumstances as to be unable to support himself?"
You are quite mistaken in the above, Sir. If you will carefully examine my appeal you will find that the real question presented for your consideration (and it is one which the Commissioner of Pensions could have correctly answered long ago) is this: Did the Secretary of War strike the pensioner from the Pension List on January 23d 1821? In other words could Major

O. W. King
Office of the Com'r of Pensions MAY 24 1890 DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR RECEIVED. MAY 19 1890 Off. Pensions Appeals.
Part of the Pensions
Respectfully referred to the Com'r of Pensions. No reply necessary Cyrus Bussey.
ASST. SECRETARY
OFFICE MAY 22 1890
John Burnham, pensioner No. 11.104 under the Law of March 18, 1818, which made a distinction between an officer and a private, be stricken from the Pension List as other . John Burnham, pensioner No. 11.02A . ? That was the question presented for your consideration, and if you decided that he could not be and was not thus stricken off, I requested you to restore to me his heir and representative what is due him under pension certificate No. 11.104 . The United States is fully able to make good all damages done him. And as it (the Government) has claimed that he owned the property mentioned by him in his schedule filed in July 1820 it cannot deny that it reduced his property to the amount mentioned

in his other schedule upon which his name was restored to the Pension List from February 8th, 1828. But the time of the discontinuance of an allowance to him as a pensioner was not allowed to equal six years, for by the Law of May 15th 1828, which was passed for the benefit of those Revolutionary officers who had not been fully paid for their services, he was considered a United States pensioner from March 3d, 1826. This would have placed him back on his old place and in the same house where I now live. Section 4742 of the Revised Statutes of the United States says in substance that a pension can be granted to the heir of an a Revolutionary soldier who before his death established his claim to a pension. Grandfather established his claim to a continuance of pension under
the Law of May 1, 1820, but died without knowing it. He met every requirement of him by the Law just mentioned and was consequently entitled to a continuance of his pension if the Secretary of War did not strike his name from the List. That the Secretary did not strike him off is shown by the Notice of Exclusion from Pension received by him. But he was not of the number of those intended by the Law as "dying" "leaving a balance of pension due and undrawn for a period of three years or more" which balance was to be carried into the United States Treasury and to be paid out only under a special act of Congress, because he applied for his pension and supposed it was withheld.
If your duty is not plain to you now I don't know as I can make it more so.
Yours, very respectfully, Chas. A. Burnham.

War Department, (11.024.) Pension Office, Jan'y 23d 1821.
Sir,
You are hereby informed that the Secretary of War does not, on account of the amount of your property, consider you entitled to a Pension under the Acts of the 18th March, 1818, and 1st May, 1820; and has, therefore, directed your name to be stricken from the Pension List.
I am, respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
A. L. Edwards
To Mr. John Burnham, Londonderry New Hampshire

Excluded from Pension
(copy)

War Department.
Revolutionary Claim.
I certify that, in conformity with the Law of the United States, of the 18th of March, 1818, John Burnham late a Major in the Army of the Revolution, is inscribed on the Pension List, Roll of the New Hampshire Agency, at the rate of Twenty dollars per month, to commence on the 7th day of April one thousand eight hundred and Eighteen.
Given at the War Office of the United States, this 25th day of May one thousand eight hundred and nineteen.
(L. H.)
J. L. Edwards, in the absence and on behalf of the Secretary of War,

Burnham
Payable semi-annually. The first payment on this certificate will be made on the 4th of September next, in Portsmouth, N. Hampshire at the United States Branch-bank.
(copy)
Recorded

War Department,
Pension Office, Feb. 9th 1828.
Sir:
In conformity with the Law of the United States of the 1st March, 1823, Authorizing the Secretary of War to restore the names of certain persons to the List of Pensioners, you are hereby notified, that your name has been this day restored to the Pension Roll of the New Hampshire Agency, and that, agreeably to the provisions of said Act, your allowance, as a Pensioner, will commence on the eighth day of February 1828, the day on which the evidence was closed, upon which you obtained a restoration to the List.
I am, respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
J. L. Edwards
To Hon. Major John Burnham, United States Pensioner, Care of Hon. S. Bell, Senate United States.

Restoration to the Pension Roll — —
RECEIVED. MAY 11 1886 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bd. Pens. Appeals. A 1146

Copy of Gen. Derby's Affidavit, given in 1820 and spoken of in Gov. Brooks Letter to the Secretary of War.
I Elias Hasket Derby of Londonderry in the County of Rockingham and State of New Hampshire testify and say that at the request of Major John Burnham of Londonderry with our worthy friend & Re- spected Physician Doct. George Farrar on this 14th of October 1820 have made a full investi- gation and examination of the Vouchers and Items of sundry demands which I consider as justly due from said Burn- ham to sundry individuals and on a a careful investigation of the same I fully believe and have no Doubt he justly owes

the sum of twenty seven hundred & eighty five Dollars and forty two cents which debts appear to have arisen and grown gradually from supplies to his family in sickness and extra extra labor in managing his small farm and in consequence of his and his wives extreme infirmities with the bills incumbent on managing a small farm. I do further state that I have lived a near neighbor to Major Burnham for five years last passed that I have always felt a lively interest in his welfare from his known military services during the Revolutionary war and from the manner he has preserved his well earned military character & valuable example in civil life while struggling
with extreme adverse circumstances such as his and his wife's limbs very much distorted by Rheumatism accompanied with old age so as to incapacitate them from the necessary farming duties inability to hire the necessary labor to manage his little farm to advantage even to prevent its going to waste and these difficulties increasing so as in my mind portend a speedy state of extreme penury.
Elias Hasket Derby.
Londonderry N.H. Oct. 16, 1820.
Personally appeared Elias Hasket Derby and made solemn oath that the foregoing deposition by him signed is just and true.
Before me
Christopher S. Thom Justice of the Peace

D DEPARTMENT RECEIVED. —OF THE— 1146 INTERIOR MAY 11 1886 Bd. Pens. Appeals.
Copy of the Affidavit of Gen. Elias Hackett Derby, 1820.

Exh
Derry, N. H., May 8, 1890.
Mr. President:
As you are the chief executive officer of this Nation I earnestly implore your protection.
My situation is as follows:
I am the heir and representative of my grandfather, Major John Burnham, a Revolutionary officer and pensioner No. 11.104, under the Law of March 18, 1818. In consequence of an unjust and unlawful interference in his affairs by the United States Government he was stripped of his pension and compelled to sell house and home. The matter is now before the Hon. Secretary of the Interior and awaits his decision. But as there are many cases preceding it, it will be some time before it can be reached. It appears from the very best evidence that not only was he unjustly and unlawfully deprived of his pension but that after all he was not really stricken from the Pension List.
over

I inherited and am on the ground he was driven out of, and have for more than seven years at a great expense of time and money been looking up all the evidence in the case and trying to recover the estate which he lost. I am and have been a life long invalid and have a family to support. In consequence of these things I am in greatly reduced circumstances myself and for several years have been unable to pay the taxes on part of the place. Last year the land was sold for the taxes and about the 15th of this month a deed will be given to the parties who bought it. Now as the decision of the Hon. Secretary of the Interior involves the title of the land sold and considerable more (and if a favorable decision will invalidate the title sold for the taxes) I ask that the proceedings may be stopped until his decision is made. This I respectfully ask of Your Excellency because you are the successor of the late President Monroe who signed the Pension Act of May 1, 1820, which led to my grandfather's being defrauded. I will say that I am now and always have been willing to pay my taxes and that the officers of the town have been quite considerate as to
extension limit to the with held creditor the decis which can I will show war of the absence f most of t fought b ed. While (which wa his pay a service resigned charged D pioneers was offere named to that Sta Your Ex

he was driven at a great ing up all over the estate life long In consequence circumstances unable to st year the the 15th of parties who the Pleon, the title re (and if a the title proceedings is made. llency be- ident Monroe ch led to my at I am now and that the derate as to
extension of time but I suppose they think there is a limit to their forbearance. But as this just debt has been withheld more than seventy years I think I am the creditor and should have an extension of time until the decision of the Hon. Secretary of the Interior, which cannot be far distant.
I will say that the documents of the Army will show that grandfather served through the entire war of the Revolution without a furlough or leave of absence for any purpose of his own, that he was in most of the principal battles and in every action fought by any part of the Army to which he belonged. While in the service he spent his own property (which was considerable) for necessaries for which his pay was not adequate. He was retained in the service as major in the 2nd U.S. regiment until he resigned his commission and was honorably discharged December 29th, 1791. He was one of the leading pioneers of Ohio, and, if I have not been misinformed was offered the Governorship of the Territory there and named the first permanent white settlement in that State thus helping to prepare preparing a birth place for Your Excellency and at least three of Your

Honorable Secretaries. He was totally blind for seven years before his death which took place in 1843. But he took great interest in political matters, and in the Campaign of 1840 was once so earnest in his defence of the then General Harrison that my Mother was afraid, he being blind, that he would break his crutch over another man's head. At the election that year which was near the close of his ninety first year he rode more than four miles and was led on crutches by my father up to the polls or place of voting, the crowd making way for him, and cast his vote for William Henry Harrison.
For all of the above reasons together with the fact that I claim to have inherited my ancestral estate according to the Declaration of Independence and the inscription on the old Liberty bell at Philadelphia I think that my case is justly entitled to your consideration. I therefore respectfully ask you to stop the proceedings of the Tax Collector of this town in this case until the Hon Secretary of the Interior makes his decision  Hon Secretary Secretary of .
To the President,
I have the honor to be, Sir,
Executive Mansion, Washington, D. C.
Your obedient servant, Charles A. Burnham.

East Derry, N.H., May 4th, 1889.
Hon. James Tanner, Commissioner of Pensions, Washington, D.C.
Sir:
Some time ago I received a letter from you, dated March 28th 1889, and inclosed with it some parts of some papers which I had sent to Senator Mearston of this State. This was somewhat of a surprise to me as I had not for years written to or authorized anyone to write to the Pension Department for me. You are a new man at the head of affairs at the Department so I will write you one letter on the matter of my claim against the United States but nothing in reply to your statement that there is no law under which any payments can be made me as I have already written enough on that point. The other evening I was riding with my old friend, Dr. Josiah C. Eastman of Hampstead, the well known Surgeon of the 4th N.H. Regt, and a great favorite in the Grand Army. He had just returned from Washington. I mentioned my claim to him, I think he said that he knew both you and Commissioner Black. Anyway he spoke very highly of both of you, but said that you

were more liable to "go off half-cocked" than your predecessor Black. I suppose what he meant by that was that you were more apt to decide a case without due consideration or examination. But I have had a good deal of experience for more than six years with the Pension and Interior Departments and they have made a good many decisions in my case and have gone off at "half-cock" or less than "half-cock" every time, and don't seem to be willing to go off any other way although they promised me a thorough examination of the case. When intelligent men repeatedly decide that Major John Burnham, pensioner No. 11.104, under the Law of March 18, 1818, was not entitled to his own rank and number as a pensioner but was pensioner No. 11.024, a private soldier, one would perhaps think if they were not Government officials that they were "half-cocked" in more senses than one. But what means this treatment of me and my claim? Does the United States repudiate or refuse to pay its just debts? Or has any one here or elsewhere prejudiced the Department against me or my claim? But it makes no difference who my opponents are They have only been playing into my hands right along. I noticed a disposition on the part of the Pension Department to hide the facts and to not receive the facts that a just decision might be

made — Grandfather was the victim of a conspiracy to defraud him and I had the very best of evidence of that fact and that the Government had been imposed upon in his case. The Department seems to have taken a decided stand to oppose the claim right or wrong. While I have taken a more decided stand to (with God's blessing) obtain justice in the case or that the U. S. Pension Department shall soon be numbered among the things of the past. If the Department is now willing to receive evidence, and itself to state the facts, and to do justice in the case I can furnish a great deal of additional evidence of the strongest kind that Grandfather was in 1826 dependent on his pension for support and that he was deprived of it that a set of rascals in this town might afterwards defraud him. But if the Department is unwilling to do justice it will be shown whether it has any claim on the Country for support. If it decides that Revolutionary pensioners had no rights we will see what the just claims of the soldiers of the last war are. For your benefit I will say that Sec. 4742, U. S. Revised Statutes, was not intended to prevent payment in such a case. But I shall say no more by what law you can restore grandfather's property to me his heir and representative. It was taken from him by the Pension Department without law and you may restore it as best you can. Yours very respectfully, Chas. A. Burnham.

minor of John Burnham
cf. 11104
File will 45.659
Old man
No answer required
for

Derry, N. H., Nov. 25, 1889.
To the Hon. Secretary of the Interior,
Sir:
On the 14th of last month I wrote you in regard to my claim against the United States because of the defrauding of my grandfather, Major John Burnham, pensioner No. 11.104, under the Law of March 18, 1818, out of his pension from March 4th 1820, to March 3d 1826, saying that I had on that date sent new and additional evidence in regard to the case to the Commissioner of Pensions. I did this that you, after he had considered the matter, might have an abundance of evidence that grandfather, whose case I have appealed to you, was fraudulently dealt with. The Commissioner of Pensions has decided on this additional evidence evidence, and I inclose with this his decision. The evidence covered six sheets of the size of this, yet he says "it contains no statement or evidence than what has heretofore been fully considered," which statement of the Hon. Commissioner of Pensions is false as it contained considerable evidence to the point that his Department never before knew of. But this is not the first false statement

(I don't like to say willful lie) that I have caught that Department in. I will now mention two of them. I first appealed from the Pension Department to the Secretary of the Interior on the 30th of April, 1886. In the Commissioner's report in response to the call of the Secretary of May 19, 1886, he said that the amount of available property shown by grandfather in 1820, was 165 acres of land and necessary farming implements and stock and that the Secretary of War struck him off of the Pension List on account of it. This statement is false as grandfather then proved that this property was not available for the support of himself and family by showing that both he and his wife were incapacitated by sickness from performing to perform the ordinary farming duties, that he was unable to hire the necessary labor to carry on his farm his only source of income to advantage even to prevent its going to waste, that he was justly in debt $195.17 more than the value of the above mentioned property, and that these difficulties were increasing. Neither did the Secretary of War strike his name off of the Pension List. The other false statement is that I claimed that a mistake was made in striking grandfather off of the Pension List because in some letter from the Pension Office the

number was given as 11.024, and not 11.104. This is a more barefaced falsehood than the other as he well knew that 11.024 was placed on the Notice of Exclusion from Pension the very best evidence possible in the case as it was the invariable rule of the War Department to write on the face of such Notice the number of the person to be stricken off. This number was necessary to give validity to the instrument. The present Commissioner of Pensions refuses to recognize the facts I sent him as evidence while the evidence furnished by his Department and which has thus far been accepted by the Secretary of the Interior is none other than conjectures and falsehoods. Therefore no evidence shall be admitted for or against this claim but "regular testimony," that is, that furnished by Grandfather's pension certificate, the Notice of Exclusion from Pension, and the "Restoration to the Pension Roll," copies of which I inclose. Will furnish the original if necessary. Last year I asked for copies of the pension papers of pensioner No. 11.024, but my request was refused by John C. Black, Commissioner of Pensions, because, he said, that that pensioner was a private soldier and his papers in no way referred to my grandfather, Major John Burnham. Of course they do not. Neither does his Notice of Exclusion from Pension, the one having his number and title on it, in any way refer to my grandfather

nor deprive him of his pension. The copy of the Restoration to the Pension Roll will show you that the War and Pension Departments themselves by erasing the printed Mr. and writing Major instead considered a pensioner's title an essential part of his name under the Law of March 18, 1818.
I hope there will be a just decision this time.
I have the honor to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Chas. A. Burnham.
NOV 29

1890 JUN 21 1890 DIVISION Lerry, N. H., June 14, 1890, Mr. Cyrus Bussey, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Sir:
I wrote a letter to the Hon Secretary of the Interior on the 16th ultimo which has probably been referred to you. If so, perhaps you did not understand it. It meant this: I am the heir and representative of my grandfather, Major John Burnham, pensioner No. 11,104 , under the Laws of March 18, 1818, and May 1, 1820, who was one of those men for whose  special  benefit those laws were passed but who was misled into believing that he was stricken from the Pension List when he was not, and was wronged out of his pension under

those laws from March 4th, 1820, to March 3rd, 1826, besides being compelled by the Government to sell the property in his possession in 1820, before it would restore his name to the Pension List from Feb. 8th, 1828. My demand of Your Department is that it restore to forthwith to me the aforesaid farm all the land mentioned in his schedule in 1820, the pension withheld and interest, and just compensation for all other pecuniary damage done him.
If this demand is not complied with I shall feel under especial obligations to call (and I shall be heard) for an immediate abolition of the Pension Department. You have repeatedly informed me that my claim should be regularly examined and that I should be officially
informed of the decision. I have received no such notice, neither has there been any decision of the question submitted by me for Your consideration. How many hundred claims were jumped in order that the "decision" of May 2th, 1890, might be made? I read the papers and know how much Your Department was in arrears in Appeal cases. Besides You wrote me April 7th, 1890, of the vast number of appeals preceding mine.
The following extracts from the Weekly Union , of Manchester N. H., of the 11th inst. will show you that things are getting ripe for a change.
"The Pension Roll Disgraced."
It is not strange there is a deficit in the appropriation for the payment to worthy veterans of their deserved pensions when the conduct of the

pension business of the Country is taken into consideration. Not only Bussey, the noted friend of the deserter and the camp follower, is drawing from the appropriated sum large amounts in undeserved cases, but congress and the President are also allowing unmerited cases to pass unchallenged. One of the latest of these abuses of the fair name of the veteran soldier is recorded in the case of one John Dean. . . . "(who)" "never got nearer the seat of war than Staten Island. While in camp there he was granted a pass for forty eight hours, and during his absence contracted a shameful disease. . . . . the surgeons of volunteers in charge certifying that he lost his eyesight through this disease, and taking the precaution to add to his official record, 'Not a case for pension.' . . . . No wonder the appro- priation for the benefit of worthy men runs

File with John Burnham
45,659
Dept of the Interior.
188
Respectfully Referred to the Com't of Pensions.
Cyrus Bussey.
Amr. Secretary.
"short when it is divided with men like Dean."
"Pension Commissioner Rea Reaum has been so clearly par- tial to Millionaire Claim Agent George E. Leemon that the matter attracted wide attention and has led to an investigation being started. It appears by the state- ment of Congressman Cooper of Indiana that Reaum is under a heavy load financially, and that Leemon owns him in this way. Tanner was the property of the same Leemon."
Doctors Disagree
Senator Blair has got another pet measure. This time it is a de- pendent pension bill introduced last Friday into the Senate. (This allows the person a yearly income of $1200 besides his pension or pensions.)

!!! " . . . Congressman Moore another influential factor of the big four . . . thinks it is time to bring the soldiers and tax-payer face to face. Blair thinks . . . thinks that a service pension bill should be passed regardless of the tax-payer."
The above is a little inkling of how the people are feeling.
I don't want to bother very much with the pension business but you must properly attend to my case and give me what the law allows me. You know as well as I do that it is the duty of the United States to immediately restore to me what I claim. And the Secre- tary of the Interior has full power and lawful authority to do it. There are quite a number interested in this.
Yours, very respectfully,
Chas. A. Burnham.

Adopted
War Department,
Pension Office, Feb. 9th 1828.
Sir:
In conformity with the Law of the United States of the 1st March 1823, authorizing the Secretary of War to restore the names of certain persons to the List of Pensioners, You are hereby notified, that your name has been this day restored to the Pension Roll of the New Hampshire Agency, and that, agreeably to the provisions of said Act, your allowance, as a Pensioner, will commence on the eighth day of February 1828, the day on which the evidence was closed, upon which you obtained a restoration to the List.
I am respectfully, Your obedient servant,
To the Major John Burnham, P. Le. Edwards United States Pensioner. care of Leon S. Bell, Senate United States.

Restoration to the Pension Reoll.

(copy)
own
way
War Department.
Reevolutionary Claim.
I certify that, in conformity with the Law of the United States, of the 18th of March, 1818, John Burnham late a Major in the Army of the Revolution, is inscribed on the Pension List, Roll of the New Hampshire Agency, at the rate of Twenty dollars per month, to commence on the 7th day of April one thousand eight hundred and Eighteen-
Given at the War Office of the United States, this 25th day of May, one thousand eight hundred and nineteen.-
(L.H.)
P. Le. Edwards, in the absence and on behalf of the Secretary of War.

Burnham
Payable semi-annually. The first payment on this certificate will be made on the 4th of September next, at Portsmouth N. Hampshire at the United States Branch-bank.
Recorded

(copy)
War Department, (11.024.)
Pension Office,
Jany 23d 1821.
Sir,
You are hereby informed that the Secretary of War does not, on account of the amount of your property, consider you entitled to a Pension under the Acts of the 18th March, 1818, and 1st May, 1820; and has, therefore, directed your name to be stricken from the Pension List.
I am, respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
D. L. Edwards
To Mr. John Burnham, Londonderry New Hampshire

Excluded from Pension

(copy)
War Department,
Pension Office, Feb. 9th, 1828.
Sir:
In conformity with the Law of the United States of the 1st March, 1823, authorizing the Secretary of War to restore the names of certain persons to the List of Pensioners, you are hereby informed, that your name has been this day restored to the Pension Roll of the New Hampshire Agency, and that, agreeably to the provisions of said Act, your Allowance, as a Pensioner, will commence on the eighth day of February 1828, the day on which the evidence was closed, upon which you obtained a restoration to the List.
I am, respectfully, Your obedient servant, For Major John Burnham, D. L. Edwards United States Pensioner Care of Hon. S. Bell, Senate United States.

Restoration to the Pension Roll — —

W.H.
P.O. Box 95 Burnham Homestead, East Derry, N.H., August 16, 1905. Hon. V. Warner, Commissioner of Pensions, Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir:
Your favor of July 27, 1905, in reply to my letter of July 21, was duly received. I did not re-open any correspondence with your Depart- ment. In fact had decided to never write to it again, and probably would not if you had not first written to me. You are a Warner , and may have some Revolutionary blood in your veins, and may be willing to do right by the descendants of Rev- olutionary Pensioners. My Grandfather enlisted in the Revolutionary War in the spring of 1775, as his first Lieutenant, by

Keep the strong urging of Captain Nathaniel Warner, of Gloucester, Mass. In part at least no doubt it was Grandfather's strict obedience to the command of Capt. Warner upon going into the Battle of Bunker Hill which led him to finally gain the proud distinction of being "one of the best disciplinarians and gallant soldiers of the Revolution." There was some confusion among other soldiers. Grandfather says: "We halted two or three minutes to regulate our men, when we missed a number of our men and our second Lieut. The Capt. looked round, lifted up his hand to me, and with a voice and words I never forgot, when going into action, said Do you keep your platoon in order, sir- I will mind ; we will march on, let
who will stay here! " Grandfather kept his "Platoon" in order from Bunker Hill to Yorktown , hearing every peal of the Trumpet, and Breasting every Storm of War! Capt. Warner was a brave officer and had quite an experience and several Providential escapes at Bunker's Hill, which Grandfather relates in his published "Recollections." The story is too good not to be told. After Capt. Warner came out of the Fort, in firing his gun, the barrel burst in his hands, but did him no injury. He soon found another, charged it, and while raising it to fire, a ball struck it near the tail pipe, split the stock, glanced off the barrel and did him no harm. Being near, he stepped up to the Col. and said Col. give me your gun a minute. The Col. did so, then

he stepped back and said Why Col. give up your gun in time of action! I have a good mind to blow you through.' He handed back the gun, saying, 'Take back your gun, I will find another.' He soon found a gun; another ball struck the pocket of his small clothes, split the handle of a penknife, glanced off and did him no injury."
I re-opened no correspond- ence with the Pension Department. Way back in 1885 it made a false statement concerning my Grandfather's matters, and took an absurd and erro- neous  stand which it maintained with great obstinacy , but after I had Pounded it with the truth for more than twelve long years it finally owned up — and then it squealed like a whipped Elephant or Jackass , as one may consider it.

Now that the Department has opened correspondence again with me it had better be pretty obliging after having wronged and unnecessarily put me to so much trouble and expense . If it is unwilling to send me a typewritten copy of the Rules made by the Secretary of War and his Department in his execution of the Pension Law of May 1, 1820, or cannot send me a printed statement of those Rules, perhaps it (the Pension Bureau) may be willing to answer the following question: Did those Rules allow the Secretary of War or any one of his Department to introduce foreign , or prejudicial matter , into a Revolutionary officer's Pension Papers , and to strike him from the Pension List

under the Number and title of another Pensioner and a Private Soldier ? I await your answer with much interest.
Yours, very respectfully, Charles A. Burnham.

P.O. Box 95 Burnham Homestead,
East Derry, N.H., August 29, 1902.
Hon. V. Warner, Commissioner of Pensions, Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir:
Your very kind favor and offer of the 24th inst. is received, and appreciated. I am thinking of writing a history of this Homestead. I will say in reply that my Grandfather's full name, as a Revolutionary soldier and Pensioner, was Major John Burnham, and his number as a Pensioner was 11,104. I inclose copies of his Pension Certificate, Notice of Exclusion from Pension received by him, and "his Restoration to the Pension List." The First , shows that his Claim was deemed so just and proper that he was placed

on the Pension List by the Pension Department "in the absence and on behalf of the Secretary of War." And that Department made no mistake ! The Second , looks as if it was Pensioner, No. 11.024 , instead of Pensioner, No. 11.104 , who was stricken off the Pension List, and the title "Mr." applied to him was the title of Pensioner No. 11.024 , whose Pension was $8 per month, and not $20 per month as was Major John Burnham's. The Third , or the "Restoration to the Pension List," by erasing the printed "Mr.," and writing " Major " instead, shows what the Government considered my Grandfather's name as a United States Pensioner . He was Pensioned as No. 11.104 ; he could and did draw his Pension only under that number ; and he gave that as his number in his Pension Papers given by him in conformity with the
Law of May 1, 1820. What right had the War Department to write another Number ( 11.024 ) on his Schedule or any other Pension Paper of his, and strike him off the Pension List under that false number ? No other such case was ever allowed or known in this country. Why should it be allowed in his case — that is, if he was really the one they intended to strike from the Pension List? Was there any Revolutionary soldier who could show a better record of long continued and thorough service? I have yet to learn of him. Was there any Pensioner in more distressed circumstances? I have yet to learn of him. More than Seventy years of age. Sick and unable to labor on his farm which was his only means of support. His wife advanced in years, had long been an invalid and unable to assist

him — had to be cared for herself. In debt more than the whole amount of his property. Could Congress have intended that such a Soldier and Pensioner, should be deprived of his Pension — especially when he had by it been promised Half-Pay ($25 per month) for Life , for serving until the end of the War , but had been paid in Commutation certificates for "Five Years Full Pay" instead? He is whole Property as valued in July, 1820, by the two Judges of the Court who were authorized to appraise it, was $2590.25. His Indebtedness as soon after proved by him (in October that year) was $2785.42. But First Deputy Commissioner of Pensions, Wm. E. McLean, said October 29th, 1885, that Grandfather's Property as shown by his Schedule in July, 1820, was $2785. \frac{42}{100} . This was the false statement made by the then Pension

Department mentioned in my other letter. The absurd and erroneous  stand which he then took was that "it was immaterial, however, as to whether claimant was notified of the action in his case under the number 11,104 or 11,024." I then appealed and re-appealed, and so on, until finally, April 4, 1898, the Department owned up in these words: "Charles A. Burnham, Esq., Burnham Homestead, Derry, New Hampshire. Dear Sir: I have to inform you that John Burnham was originally pensioned under certificate No. 11,107 , as a soldier of the Revolutionary War, which number is the only and correct one. The number 11,024 applies to another case, having no reference whatever to the case of John Burnham." Then the Department squealed by saying that it would say

no more on the subject, and by calling upon Mr. Clarence Johnson, Senator Chandler's Private Secretary, to help it out, which he tried to do by saying that it was a "clerical error." If as the Mr. McLean says the number 11.024 was placed on the outer fold of one of Grandfather's Pension Papers (perhaps Schedule) as a probable memorandum to the examiner to look into case 11.024, it agreed with what I have understood one Alanson Tucker of this town (then Londonderry) afterwards said: "I told them that if they were going to give a Pension to any one to give it to Mr. Joshua Burnham as he was a poor man, but that Major John Burnham had property enough." Perhaps a careful examination of the Pension Papers of Joshua Burnham, Pensioner No. 11.024 may bring to light some such statement by the said Tucker. Tucker
Knew he lied when he said it, for Grandfather had no more available property than the country would naturally be willing that an officer of his rank should hold. But he was probably prompted by revenge and a desire to swindle Grandfather out of a Mortgage Deed of Three Shares in the "Ohio Company's Purchase"—then of no value but which might be of value sometime. This he afterwards accomplished as a result of this stopping of Grandfather's Pension. Making a dupe and tool of the United States Government in robbing and abusing one of its most worthy soldiers and Pensioners. It was claimed some years ago by the present Pension Department that Grandfather was deprived of his Pension "because he was the owner of 165 acres of land

here and a certain amount of stock, furniture, and other personal property, although the whole of it and his Ohio Mortgage did not equal in value the amount of his just indebtedness . But when he had been compelled to sell his farm and nearly all of said personal property to pay his Debts , which the whole was insufficient to do, and was without house or home, at the age of 77 years, unable to labor, and had a sick wife unable to dress or feed herself, the Government refused (U. S. Senator Bell said) to restore his Pension, and exacted, as one condition of his restoration to the Pension List, the sale of his Ohio Mortgage at public auction at a time when it could be sold only at a great Sacrifice . There was $2178.37 due on the Mortgage ($1700 as Principal). It was sold as directed by the Government and brought $305, and Mr. Tucker bought it. This was

January 12th, 1827. He kept it a little more than two years and recovered the amount due, as I have a copy of his written statement to show.
But there is another part of the story to tell: Congress by the Act of May 15th, 1828, concluded that Major John Burnham was, regardless of the amount of his Property , entitled to Relief to the amount of $50 per month for Life from March 3d, 1826 , when he was in possession of the principal part of this Homestead , his personal property which was sold at auction in November, 1826, and his Ohio Mortgage . This Relief was on account of what he had lost by not receiving his Half-Pay ($25 per month) for Life , promised him by Congress. But what and  Pension

he had received up to that time after March 3d, 1826, was to be deducted from this $50 per month Relief , and then stop. This was equivalent to Taking Back the little amount of Pension granted him by the Government only on condition of the sacrifices of Property it had compelled him to make before it would "restore" his name to the Pension List. Had the Relief been first paid him on September 3d, 1826. (That anniversary of Old Flag and Independence Day), as it should have been, it would have saved him all the humiliation , abuse , and robbery , which he was subjected to after that date.
If you will kindly give this matter your consideration and examination, and inform me concerning it, you
* The $20 per Month Pension was less than 3 per cent interest on this $8100!
will greatly favor and oblige me. United States Senator Samuel Bell, of this State, claimed that he remonstrated against the evidence required of Grandfather, by the Secretary of War. If you will kindly send me copies of his two written statements on the subject — one made in December 1827, or January, 1828, and the other about the 7th or 8th of February, 1828, I will pay you for them, or send the money in advance if you will tell me how much the copies will be. The last he said brought the Pension.
Yours, very respectfully, Charles A. Burnham
P.S. —
The country could well afford to pay him a Pension of $20 per month, in 1820, for it had then saved in Principal more than $8,000 ($1000) by not paying him his Half Pay for Life . It has never in all ways been paid up in full by more than $4,000, Principal , to this day. Charles A. Burnham

L. A. Burnham N H Oct 14 1889 Crank
Derry, N.H., Oct 14 1889.
To the Hon. Commissioner of Pensions.
Sir:
Under date of Aug. 31, 1889, I received a letter from the Hon. Secretary of the Interior informing me that my claim for pension from March 4th, 1820 to March 3rd 1826, which was the claim of my grandfather Major John Burnham pensioner No. 11.104 under the Law of March 18, 1818, had was to be reconsidered by that Department and had been referred to Your Office for report. I therefore with this send you in new and additional evidence which I think cannot fail to convince You of the justice and legality of the claim. When the case was considered before the Assistant Secretary of the Interior told me if I had additional evidence that must send it to the Commissioner of Pensions before it could be considered by his Department. I therefore send the evidence to you that you may consider it before you make your report to the Hon. Secretary of the Interior.

I should be most happy to answer any questions or furnish any facts to give you a clear understanding of the case. What I have reason to believe and which I intend to prove is: that Grandfather was justly and lawfully entitled to his pension; that he was not legally deprived of it, and that I am his heir and representative and as he established his claim to it while living, it should be now paid to me as such. Also that he was the victim of a conspiracy.
The following is the Additional evidence spoken of.
My father the late George Burnham, deceased, of this town was a young man eighteen to twenty years of age when Grandfather lost his pension. Father died on the 2nd, of January 1857. Among some fragments of some writings of his is the following concerning Grandfather's loss of pension: "He was then struck from the pension roll on account of his Ohio claim which was then in a due course of law consequently of no present pecuniary assistance. What then must have been the feelings of my parents their present all the infirmities and decrepitude of age, their future prospects the contemplation of their scars, wants and infirmities, to be the only sufferers of that glorious revolution which has given us the inestimable blessing of civil political and religious liberty and to the world an example

a beacon of light - to grow old in poverty wretchedness and contempt - to wade through the vile mire of depen- dency, and owe the miserable remnant of that life to charity which was previously spent in honor, to be the jest of all, the scorn of all - the ridicule of all and what is worse the pity of the whole world. I repeat what must have been their feelings full well do I remember their sufferings their griefs - their distresses, their anxieties. In such a state of feeling induced by their present condition and their future pros- pects, friends appeared for them and they flung them- selves into their arms to do for them as they chose, And how did they do it, the sequel will tell the story. Full well do I remember their sufferings, their tears, their griefs. It was my lot and my duty to live with them to do all that I could so far as circum- stances would permit to smooth down their rugged path and this deterred me from the more active and conspicuous scenes of life, now I am on its de- clivity -." Now as this statement of father's was made in certain writings of his which relate to other matters it should be regarded as the very best of evidence that the loss of his pension was really a misfortune to grandfather him, and did cause him and his family much

distress . That his troubles were not imaginary is not only shown by this statement of father's and the evidence which grandfather himself furnished but by  by  three notes which I have and which were never used before  as evidence in the case and which prove beyond all doubt that he was dependent on his pension for support when deprived of it . (given at that time) I may yet find other such notes, but these will be sufficient to prove the fact . Grandfather at the time was very lame and in poor health and unable to perform physical labor, but he was at the time one of the Selectmen of the Parish. The Parish had not long before had considerable money left it. By the aid of some of his friends he hired some of that money to support his family. I have one note dated October 2d 1820, for one hundred dollars . Another, dated March 2d 1821, for one hundred dollars . Another, dated April 5th, 1821, for seventy four dollars . These notes show that within seven months and one day of the time when his pension was due but withheld (September 4, 1820) that he was obliged to hire thirtyfour dollars more than a whole year's pension in order to live . That was just what he wanted it for as he was engaged in no speculation and was unable to perform any corporeal

labor for his own support as the War Department was afterwards convinced. These notes were afterwards paid from the proceeds of the sales of his property. That he was unable to support himself without the pension is shown by these notes and others which he was compelled to give and which with other debts compelled him to sell house and home and nearly all his personal property. What father meant by "The sequel will tell the story" was probably  what I am now doing , I think. The "friends" who appeared, as father mentions, were seeking to defraud him and afterwards by the aid of the Government did succeed in defrauding him. It seems that they had been trying to get his pension from him that they might accom- plish that object knowing that he could not get along without it. They came to him while he was feeling most keenly the blow which he supposed had been dealt him by the Country which he had served so faithfully, professed great sympathy and friendship for him and got him to commit the business to their management promising to help him and probably took away the Notice of Exclusion from Pension and his other papers so that he did not notice that the number and title on the Notice were not his but those  that of another

Pensioner. In consequence of the loss of his pension he was compelled to sell house and home and most of his personal property. His stay was however prolonged by two considerable and unexpected payments he received on his Ohio mortgage. But further payments on it were denied and there was  little prospect of realizing any more money from it until the Court decided the suit in which it was involved. I will say here that this Ohio mortgage was involved in a law-suit when he gave his schedule of his property in 1820 that it was not then and had not been for many years any income to him but instead a bill of expense . Consequently it could not according to the Act of May 1, 1820 , have been taken into consideration by the Secretary of War. And according to recent statements of the Pension Department was not taken into consideration by him. But it really was a principal cause of his losing his pension. Aside from it the value of his real and personal estate was $195 17 / 100 less than his indebtedness . Both he and grandmother were well advanced in years, sick and unable to labor, so you see he was in pretty indigent circumstances. After selling the farm on which he lived and then his personal property at auction, he again applied for a pension under the Law of March 18, 1818. The following is a copy of what Senator Samuel Bell of N. H., wrote him in regard to his Application:

Washington Dec. 25, 1826.
Dear Sir,
After several disappointments I have at last found an opportunity of conversing with the Chief of the Pension Department in relation to your application; and took his advice in relation to the disposition of your Ohio claim. He says that whilst that is undisposed of you cannot succeed, and that you had better sell it at auction giving sufficient publick notice, and apply the proceeds to the payment of your debts, and that upon furnishing satisfactory evidence of the application of your property to that object your application will meet with success.
Your obedt. servt
Major Burnham
Samuel Bell "
This Ohio claim was then in law and could not be sold without great sacrifice. The legislators of the new State of Ohio being themselves in debt had passed laws hindering the collection of such claims. The claim yielded no more income then than it did in 1820. But the Acting Commissioner of Pensions, Jos. J. Bartlett, in his report to the Hon. Secretary of the Interior, dated March 5th 1887, in response to the call made upon him of May.

19, 1886, in regard to my first appeal, said that Grandfather was deprived of his pension because he "owned 165 acres of land and necessary farming implements and stock." Now this land, farming implements and stock, had all been disposed of and the proceeds did not amount to enough to pay Grandfather's debts. All the objections in 1820-1 to his having a pension had been removed and he was then without house or home but boarding with a floor married daughter on the most economical terms, seventy seven years of age, sick and unable to labor, with an aged wife who had been so sick for several years as to be unable to dress or feed herself . Yet the Government exacted the sale of this Ohio claim at that time when it yielded no income and it was uncertain when it would, and when it could not be sold without great sacrifice . If that demand on grandfather was proper then the Act of March 1, 1823, by which he was "restored" to the Pension List required greater poverty and distress than the Act of May 1, 1820, required to keep him on it which is not at all probable ! But he met this requirement also. The claim was sold as directed. There was due on it $2178.37. It brought $305, and was bought by the man who in 1820 tried to get his pension away from him, and who afterwards boasted of it. His name was Hanson Tucker.

He had been employed by grandfather to assist him in the business connected with that claim and probably thought that the amount due on it would some day be recovered. The story was that he was also offended at grandfather and had threatened to be revenged on him though he pretended to be friendly. This he did not find it very difficult to do as he was a man in the prime of life very wealthy for those days and besides the brother-in-law to grandfather's attorney in getting his pension. There was another Burnham or Burnam in this vicinity, and I have heard that Tucker said that "he told them that if they were going to give a pension to any one to give it to Mr. Joshua Burnham as he was a poor man, but that Major John Burnham had property enough." I suppose he meant by "them" the Pension or War Department. The fact that this Burnam's number was endorsed on grandfather's schedule in 1820 goes to confirm the truth of this boast of Tucker's. Wm. E. McLean, First Deputy Commissioner of Pensions, said in an official report to Senator H. W. Blair of this State on the 29th of October 1885, that they were probably placed — or to use his words — "It is probable they were made as a mem-

memorandum to remind the examiner to look into case 11.024. That pensioner residing in the same State with 11.104," (I do not dispute or am not disputing No. 11.024's right to a pension, what I contend for is that Grandfather was none that Grandfather was entitled to one)
Grandfather was one of those Revolutionary officers who had been promised "half-pay" for life, which in his case would have been $300 a year or $600 a year more than the pension promised him by Certificate, No. 11.104. Those officers had been paid in nearly worthless "Commutation Certificates" and had assembled many times to see if Congress would not make up to them the great loss they had met with in consequence. The following is what Grandfather himself says concerning the sale of his Ohio Mortgage. It is written on the back of a paper, issued on the 13th of August 1827, by those Officers, containing the "Baltimore Resolutions." Hear what he says,
"In relation to the sale of my Ohio claim before I consented to have it sold at publick Auction I was made to believe that Mr. Tucker was disposed to act a friendly part in my favor and to prevent the property from being sacrificed would bid it off himself and what over the proceeds should finally exceed his reasonable charges would be paid over for my benefit.

11.024. " (I pension Grand- ry which more 1.104. mms to eat is his ued on the before I was act a herty nd reas- it
in this belief I was confirmed by repeated remarks made to me by Mr. Tucker himself since the sail - and it is my desire to be informed whether or not I have been deceived, whether the management and transactions on this subject was intended to serve my interest or to defraud me." Congress felt that the old officers' claims were just and passed the Law of May 15th 1828. This however did not fully discharge the debt and grandfather at the time of his decease June 8th, 1843, after deducting the face value of the "Commu-tation Certificates" and all he received under the Act of May 15th 1828, had due him on the "half-pay" more than $2000, Tucker bought the mortgage and recovered the amount due on it but made grandfather no further allowance on account of it. After grandfather had relinquished his pension under the Law of March 18, 1818, for that of May 15th 1828, not hearing anything from Tucker he obtained a copy of or the receipt from the Tucker's Attorney in Ohio acknowledging the receipt of the balance due on the mortgage, given him (the Attorney) by Tucker. This receipt is dated April 14, 1829.
Some time after he wrote Tucker the following letter: Derry Dec 11th 1829. Derry Dec 11th 1829 Derry Dec 11th 1829
Alanson Tucker Esq.
Dear Sir, Taking a retrospective

view of the transactions relative to the sale of my Western claim with the peculiar circumstances connected with it and recollecting as I do the honorable intimations of my friends (to whom the management of the business was committed) Given previous to the sale and subsequently repeated by yourself, it is presumed that I shall not be chargeable with any impropriety by requesting of you, at this late period, information respecting the progress or final result of sd business - there was an understanding well known to my sons & by which their conduct was governed at the Auction - they have become anxious and press me on the subject Knowing that my time is short. The forced request is therefore hereby respectfully presented wishing you at the same time to believe that I am never unmindful of the kind & respectful treatment which gives me pleasure gratefully to acknowledge I have ever received of you
Respectfully
John Burnham ”
The understanding with Grandfather's two sons was that Mr. Tucker was to prevent the property from being sacrificed. Tucker had said if they attended or took part in the auction that he would have nothing to do about it. This he did to get it as cheap as possible though he probably assigned some other

reason for it. They probably did not really want the Mortgage themselves, not having much money, and would have bid on it merely to have it bring as much as possible. This part of the transaction mother said that Grandfather seemed ashamed of, that he was afraid in not letting his sons take part in the Auction that he had been guilty of defrauding his Country. He defrauded no one but himself and family by that act. Unless his sons really wanted the Mortgage the Auction was fair and the bids genuine, and that was all the Government had a right to expect. Of course the Government did not claim to have any control over it beyond its then present value . But he really received nothing for this sacrifice of prospective property for by the Law of May 15th, 1828, he was counted as a pensioner at $50 a month from March 3d, 1826, less the pension under the Law of March 18, 1818, received after March 3rd 1826. That my father would have bought the mortgage for himself I don't think he would have done. That his older brother John Burnham Jr., would have done it I don't think will appear from the following which is a copy of a part of an old letter of his which I find among Grandfather's papers:—

Cincinnati Jan'y. 30th 1830
Friend Parents
You may perhaps think strange that I should so soon address you again as I wrote you per Mr. Tucker, and also as nothing new having transpired to interest to you since - But the object of this letter is information. You have no doubt ere this ascertained by Mr. Tucker what the prospect is for a final settlement of your Ohio Claims - You have been allways very silent with me on that subject. It cannot be I think for want of confidence in me - You must know your welfare as well as interest are nearly allied to my own - It has been and ever will be my object to promote both. Mr. Tucker I believe is only bound by a sense of honour to make you any further allowance on Id Claims and perhaps deems this sufficient guarantee. It may do while you live But should you be called hence and this property be worth $5000 - which it may be - I should not consider his or any other mans word of sufficient strength to do justice to your heirs - If I express an ignorance on this subject do not think strange - I have been kept in ignorance

30 about it. But I now can say and perform. If you will reclaim the land of him (Lucker) I will give all that he was to give for it. I wish to communicate with you on the subject. I do in confidence and trust I am not presuming asking too much by asking you for the circumstances relative to the case - If I am, your silence will be sufficient evidence of the fact I ask for informa- tion - not that I expect any great reward But I do feel that you would as soon your own children would enjoy as others and the uncertainty of Human life should be a reason of the most ” The rest of the letter is torn off and gone.
Grandfather not being able to labor himself was obliged to hire help to carry on his farm while he held it. Not having much money for that purpose he hired his two sons both before and after the loss of his pension after they became of age. (Notice in confirmation of this statement that the sum paid his sons mentioned in the accompanying copy of petition to Congress exceeds the sum, $598, objected to by the Secretary of War.) After he had disposed of his real estate and sold his personal property at auction he applied again for a pension or to have his name restored to the List of Pensioners. I'm rendering his account, as required, of how his property had been disposed

of objections were made to the $598 which he had paid his sons for the labor done on his farm after he gave his schedule of his property in 1820 because his contracts with them were not put in writing  prior to the perform- of the labor. The following in relation to this part of the subject is from Senator Bell: "Washington Dec. 10, 1827.
Dear Sir,
I made an early call at the Pension Department on the subject of your application and was told that it was a settled rule of the Department not to allow as valid payments money paid by an applicant to a son for labor unless such labor had been performed in pursuance of a written contract and that there had been no departures from the rule. I remonstrated against the injustice and unsoundness of this rule and was finally told that if I would put my views in relation to the rule as applied to this case in writing and submit them to the Secretary of War that the question should be again considered. I have taken back the papers & will as early as I can prepare & present to the Secretary a full view of the merits in writing & hope that I may eventually succeed in inducing him to annul a rule which I think has neither reason, or justice in its favor. I shall write as soon as I get a decision. Respectfully, Samuel Bell -

Again he writes: "Washington Jan 22d 1828 Dear Sir,
I have failed of success in your application to the Secretary of War, and have concluded to attempt getting an act especially for your relief. I have forwarded to Mr. Thom a sketch of a petition as the foundation of the proceeding which I wish made out and returned to me as early as possible. Yours respectfully "Maj r Burnham Samuel Bell"
The petition was made out and forwarded to him as directed. I have the sketch and items made to complete it. The petition as prepared read as follows, and gives a succinct statement of the case as then understood:
"To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled.
The petition petition of John Burnham of Derry in the County of Rockingham and the State of New Hampshire respectfully sheweth that he entered the Revolutionary army as a Lieutenant in the month of May 1775 and continued in the service till the termination of the war at which time he held the commission of Major - and that by age and

bodily infirmities caused by his sufferings and privations during said service and by sickness and other misfortunes he was so reduced in his circumstances as to render it necessary for him to apply for a pension under the Law of March 18, 1818, and that he was in conformity to the provisions of said Law placed on the list of pensioners and that after the passage of the law of May 1st, 1820, he was stricken from the list of pensioners in consequence of his being the owner of a farm although then involved in debt nearly to the whole amount of its value -
The petitioner further states that he afterwards was compelled to sell said farm and nearly all his other property to pay his debts and that he subsequently made a declaration and exhibited a Schedule in pursuance of the acts aforesaid for the purpose of procuring his name to be restored to the pension list. The petitioner further states that his bodily infirmities has disabled him for many years past to labor and that he was obliged to hire all the labor necessary to carry on and cultivate his farm which was the  his only means of his support that he hired his son John until he was twenty five years of age which was in 1823 and paid him for his services about the sum of three hundred and

tions for- ender the ity of of en- a the as a tly hur- uring eti- as that arry as e was him and fifty dollars, and that he hired his son George the principal part of the time until he was twenty five years of age which was in 1826 and paid him for his services about the sum of four hundred and fifty dollars agreeably to the contracts made with them - and in rendering his account of the manner in which his property had been disposed of he stated the amount paid his sons for said service and furnished the usual evidence of said contracts the performance of the services and the payment of wages according to said contracts but said payment was disallowed and the petitioner's application rejected by the Hon. Secretary of War on the ground that the contracts between the petitioner and his sons for said services were not in writing.
The petitioner respectfully represents that contracts of this nature between a father and a son are very common in the part of the Country in which he resides but that such contracts are seldom if ever put in writing, and that the petitioner by having required of him the production of evidence of these contracts which evidence never in fact existed and was in no way necessary to the validity of the contracts is deprived of the provision which the law intended for his relief.
He therefore implores Your Honorable

body to take his case into consideration and afford him that relief to which he is justly entitled. ”
The petition being sent to Senator Bell he again tried the Secretary of War as related in the following copy “Washington Feb 10, 1828”
Dear Sir,
I have the pleasure to enclose your pension certificate. After I received your petition I thought it advisable to make one more call upon the Secretary of War as a final effort, before I attempted to bring the subject before Congress. I had a long conversation with him, and read over parts of the evidence, and stated facts respecting your character and circumstances which I thought most likely to produce an effect upon his feelings. He still persisted in saying that the evidence was insufficient but finally added that if I would state in writing what I had stated verbally he would receive it as supplementary evidence and issue the certificate upon it. I did so, and this morning recd the certificate.
Very respectfully
Your obedt servt
Maj r John Burucham
Samuel Bell ”
The Secretary of War wanted to be positively certain or cocksure that this old officer who while in

the service of his Country had not received sufficient pay to make himself comfortable or properly or decently clothe himself and that to do those things had been obliged to spend all of his own property which was considerable. who had given his Country all his time not having had a furlough of leave of absence - I say - he wanted to be perfectly  sure that this man was reduced to the condition of an absolute pauper with no other resource than this pension before he would issue the certificate. Well all this is interesting and valuable evidence  now . The certificate itself is valuable evidence and shows that Major John Burnham and that alone only was what the Department considered as Grandfather's name as a pensioner . When he insisted so strongly upon evidence in writing Senator Bell should have shown him from the Notice of Exclusion from Pension that there was no evidence in writing that Major John Burnham had ever been stricken from the Pension List, and then demanded the pension justly and lawfully due him from March 4th, 1820, with interest, and a

complete restoration of the estate which the Government had compelled him to part with. That he was in every way entitled to said pension is in many ways proved. Among them are the following. 1. He met every requirement of the Act of May 1, 1820, and had not been stricken from the Pension List by the Secretary of War as that law required if the Secretary thought he had too much property. And the law did not require that he should be notified of the continuance of his pension in order to receive it. 2. His schedule and affidavits proved that he could not support himself without the aid of the pension, the notes and other papers which I have together in this mentioned together with what occurred after he lost it all prove it. 3. He furnished all the evidence required by the Law of March 18, 1818, that he was in indigent circumstances and was placed on the Pension List as much in conformity with the law as pensioner No. 11.024 or any other one. Consequently he was as much entitled to a continuance of it as any of them. His pension 4. His pension certificate says that he was a Major and that his number as a pensioner was 11.104. The Notice of Exclusion from Pension received by him and

ern- which he was misled into believing was his (it might was have been intended for him) because John Burnham prov- was on it had the title and number of a private soldier ire- the number was 11,024. The title in this case was an es- sial part of the name -what the Secretary of War was of required to strike off . When his name was "restored" the to the Pension List February 9th 1828, pains were taken re- to show what the War Department considered as his of name as a pensioner . It was Major John Burnham . Only a commissioned officer could draw a pension of $20 per month dule
ort The following is a copy of a letter written by the Hon. John and C. Black, late Commissioner of Pensions, recognizing me as Revolutionary Pensioner No. 11.104.
" 18 247 " In the appeal of John Burnham Revolutionary War letf No. 11.104 ,
" Department of the Interior, Bureau of Pensions, Washington, D.C. Feb 6, 1888,
Mr. Chas. A. Burnham East Derry N. H. Sir:
OCT 23 1889

"Enclosed find copy of the decision of the Hon. Secretary of the Interior, dated the 4th inst. upon your second motion for reconsideration in above-entitled claim, denying said motion
Very respectfully, John C. Black, Commissioner"
Now as I have been thus officially recognized as the pensioner last mentioned I claim what justly and lawfully belonged to him. I am not only his grandson and his only descendant of the name east of the Mississippi river but I am in his place as his representative and have for more than twenty years owned and occupied the house and part of the farm which he was deprived of by that Country which he had served so long and faithfully. I have shown that he was justly entitled to his pension. That there is no regular evidence that he was stricken off of the Pension List . That if intended it was because the Department had been tampered with by interested persons. There is no law that interferes with the payment of this claim but both Constitutional and Statute laws which require the restoration of this estate to its rightful owner. Yours, very respectfully, Chas. A. Burnham.

Derry, N.H., Dec. 2nd, 1889. To the Hon. Secretary of the Interior, Sir:
About the 25th of last month I wrote you a letter pointing out some false statements made by the Hon. Commissioner of Pensions in his report of March 2 th , 1887, to the Hon. Secretary of the Interior upon my appeal from his (the Commissioner's) decision in my claim against the United States, that of my grandfather, Major John Burnham, pensioner No. 11.104, under the Law of March 18, 1818. I also inclosed copies each of grandfather's pension certificate, the Notice of Exclusion from Pension received by him, and his "Restoration to the Pension Roll." I did this that you might have the facts so that the present Commissioner of Pensions could not impose upon you if so disposed. I also inclosed a letter

I had received a short time before from him.
It is proper that I should state some reasons why the matter should be reconsidered and adjusted by the Secretary of the Interior. To do this properly I will first copy the following from the above mentioned report of the Commissioner of Pensions:
"Pension at the rate of $20 per month was allowed John Burnham, to commence April 7, 1818. Payment of pension was suspended under the act of May 1, 1820. By the provisions of said act it was necessary for the pensioner to file a schedule of his property in order to remove suspension, and resume payment, which he complied with soon after the passage of the act. The schedule filed showed that the pensioner then owned 165 acres of land and necessary farming implements and stock. This amount of available property was deemed sufficient by the then Hon. Secretary of War, to render
a support for the pensioner and his family, and the pension was discontinued as provided by the act. *****
"This appeal is based upon the theory that the discontinuance of pension was an error. One Joshua Burnham was pensioned under certificate No. 11,024 and filed a schedule of his property amounting to $54.75, and was informed that his pension would be continued under act of May 1, 1820. The appellant seems to think that there was a mistake made in striking the name of John Burnham from the roll instead of Joshua Burnham , for the reason that in some letter from this office the number was given as 11.024, and not 11.104. The act of discontinuance of pension on the ground that the pensioner possessed an amount of property which was deemed by the Hon. Secretary of War, amply adequate for his support, was proper and in accordance with the pension laws in force at that date, therefore the action is not error and the

Derry, N.H., Dec. 2nd, 1889. To the Hon. Secretary of the Interior, Sir:
About the 25th of last month I wrote you a letter pointing out some false statements made by the Hon. Commissioner of Pensions in his report of March 5th, 1887, to the Hon. Secretary of the Interior upon my appeal from his (the Commissioner's) decision in my claim against the United States, that of my grandfather, Major John Burnham, pensioner No. 11.104, under the Law of March 18, 1818. I also inclosed copies each of grandfather's pension certificate, the Notice of Exclusion from Pension received by him, and his "Restoration to the Pension Roll." I did this that you might have the facts so that the present Commissioner of Pensions could not impose upon you if so disposed. I also inclosed a letter

appeal should be dismissed."
My action in this case was and is based upon two facts, viz.: Grandfather was justly entitled to a continuance of his pension. He was not stricken from the Pension List. If the Secretary of War "struck him off" because he owned the above mentioned amount of property available for the support of himself and family the action in his case was most surely an error as he proved both at the time and subsequently that both he and his wife by old age and infirmities were rendered unable to labor and that the property in his possession was only available for the payment of his debts. Well did Gov. Brooks of Me. do when he wrote the Secretary of War saying: "If any man in the Nation is entitled from meritorious services and present distressed

circumstances to the consideration of Government no one can present stronger claims than Major Burnham."
When I asked the Commissioner of Pensions for copies of papers belonging to pensioner No. 11,024, he refused saying that they did not in any way refer to my grandfather Major John Burnham and could be of no interest to me. I wanted them to convince the Government that grandfather was the victim of a conspiracy. But you will see by the above that he uses them. Is there anything fair or decent about that? Why did he say that 11,024 was on "some letter" from his office instead of saying as he well knew that it was on the Notice of Exclusion from Pension received by grandfather? Because he knew that the truth was against him. For him to admit the facts was for him to lose the case . He knew that a Notice of Exclusion from Pension having on it the number 11,024, and the title of a private
soldier could in no way deprive Major John Burnham, pensioner No. 11,104, of his pension. For it to do so would be contrary to all the rules and practice of the War, Pension, and Interior Departments to the present day.
He says that the Secretary of War deemed the amount of property in grandfather's possession amply adequate to support him and his family. From this it may be inferred that if he had not had that amount of available property the Secretary of War would not have stricken him from the Pension List. He did not have that available property, neither did the Secretary of War strike his name from the Pension List. See Section 3rd of the Act of May 1, 1820.
I therefore respectfully ask you to restore to me, Major John Burnham's heir and representative, what justice and equity require. I have the honor to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Chas. A. Burnham.

P. S.
I should think the United States would like to pay this just debt, especially when there is an important matter connected with it. It surely is amply able to do so. As the pension was withheld without law no new law is required. The pensioner complied with the Act of May 1, 1820, giving a schedule of his property and showing that he was in distressed circumstances and gave in his schedule the correct number of his pension certificate, and the Secretary of War did not strike his name off of the Pension List. The country is generously noble in its treatment of the soldiers and their heirs of the War of 1812, the Mexican War, and the War for the Union. As there

any good reason why it should not pay a just and long standing debt to a meritorious Revolutionary officer especially one who had been promised "half-pay" for life. The money would be very acceptable to me now as I have spent during the last seven years in time and money more than two thousand dollars (nearly all I have) in trying to get justice from the Government in this case. Beside I am and have been a life long invalid. Since a child I have had the asthma of the worst and most inveterate kind. This not only causes intense suffering to but breaks into my time and largely disables and unfits me for any kind of work or business. And I have a family dependant on me for support.
C. A. B.

1. Derry, N. H. Feb. 23, 1894. MAR 21 1894
To the Hon. Secretary of the Interior, Sir:
I would like a decision, and as soon as convenient, by the Hon. Commissioner of Pensions, of the case mentioned on the inclosed postal card from the late Pension Commissioner Ream, which case was that of my grandfather a Revolutionary officer. As you will see I was promised such a decision. But the then Department got mad at me without good or just cause and not only me neglected to render the promised decision but refused to have

any further correspondence with me. The innocent cause of this on my part was this; I had been kept out of a decision in the case for many years and necessity compelled me to ask Congressman Alec Keeney of this State, now a representative of this Government at the United States of Columbia I believe, to urge the Department along a little in its decision. Inclosed is a letter afterwards written to me by him. A change in the Administration leads me to hope for justice and more decent treatment from the Department. The inclosed papers all relate to this case. And it is the case of a Revolutionary officer who not only spent a small fortune of
his own in keeping up a respectable appearance as a United States officer but spent all his time — not having a furlough or leave of absence during the whole war. The documents of the Army will show his services, and the written statements of Govs. Brooks of Me. and Dirree of Vt. both Revolutionary officers, will show the estimation in which his services were held. He was one of those officers who had "engaged to see the contest through," to use the words of Webster at Faneuil Hall, Boston, June 5th, 1828, and had been promised "half-pay for life" but who had been paid with the "commutation certificates" instead, and much to his damage. The Pension Act

of May 15th, 1828, which was the occasion of Mr. Webster's Speech above alluded to, partly made up to him this loss but there was still due him under the Laws of March 18, 1818, and May 1, 1820, pension from March 4th, 1820, to March 3rd, 1826, and there were officers who drew their pensions right along under all three of those Acts and were no more entitled to it than he was. It was said that it was a "Jackson Congress" that passed the Act of May 15th, 1828, and gladdened the hearts of the old officers and soldiers of the Revolution who for eighteen long years had with thinning ranks been trying to obtain consideration and recompense. Now it is claimed that the Demo- cratic Party is the "Party of

Jackson. Of so, perhaps the present Administration may think that a Revolutionary officer had some rights which should be respected. In this hope I send the inclosed papers. They are true copies. The question which I would like to have the present Commissioner of Pensions decide from them is this: Was the name of the claimant , Major John Burnham, Revolutionary Pensioner No. 11.104 under the Laws of March 18, 1818, and May 1st, 1820 stricken from the Pension List Jan'y 23d 1821? Wm. E. McLean, First Deputy Commissioner of Pensions, on the 29th of October 1885, decided that he was and that the Notice of

Exclusion from Pension of date Jany 23d 1821, received by him, a true copy of which is inclosed, was sufficient evidence of that fact. But I felt that the pensioner was entitled to his title which gave him his allowance of twenty dollars a month, and to his number as a pensioner, under which his pension was given him , under which only he could and did draw his pension, and which he also gave in his schedule of his prop- erty as required by the Law of May 1, 1820. The "Restoration to the Pension Roll," a true copy of which I in- close, confirmed me in the belief that his correct and used by the Government deemed  title was an essen- tial part of his name as a United States Pensioner . I appealed from the above mentioned decision to the
then Secretary of the Interior, but he sustained the action of the Pension Department. I re-appealed and the final decision of Assistant Secretary Bus- sey was "that the Secretary of War com- mitted no error of judgment in striking Major John Burnham from the Pension List," an entirely different subject from that submitted to his (Bussey's) decision. But I said so much about the injustice done me in the case that it was fi- nally decided that the Pension De- partment (as the inclosed postal card states) should again consider the matter. But with the result which I have within stated  mentioned .
As to the decision Assistant Secretary Bussey irrelevantly made its injustice and absurdity can be easily shown. The Law of March 18, 1818, as will appear

in President Monroe's recommend- ation of it and the Law itself, was especially intended for the benefit of those Revolutionary Officers and soldiers who had been good soldiers and good cit- izens but through misfortune were were in reduced circumstances, and this must have been the in- tention of the Act of May 1, 1820. That is for the soldier or officer so reduced as to be unable to properly support himself with- out the assistance of his country, and that too in that position or situation in which the Law of March 18, 1818, found him and took him under its care. The word "reduced" implies there had been an estate sometime which by some means had been diminished in amount. But when the claim- ant was more than seventy

3.
OLD WAR AND NAVY
MAR 21 1894
FILES
Years of age, a confirmed invalid for years and unable to labor on his farm which was his only means of support, without the means of hiring help, with a sick and helpless wife, and more in debt than the whole amount of his available property real and personal, it may be presumed that he was in such indigent circumstances that he could not support himself without the assistance of his country. And that was just the way with Major John Burnham and just what subsequent events proved. The schedule of his estate.

showed no more property than the United States should have been willing a meritorious and successful Revolutionary officer whose services had contributed largely towards its independence should hold. And the poor health and decrepitude of himself and wife and his heavy indebtedness was proven by very creditable witnesses. He had been promised half- ($300 per year) pay for life that he might have the prospect of a comfortable old age in a country saved by his blood, sufferings, and the labor of his best years, and escape the contempt and misery too often attendant on poverty. But he had not received that pay but "commutation certificates" instead,
And crediting the country with the full face value of those "certificates" it was on the 23d of Jan'y 1821 the gainer by the transaction to the amount of $8116.66. But it had allowed him in pension because of his consequent poverty money to the amount of $458. Was it proper under the circumstances for a very profligate country to withhold that pension? First, it had promised him $25 per month pay for life, and secondly, it had thirtyseven years afterwards promised him a pension of $20 per month for life. The Act of May 15th, 1828, which allowed him in all as pension $600 a year from March 3, 1826, and which was passed to relieve the necessities of the officers and to partly make up to them

The loss they had sustained on the "Certificates" did not dis- charge the Country's obligation in his case as there was a bal- ance of over $4000 at the time of his death, June 8th, 1843. But I am not after that but after his pension due from March 4, 1820 (the time when the Act of May 1, 1820 took effect) until March 3rd, 1826. I know that he was justly and law- fully entitled to it, that he was not stricken from the Pension List, the Notice of Exclusion from Pension in no way referring to him the ap- plicant, Major John Burnham. By complying with Acts of March 18, 1818, and May 1, 1820, he established his claim to the pension, and I now respectfully demand its of payment to me his heir and representative. See U. S. Statutes, Section 4742. But no special appropriation or act of Congress is necessary as he did not leave it undrawn" in the meaning of the Law. Yours very respectfully, Charles A. Burnham.

Some additional facts in the case of Major John F. Burnham, U.S. Pensioner No. 11,104 under the Laws of March 18, 1818, and May, 1820.
But before I state those facts I would respectfully call your attention to the inclosed article cut from the Derry News which was written by L. H. Pillsbury, a Pension Agent who has a great deal to say in print about pensions, and to show from his treatment of me and this case that "It is not all gold that glitters." He for years has had a thorough understanding of this case and seen the original papers and admitted the propriety and justice of the claim, but he has shown hostility to its being paid although he knew that I

was an invalid and very poor, I applied again last fall for him to assist me in the case but he took no notice of my application. But his inclosed article helps me out in an argument. First, He's first "Episode". He complains of the "sudden stoppage of the pensioners' pay and without proof notice and some proof of fraud or error," and applauds the action of the Court. But it was a matter of indifference or approval to him that a Revolutionary officer should receive far worse treatment. He is a pensioner himself I believe, and I told him last fall that all pensioners who approved of the treatment grandfather received should be struck off. What would the Supreme Court say of the retrospective Law of May 1, 1820, who and which also suspended the pensions
nearly two months before its passage, viz: March 4th, 1820? or of the way grandfather was  deprived of his pension? Did he receive any "notice" of being struck off the Pension List? And was not such notice an essential part of the process in striking his name off by the Secretary of War, as required by Section 3, of the Law of May 1, 1820, in case he found evidence of "fraud or error," to use Mr. Pillsbury's words? Did the Secretary find such evidence? On the contrary Grandfather proved to him by the most most creditable witnesses his and his wife's " extreme infirmities " and entire inability to labor , and that he was justly in debt $195.17 more than the whole amount of his property which the Law of May 1, 1820, could and did take cognizance of. Mr.

Dillsbury in his article speaks of an "injurious attack" on the present veterans "a new rating of the degrees of disability." What was the Law of May 1, 1820, but "a new rating of the degrees of disability"? But Revolutionary veterans and their injured descendants are of little account in his eyes. In his "Thirdly" he speaks of the "to do nothing" effort of the present Administration and its neglect of "worthy veterans" and  furnish required evidence from "widows". Of what he says is true (which I doubt) perhaps history is "repeating itself" and these "worthy claimants" are required to furnish evidence something like that required of Major John Burnham before they would "restore" his name to the Pension List. That veteran who had been compelled by the loss of his pension to sell house and

5
house and nearly all his other property to pay his debts 120  up at the age of seventy  seventy  eight years applied for a restoration to the Pension List and showed how his property had been spent, that his occupation was for Farming but that he was unable to perform any labor, that he had no family but his wife who was sixty three years of age and who for several years had been so sick as to be unable to dress or feed herself, that they were without house or home but owing to boarding out on the most economical terms which owing to the extra trouble on account of their ill health was four or five dollars a week, and that his estate then was a few  amounted to articles of personal property and a "note of hand" amounting in the whole to $185.43. And yet this

soldier old sofa was kept out of his pension a year because he had hired his two sons to do labor on his farm and paid them a reasonable price for it but did not put his agreement with them in writing prior to their performance of the labor. Mr. Pillsbury knows all that and that Senator Bell of this State town prepared a petition to Congress with a view of special Pension Legislation in this case before he could induce the Secretary of War to change his decision and accept Bell's own written testimony in the case. The other Secretary of War had probably been very much prejudiced against this case. It was the work of one Alanson Tucker, whose name appears in the Schedule of Grandfather's property last given as the purchaser of his
Ohio mortgage. Tucker wanted the mortgage as he thought it would sometime be valuable. After he got it he boasted that "he told them that if they were going to give a pension to any one to give it to Mr. Joshua for he is of no use in Burnham but that Major John Burnham had property enough." I think that you will find in the Pension Department in connection with or on Grandfather's Schedule of 1820 , evidence which confirms the truth of Tucker's boast, and shows that the two cases were thus compared. When the Notice of Exclusion from Pension of Jan'y 23d 1821, was received Grandfather was in distress and that was a terrible blow to him and Grandmother. But while he was feeling the keenest the wrong that had been done him Tucker and his friends appeared professing great friendship and got him to commit the business , their management ,

And they managed it so that he could not anyway get his pension again until the Government exacted the sale of his Ohio Mortgage as a condition of his res- toration when it was involved in a lawsuit, was no income , and brought at Auction less than one seventh of its face value. Tucker made a handsome sum by the transaction. The story of what he had done was told by one of his wife's relatives. Providentially, I believe, I am now and have been for many years in oc- cupation of Grandfather's house in 1820 and part of his land. It came about by my Mother when a widow marrying the man who bought it and then afterwards willing me what of it that had willed her. All my father's and Grandfather's papers fell to me they contain an account of the affair. Eleven years ago I discovered the want of agreement in the numbers and titles and have since been trying at a great expense of time and money to obtain justice . I have been a life long invalid but with what property that has been left me have managed managed to get along until recently. The Supreme Court has decided that the old place belongs to one of my creditors. Last year the Selectman of the town proffered me assistance. This winter the needs of myself and family has compelled to accept and receive such aid. Mr. Pillsbury at the close of his article calls the attention of the "worthy ones" to a provision in their favor. But he I believe could see no chance for me but an Act of Con- gress allowing me to prosecute my claim in the court of Claims. But I am confident that the Present Administration will be just enough to pay me out of that appropriation which he says is $5,000,000 short. — Very respectfully, Chas A. Burnham

East Derry, N. H., Apr. 30, 1886.
Hon. J. L. G. Lamar, Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D. C.
Sir:—
As you are the representative of the Hon. John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War, I write to you in hopes that you will correct as far as possible a great wrong done to a brave officer of the Revolution while the aforesaid Calhoun was Secretary of War. I think, however, that the injury done to the officer was contrary to the intention of Secretary Calhoun.
The case is as follows:
My grandfather, Major John Burnham, was a pensioner under the Law of March 18, 1818. He was in reduced circumstances at the time of the passage of the Law and made application for a pension in the Spring of 1818. The enclosed copy of his pension certificate will show that his application was made on the 7th of April 1818, the time his pay commenced. After considering the matter

over a year the certificate was issued on the 25th day of May 1819. On the inside of it it will be seen that its number was 11.104, and it was recorded . The enclosed copy of the Affidavit or Deposition of Christopher S. Thom will give you, I believe, a correct idea of grandfather's circumstances at the time. Grandfather drew a pension several times under the Law of March 18, 1818. In order to get his pension he was obliged to state that he was the person named in the Pension Certificate No. 11.104, issued in conformity with the law of the United States of the 18th March, 1818. After the passage of the Law of May 1, 1820, he was required to give a schedule of his property. He did so in July 1820 and stated in his schedule that 11.104 was the the number of his pension certificate. The amount of his available property at the time was $2590.25. It seems that objections were made to his claim or he was required to furnish additional evidence in order to establish it. He then, October 1820, sent on the affidavits of Elias Hasket Derby and George Farrar. I enclose with this a copy of Gen. Derby's affidavit, also a copy of a letter written to the Secretary of War by Gov. John Brooks of Massachusetts, who was at one time grandfather's Lieut. Col. in the Revolution. Dr. Farrar's affidavit described more fully the state of grandmother's health, who it seems was confined to her bed a large share

of the time and had to have a nurse to wait upon her. It appears that grandfather was then seventy one years of age sick and unable to labor upon his farm which was his only means of support and had a sick and helpless wife, and was $195.17 in debt more than the whole amount of his available property both real and personal. He had however a mortgage deed of three shares in the "Ohio Company's Purchase" which was not available, and which according to the official statements made by the U. S. Pension Office on the 7th of June 1883 and October 29th 1885 was not taken into consideration in judging of his case. It ought not to have been taken into consideration under the Law of May 1, 1820 , because it yielded no income . It was then involved in a law-suit. I have an abundance of evidence to show that it for many years had been a "bill of expense" and no income whatever to him, and was not likely to be for some time to come. In the winter of 1820-1 Grandfather received a notice from the War Department which he supposed was intended for him because it was addressed to John Burnham Londonderry, New Hampshire, (Thirtontown, Derry, was then a part of Londonderry.) This Notice or Exclusion from Pension was dated June 23d 1821. I enclose a copy of it. You will see that it was intended for pen-

sioner No. 11. 024 who is addressed as M r . John Burnham, Leondonderry, New Hampshire. Neither the number nor name was grandfather's . 11. 024 was the number of another Burnham or Burnam (same name) who lived in this vicinity. In the copy of his "Restoration to the Pension Roll" which accompanies this it will be seen that Major John Burnham was considered his name as a Pen- sioner - the Law of March 18, 1818 made a distinction between an officer and a private, there was a difference in their pay.
In consequence of Grandfather losing his pension he was obliged to sell his farm and nearly all of his personal property to pay his debts. Not being able to labor himself he again applied for a pension in 1827. I have evi- dence to show that the Government exact ed the sale of his (that Senator Bell wrote that they did) Ohio Mortgage, promising that if he would sell it at public auction and give satisfactory evidence that the proceeds were used towards paying his debts that his name should be restored to the Pension List. He accordingly did so and the Mortgage was sold at public auction on the 12th of January 1827. There was then due on the note $2178.37, but as payments had been refused and it was involved in a law-suit it brought but $305. Could he have

Kept it until the Spring of 1829 he would have re- ceived the whole  amount  due  on  it as did  the  man  who  bought  it . Even then after doing as the Government required his pension was denied him upon one pretext and another, but at last after much delay , expense  for  a  poor  man , and torture the pension was "restored" to him on the 9th of February 1828. I will here give a statement made to the Government by him in 1827; the truth of which I can prove by facts, documents, and living witnesses: "Farming is my occupation but by reason of lameness am unable to perform any labour. I have no family except my wife Abigail who is sixty three years of age, and who has been so sick for several years that she has been unable to dress or feed herself. We have no house nor home but are boarding out upon the most economical terms, but owing to the extra trouble on account of our ill health we cannot board for less than four or five dollars per week." His age was then 77 years & his property then amounted to $185.43. I will say here that he would have probably been obliged to have sold out sooner than he did had he not been so fortunate as to obtain two

payments on his Ohio mortgage, one about 1822 and the other in 1824. These payments were made by men who had bought some of the land of the mortgagor or the one he sold to and were made to secure their titles. But further statements payments had been refused. These were the of only payments he had received on the mortgage after he sold the land in 1808. I enclose a copy of what Grandfather says of this mortgage in his Schedule given in 1820, I have plenty of documents to prove the truth of his statement. The land was originally his but was sold in 1808 to one James Prentiss for $2000, he receiving as pay $300 in money and a note from the said Prentiss for $1700 secured by a mortgage on the land. He never in reality received anything from the Government for this sacrifice of prospective property because by the pension Law of May 15 th 1828 he received a pension of six hundred dollars per annum, with back pay to March 3 rd 1826. But all money he had received between those dates as pension was to be deducted out of the back pay. It may be thought that the Country was quite liberal with him in this matter but not so: He received this pension as one of the officers who served until the close of the Revolution and who were entitled to half pay for life , $300 a year, under the resolve of Congress of the 21 st

of October 1780, but who had received certificates (commonly called commutation certificates) for a sum equal to the amount of five years full pay, which was offered by resolve of Congress of the 22d of March, 1783, instead of the half pay. I will say here that it appears upon good evidence that the half pay promise was accepted by the individual officer , but the "commutation pay" received, was accepted by the majority of the officers. At the time of his death which took place on the 8th of June 1843, there was due him as bare principal on the half pay, after deducting the face value of what he may have received as "commutation pay" and all he received as pension under the Law of May 15, 1828, over $4000.
My idea is that Grandfather was not the man whom Secretary Calhoun intended to strike from the Pension List. If he was the one, it was not done. But I think he was not the one and the reasons why the mistake ( if mistake it was ) was not discovered in 1828 when he again made application for a pension, were that Calhoun was not then Secretary of War and the Clerk did not want to admit that he had made a mistake. From what I have heard and know I have come to the conclusion that the facts in the case are as follows: A certain man knew about

Grandfather's Ohio Mortgage. He thought it would be some day valuable. He wanted it. After trying in vain to get grandfather to intrust it to him he thought he would get his pension away from him so as to force him to sell it, that he might buy it. (He afterwards did buy it.) He accordingly represented to them at Washington that Major John Burnham had proper property enough and if they were going to give a pension to anyone to give it to Mr. Burnham or Burnam (No. 11.024), who sent in the copy of his schedule about the time grandfather did his. He gave, they say, a schedule of $54.75. No. 11.024 was then (Sept. 7, 1820) that continued on the Pension List and Major John Burnham was required to furnish more evidence in order to establish his claim to a continuance of his pension. He did so and in October 1820 sent on the affidavits of Elias Haskett Derby and George Farrar which proved that he was in debt $195.17 more than the whole amount of his available property. After due consideration it was decided that No. 11.024 and not No. 11.104 was the one to be stricken of the List but the Clerk either by mistake or in consequence of being bribed sent the Notice of Exclusion from  of Pension to Mr. John Burnham, London-

derry, New Hampshire, so it fell into grandfather's hands. It was a terrible blow to him as I can show from a written statement made by my father who was then about eighteen years of age. While grandfather was feeling very badly about the loss of his pension and the disgrace attendant upon it, his "friends" (who by the way were brothers-in-law of the man who wanted the Ohio mortgage), who had assisted him in his pension business, appeared, all sympathy, and offered to get his pension restored, and got him to commit the business to them, and probably took the Notice so he did not see notice that the number was wrong . The thing was probably understood between them and the some one in the Pension Office. This I think was the way of it for the credit of the Secretary of War. But perhaps he did intend to strike Major John Burnham from the Pension List. If he did so intend he did not do it . The Law of May 1, 1820 required the Secretary of War to strike off from the Pension List the names of those persons who were not in his opinion in such indigent circumstances that they needed the assistance of their country. If he did not do it they were of course entitled to a continuance of their pensions. But it now makes no difference whether he struck

their names off or not because the Law of May 1, 1820, was itself unconstitutional . It was one of those retrospective laws that Congress had no right to pass. Its constitutionality will probably be tested if justice is not done in this case. In these days when pensions are granted to almost everyone because of the war "for the Union" it is but right that justice should be done to the heirs of those who under God brought the Union into existence.
During the last three years I have had many letters from the Pension Office on this matter. The false and contradictory statements which they have made show that they are determined to oppose my claim or that there is something wrong  there which they are trying to conceal . It may be impertinent and presumptuous in me to assert my claim during these days of "veterans" and "sons of veterans", but I shall do it nevertheless. It may be proper for me to here briefly state grandfather's Revolutionary services: In the year previous to the commencement of the Revolution he was a sergeant in a company of minute-men raised in Gloucester, Mass. In the spring of 1775 was sick and supposed to be in a consumption but enlisted and in May that year was appointed 1st Lieut. in Gloucester Co., Mass. Little's Regt. and served as such until January 1777, when he was appointed a Captain in the 8th Mass. Regt., and

20, served as such until January 1783, when he was appointed ective Major in another Massachusetts regiment and served as such until he was honorably discharged when the last regiments were disbanded in Jan. 1784. He however was continued in the service as a Major in the 2nd U. S. Regt., John Doughty Lieut. Col. 37 Commandant, until the 29th of Dec. 1791, when he resigned his commission and was honorably discharged. He was in the Battle of Bunker's Hill at the commencement of the Revolution and in many of the important battles and in every action fought by any part of the Army to which he belonged. He was second in command of his regiment at the Storming of Stony Point. At Saratoga he commanded in the regiment which was most successful and which first entered the enemy's lines ("Frost's Pictorial History of the United States", Vol. 3, page 33; "Wayward's Gazetteer of New England", Art. Medford, Mass.) At the siege of Yorktown he actively assisted Col. Alexander Hamilton in the capture of the first redoubt taken from the British. When he entered the service he had considerable property but his pay not being sufficient he spent it all in the service pro- viding suitable things for himself. And he gave all of his time, not having a furlough or leave of absence for any purpose of his own from the time he enlisted in 1775 until he was discharged in 1784, though he raised many men for the

service in the winters of 1775-6 and 1776-7. I enclose a copy of a statement concerning him that I have which was written by Gov. Benjamin Pierce, the father of the late ex-President Pierce. After the Revolution he was one of the early settlers of Ohio, and it is said gave the name to the first permanent White Settlement in that State. In consequence of being out there he became the owner of the three shares in the "Ohio Company's Purchase" which I have already spoken of. In 1795 he came to this town, then Londonderry, and bought the farm where I now live. In consequence of losing his pension he was compelled to sell the farm which he sold in three parts to three different individuals. The poor man who bought the part of his farm that had the buildings on it found it a barren sceptre in his gripe, "no lineal heir of his succeeding." He had six children but they all died in infancy or childhood. In 1853 his wife died. In the fall of 1854 he married my Mother, then a widow, and brought me a little boy back onto the old place. He died in 1863 and at the time of his death was owner of part of the land he bought of Grandfather. Mother received part of this land in her share of his estate. In 1867 she died and gave to me the part of the land that fell to her by law. In the winter of 1882-3,

I discovered that grandfather was not stricken from the Pen Pension List after all and consequently his loss of pension and sales of property here and in Ohio were based upon an error . I now therefore respectfully ask you to restore to me as his heir and representative the land that he was compelled to sell here and the balance of the damage in money. The law gives you power to do this. The damage done him that I claim is the pension he lost between March 3rd 1820 and March 3rd 1826 with lawful interest on it to the present time, and what he lost on the sale of his Ohio mortgage, viz: the difference between $2178.37 and $305, and lawful interest on the same until the present time. There were other damages that I will say nothing about if unless this claim is opposed. The whole of his farm here is now worth much less than the amount of the two sums spoken of above. It could not I think be appraised at more than ten or twelve thousand dollars. This farm would have probably remained in the family without interruption until the present day if grandfather had not been defrauded out of his pension. My father would have probably have had it because he took care of grandfather in his old age and was

his principal heir. And I am father's youngest child and the land would have probably have fell to me, my three older brothers having made homes for themselves early in 1856 and 7 in the West beyond the Mississippi, and say that they prefer that country to this. I think the heirs of Revolutionary soldiers have as good a right to what belongs to them as have the heirs of the soldiers of the last war. I would like to have you decide this case. I don't want you to refer it to the Pension Office. They are not competent to decide it. The trouble is partly there I think. The following false and contradictory statements made by them show that there is something wrong in the Pension Office: On the 7th of June 1883 they wrote me of Grandfather's Schedule: "It specified that he was in possession of 3 farms, aggregating 165 acres." In an Official Report made to Senator Blair of this State on the 29th of last October they said that Grandfather in his Schedule gave in 1820 $2785.42 as the amount of his besides his Ohio Mortgage property. I happen to have a copy of his Schedule given in 1820 from the Clerk of the Court before which it was exhibited and he claimed to have but one farm, and the amount of his available property was $2590.25. In the letter to me just mentioned is the following: "Upon his Schedule is an endorsement in red ink for the number of his pension certificate, the figure 11.024 instead of 11.104 and the writer of the letter, which you

allude to, copied this erroneous number." In the Official Report made to Senator Blair, just mentioned, the same writer says: "Both parties" [that is, 11.104 and 11.024] "specified in their Schedules of their property the respective number of their pension certificates, correctly, but on the outer fold of a paper in the case of John Burnham, are the figures 11.024 with no word or sign connected therewith, or any explanation of what they represent or why placed there."
If it can be shown that any soldier or officer of any war of the United States from the Battle of Lexington to the present day made any better record of long continued and thorough service than Major John Burnham then I will withdraw my claim and say no more about it.
If it can be shown that others in such distressed circumstances as he was were stricken from the Pension List after the passage of the Law of May 1, 1820, then I will withdraw my claim and say no more about it.
If it can be shown that it was the practice under the Law of May 1, 1820 to strike pensioners off the Pension List under other pensioner's numbers then I will withdraw my claim and say no more about it.
If it can be shown that the rights of the soldiers of the last war should be treated with more respect than the rights of the soldiers of the Revolution, then I

will withdraw my claim and say no more about it.
If it can be shown that any other Nation, savage or civilized, ever was guilty of such an unnecessary mean and sneaking repudiation of its own voluntary and proffered contract with its own soldiers who brought it into existence as was the United States in the "Leaw" of May 1, 1820, then I will withdraw my claim and say more no more about it.
But if none of these things can be done I shall by the blessing of God push my claim until I am heard and justice is done .
I hope the matter will meet with your favorable consideration.
Yours, very respectfully, Chas. A. Burnham.
RECEIVED. MAY 11 1886 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bd. Pens. Appeals. D 1146
consideration of the OK

Mariner marine or private soldier of $8, per month during life." The Law of May 4, 1820 required the pensioner before receiving further payments to furnish a schedule of his property and take an oath that he was a resident citizen of the United States at the time of the passage of the Law of March 18, 1818, etc., and to file the original oath and schedule oath or affirmation in the Clerk's office of the Court before which they were exhibited and to be delivered or cause to be delivered a copy of them to the Secretary of War. Sec. 3, of the Law is as follows: "And be it further enacted, That, on the receipt of the copy of the schedule and oath, or affirmation aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the War Department, to cause to be struck from the list of pensioners under the said act, the name of such person, in case the said person shall not in his opinion, be in such indigent circumstances as to be unable to support himself without the assistance of his country."
Now the question is who were these laws intended to benefit. Were they intended to benefit those men who were simply poor regardless of the fact whether it was a crime or a misfortune in them? Might not a man be poor in consequence of his

own bad habits? Could a man who had always been poor be at that time in "reduced circumstances" though he had no more property than $24. 75 100 ? Were the laws intended for such men or were they intended to benefit those who had been good soldiers and good citizens but who through misfortune had become reduced in their circumstances ? Were the pension laws intended to assist a man in the circumstances in which he then was or were they intended to turn him out of the position in which he then was and the occupation in which he then was engaged , out of house and home , and then hold out a very reluctant helping hand as was done in my grandfather's case? No sir, those laws were intended to assist those who had been good soldiers and good citizens but who through misfortune were in reduced circumstances and to assist them  too in the position in which they then were and in the occupation in which they were then engaged . This you will plainly see if you examine the laws. Now if you will show a better record of long continued and thorough service for any Revolutionary Pensioner I will withdraw my claim. I have already sent you copies of the statements of Govs. Brooks of Mass. and Pierce of N. H. in regard to his services. If other evidence is needed I can cite the testimony of

the Inspector General, Baron Steuben, and of the Commander-in-Chief, George Washington himself. Gov. Pierce, who was the father of ex-President Pierce was the most popular or one of the most popular Governors New Hampshire ever had. It was the boast of the party to which he belonged that he was a Revolutionary officer. The opposite party then said that they would show them that they had a Revolutionary officer whom they could run for Governor and a good one too, one whom Pierce himself did not presume to equal, and they proposed to nominate grandfather but he would not allow himself to be a candidate. He however was voted for by many who would vote for no other.
Could a man be reduced to much greater  indigence than he was in 1820 when his case was examined? Let us now look at his condition; He was past seventy years of age; his phys health was gone so that he could perform but little if any physical labor; his wife was a confirmed invalid unable to assist him but requiring much care  herself (See the affidavits of Elias Hasket Derby and Dr. George Farrar); he had no money sufficient to hire the necessary help to enable him to carry on his farm, even to prevent its going to waste; he was justly in debt $195. 17 100  more than the whole amount

available of his property, both real and personal. The laws then existing as it now must be plain to you were made for the benefit of  just such men as he was and for men in just such circumstances as he was . Therefore the action of the then Pension Office was an error if they (the Secretary of War) did not intend to strike his name off of the List because they gave John Burnham as the name of the pensioner. But if the Secretary of War did intend to strike his name off both the Secretary and the Pension Office made a greater error because such action was in direct opposition to the intentions of the Laws of March 18, 1818 and May 1, 1820 , and the action of the Pension Office was an error because it failed to carry out the intentions of the Secretary of War, but struck off another man instead . The action of the present Pension Office in rejecting my claim was an error because of the following reasons:
1. My grandfather was justly entitled to a pension under the laws then existing, and they were passed on purpose to benefit such men as he was , 2. He was not stricken from the Pension List according to law whether they intended to strike him off or not, 3. I have already furnished them with the very best evidence possible that Pensioner No. 11,104 was not

the man the Secretary of War intended to have stricken from the Pension List and they have been unable to offset it with evidence to the contrary.
4. According to their own statement they got it into their heads that I claimed that Pensioner No. 11,104 was not the man they (the Secretary of War) intended to strike off of the Pension List because "in some letter" from that Office the number given was 11,024 instead of 11,104, when the fact was the number 11,024 was placed on the Notice of Exclusion from Pension received by Pensioner No. 11,104, and the fact had been clearly stated to them by me and in the copies I sent them ,
My Appeal to you must stand and I claim and should be allowed the careful examination of the case which you promised me .
Of course you do not sustain  such a report as the above mentioned one. Why there is not even a truth in it but what is used to build up a false statement . I do not say that the Hon. Commissioner of Pensions intentionally lied , far be it from me to say that, but I do say that he stated that which was not true .
I will now reply to the "two points" which you mentioned. I will say before I consider each point separately.

arately that I see nothing hopeless about this case except the opposition to it . Sooner or later it will be won. Opposition only strengthens me, and I have not yet brought out my big guns. You can oppose it if you choose but it will go on and I shall win it all the same .
Point 1. Congress probably had a right to repeal pension laws, but there is a little peculiarity about the Law of May 1, 1820 which in my humble opinion made it unconstitutional . Disinterested foreign lawyers and judges would probably so consider it. The Supreme Court of the United States would perhaps also so decide. No doubt that Congress has a right at the present time to "give, withhold, or recall a pension at its discretion," and I think it ought to exercise that right pretty freely too for the safety of the Country , and it probably will . But I should not have thought that you would have cited a decision in a case made after my appeal to you was made in order to show the rights of a man over sixty five years ago. But perhaps the decision was made on my account and it was thought cheaper to make the "law" (if such a decision can affect a law long since "obsolete") than to pay my bill. The heirs of the Revolution ary officers who were entitled to Half-Pay for life have been hitherto willing to deduct from the Half-Pay due them the amount of pension received under the Law

of May 12th, 1828. But if a pension is to be regarded merely as a gift or bounty and not pay your decision of the 3rd of last January may be a saving to us after all. Point 2, This is a Nation , The different States are but parts of one Grand Whole . The different States are united together to acco under one Government to accomplish one Grand Purpose , viz.: To secure the greatest good of the greatest number and to set the world an example in good government , By the right of eminent domain the Department of the Interior can appropriate land to accomplish the Grand Design of the United States . Of there be any doubt, its being able to do this in this State I will say the the Legislature of New Hampshire passed a law in 1883 "ceding jurisdiction to certain lands to the United States" for "its purposes." I sent a copy of this law on to Washington and it is probably in the Pension Office. I sent it May 30th 1884. My grandfather lost his pension when he was justly entitled to it and legally entitled to it . He lost the farm then in his possession in consequence and his Ohio Mortgage. The Government of the United States was to blame for all this . Now that it has been found that the Law of the 1st of May 1820 did not strike his name from the Pension List it becomes the duty of the Department of the Interior to restore to his rightful heir or heirs the farm he was in

11 File 20th Case in 6-29-89  May 27 1887 Rejected Affirmed
  1146  DEPARTMENT  RECEIVED.    86  — OF THE — INTERIOR Bd. Pens. Appeals.  JUN 18 1887  
possession of in 1820 and to pay the balance of the damages in money. The amount of money it would require to do this would not be great, Not near as much as it would take to pay the balance of Healf-pay due to him and the interest on the same. It is the pension lost on him by him between March 3rd 1820 and March 3rd 1826 and simple interest on each semi-annual payment to the present time, And $1873, \frac{37}{100} the amount lost on the Ohio Mortgage and annual interest (lawful) on the same to the present time from January 12th, 1827. To refuse this under the circumstances would be pretty small business on the part of the United States. But I do not ask this merely as a pecuniary benefit or act of justice though that would be sufficient reason why it should be granted, but I ask it as an assurance to every family and individual of the United States that as soon as it can be properly done the Declaration of Independence will be carried out and they each and all will be invested with their "unalienable rights."
You may well be thankful that it falls to your lot to do this.
Yours, very respectfully, Chas. A. Burnham.

East Derry, N. H., May 31, 1887.
Hon. J. R. C. Leaman, Secretary of the Interior.
Sir:
On the 30th of April 1886 I wrote to you appealing from the decision of the Commissioner of Pensions in the claim No. of Certificate 11.104, of my grandfather John Burnham a Major in the Army of the War of the Revolution. On the 19th of the May following there was written for from Your Office to me a letter signed by Your 1st Assistant Secretary acknowledging the receipt of my letter and saying that it had been referred to the Pension Office for report. He added "When the case shall have been reached, in its order, the papers will be examined and a decision given, of the purport of which you will be informed by the Commissioner of Pensions." Through a desire to get in all the facts and ignorance of the proper way of conducting the business I wrote to you once or twice more on the subject. And on the 13th of the July following there was written to me from

Your Office a letter signed by D. Lo. Hawkins your Assistant Secretary. He said: "I am in receipt of your letter of the 7th instant, regarding the pension of your grand-father, John Burnham, for services in the Revolutionary War. In reply I have to state that the Department can give you no infor- mation about the matter until all the papers pertaining thereto, shall have been examined in connection with your appeal filed May 11th, 1886. There are a great many appeal cases on the docket to be disposed of before your case can be reached, which it is believ- ed will be at least one year from this date. Your case is before the Department on appeal, and will be carefully examined in its order, it will therefore be unnecessary for you to furnish any further commu- nications."
When the Department of the Interior promised me a careful examination of the case I relied upon its word and did not write to them any more about it. There was something though that I wished to say about something I had written to you after my appeal was filed and which I was anxious to get on to you before the case came up

for consideration, and I was just getting ready to write to you about it when I received from the Hon. Commissioner of Pensions a letter and a copy of a report. They were directed to and addressed to Charles A. Burnham, Esq. East Derry, New Hampshire, I suppose they were intended for me though I am neither a lawyer nor a Justice of the Peace. In order that you may the more fully understand the matter to which I would call your attention I will now give you copies of both letter and report.
Copy of the Letter.
Law Division.
A. H. W. Department of the Interior, Pension Office, Washington, D. C.,
May 9th 1887.
Charles A. Burnham, Esq. East Derry, New Hampshire.
Sir:
By direction of the Hon. Secretary of the Interior, I have the honor to inform you that his decision under date of May 5th 1887,

upon your appeal from the action of this office in the rejection of your claim, No. 11,104, for pension, is as follows:
"After a patient review of all the facts the Department finds that they sustain in every particular your report submitted under date of March 5, 1887, and will thank you to send a copy of that report to the appellant, together with a copy of this letter.
Two points are presented in the correspon- dence correspondence of Mr. Burnham which hardly call for a reply from your office, but they will be here noticed as it is hoped he will thereupon see the utter hopelessness of further consideration at the hands of this Department.
1. That Congress had no power to recall a pension once granted.
2. That the pensioner was materially endangered by the recall of his pension under the act of May 1, 1820, and his heirs

should now be made whole by the Interior Department.
In reply to the first proposition it is sufficient to say that the point was duly considered in the case of Genl. Ward B. Burnett, Ctf. No. 3, 851, January 3, 1887, and it was held that there is no vested right to a pension, that it is a bounty which Congress may give, withhold, or recall at its discretion.
And as to the second: The law has not clothed this Department with jurisdiction to consider a question of damages suffered in consequence of a pension being withheld." Signed, "Very respectfully, D. L. Hawkins, Assistant Secretary."
Very respectfully, John C. Black
Commissioner of Pensions.
Following this I do now give a copy of copy of the the report which I received. And I shall place a figured beside each the particular of

the copy"> the copy to which I shall reply,
Copy of the copy of the Report.
Law Division.
(copy)
A. N. W. Department of the Interior,
4.
Pension Office,
Washington, D. C.,
March 5th 1887.
In the matter of the appeal of Charles A. Burnham, relative to the pension claim of
5.
John Burnham, Major in Col. Brooks' Regt. Resv. War, certificate No. 11,104.
6.
Sir:
In response to the call of May 19, 1886, for a report upon this appeal, I have the hon- or to state as follows:
7.
Pension at the rate of $20 per month was allowed John Burnham, to commence April 7, 1820 1818.
8.
Payment of pension was suspended under the act of May 1, 1820. By the provisions of said act it was necessary for the pensioner to file a schedule of his property in order
9.

to remove suspension, and resume payment, which he complied with soon after the passage of the act.
4. { The schedule filed shows that the pensioner then owned 165 acres of land and necessary farming implements and stock.
5. { This amount of available property was deemed sufficient by the then Hon. Secretary of War, to render a support for the pensioner and his family, and the pension was discontinued as provided by the act.
6. { The Hon. Third Auditor, Peter Heagner, reported July 30th 1828, that John Burnham, is now on the pension list New Hampshire agency and has been since the 8th February 1828.
7. { It appears from the old jacket, as per endorsement thereon, that his name was restored to the Roll from February 8th 1828.
8. { This appeal is based upon the theory that the discontinuance of pension was an error.
9. { One Joshua Burnham  Joshua Burnham was pensioned under certificate No. 11,024 and filed a schedule of his property amounting

10.
to $54.75, and was informed that his pension would be continued under the act of May 1, 1820. The appellant seems to think that a mistake was made in striking the name of John Burnham from the roll instead of Joshua Burnham , for the reason that in some letter from this office the number was given as 11,024, and not 11,104.
11.
The action of discontinuance of pension on the ground that the pensioner possessed an amount of property which was deemed by the Hon. Secretary of War, amply adequate for his support, was proper and in accordance with the pension laws in force at that date, therefore the action is not error and the appeal should be dismissed.
All of which, together with the papers in the case is herewith enclosed.
The Hon. Secretary of the Interior.
(Signed) Very respectfully, Jos. J. Bartlett, Acting Commissioner of Pensions.

I will now answer your decision and letter and the report of the Hon. Commissioner of Pensions. This I suppose I have a right to do and that they were sent to me for that purpose that I might examine and reply to them both that the final decision of the Department of the Interior might be made. I will first reply to the particulars of the report.  Particular 1. I never made any appeal relative to the pension claim of John Burnham, Major in Col. Brooks' Regt. Rev. War. I never heard of the man before and know nothing about him only that if he was a pensioner under the Law of March 18, 1818, that his pension certificate was not numbered 11,104 for that was the number of the pension certificate of my grandfather John Burnham who was a Major in another regiment and concerning or relative to whose pension claim I appealed to You. He (the Commissioner of Pensions) and probably did mean may have meant my grandfather, but if he had carefully examined the papers of mine which have been sent to the Pension Office he would have found that I never said that grandfather was

# Major in Col. Brooks' Regt. in the Revolutionary War but that I said he was a Major in another regiment. The mistake (if mistake it was) of placing grandfather in the wrong regiment would be of little account or consequence so long as his correct number was given were it not for the fact that you sustain the report in every particular . And it shows how carefully the case was examined!
Particular 2. This statement is true. And his pension certificate was issued or given on the 25 th day of May 1819 and it was numbered 11,104. On the back of the certificate at one corner at the top, as you will see in the copy I sent you, is written the name "Burnham" and at the bottom is written "Recorded." Near the top is written the following words: "Payable Semi-annually. The first payment on this certificate will be made on the 4 th of September next, in Portsmouth N. Hampshire at the United States Branch-bank" This payment was to be made on the 4 th of September 1819. But in order to get what was due grandfather was obliged to state that he was the person named in Pension Certificate No. 11,104 . He drew the pay due on that certificate more than once and was obliged to state

each time that he was the person named in that certificate . If he had stated that he was the person named in Certificate, e80.11.024, or any other certificate they would not have allowed him the pay due on certificate No. 11,104 . Particular 3. This statement is also true and he gave in his schedule the correct number of his Pension certificate . And the fact that he complied with the Act of May 1, 1820, entitled him to a continuance of his pension if the Secretary of War did not strike his name off of the Pension List . This you will see if you will examine the Law of May 1, 1820.
Particular 4. This statement is not so true. The schedule filed by him does not show that the pensioner then owned but that he was in possession of the farm on which he then lived, "consisting of one hundred acre lot one sixty acre lot five acres of meadow land," appraised at $2227.50. And that he had personal property in his possession enough to increase the whole amount to $2590.25. And that he had at the same time a mortgage deed on certain lands in the State of Ohio which was not available but which had for many years been a bill of expense and no profit to him. But he at the

same time put in (or put in while his case was being considered) very credible evidence that he and his wife were sick , that they were suffering from extreme infirmities which with their old age incapacitated them from the ordinary farming duties, that he was unable to hire the necessary labor to man  manage his farm to advantage even to prevent its going to waste , and that he was in debt to the amount of $2785.42 .
Particular 5. I will now show the truth of this particular. When a man has in his possession property to the amount of $2590.25 and he and his wife are both unable to operate it and is unable to hire help to do it and is in debt to the amount of $2785.42 and is liable at any time to have his property attached for debt if not himself im prisoned for debt his property is not very available for the support of himself and family . That the Secretary of War deemed it sufficient for the support of the pensioner and his family does not appear in the Notice of Exclusion from Pension received by him, either in the Number placed

thereon or in the title given. The number was 11.024 , and the title  M er. or that of a private soldier . A private soldier might have had pension certificate, No. 11.024, but he could not have owned certificate No. 11.104, because that was for $20 per month , the pension of an officer . I have already shown you how payments were re obtained on certificate No. 11.104 to May 1, 1820. Perhaps the Law of that date "provided" that those payments  it might be discontinued  under the number 11,024 and as the pension of a private soldier but I don't believe it . I have applied for copies of the papers in grandfather's case, and also for information concerning the rank and residence of Pensioner No. 11.024 but have been refused the copies and the information by the Hon. Commissioner of Pensions. Perhaps the Law of May 1, 1820, provided for that also, but I don't believe it .  Particular 6. The statement of the Hon. Third Auditor was correct. But he was "restored" as Major John Burnham the printed M er. on the certificate being erased and Major put in its place. This appears on the copy I sent you. It was quite or very proper

to do so because none but an officer could draw $20 per month. But was is it not a little strange or remarkable  singular that the Hon. Third Auditor should report the fact in exactly those words ? Grandfather had ceased to be a pensioner under the Law of March 18, 1818, and was drawing or was entitled to a pension of $50 per month, at the time the Hon. Third Auditor made his report, under the Law of May 15th 1828. The country had become ashamed (see in "Works of Daniel Webster", page 166, his speech in Faneuil Hall, Boston, June 5th, 1828,) of their treatment of the officers of the Revolution who were promised half-pay for life if in October 1780 if they would see the contest through but who had received but a small amount of money or real money in the commutation pay voted them after the War was over, and had passed the Law of May 15th, 1828, giving the few survivors full pay for the remainder of their lives . Grandfather was one of those benefitted by the last mentioned Act, but at the time of his death, which was June 8th, 1843, there was due him as on the Half-pay , as bare principal , after deducting the face value of the commutation pay and all received under the Law of May 15th, 1828, over $4,000. Now how came his name "restored" to the Pension List and by what law was it done? The Certificate

granted him says it was done "in conformity with a Law of the United States of the 1st March , 1823. I once wrote the Commissioner Pensions (it was in 1884) for a copy of this Law, expecting to pay for it of course, but he wrote me that he had no copy of that law other than that contained in the "regular published Edition of the laws of the United States," to which he respectfully referred me. I afterwards went to a well known lawyer in this vicinity who has an extensive Law Library and he showed me through his books, through the "regular published Editions of the Laws of the United States. We found the Pension laws of March 18, 1818, May 1, 1820, May 15th, 1828, and plenty of Pension and other laws but nowhere could we find the Pension Law of March 1st, 1823 . I don't wonder they were ashamed to print it because as far as meanness was concerned even the Law of May 1, 1820 , was as nothing in comparison  with  to it. According to the statement of the report to which these replies are made, the then Hon. Secretary of War after the passage of the Act of May 1, 1820, deemed the farm, furniture, stock and farming tools &c in grandfather's possession sufficient, though he and his wife were both sick, to render a full support for himself and family though he justly owed $195, 17 100 more than their value. According to previous statements made

by the Pension Office his Ohio claim or Mortgage was not taken into consideration, and it could not be under the law of May 1, 1820 because it yielded and was yield  no income . But the Law of March 1st 1823, exacted or the "Chief of the Pension Department," exacted the sale of this mortgage at a time when it also yielded no income and when its then value was shown by the fact that it brought at "Public Auction" but $305 when there was due on the note $2178.37 100 and when grandfather had been obliged to sell his the farm and most of the other property in his possession in 1820, was without house or home, with hardly if quite enough money to pay his debts, seventy seven years of age, sick and unable to labor, with a sick or aged wife who had been so sick for several years as to be unable to dress or feed herself!!  Before he would restore his name to the Pension List!!! And after he had complied with the requirement they refused to grant  for more than  his claim over a year!!! Particular 7. His pension did "commence" on the 8th February 1828, but this "restoration" was no benefit whatever to him because all the pension he received in consequence was deducted out of the back pay to which he was entitled under the Law of May 15th 1828,

 Particular 8. Exactly, the keeping from him, Major John Burnham, pensioner No. 11.104, the pension due him on Certificate No. 11.104, but not received between March 3rd 1820 and March 3rd 1826 was an error all through and I shall show you that it was so before I am done with this report. If you will carefully examine my letter to you of the 30th  24th of April 1886 and the copies of the pension certificate granted him on the 25th of May 1819 and the Notice of Exclusion from Pension re- ceived by him, and which was dated Jany 23d 1821, you will find by  in that I claimed that he was not the person stricken from the Pension List by direction of the Secretary of War or if he was the one intended he was not the stricken from the  Pension List. The Hon. Commissioner of Pensions of the First Deputy Commissioner of Pensions on the 29th of October 1885 decided or stated that it was "immaterial" whether the claimant (that is the pensioner) " was notified of the  action in his case under the number 11.104 or 11.024. " I doubted the correctness of this decision even if (which is very doubtful. ) that his the Pensioner's case was the 

one thus acted on. I therefore appealed to you.
Particular 9. The Hon. Commissioner of Pensions has concerning this pensioner tried to keep me in the dark as much as possible. He has been forced however to admit that he was a resident of New Hampshire but he has refused to tell me his rank and his exact residence which of course was the town he lived in . Now if I should not think that he (the Hon. Commissioner of Pensions) would omit have done this if it was perfectly clear that the Hon. Secretary of War directed this man's pension to be continued after the passage of the Act of May 1, 1820. He (the Commissioner) perhaps thinks that I don't know my rights in this case . But I have very good evidence that he was ordered off of the Pension List , viz: the Notice of Exclusion from Pension , a copy of which I sent you. But I perhaps know more about Pensioner No. 11.024, than the Hon. Commissioner of Pensions is aware of. His Schedule will probably give an insight into his character . An examination of his papers will perhaps show that he lived in this vicinity , that a- mong those who helped him get his pension or have it continued are the names of men in this then old town of Londonderry , that among those names is that of one Alanson Tucker , who was offended at my grandfather and who was trying to get his pension away from him so as to force him to sell his Ohio mortgage that he (Tucker) might get it. You

(That given in 1827) will see in grandfather's second schedule, that Tucker did get the Ohio Mortgage . He obtained it by fraud . I have heard that Tucker threatened grandfather, and that he made the statement or boast that he told them "that if they were going to give a pension to any one to give it to her , — Burnham or Burman that Major John Burnham had property enough." It is easy to see that he (Tucker) was not prompted to this course by love of country . The men whom grandfather employed to assist him in getting his pension were either friends and connections of Tucker's and his brothers-in-law the Thoms . My idea of Pensioner No. 11,024, from what I have heard is, that he was an intemperate or comparatively worthless man and was not considered worthy of a pension. You know that some men would be more injured than benefited by a pension. The Secretary of War may have thought so of Pensioner No. 11,024 but had his intention defeated in the Pension Office through Tucker's instrumentality , if so they in the Pension Office would cover their tracks as well as possible.
Particular 10. You will see in the papers I sent you and the ones sent by me to the Pension Office that the number 11,024 and not 11,104 was placed on the Notice of Exclusion from Pension received by grandfather. You and every one

else must know that the Notice of Exclusion from Pension was the most important paper or document possible in the case , and that the number 11.024 being on it together with the title of a private soldier was the very best evidence possible that Pension No. 11.104 was not the one intended . "Some letter from this office" is quite indefinite . It may mean something important or something not so important. This is a false statement on the part of the Hon. Commissioner of Pensions. Consequently his whole report is either a the  blunder or a fabrication and should be wholly and totally disregarded . My appeal then must and should stand and you should consider it and the case still further .
Particular 11. I have already extinguished the above mentioned report of the Hon. Commissioner of Pensions but that your attention may be fully brought to the rights of Pensioner No. 11.104 I will reply to this particular also. I have already shown you that all communications between the Pensioner and the Pension Office and all business transacted

between them previous to January 23rd 1821 had been done under the number 11.104, and You know that in addressing the Commissioner of Pensions now- a days how particular  that  he  is  that  you  give  him the pensioner's  correct  number . This shows the  importance in which the pensioner's  number has been and is held. Now if the Commissioner of Pensions will  rather not notice an ordinary letter concerning a pensioner if his correct number be not given how can you expect the heirs of a meritorious Revolutioner officer and pension- er to accept as his a Notice of Exclusion from Pension from the Pension Office with a different pensioner's  number and title on it , especially when they know that he was justly entitled to a continuance of his  pension under the the laws , that he was the victim of a set of rascals who defrauded him out of his  Ohio Mortgage and who probably contrived to get  his pension away from him that they might accomplish  their purpose ? I don't know what may be in the Pen- sion Office or what alterations  have been  were made in the papers there but the very best possible evidence we  could or can have in the case does not show that 

The then Hon. Secretary of War directed that the name of Pensioner No. 11.104 be stricken from the Pension List. You know as well as anyone else that if he ordered Pensioner No. 11.024 off of the List the Notice of Exclusion from Pension should have been addressed to Mr. Joshua Burnam , if that was his name, instead of Mr. John Burnham . To have been legal the name must have had to correspond with the number and both number and name on the Notice of Exclusion from Pension with those on the Pension Certificate . I need not cite cases to prove this. There is another reason why Major John Burnham, Pensioner was not No. 11.104 was not stricken from the Pension List which reason is common  common sense if not law , viz: a pension could not have been discontinued which never had a beginning and he never drew a pension as Mr. John Burnham , Pensioner No. 11.024 . So You see that if the Act of May 1, 1820 was passed for no other purpose  that than to get him off of the Pension List and the Secretary of War intended to strike him off but no one else on the List it was not done . He was misled into believing it was done because his given name John was placed on the Notice. He was misled into the belief by the Government Clerk. Now let us see if it was proper to strike him off of

the List under the Laws existing at that time. To let You see how it was I will now quote that part of President Monroe's First Annual Message which induced Congress to pass the Law of March 18, 1818, also a principal part of both that Law and that of May 1, 1820. Please bear in mind that it was the Law of March 18, 1818 under which pensions were paid both before and after the passage of the Act of May 1, 1820. The following is from the President's Message:
"In contemplating the happy situation of the United States, our attention is drawn with peculiar interest, to the surviving officers and soldiers of our revolutionary Army, who so eminently contributed, by their services, to lay its form foundation. Most of those very meritorious citizens have paid the debt of nature and gone to repose. It is believed, that among the survivors there are some not provided for by existing laws, who are reduced to indigence, and even to real distress. These men have a claim on the gratitude of their country, and it will do honor to their country to provide for them. The lapse of a few years more, and the opportunity will be forever lost; indeed, so long already has been the interval, that the number to be benefitted by any provision which may be made, will not be great." In response to this recommendation of the President Congress

passed the Law of March 18, 1818, of which the following is an extract:
An act to provide for certain persons engaged in the land and naval service of the United States in the Revolutionary War.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the U. S. of America in Congress assembled That every commissioned officer, non commissioned officer musician and private soldier and all officers in the hospital department and medical staff who served in the war of the revolution until the end thereof or for the time of nine months or longer at any period of the war on the continental establishment; and every commissioned officer, non commissioned officer mariner or marine who served at the same time or for a like time in the naval service of the United States, who is yet a resident citizen of the United States and who is or hereafter by reason his reduced circumstances in life shall be in need of assistance from his country for support, and shall have substantiated his claim to a pension in the manner herein after directed shall receive a pension from the United States; if an officer of $20. per month during life; if a non commissioned officer musician  just

Copy of a written statement which I have concerning Major John Burnham that was made by Gov. Benjamin Pierce of New Hampshire.
To Whom it may Concern this may certify that John Burnham Esquire of Londonderry in the State of New Hampshire was a Captain in the Eighth Massachusetts Regiment Com- manded by Col. Michael Jackson from the First of the year 1777 untill the close of the war excepting the time he was in Genl. Marquis Le Fayette's Division in Col. Gimott's Regiment — he was a most Excellent disci- plinary & allways had the Honour of Commanding the Light Infan- try Company he was not Second to any man in the

Army of his rank he was always at his post Ready to meet any event in a word Duty with him Superseded every other consideration consideration I was in the Eighth regiment with him about six years and a witness to his Indefness to his Indifatigable Services
Hillsborough 2d April, 1827, B. Pierce "

D DEPARTMENT — OF THE — INTERIOR RECEIVED. 1146 Bd. Pens. Appeals. MAY 11 1886
Copy of What Gov. Benjamin Pierce, of N.H., said of Major John Burham in 1827.

East Derry, N.H., July 7, 1883.
Gen. William W. Dudley, Commissioner of Pensions, Washington, D. C.
Sir: Your letter of the 7th of last June has been received relative to the discontinuance of the pension granted to my grandfather Maj. John Burnham a Revolutionary pensioner under the act of March 18, 1818, who was a Major in the Mass. Continental line of the Army of the Revolution the number of whose pension certificate was 11.104.
The result of your examination is not exactly what I expected it would be. It is

better than what I expected it would be. It seems that the shaft was aimed at him but that there was not quite strength enough in the bow to bring or carry it to its mark. The irregularity in which his name was stricken from the Pension List after the passage of the law of May 1, 1820, in my humble opinion, invalidates the whole transaction. It appears from your statement that it was John Burnham whose number was 11.024 that was stricken from the Pension List and notified of that fact and not John Burnham whose pension certificate was numbered 11.104. It was proper that persons engaged in such nefarious business should make just such a blunder. Was not the whole thing a blunder ? Did they not put the cart before the horse? Or was it a sneaking

repudiation of its contract with those soldiers by the United States? Instead of placing the soldier's names on the Pension List and then after two years striking them from it the Government should have required them to furnish schedule of their property and indebtedness before it placed their names on the Pension List and not disgraced the old soldiers in the eyes of the world by making it appear that they had been receiving pensions that they were not entitled to. Having once placed their names on the Pension List the country could not with honor strike them from it.
In regard to the amount of available property in grandfather's hands I will say that it made no difference whether it was little or

much so long as his indebtedness exceeded it . This is shown by the fact that he was also required to state the amount of his indebtedness . His property when sold brought more than what it was valued at in his schedule but it was there appraised by the Committee of Appraisal at all it would have brought at a forced sale. And a man so in debt as he was was lia- ble at any time to have his property sold by his creditors. Those were pre- ty hard times for poor debtors, and this town contained some pretty hard- hearted creditors. I have often wondered that they spared him so long. How the Secretary of War could deem the property in his hands sufficient for the support of himself and

family I cannot see unless he expect- ed him to use what justly belonged to his creditors for that purpose . There is nothing on file at Washington which goes to show that he was not entitled to a pension under the Act of March 18, 1818, was unless it is some false statement by some a certain Alanson Tucker who wanted and afterwards bought his Ohio mortgage or John Stinson or Benjamin Reinke Reinball, who bought his lands here, or some of their friends.
The "Mr. Burnham" of whom you wrote was an officer of full rank and his reputation as a good officer and a man of integrity is secure . I have not only the testimony of Gov. Brooks in his favor but equally

strong testimony in the handwriting of another Governor, the late Benjamin Pierce of New Hampshire. And more than this I think there can be found something very much in his favor in the handwriting of the Commander-in- Chief of the of the American Armies of the Revolution, George Washington himself. He did receive a pension of $600 per annum , and think I gave full credit for it in my letter to the President. He, however, never considered himself a pauper on the Government, but always claimed that it owed him. The Act of May 15, 1828 was a good act and to the credit of the country, but it was passed after most of the Rev- olutionary officers were dead and after grandfather had been turned out of house and home and stripped of prospective property which would have been valuable to himself and

heirs. Perhaps they thought that he was  was also dead, but he soon gave evidence of being in full life" and lived long to enjoy it though not near long enough to take up as pension the bare  principal of what the Government justly owed him and which it tacitly admitted it owed him in the "declaration" which he was required to sign in order to have his name placed on the Pension List under that Act. He was one of those officers who were entitled to Half-pay for life . If his pension of $600 a year were continued from the time of his death in 1843 down to the present time it would not fully discharge the debt the Government justly owes him. Moreover I have the statements of men in Washington who ought to know that he did not receive the full amount of pension due him

by law. The Government did not lose anything nor did he gain anything by his name being "restored" to the Pension List in February 1828, because by the Act of May 15th 1828 he was entitled to draw his pension from March 3rd 1826, deducting what other pension he was to receive under any other act or law.
It is not necessary to have a special act of Congress in order to pay the heirs of Major John Burnham what is justly due them from the Government. There is a law by which it may be restored to them, or it may be done, according to the Revised Statutes of the United States, by continuing his pension to some heir, heirs, or to all the heirs until the amount due is taken up.

3
The former way would certainly perhaps be better. The land here which grandfather was forced to sell by the Government should be restored to his heirs. Whether there was one farm or three there are enough families of his name to occupy them, and the head of one of these families was a soldier of the last war who saw more than five years of service, having entered the Army as a private in the Summer of 1862 and continuing in it until the fall of 1867 when he was honorably discharged with the rank of 1st Lieut. or Capt. The lands mentioned in the Ohio mortgage I do not expect because when the lawsuit in which it was involved was brought to a favorable termination as it was in 1829. nothing I believe but the amount due on the

note was recovered. Again I respectfully ask the United States Government to restore to the heirs of Major John Burnham what he lost by being unjustly and erroneously deprived of his pension after the passage of the Law of May 1, 1820. As an act of justice I ask it.
The pensioners of the last war would hardly like to be placed on the same were ration al on which the Revolutionary pensioners were put by the law of May 1, 1820, and yet, although they did their duty and all that was required of them for their Country they were never called upon to endure one half the hardships privation and sufferings of the Revolutionary soldiers. And now let me ask who was it that struck so the names of so many of the pensioners from the Pension List after the passage of the law of May 1, 1820. It was that man whom President Jackso

said he always regretted that he did not hang, namely, John C. Calhoun, the father of traitors to the United States Government, Who was it that before the War opposed and defeated a bill in Congress to pay the heirs of the Revolutionary soldiers or officers what was due them? It was Jefferson Davis, the Commander-in-Chief of the traitors to the United States Government. Of course one of the first things that conspirators against the Union would do would be to undermine or destroy the regard and veneration the people had for the Revolutionary fathers. You, yourself, if I have not been mis-informed, carry with you an empty sleeve obtained in defense of the flag of our Union, and a continual reminder of what resulted from the teachings of John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis! And furthermore, who was it who that reported against the bill that was in Congress in the winter

of 1875-6 to satisfy the claims of the Heirs of the Revolutionary officers? It was that man* who has attempted plagia- rism on the devil by trying to palm himself off as the "father of the Amer- ican tariff." This is not putting it too strong for the tariff laws led to the "Nulli- fication" acts of South Carolina in 1832, and finally to the Great Rebellion which drenched this fair land with "fraternal blood", and they will destroy this country if they are not got rid of.
Yours, very respectfully, Chas. A. Burnham.
* Senator Morrill of Vermont.

A copy numbered in index
War Department. Revolutionary Claim.
I certify that, in conformity with the Law of the United States, of the 18th of March 1818, John Burnham late a Major in the Army of the Revolution, is inscribed on the Pension List, Roll of the New Hampshire Agency, at the rate of Twenty dollars per month, to commence on the 7th day of April one thousand eight hundred and Eighteen.
Given at the War Office of the United States, this 25th day of May one thousand eight hundred and nineteen.
J. L. Edwards, S. S. ) in the absence and on behalf of the Secretary of War.

Burnham
Payable semi-annually. The first payment on this certificate will be made on the 4th of Sep- tember next, in Ports- mouth, N. Hampshire at the United States Branch -bank-
Recorded

East Derry, N.H., Sept. 28, 1885. Hon. Mr. W. Blair,
Sir: I wrote to you a few days ago about the pension case of my grandfather, Major John Burnham, a Revolutionary Pensioner. Not knowing your present Post Office Address and being in very too much of a hurry to get it off by the out-going mail I directed my letter to Concord N.H., believing that they would forward it to you from there.
The case spoken of in it is an important one and I wish you would assist me in the way I spoke of in my letter. If you cannot do so please give me your opinion of the case and direct me

to some one whom you think can and will assist me.
Yours, very respectfully, Chas. A. Burnham.

East Derry, N.H., Oct. 8, 1882. Hon. H. W. Blair.
Sir: I received your favor of the 2nd inst. yesterday. I thank you for the prompt attention you have given the matter. I have in vain tried to learn the exact name  rank and residence of Pensioner No. 11.024, whose number was placed on the Notice sent to my grandfather, Major John Burnham, that his name had been stricken from the Pension List. I think my mother once told me that a man in this vicinity got grandfather's pension from him and had it given to another man by the name of Burnham. When you write me please send me the name , rank and residence of Pensioner No. 11.024. My impression.

is that he was a poor but very intemperate man, and was considered unworthy, on that account, of a pension. But this man contrived somehow to have him get it instead of grandfather. I don't think that the Secretary of War intended to strike grandfather from the Pension List. You will see by the Notices I sent you that grandfather was stricken from the List as Mr. John Burnham No. 11,024; but when he was "restored" care was taken to restore him as Major John Burnham, but his number was not given. My idea is that this other Burnham was the one the Secretary of War intended to strike from the Pension List, but that some one contrived to have grandfather stricken off instead after arranging things so as to have it appear as if done by mistake in case the matter was brought in to the notice of the

Secretary of War. I have a copy of grandfather's Schedule from the Clerk of the Court before which it was at first exhibited. The amount of his available property was $2590. \frac{25}{100} . His debts as proven by the affidavits of Elias Haskett Derby and George Farrar amounted to $2785. \frac{42}{100} . If the papers on file in the Pension Office show different figures then exact copies were not sent there . I have not the idea that the Court before which grandfather's original schedule was exhibited gave it as their opinion that his property was appraised at less than its value
In regard to the Pension Law of May 1, 1820, I will say that it is prob- able that that law first gave the idea to some people that pensions are a gift that may be recalled at any time Congress sees fit to do so. It was the meanest and most sneaking Act of repudiation ever passed

by any nation on the globe, Congress had no right to pass such a law. A Schedule of the soldier's property would have been very proper before his name was placed on the Pension List. It would have been proper to strike a man's name from the Pension List if he had acquired additional property after becoming a pensioner , but it was not proper if he had not acquired such property. In grandfather's case it was shown that his infirmities and debts had increased rather than diminished. With all their experience with Congress in as regarded pay for their services, it was very strange if the soldier delegates to the Convention which produced the Constitution of the United States with George

Washington at their head did nothing to guard themselves and comrades in the future. I believe they did do something of the kind when they forbade all ex post facto laws. I don't believe that this prohibition was intended only for the protection of criminals . The then accepted meaning of the term ex post facto was something done after the time when it should have have been done . Just such a law was the Pension Law of May 1, 1820.
I think if grandfather had noticed that the wrong number was on the Notice sent him he could have continued to draw his pension in spite of it as he had drawn drew it under the certificate number 11,104 . I am puzzled to

know whether he was restored to the Pension List as Mr. John Burnham , number 11,024 , or Major John Burnham  number 11,104 ,
If you will aid me in ob- taining justice you shall be satis- factorily rewarded.
Yours, very respectfully, Chas. A. Burnham.

Department, 11.024. Pension Office,
Jany 23d 1821.
Sir,
You are hereby informed that the Secretary of War does not, on account of the amount of your property, consider you entitled to a Pension under the Acts of the 18th March, 1818, and 1st May, 1820; and has, therefore, directed your name to be stricken from the Pension List.
I am, respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
J. L. Edwards
To Mr. John Burnham, Londonderry New Hampshire

Excluded from Pension
W. D.
1894
OLD N'G AND NAVY MAR 21 1894 FILES

Burnham Homestead, Derry, N. H., April 7, 1899. To the Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, Your letter of the 1st of this April by the hand of your As- sistant Secretary, Mr. H. U. Taylor, was received yesterday. If they informed you at the Pension Office that they had fully advised me why the Pension of my Grandfather, Major John Burnham, justly due him under the Pension Laws of March 18, 1818, and May 1, 1820, was not paid, they misinformed you. The Pension Department has given me no such informa- tion — not even during the

more than sixteen years that I have been hammering at it. In fact I question if that Department does itself know the main reason. But I guess it knows more than it cares to tell — that one Alanson Tucker used his influence to stop the Pension. But I think I am correctly informed that Tucker himself told what he said to do afterwards it in substantially in these words: "If you are going to give a Pension to any one, give it to Mr. Joshua Burnam, for he is a poor man, Major John Burnham has property enough." And this accounts probably for said Joshua Burnam's (11.024)  Pension Number being placed on Grandfather's Schedule or other pension paper, to (I use the Department's words of Oct. 29th, 1886) remind the examiner to look into the case 11.024 that pensioner residing

in the same State with 11,104. 37 That is the "probable" reason the Pension Office gave for that number being placed there. But what right had anyone to introduce foreign matter into Grandfather's Pen- sion Papers which he had given under oath , to prejudice the War Depart- ment against his claim? No action could be taken by the War Department against Major John Burnham, Pensioner No. 11,104, so long as his statement was thus vitiated ! Mr. Tucker was a rich man of this town, then in the prime of life, whom Grandfather had employed to assist him in 1819 in recovering what was due on his Ohio Mortgage. Tucker was in Ohio probably that year. He became possessed of a desire to purchase for a trifle the Ohio lands then in involved in a lawsuit and also made nearly or quite valueless for

the time being, by action of the Ohio Legislators in relation to the collection of debts. It would seem that Tucker succeeded in getting Grandfather's pension stopped for this purpose. He succeeded well, and after Grandfather was compelled to sell house and home and nearly all of his personal property to pay his debts the Government of the United States exacted the sale at public auction (Jan. 12, 1827) of this Ohio mortgage as a condition of Grandfather's "restoration" to the Pension List. Tucker bought it at less than one seventh of its face value, and in about two years receipted to his attorney in Ohio "for the balance due" on said mortgage! Thus a "grateful country" was made the tool in defrauding and helping to defraud its most

meritorious Revolutionary Officer and Pensioner! If you want any proof of this fact of merit , I can furnish it to you, and so will the documents of the Army !
But the Pension Department in its "Official Statement" of October 29th, 1885, to which I have already alluded, said: "The exhibit (of property) filed by John Burnham in July, 1820, was so large in amount — $2786 \frac{42}{100} without including his Ohio property of $1700. \frac{00}{100} mentioned by him him — that the Secretary of War notified Jan'y 23, 1821 that he did not, on account of his property consider him entitled to his pension under the Acts of March 18, 1818 and May 1, 1820,

U. and has therefore, directed his name to be stricken from the pension list." This statement of the Pension Department was absolutely false . His Schedule of property then exhibited by him and the valuation set upon it including his Ohio property by the the two judges of the court before whom it was exhibited, was only $2590. \frac{25}{100} . This the original Schedule filed in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court of this County and of will show , of which I have an attested copy , and the copy filed in the United States Pension Office will probably show the same thing! But why should the Pension Depart- ment lie and continue to lie about this case? What good

does it think it will do it? It will do it no good. But Grandfather stated in his Schedule that he was indebted to a large amount, which he proved to the War Department was $2785 \frac{42}{100} . An old soldier of more than seventy years whose occupation was farming but who had by reason of rheumatism contracted in the Revolutionary Army had been (and then was) unable to pursue it for fifteen or twenty years, deprived of his health and the use of his legs, whose wife in her 57th year of age had long been an invalid and unable to take care of herself, and in debt more than the value of his property could not support himself without his pension . No one of common sense would say so - much less think so ! But the Pension Department in

Its same Official Statement said that it was immaterial whether he was notified of the action in his case under his own number 11,104 or under 11,024. It admitted that he gave his number in his schedule correctly, however. From this decision I appealed to the Secretary of the Interior, and that official sustained the decision. It however is not a matter that either of those Departments will decide. But the Pension Department on the 4th of April, 1898, admitted to me that it was wrong in these words:-
"I have to inform you that John Burnham was originally pensioned under certificate No. 11,104 , as a soldier of the Revolutionary War, which number is the only and correct one. The number 11,024 applies to another case, having no reference whatever to the case of John Burnham." But

it added, "that under no cir- cumstances" could it further consider letters and claims in this case "as the case has once been appealed and the action of the Bureau sustained by the Honorable Secretary of the Interior". That is to say: "we decided wrong , and you appealed from our decision, and our decision was sus- tained by the Hon. Secretary of the Interior, therefore we will do nothing more about the matter." How is that for justice ? I knew in the first place that they had decided wrong , and they probably knew it. All history does not record another instance of the degrading of a Pensioner —of depriving an

of his pension officer drawing $20 per month under the number and title of a private soldier drawing $8. It was adding insult to injury . But still the regular evidence is wanting that the Hon. Sec- retary of War intended to strike Major John Burnham, Pensioner No. 11,104, from the Pension List.
But although his country defrauded him out of his just Pension of $20 per month from March 4th, 1820, to February 8th, 1828, and helped to defraud him out of near $1900 in the forced sale of his Ohio mortgage, the old soldier himself came out of it with flying colors . — The Act of May 15th, 1828 was passed to make up to him and other officers then living (there were but few

of them however) the loss they had sustained in receiving as their pay the "commutation certificate" which had so depreciated in value . By this Pension Law his Pension was raised to, in the aggregate, $20 per month , and its commencement dated back to March 3, 1826 — when he was in possession of the main part of his old home here and covering all the time the country was defrauding him out of his Ohio lands, torturing, insulting, and abusing him concerning how he had disposed of his property!
The best thing this country can do is to pay this claim and make no more ado about it.*
Yours, very respectfully, Charles A. Burnham,
* That is, pay the Pension and Restore the Estate . Do you want more evidence?

19315 EX
MAIL DIVISION TREASURY DEPT., RECEIVED APR 10 1899
686 689
MISCELLANEOUS RECEIVED APR 10 1899 SECRETARY'S OFFICE
John Burham 17/99
File to Pensions Claim John Burham act of 1818, Treasury Department, OFFICE OF SECRETARY, Miscellaneous Division.
April 12 1899
Respectfully referred to the Commissioner of Pensions and the notes so advised.
H. C. Taylor N.A.T. Assistant Secretary
RECEIVED APR 17 1899
PENSION U. S. OFFICE. APR 14 1899
Miss.

House of Representatives U.S.
Washington, D.C. Feb. 2 nd 1893
Dear Mr. Burleigh!
You understand our party is not in power in the federal department, It is no use to try any thing in this congress now, as there is only four weeks more of it, and it would be im- possible to get it passed in that time.
Very truly
L. H. McKinney

Copy of Exclusion from Pension.
War Department, 11.024. Pension Office, Jany 23d 1821.
Sir,
You are hereby informed that the Secretary of War does not, on account of the amount of your property, consider you entitled to a Pension under the Acts of the 18th March, 1818, and 1st May, 1820; and has, therefore, directed your name to be stricken from the Pension List.
I am, respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
L. L. Edwards
To Mr. John Burnham, Londonderry New Hampshire

Excluded from Pension

Copy of Restoration to the Pension Roll.
War Department, Pension Office, Feb. 9th, 1828. Sir:
In conformity with the Law of the United States of the 1st March, 1823, authorizing the Secretary of War to restore the names of certain persons to the List of Pensioners, you are hereby notified, that your name has been this day restored to the Pension Roll of the New Hampshire Agency, and that, agreeably to the provisions of said Act, your allowance, as a Pensioner, will commence on the eighth day of February 1828, the day on which the evidence was closed, upon which you obtained a restoration to the List.
I am, respectfully, Your obedient servant, G. L. Edwards
To Mr. Major John Burnham, United States Pensioner. Care of Hon. S. Bell, Senate United States.

Restoration to the Pension Roll — — —

Copy of Pension Certificate.
War Department.
Revolutionary Claim.
I certify that, in conformity with the Law of the United States, of the 18th of March, 1818, John Burnham late a Major in the Army of the Revolution, is inscribed on the Pension List, Roll of the New Hampshire Agency, at the rate of Twenty dollars per month, to commence on the 7th day of April one thousand eight hundred and Eighteen -
Given at the War Office of the United States, this 25th day of May one thousand eight hundred and nineteen.
J. L. Edwards,
(H. S.) in the absence and on behalf of the Secretary of War.

Burnham
Payable semi-annually. The first payment on this certificate will be made on the 4 th of September next, in Portsmouth, N. Hampshire at the United States Branch-bank.
Recorded

Copy of the Pension Law of March 18, 1818.
An act to provide for certain persons engaged in the land and naval service of the United States in the Revolutionary war.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the U. S. of America in Congress assembled That every commissioned officer, non commissioned officer musician and private soldier and all officers in the hospital department and medical staff who served in the war of the revolution until the end thereof or for the time of nine months or longer at any period of the war on the continental establishment; And every commissioned officer mariner or marine who served at the same time and for a like time in the naval service of the United States, who is yet a resident citizen of the United States and who is or hereafter by reason of his reduced circumstances in life shall be in need of assistance from his country for support, and shall have substantiated his claim for a pension in the manner herein after directed shall receive a pension from the

United States: if an officer of $20. per month during life: if a non-commissioned officer musician mariner marine or private soldier of $8. per month during life, Provided No person shall be entitled to the provisions of this Act until he shall have relinquished his claim to every pension heretofore allowed him by the laws of the United States.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted that to entitle any person to the provisions of this act he shall make a declaration under oath or affirmation before the district Judge of the United States of the district, or before any Judge or court of record of the county state or territory in which the applicant shall reside, setting forth if he belonged to the Army the company, regiment and line to which he belonged; the time he entered the service, and the time and manner of leaving the service; and in case he belonged to the navy a like declaration setting forth the name of vessel and particular service in which he was employed and shall offer such other evidence as may be in his power; and on its appearing to the satisfaction of the said Judge that the applicant served in the revolutionary war as aforesaid against the common enemy he shall certify and transmit the testimony in the case and the proceedings had thereon to the Secretary of the Department of War whose duty it shall be if

life: satisfied the applicant comes under the provisions of this ine act to place such officer, musician, mariner, ma- d No rine or soldier on the pension list of the United he States to be paid in the same manner as pensions to tofore invalids who have been placed on the pension list are now paid and under such restrictions and regulations any in all respects as are prescribed by law.
lara- Sec. B. And be it further enacted, that every pen- dge sion by virtue of this act shall commence on the court day that the declaration under oath or affirmation pre- ap- scribed in the foregoing section shall be made.
may Sec. 4. And be it further enacted that from and time after the passage of this act no sale transfer or mortgage ing of the whole or any part of the pension payable in pur- like suance of this act shall be valid: and any person er ser- who shall swear or affirm falsely in the premises ev- and be thereof convicted shall suffer as for wilful the and corrupt perjury.
in Approved March 18, 1818. ” non in tary if

Copy of the Pension Law of May 1, 1820.
An Act in addition, to an act, entitled "An act to provide for certain persons engaged in the land and no naval service of the United States, in the Revolutionary war," passed on the 18th of March, 1818.
Be it enacted [ etc. ] That no person who now is, or hereafter may be, placed on the pension list of the United States, by virtue of the act entitled "An act to provide for certain persons engaged in the land and naval service of the United States in the revolutionary war," passed on the 18th day of March, 1820 (1818 probably.—C.A.B.), continues to receive the pension granted by the said act, until he shall have exhibited to some court of record, in the county, city or borough, in which he resides, a schedule subscribed by him, containing his whole estate and income, (his necessary clothing and bedding excepted.) and shall have (before the said court, or some one of the Judges thereof,) taken

and subscribed, and produced to the said court, the following oath or affirmation, to wit:—
“I, A. B. do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I was a resident citizen of the United States on the 18th day of March 1818, and that I have not, since that time, by gift, sale, or in any manner whatever, disposed of my property or any part thereof, with intent thereby so to diminish it as to bring myself within the provision of an act of Congress, entitled ‘An act to provide for certain persons engaged in the land and naval service of the United States in the Revolutionary War,’ passed on the 18th day of March 1818, and that I have not, nor has any person in trust for me, any property, or securities, contracts or debts, due to me; nor have I any income other than what is contained in the schedule hereto annexed and by me subscribed!”
Nor until such person shall have delivered, or caused to be delivered, to the Secretary of War, a copy of the aforesaid schedule and oath or affirmation, certified by the clerk of the court to which the said schedule was delivered, together with the opinion of said court, also certified by their clerk, of the value of the property contained in the said schedule:

Provided , That in every case in which the pensioner may be insane, or incapable of taking an oath, the court may receive the said schedule without the aforesaid oath or affirmation, from the committee, or other person authorized to take care of such person.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the original schedule and oath or affirmation shall be filed in the clerk's office, of the court to which the schedule and oath or affirmation aforesaid shall be exhibited; and any person who shall swear or affirm falsely in the premises, and be thereof convicted, shall suffer as for wilful and corrupt perjury.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That on the receipt of the copy of the schedule and oath, or affirmation aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the Secretary to cause to be struck from the list of pensions due under said act of the War Department, to cause the name of such person, in case the said person shall not in his opinion be in such indigent circumstances as to be unable to support himself without the assistance of his country; Provided , That every person, who shall have been placed on the pension list in consequence of disability, from known wounds received in the revolutionary war, and

who shall have relinquished such pension in order to avail themselves of the benefit of the provisions of the act, to which this is an amendment, who, by virtue of this section may be stricken from the pension list, shall be forthwith restored to the pension so relinquished.
Washington, May 1, 1820.
Approved ; James Monroe.

Interim
Derry, N. H., Aug. 23 16 , 1888.
Your Excellency:
I respectfully ask the removal of Mr. John C. Black from the position he now holds as Commissioner of Pensions. There are two reasons why I ask it. One is he has refused to give me for pay copies of certain papers and certain information to all of which I was properly and lawfully entitled. The other reason is that while discharging an official duty by order of his superior, the Hon. Secretary of the Interior, he insulted me and the memory of my grandfather, Major John Burnham, a Revolutionary officer and pensioner. The facts in the case are as follows:
My grandfather, the Major John Burnham above mentioned, was a Revolutionary pensioner under the Law of March 18, 1818, and was placed on the Pension List as a Major, the Law making a difference between the pay or pension of an officer and a private, and his Pension certificate was numbered 11.104. I inclose with this a copy of his Pension certificate.

On the first day of May 1820 Congress passed and an amendment to the Law of March 18, 1818, which required those on the Pension List to give the Secretary of War schedules of their estates and incomes that he might decide whether they were entitled to the pensions to which they held certificates. Grandfather did everything required by this Act also, and giving in his schedule the correct number of his pension certificate, the number under which he had always drawn his pension. I inclose with this copies of the two laws.
In the winter of 1820-1 he received a Notice of Exclusion from Pension, dated at Washington, Jany 23d 1821, which he supposed was intended for him. I inclose a copy of this Notice, also as well as a copy of another paper certificate entitled "Restoration to the Pension Roll." Five or six years ago in looking over his papers I found that the number and title on the Notice of Exclusion from Pension were those of another pensioner. Knowing that grandfather had been treated with a great deal of injustice when deprived of his pension and that the persons employed by him in getting his name restored to the Roll were interested in and did defrauding him

Mr. Chas A. Burnham East Derry N. H.
Sir:
Enclosed find copy of the decision of the Hon. Secretary of the Interior, dated the 4th inst, upon your second motion for reconsideration in above-entitled claim, denying said motion.
Very respectfully,
John C. Black, Commissioner"
Department of the Interior, Washington, February 4, 1888,
Mr. Burnham was at the head of the list of the President's 1888
In re
Charles A. Burnham, Grandson of John Burnham, Major in Col. Brooks's Regiment, Revolutionary War Certificate #11,104. Docket #1146-1888.) Second Motion for Reconsideration. ) Motion Denied.

Commissioner of Pensions,
Sir:
A motion for re-consideration was made by the claimant after the after the affirmance of your rejection of his claim and the same was denied as per Departmental letter of June 29, 1887, a copy of which it appears has been sent to the appellant.
Under date of Jan. 25, 1888, the appellant addressed to this Department a second motion for reconsideration of his appeal, containing no new point whatever except that he now demands that this Department lay the whole case before Congress.
You will please inform him by means of a copy of this letter, herewith transmitted, that this Department most respectfully refuses the demand. Its province is not to act as attorney either for or against a pension, but simple to administer the law upon each claim as it may be found to have been enacted. This has been done in the present instance, and the claimant has no ground of complaint either as to the justice or the courtesy with which he has been treated, notwithstanding the continuance of a correspondence

so obviously unnecessary.
There is nothing that calls for a reopening of this case by the Department.
The motion is therefore respectfully denied.
Very respectfully,
D. L. Hawkins
Assistant Secretary. ”
You will see by the above copy of the letter of the Assistant Secretary of the Interior that he distinctly informed the Commissioner of Pensions who the appellant was. The insult consists in the Commission of Pensions saying it was the appeal of John Burnham, pensioner No. 11.104, of the Revolutionary War, who had been dead almost forty five years, and he (the Commissioner) knew it. It was an act of sneering triumph on his part because the Secretary of the Interior had sustained his action. I made the appeal although the injustice with which grandfather and I had been treated in the case was enough almost, one would think, to make any old Revolutionary officer and pensioner rise from the dead and appeal ! especially at this time when the soldiers of the last war,

who destroyed as far as it was possible for them to do it the works of the Revolutionary fathers, are all wanting pensions for themselves and certain relatives.
I have written to Washington a good many letters in regard to this case. But this was their fault and not mine. If they had frankly told me the truth in the first place it would have been better. I have received from the Pension Department several false and contradictory statements in regard to the case.
For the above reasons I respectfully ask the removal of John C. Black from the position he now holds as Commissioner of Pensions. It would also be a great blessing to this country if the Pension Department itself were abolished and each  the States left to care for its own needy. Anyway, all laws granting pensions except for services against a foreign foe should be repealed .
I furthermore respectfully ask Your Excellency to take this case into consideration and see that justice is done in it. The following

are reasons why a pension of twenty dollars a month was justly, properly and lawfully due the above named Major John Burnham from March 3rd, 1820 to March 3rd , 1826, from which last date his pension was raised to fifty dollars a month by Act of May 15th, 1828, because of his being entitled to half pay for life ($300 a year) by resolve of Congress of the 21st of October, 1780.
1. No better record of long continued and thorough volunteer service can be shown for any soldier of the United States in any war. This the documents of the Army and the testimony of his superior and inferior officers prove.
2. No other man in the United States in such distressed and indigent circumstances was deprived of his pension. He was in 1820 over seventy years of age, sick and unable to labor on his farm which was the only means of his support, and had an aged wife who for years had been an invalid and was at that time quite helpless, and he was in debt $195.17 more than the whole amount of his available property both real and personal.

3. The Law of March 18, 1818, was intended to benefit the soldier where it found him . Of course grandfather in his circumstances could not support himself without the aid of his pension, and in consequence of the loss of it he was compelled to sell house and home and nearly all of his property to pay his debts.
4. He did everything required of him by the Act of May 1, 1820, and gave in his schedule of his property the correct number of his pension certificate, the number under which he was compelled to draw his pension always .
5. A pension may be a bounty which Congress can withhold or recall  withdraw but still the United States pensioner is under the protection of law and has rights under the Constitution. Congress had no right to pass such a retrospective or ex post facto law as the Act of May 1, 1820; especially to make it take effect nearly two months before its passage. The Act of May 1, 1820 stopped the pension March 4th, 1820 instead of May 1, 1820.
6. In all cases of discontinuance of pension under the Act of May 1, 1820, the Secretary of

War was compelled by law and custom to give in the Notice of Exclusion from Pension the correct number and title of the pensioner. There is no other case on record where an officer has been deprived of his pension as a private and under another pensioner's number . As the Law of March 18, 1818, made a distinction between an officer and a private the title as well as the number was a part of the pensioner's name . This will also be seen in the inclosed copy of grandfather's "Restoration to the Pension Roll." In the original as there written the printed Mer. in the blank was erased and Major inserted in its place. This was proper as the certificate was for Twenty dollars a month.
I do hope that You will give this case your attention. If there is any more evidence needed to show the justice and propriety of the claim I am prepared to furnish it.
To His Excellency, Yours, most respectfully, Grover Cleveland, Charles A. Burnham, President of the United States.

and did defraud him themselves , I was led to believe from what I knew that the Notice of Exclusion from Pension was intended by the Secretary of War for another pensioner. I therefore wrote to the late President Arthur asking that the case might be thoroughly investigated. I have tried since the spring of 1883 to have this done but without success. Among other things I got Senator Pike of New Hampshire to make a personal examination of the papers in the Pension Office. He wrote me that the number 11.024, which was on the Notice of Exclusion from Pension received by grandfather, was the number of another pensioner by the name of Burnham. Having heard some years before that the man most interested in defrauding grandfather out of his pension and who succeeded in defrauding him out of some property in the State of Ohio in consequence of it had boasted afterwards that he had got his pension away from him but had got one for another Burnham I was naturally desirous to know the rank and residence of pensioner No. 11.024, and if he was the one for whom this man got the pension. I tried to learn the fact

from the Pension Department but without success. On the 30th of April 1886 I appealed from the decision of the Commission of Pensions to the Hon. Secretary of the Interior. The last named officer made a decision on May 5th 1887, sustaining the action of the Commissioner of Pensions. Senator Pike had promised to get for me copies of all the papers on file in the Pension Office which related to the case and I wrote to him on the 19th of May 1886, for them together with information concerning the rank and residence of Pensioner No. 11,024, offering to pay for the whole. He went to the Pension Office for them but the Hon. Commissioner of Pensions John C. Black, refused to let me have the copies or the desired information concerning Pensioner No. 11,024.
The following copies will explain how he the said John C. Black insulted me and my grandfather's memory:
18 247 In the appeal of John Burnham Revolutionary War letf No. 11.104
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Pensions, Washington, D.C., Feb 6, 1888

Derry, N. H., May 22nd, 1889.
Hon. John W. Noble, Secretary of the Interior , Washington, D. C.
Sir:
Your surname is Noble . The time was when none but Nobles had surnames . I trust your heart corresponds with your name . Of so, I doubt not that you will lend me all the aid in your power in my efforts to ennoble  all men. The ownership of property is as essential to nobility now as it was in the days of William the Conqueror. If ever the citizens of our nation are to be raised to the rank of peers it should be on this year of our Lord 1889 when our Constitutional Government is a hundred years old as was Abraham at the birth of Isaac . For this probably the Normans in instituting surnames , were, under God, preparing the way. The Declaration of Independence is the Hebrew property law or the Mosaic Bill of Rights, adapted to and

intended for all nations and families of the earth. The bell which was rung when the Declaration of Independence was signed bears for an inscription the command God gave the Children of Israel because of their " unalienable rights ." The two men most active in securing the Declaration of Independence died on its fiftieth anniversary. (See Daniel Webster's Oration on their death.) The Author of the " Monroe doctrine ", and this other doctrine: "The earth was given to mankind to support the greatest number of which it is capable, and no tribe or people have a right to withhold from the wants of others more than is necessary for their own support and comfort," also died on the Fourth of July . There is no doubt in my mind that the Declaration of Independence was the Dawn of the Millennium , and that the United States is the Beginning of the Fifth Empire and its flag the ensign of the model republic . Daniel Webster in his Address at the laying of the corner stone of an Addition to the National Capitol quoted the lines of Dr. Berkeley, Dean of Derry , (Ireland), written about eight years after the emigration from

Ireland to this country. They are as follows: "Westward the course of empire takes its way; The first four acts already past, A fifth shall close the drama with the day,— Time's noblest offspring is the last."
In the Declaration of Independence we see "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low." Let it be properly carried out for Christ's sake and because of His Atonement and it will lead I think among other good things to the conversion of the Jews to Christianity and their restoration to their own land. The stars on our Banner may represent the "multitude of nations" of which Abraham and Ephraim are the fathers. The Secretary of War probably did not think when he unjustly, unlawfully and irregularly deprived Major John Burnham, pensioner No. 11,104, under the Law of March 18, 1818, of his pension that his grandson, the one separate from his brother, would inherit the estate he lost, in consequence, according to the Declaration of Independence and the inscription on the old Liberty bell. But the Selectmen of Derry now think they can oust him of his inheritance by selling part of the land for the taxes.* The Children of Israel have now the same undying hostility to unjust and heavy taxation

that they had in the days of Rehoboth, I therefore ask you to stay their (the Selectmen's) proceedings until the case of my claim against the United States has been fairly tried before the proper Tribunal . Grandfather was deprived of his pension as appears from the Notice of Exclusion from Pension, as pensioner No. 11,024 who was a private soldier. He lost his pension because a set of rascally enemies wanted to defraud him. I have an abundance of evidence of this. I claim I have inherited the real estate which he gave in as his in his Schedule of his property to the Hon. Secretary of War in 1820. The Secretary of the Interior or some high not long since Court rendered a decision, I believe, in a case in St. Louis that the occupancy of part of an estate by an heir for twenty years gave him title to the whole where the estate had not been properly conveyed by his ancestor. The decision was in a case where the land had been "lost" for many more than twenty years. Grandfather owned but one farm and I have inherited, owned, and occupied the buildings and of about two fifths of the land for more than twenty years.
Very respectfully yours, Chas. A. Burnham.

*
For more than six years at a great expense of time and money I have been trying to get justice from the Interior and Pension Departments but without success, therefore have been unable to pay my taxes for several years.

O. W. H. CHM
DEPARTMENT — OF THE — INTERIOR Bd. Pen. Appeals. RECEIVED. MAY 27 1889
Dep't of the Interior.
May 27 1889
Respectfully Referred to the Com'r of Pensions.
for appropriate action. Cyrus Bussey.
ASST. SECRETARY.
1889 ON

East Derry, N.H., May 19, 1886.
Hon. J. Q. C. Loomis, Secretary of the Interior, Sir:—
About the 6th of this month dated Apr. 30, 1886. I sent You a letter, containing a statement of how my grandfather, Major John Burrough, a Revolutionary pensioner under the Law of March 18, 1818, was unjustly and erroneously deprived of his pension after the passage of the Law of May 1, 1820. I asked You to restore to me, his heir and repre- sentative, the land here in this town that he was obliged to sell in consequence of having been de- prived of his pension. Before You decide the case I would like to call Your attention to an important fact, viz.: he for the following reasons was entitled by the Law of May 1, 1820 itself , to a continuance of his pension. 1. He did everything the Law required or demanded of him , and, if the Secretary of War did not strike strike his name from

the Pension List, he by so doing was entitled to a continuance of his pension, and it was not necessary that he should be notified of its continuance . 2. The Secretary of War did not strike his name from the Pension List.
The Law of May 1, 1820 said: "Be it enacted, [etc.] That no person who now is, or hereafter may be, placed on the pension list of the United States, by virtue of the act entitled 'An act to provide for certain persons engaged in the land and naval service of the United States in the revolutionary war,' passed on the 18th day of March 1818, continue to receive the pension granted by the said act, until he shall have exhibited to some court of record, in the county, city or borough, in which he resides, a schedule subscribed by him, containing his whole estate and income, (his necessary clothing and bedding excepted,) and shall have (before the said court; or some one of the Judges thereof,) taken and subscribed, and produced to the said court, the following oath or affirmation, to wit:—
"I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I was a resident citizen of the United States on the 18th day of March 1818, and

That I have not, since that time, by gift, sale, or in any manner whatever, disposed of my property or any part thereof, with intent thereby so to diminish it as to bring myself within the provision of an act of Congress, entitled 'An act to provide for certain persons engaged in the land and naval service of the United States in the revolutionary war,' passed on the 18th day of March 1818, and that I have not, nor has any person in trust for me, any property, or securities, contracts or debts, due to me; nor have I any income, other than what is contained in the schedule hereto annexed and by me subscribed.'
"Nor until such person shall have delivered, or caused to be delivered, to the Secretary of War, a copy of the aforesaid schedule and oath or affirmation, certified by the clerk of the court to which the said schedule was delivered, together with the opinion of said court, also certified by their clerk, of the value of the property contained in the said schedule: Provided , That in every case in which the pensioner may be insane, or incapable of taking an oath, the court may receive the said schedule without the aforesaid oath or affirmation, from the committee, or other person author-

ized to take care of such person."
Sec. 2, of that Law said: "And be it further enacted, That the original schedule and oath or affirmation shall be filed in the Clerk's office, of the court to which the schedule and oath or affirmation aforesaid shall be exhibited; and any person who shall swear or affirm falsely in the premises, and be thereof convicted, shall suffer as for wilful and corrupt perjury." Now Grandfather did everything the Law required of him including the sending of the copy of his schedule &c to the Secretary of War, and in his schedule and the required copy thereof he gave the correct number of his pension certificate . Doing what the Law required of him entitled him to a continuance of his pension , that is, if the Secretary of War did not strike his name from the Pension List.
Sec. 3, of the Law of May 1, 1820, says: "And be it further enacted, That, on the receipt of the copy of the schedule and oath, or affirmation aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the War Department, to cause to be struck from the list of

Pensioners under the said act, the name of such person, in case the said person shall not in his opinion, be in such indigent circumstances as to be unable to support himself without the assistance of his country; Provided , That every person, who shall have been placed on the pension list in consequence of disability, from known wounds received in the revolutionary war, and who shall have relinquished such pension in order to avail themselves of the benefit of the provisions of the act, to which this is an amendment, who, by virtue of this section may be stricken from the pension list, shall be forthwith restored to the pension so to relinquished."
The copy of "Exclusion from Pension" received by grandfather, and which I sent you in my letter mentioned above, shows that the Secretary of War did not do what the Law of May 1, 1820 , required of him if he intended to strike John Burnham or Major John Burnham, No. 11.104, from the Pension List. It makes no difference whether he intended to strike the name of Major John Burnham, No. 11.104, from the Pension List, or not he did not do it according to the law and practice of that day day. The "Ex-

Clusion from Pension "just mentioned shows that it was a Notice from the War Department to pensioner, No. 11.024, who also lived in this vicinity and whose name was Burnam or Burnham, and the clerk if he made a mistake would be far more likely to make it in the given name of the pensioner when both given names commenced with the same letter than he would in the number . The papers in both these cases are in the same file and a careless clerk might easily have made the mistake. The clerk was probably ordered to strike pensioner, No. 11.024, from the List and finding that number endorsed in red ink on the outside of Grandfather's schedule for the number of his pension certificate sent the notice of exclusion from pension to John Burnham instead of to the Burnham or Burnam to whom it belonged, and Grandfather received it. That was probably the way of it if the Clerk was not bribed . It makes no difference what name was placed on the Notice of Exclusion from Pension. The correct number was the thing required . The Pension Office has no positive evidence that Major John Burnham, No 11.104, was the man Secretary Calhoun intended to strike from the Pension List, while I have positive and strong .

circumstantial evidence that he was not the man,
The Constitution of the United States says that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Now it happens that the officer's or soldier's pension under the Law of May March 18, 1818, was property and sacred property too . That Law made it unalienable property by forbidding the sale, transfer, or mortgage of the whole or any part of it. But Grandfather was deprived of his pension by the Government contrary to all law and practice of that day . And if, even, he was the man the Secretary of War intended to strike from the Pension List nothing short of a Notice of Exclusion from Pension to Major John Burnham, No. 11.104, could cancel his pension certificate.
I submit the case to your consideration, hoping that you will make a just decision.
Yours, very respectfully, Chas. A. Burnham.
P.S. It may be thought that this matter ought to have been attended to before. It could not with propriety have been attended to before. One of the beauties of this case is its age .

I claim to have inherited this estate according to the Declaration of Independence and the inscription on the old Liberty bell at Philadelphia . It may be regarded as the first permanent estate in America , the first fruits of Settled America , and a part of the birthright and blessing of Israel which descends to the the one who was separate or separated from his brothers or "brethren", a descendant of Joseph . The Normans, who were Israelites from the North , in instituting surnames and introducing them into England eight hundred years ago, were, under God, preparing the way for the restoration of Israel and the restoration of all men to their original privileges . The Declaration of Independence is a reproduction of the Mosaic Bill of Rights , adapted to and intended for all nations and families of the earth . The United States is the beginning of the Fifth Empire , and its  its flag is probably the ensign for the nations or the ensign of the Model republic . If Abraham Lincoln had seen this when first inaugurated President, and been honest enough to have said so , there probably would have been no war between the North and South . Slavery and "Free Labor" (the other system of stealing) would have both been abolished and the people invested with full citizenship . The generous blooded South would have vied with the North in devotion to Liberty and Union . - C.A.B.

LAW DIVISION.
18 267
In the matter of the appeal of
Name,
Service,
Number,
John Burdham Revolutionary War
11.104
Department of the Interior,
BUREAU OF PENSIONS,
Washington, D. C.
July 1 st , 1887
SIR:
Herewith are transmitted the papers in the above claim, together with the decision of the Secretary of the Interior, under date of the 29 th ult. upon the appeal had therein.
Your attention is invited to the fact that the action of the office is affirmed
Very respectfully,
James M. Ward
LAW CLERK Law Clerk.
Gen'l. Cois Chief Ord War & Navy

Old war Div. INP. Ex't. No. Co. _____ Reg't _____
Department of the Interior. BUREAU OF PENSIONS.
Washington, D.C. April 10, 1888
Return this letter with your reply.
Sir,
Enclosed herewith, the papers are returned, which you referred to this Bureau, relating to arrears of pension, claimed by Mr. G. A. B. I am as due to his grandfather, Maj. John Burnham who served in the Revolutionary war, and I have to state that he was allowed a pension, under the act of March 18. 1818, of $240 00 per annum, to commence April 7. 1818, which was paid to March 4, 1820, after which date payments were discontinued, by reason of the amount of property reported in his schedule, as required by the act of May 1. 1820 - In 1826 he filed another schedule under the act of March 1. 1823, showing the change in his property and circumstances, and another pension certificate was issued at the same rate per annum, but to commence Feb'y 8. 1826, for, according to the expressed terms of the latter act, the commencement of the pension could not go back to cover the arrears from March 4. 1820 -
The adjudication of the above case under the several acts by the War Department, was in entire harmony with the rules and practice that were uniformly adopted in all applications for restoration with similar conditions, as to the property and indebtedness -
After the passage of the act of May 15. 1828, he relinquished his pension under the act of March 18. 1818, and received a pension certificate under that act,

to commence Mar 3 1826 which gave him $400 00 per annum, but no pension that has been paid he had received prior to March 3 d 1826 was deducted from the amount which he drew under the act of 1828. His pension was continued at this rate until his decease it, and continued to be paid until his decease in 1843 - in 1843
On an appeal, the Secretary of the Interior has recently affirmed the action of this Bureau in holding that there is no law existing under which the arrears withheld from March 4. 1820 to Feby 8. 1826, can be claimed by, or be paid to, the heirs of the above named officer -
Very respectfully
Commissioner
Hon, L. F. McKinney
House of Representatives

H.L.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Law Division.
BUREAU OF PENSIONS,
WASHINGTON, D. C.,
May 20 th 1890.
Appeal of : : JOHN BURNHAM, : : War of the Revolution. : : Cert. No. 11,104. :
18 N - 98. 267
-----0000000000-----
Sir:-
Under call of December 9, 1889, I have the honor to return herewith the present appeal in this case and advise that the issue intended to be raised thereby was before the department and a decision in extenso upon the merit of the claim was rendered May 5, 1890.
This action is believed to have finally disposed of the questions presented in the present appeal which should be disposed of as may be deemed expedient.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Very respectfully,
To the Honorable,
Acting Commissioner of Pensions.
The Secretary of the Interior.

EXH Law Division. O.H.R.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, PENSION OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C.,
March 5th, 1887.
In the matter of the appeal of Charles A. Burnham, relative to the pension claim of John Burnham, Major in Col. Brooks Regt. Rev. War. Certificate No.11,104.
Sir:-
In response to the call of May 19, 1886, for a report upon this appeal, I have the honor to state as follows:
Pension at the rate of $20 per month was allowed John Burnham, to commence April 7, 1818. Payment of pension was sus- pended under the act of May 1, 1820. By the provisions of said act it was necessary for the pensioner to file a schedule of his property in order to remove suspension, and resume payment, which he complied with soon after the passage of the act. The schedule filed shows that the pensioner then owned 165 acres of land and necessary farming implements and stock.
This amount of available property was deemed sufficient

by the then Hon. Secretary of War, to render a support for the pensioner and his family, and the pension was discontinued as provided by the act.
The Hon. Third Auditor, Peter Hagner, reported July 30th 1828, that John Burnham, is now on the pension list New Hampshire agency and has been since the 8th February 1828.
It appears from the old jacket, as per endorsement thereon, that his name was restored to the Roll from February 8th 1828.
This appeal is based upon the theory that the discontinuance of pension was an error.
One Joshua Burnam was pensioned under certificate No. 11,024, and filed a schedule of his property amounting to $54,75, and was informed that his pension would be continued under the act of May 1, 1820. The appellant seems to think that a mistake was made in striking the name of John Burnham from the roll instead of Joshua Burnam , for the reason that in some letter from this office the number was given as 11,024, and not 11,104.
The action of discontinuance of pension on the ground that the pensioner possessed an amount of property which was deemed by the Hon. Secretary of War, amply adequate for his support, was proper and in accordance with the pension laws in force

at that date, therefore the action is not error and the appeal should be dismissed.
All of which, together with the papers in the case is herewith enclosed.
Very respectfully,
J. S. P. B. C. M. Acting Commissioner of Pensions.
The Hon.
Secretary of the Interior.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, May 17th, 1890.
92-2
The Commissioner of Pensions:
Sir:
The enclosed letter is transmitted to you to be filed with the case to which it relates. It needs no reply.
Very respectfully,
Leymo Bussy Assistant Secretary.
K
CtH 11.104 Major John Burnham Old war

H195 1889
Derry, N. H., May 13, 1890.
To the Hon. Secretary of the Interior,
Sir:
A few days ago I received a communication, dated: Department of the Interior, Washington, May 2 th , 1890, and entitled Adjudicated Pension claim of John Burnham *** Cert. No. 11,104. And saying upon Motion for reconsideration Action had been affirmed *. And this was within a month of the time when I had been informed by the Hon. Secretary of the Interior or his Assistant that owing to the large number of Appeals claims which preceded my claim it was impossible for him to approximate the time when my case would be reached! Doubtless there are others who are glad to have the case brought up before the 15 th of this month. But if they get any real solid comfort out of such action remains to be seen. Neither am I very sorry that you did not afford me the opportunity to show the original documents as evidence in the case to which right I was entitled. For certain reasons I do not feel under obligations to recognize a decision in the case as yet. Perhaps possibly,
* By whom sent I do not know, nor was it stated.

there would be some chance for the Department of the Interior in this case if it could only prove that it was the opinion of the Secretary of War that the above mentioned John Burnham was in 1820 the owner of too much property to be entitled to a pension. (But had such been the Secretary's opinion what would it have amounted to in this case "all" being "equal before the law", where  and a highly respectable and very meritorious old officer proved that he had no available property for his own support and was just as much entitled to his pension as a drunken old scamp with property to the value of $540, \frac{75}{100} , or anyone else?) Another point is that the discretionary power of the Secretary of War under the Law of March 18, 1818, etc., about which you say so much, extended no further than in invalid pension claims . See the law . And no one ever heard or knew of an invalid pensioner being stricken from the Pension List unless his condition had improved . Now grandfather proved that his circumstances even after receiving his pension had not improved but grown worse . So you must readily see that your consideration of such claims as this does not in the least violate militate against the established rules of your Department. Of course the Department

the of the Interior is not to blame for the stink of the it old War Department. But when you took the Pension De- e partment you took all that appertained to it and are un- too der lawful obligations to "pay the bills" and you have uch both the legal authority to do so and the fund out of d which you can pay them . If you have thoroughly and hly candidly examined this case by me you must have found he from the evidence presented to both the Interior and ar Pension Departments that the Secretary of War never old under the Act of May 1, 1820, took any action in the me case of John Burnham, pensioner No. 11,104. I do not r ask you to transcend transcend the powers of your 18, Department. But simply to execute the law as enacted. ther I am the pensioner's heir and representative, on his ground and in no peaceable possession of his estate for more than twenty years. ag On the 6th of February, 1888, I was officially recognized as on the above named pensioner. (It was the expressed and r- since published wish of the old hero that he might live ot again to save his country) You will therefore see that ly in this case all unfulfilled parts of the Law of March does 18, 1818, is still in full force and virtue . It is needless ment to say that no restoration to the Pension List is necessary. And you have the same lawful authority to pay

and the same fund out of which to pay what is justly due in this case as you have to pay any pension of the present day. I hope that your final decision in this case will be such that I shall have no just cause to appeal to the country. Should I be obliged to do so, it will be seen if Major John Burnham of the Revolutionary war and his grandson are not as much entitled to the $20 per month promised him (the grandfather) as any pensioner of the last war is to his pension, especially as is Major Edward L. Jones of this town, a pensioner of the last war, to the $20 per month which he receives.*
Rest assured, Sir, that so long as the U. S. Pension Office exists this claim will not down at any man's bidding.
I have the honor to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Charles A. Burnham.
* How much influence has this man had in this way  in hurrying up and in influencing you in your decision? What has others? here or elsewhere? I know my "friends" and have read their game right along. Suppose you now withdraw your opposition to my just claim and give your attention to the case of Major Jones. Make a thorough examination of it. Inquire about his health for the last nineteen years - the amount of work he has done and is now doing what the people think about his case, and so on to Tax-collector, has been an officer he has held for the last two years, but is now removed.

D. S. May 14, 1890. To the Hon. Secretary of the Interior.
Sir: Grandfather was as much entitled to his pension as anyone on the Pension List all being "equal before the law," no matter what the amount of his property was if it had not increased . He was really very much in need of his pension to maintain himself in the position in which he then was and that was the only position in which the War Department had any right to consider his case. There is no "regular testimony" that the Secretary of War intended to strike his name from the Pension List and none that he did do it. But after all I guess there was no error committed. It was the work of Helen who "cannot err." And I say not no longer "it was an error." But if the poorly paid and very meritorious officers of the Revolution should have been content with "their" wages" how is it about the well paid soldiers of the last war? This is a test case and you have decided against yourselves. How do you like it? But what a remarkable man was John C. Calhoun, the Secretary of War! What a mind he had! How far in advance of the American people in regard to State Rights and Nullification !! When his ideas are mostly adopted by the American people, as they soon will be, where will the soldiers and pensioners of the last war be in the estimation of the people? And in 1820, when he was Secretary of War, there were Revolutionary officers, Federalists , and the political ancestors of all those who now believe in a "strong central government." These officers were in possession of considerable real estate although heavily in debt . To continue a pension to these officers would incline the country towards Aristocracy , It was and certain "Republican" ideas. It was but right even if those officers should have to smart, to strike them from the Pension List. That goes the way with my grandfather and that at least should be the way all pensioners,

his property amounted to a little more than enough to pay his debts, and after much delay, torture, and insults his name was "restored" to the Pension List February 9th, 1828.
at least aristocratic ones, of the last war should be treated. I have said much about the unjust way my grandfather was treated under the then existing laws. But what I have said and all I have said is based upon my claim, viz.: That Major John Burnham, pensioner No. 11.104 under the Law of March 18, 1818, was not stricken from the Pension List. If you will examine all the letters and papers I have sent to Washington for the last eight years you will find that that was really what I claimed. That was what I claimed of the Pension Department and about which I appealed and re-appealed to the Secretary of the Interior. Of course I would naturally show the justness, justice, propriety and lawfulness of the claim, all of which I have fully established. But whether the Secretary of War intended to strike him from the Pension List or not has nothing to do with the case. really been called upon All you have to decide is whether or not he was stricken from the Pension List, and you know as well as I do, and as everyone else does, that a Notice of Exclusion from Pension, to be valid , must, according to all the rules and practice of the old War, the Pension, and the Interior Departments, must have on it at least the correct number of the pensioner.
N.B. You have not been called upon to decide whether or not the Secretary of War committed an "error of judgment," but whether or not he did strike the pensioner from the Pension List. Don't forget it. C.A.B.
Yours, very respectfully, Chas. A. Burnham.

Old war Div.
Ms. Ex'r.
No.
Co. _____ Reg't _____
:-o:-
Return this letter with your reply.
Department of the Interior. PENSION OFFICE.
Washington, D.C. June 4, 1886
Sir:
In reply to yours of the 19 th ult. addressed to the Secretary of the Interior, by him referred to this office, relative to the pension of your grandfather, John Burnham, of New Hampshire, that was originally allowed under the act of March 18, 1818, and discontinued under the law of May 1, 1820, I have to state that as all the facts connected therewith have been fully explained to you, it is unnecessary to repeat them.
Your last statement, as well as others which you have previously submitted, contain nothing new, or that was not under consideration at the time when the Secretary of War ordered the pension to be discontinued; and as there has not been any change in the law which will authorize the allowance of your claim for the restoration of the pension, it would take too much valuable time from the pressing duties of this office, to continue, hereafter, further correspondence in the matter.

Old war Div. Ms. B. Ex't. John Burnham Revolutionary Officer from Massachusetts
Department of the Interior PENSION OFFICE.
Return this letter with your reply.
Washington, D.C. December 9, 1884
Sir,
In answer to your letter of Sept 18. last, addressed to the President, by him referred to this Department, you are informed that there is nothing to add that would be different from what has been communicated to you, relative to the pension of the above named Officer, in the several letters under date of March 19; June 7, July 17. 1883 and July 17. 1884.
Y

Copy
June 4. 1889
Chas R. Burnham, Dept of War
In answer to your communication of the 22 nd ult addressed to the Secretary of the Interior, by him referred to this Bureau, I have to state that after you had been repeatedly informed that there was no law existing under which you would be entitled to arrears on account of the pension allowed to John Burnham, an officer in the war of the Revolution, you appealed to the Secretary of the Interior who affirmed that action, consequently, the claim cannot be favorably, the claim cannot be favorably considered.

O. W. and N.
Div.
DMW
Ex'r.
File
No. 45659-
John Burnham Meyer - Collection Box
Address your reply to the COMMISSIONER OF PENSIONS with return of this letter.
Washington, D.C. Oct 7—, 1893
Madam
In response to your letter of Sept 9- I have to suggest that the tax records of the Town will probably furnish you with all the information desired as to the property real or personal of the late John Burnham in the year 1820. or at any other date. and that if the information is desired for use in any court proceedings, the Town records would be competent evidence while an ex parte statement might not be accepted as evidence
Very respectfully
Commissioner
Mrs Caroline E Burnham
East Derry
N.H.

Ms. A. 9. 2. 11 Q. W. and N. Div I. A. P. Ex'r. No. Co. Reg't :o: Return this letter with your reply.
Department of the Interior PENSION OFFICE
Washington, D.C. June 5 th , 1886
Sir:
In reply to yours of the 19 th ultimo, addressed to the Hon. Secretary of the Interior and by him referred to this Office, relative to the pension of your grandfather, John Burnham of New Hampshire, which was originally allowed under the law of March 18 th , 1818 and discontinued under the Act of May 1, 1820, I have to state that as all the facts connected therewith have been fully and repeatedly explained to you it is unnecessary to repeat them at this time. Your last statement, as well as all others previously submitted, do not contain anything that is new, or that was not duly considered by the Secretary of War at the time he ordered the pension to be discontinued. There has been no change in the law since that time and this Office has no authority to restore the pension and nothing can be possibly gained by repeated inquiries and

additional statements, further correspondence on the subject must be declined.
Very respectfully
John C. Black. Commissioner
Wm Chas. A. Burnham East Derry New Hampshire

45659
1146 DEPARTMENT RECEIVED. 1886 OF THE INTERIOR Bd. Pens. Appeals. JUL 12 1886
Chas A Burnham Appealed May 11-86 Referred May 19-86
July 13/86 Letter to him
Please file these papers with the case
✓

East Derry, N.H. July 17 th 1893.
To the Hon. Commissioner of Pensions, Sir:
Please inform me as soon as possible in what Court of Record Major John Burnham, pensioner No. 11.104 under the Law of March 18.1818, filed his Schedule of his property in 1820. as required by the Act of May 1, 1820. And you will greatly oblige.
Yours respectfully, Mrs Caroline E. Burnham.

East Derry N.H. Sep 9 th 1893.
To the Hon. Commissioner of Pensions, Sir:
The object of my inquiry is to learn where the Schedule now is that it may be used as evidence in a certain lawsuit in which my husband has been engaged with one Edmund Ledams of this town.
Please let me know in which Court it was placed and if it has been taken to Washington since and when. This will be all the information I shall want. And I hope it will not be contrary

to your rules to grant it. I write at my husbands request. My relationship to Major John Burnham is this. I have a son now thirteen years old who with his father and mother is now living on a part of his great grand fathers Major John Burnhams farm. At the age of twenty one years he comes into possession of a lot of money that has been willed him and I want him to know about the old estate.
Please inform me as soon as possible.
Yours respectfully, Caroline E. Burnham

O. N. + N. _____ Div. N. _____ Ex'r. Sur. (O. N.) No. 45659-File John Burnham Major, Revy War
OK Department of the Interior BUREAU OF PENSIONS
Address your reply to the COMMISSIONER OF PENSIONS with return of this letter.
Washington, D.C. Aug. 8, 1893.
Madam:-
In regard to your request that you be informed what court was the repository of the schedule filed by John Burnham, under the act of May 1, 1820, I have the honor to state that under the rules of the Bureau it will be necessary that you should explain the object of your inquiry, and what relationship you claim to the pensioner, and if none, by what authority you represent his heirs.
Very respectfully,
Jno Lockhorn Commissioner.
Mrs. Caroline E. Burnham, East Derry, Rockingham Co., N. H.

Oct. East Derry, N.H., Sept. 17, 1884.
Your Excellency:
Once more I write to you about my grandfather, Major John Burnham, a Revolutionary pensioner under Act of Congress of March 18, 1818, who was unjustly and improperly stricken from the Pension List after the passage of the Law of May 1, 1820. My letter to you on this subject, dated May 30, 1884, was replied to on the 17th of last July, by the Commissioner of Pensions, who wrote: "You are informed, this office can only repeat what has been previously communicated to you that as his name was, under the then existing laws, properly

dropped drop from the pension roll, this Department is powerless to afford the relief that you desire."
I don't like to trouble you so much and my only excuse for doing so is the justice of the claim and the importance of the case. The United States Pension Office is undoubtedly the most correct Pension Office in the world and with it mistakes are the exception and not the rule, but in this case it happens to be mistaken which I think I can easily show. In the first place I would respectfully ask your atten- tion to the following taken from Pres- ident Monroe's First Annual Mes- sage: "In contemplating the happy situation of the United States, our attention is drawn, with peculiar in- terest, to the surviving officers and soldiers of our revolutionary army,

who so eminently contributed, by their services, to lay its foundation. Most of those very meritorious citizens have paid the debt of nature and gone to repose. It is believed, that among the survivors there are some not provided for by existing laws, who are reduced to indigence, and even to real distress. These men have a claim on the gratitude of their country, and it will do honor to their country to provide for them. The lapse of a few years more, and the opportunity will be forever lost; indeed, so long already has been the interval, that the number to be benefitted by any provision which may be made, will not be great." This recommendation of President Monroe was promptly acted on by Congress which passed the pension law of

March 18, 1818. This provided that the officers and soldiers of the Revolutionary War, who served to the the end of the war, or for nine months, in need of assistance from the country, should have a pensions; if an officer, twenty dollars per month; if a private, eight dollars per month. The pension laws of March 18, 1818, May 1, 1820, and March 1, 1823, all show that the United States had undertaken to provide for the surviving officers and soldiers of the revolutionary army who were in need of assistance from the country. Why was the law of May 1, 1820 passed? Was the country poorer at that time than in 1818? It is a fact of history that it enjoyed uninter-

rupted prosperity during the three years next following the commencement of Monroe's first term. Did the country think that it cost too much to provide for these Revolutionary pensioners and thus try to ease it itself of the burden? To admit this would be to admit that it was guilty of a sneaking repudiation of its contract with the most worthy of all claimants on its gratitude. Should we not rather conclude that it was done because that it was believed that there were some officers and soldiers receiving pensions who were not really in need of assistance from the country? The honest pensioner was not to blame if his name was on the pen-

sion list. The fault was the Government, not his. It should have more clearly defined what it meant by the Law of March 18, 1818  May 1, 1820 , or in other words, exacted from the officer or soldier a schedule of his property, to see if he was one intended to be benefitted, before his name was placed on the Pension List. This would have been a business like and honorable way. Had this course been pursued the venerable Fathers would not have been abused, and disgraced in the eyes of the world, by the very Government, which they, under God, brought into existence. It is therefore plain that no man's name could be str  properly stricken from the Pension List after the passage of the Law of May 1, 1820 unless it was proven that he by fraud or misrepresentation had

obtained his pension, or had in some way acquired additional property after becoming a pensioner. Now how was it in grandfather's case. After the passage of the Pension law of March 18, 1818 he applied for a pension. Here is the testimony of one of the witnesses in his case: I Christopher S. Thoms testify and say that I have been acquainted with Major John Burnham of Londonderry about Twenty years and know that his health is extremely bad and that he is entirely unfit for any kind of corporeal labor and his wife is an invalid, and in consequence of his advanced age and his bodily infirmities he has become reduced in his circumstances, and I verily believe that he is absolutely in need of assistance from his Country for

support and decent and comfortable maintenance.
(Sworn to) Christopher H. Thom. 11
The evidence which he furnished was satisfactory and he was placed on the Pension List, Roll of the New Hampshire Agency, at the rate of twenty dollars per month. After the passage of the Law of May 1, 1820 how was it? was he proved guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation in getting his pension? No. Had he acquired any additional property? On the contrary it was proved that his and grandmother's age and infirmities had increased , and that he was in debt $195.17 more than the amount of his available property.

both real and personal. It is true that he had a mortgage deed on three shares in the "Ohio Company's Purchase", but the Law of May 1, 1820 or that of March 18, 1818, had nothing to do with it and the Secretary of War, in judging of his case, had no right under the laws just mentioned , to take this mortgage deed into consideration because it yielded no income . This grandfather stated at the time. I have abundance of evidence to prove that he had for many years been trying to sell this mortgage or claim, that it had been for many years no income to him but a bill of expense. But I have reason to believe that it was

on account of this mortgage-deed that he lost his pension. There was a chance of its being worth something some day. A certain man knew what the property was and (as I have reason to believe) wanted to buy it and did finally buy it at less than one seventh of its face value. I have reason to believe that this man contrived to have grandfather lose his pension so as to force him to sell this mortgage. If it was so then the Government was made the dupe and tool of a scoundrel in robbing one of its most faithful old soldiers and his heirs. If he did it he either did it by so misrepresenting things to the Secretary of War, or, as is perhaps more probable, by bribing the Clerk to strike grandfather from the Pension List in- stead of some other pensioner who was ordered to be stricken from the List, and this was done in such a way as to appear, if ever an examina-

tion was made, as if done by mistake. I have evidence to prove that after grandfather was turned out of house and home, as he was in consequence of losing his pension, the Government exact ed the sale of this Ohio mortgage as a condition on which he was to be restored to the Pension List under the Law of March 1, 1823 . It was therefore sold according to the direction of the Pension Office and the man spoken of bought it. It was sold at public auction, and the proceeds used towards paying grandfather's debts. Could he have kept it about two years longer he would have recovered the whole amount due on the note as did the man who bought it. His name was "restored" to the Pension List on the 8th or 9th of February 1828 1828, but he in reality received nothing from the Government for this sacrifice of prospective property because he

was entitled to and received a pension and back pay to March 3, 1826 under the Law of May 15th 1828 but what he received as pension after the 8th of February 1828 was to be deducted out of it. The Law of May 15th 1828 gave a pension to the officers of the Revolution who served to the close of the War regardless of what property they had. This the Country could easily afford to do because they were nearly all dead at that time.
No man in the Revolutionary army could show a better better record of long continued and thorough service than grandfather. No other man in such distressed circumstances as he was was stricken from the Pension List. There may have been some cases where the pensions

-ers owned considerable real estate and were stricken from the Pension List even though they were some in debt but there was not another case where a pensioner was stricken from it where he was sick and unable to labor and had a sick and helpless wife and was more in debt than the whole amount of his available property. There is not a document in the Pension Office that can show that there was another such case.
March 18, 1818 The Law of 1820 1818 made a distinction between an officer and a private. There was a difference in their pensions. An officer received twenty dollars per month and a private but eight dollars per month.

Under that law grandfather was placed on the Pension List as a Major and was to have twenty dollars per month, and his pension certificate was numbered 11.104. Under the Law of May 1, 1820 he was stricken from the Pension List as M er . John Burnham, and 11.024 was given as the number of his pension certificate. He was placed on the Pension List as an officer and was stricken from it as a private and under another man's number . Surely he was at least entitled to his own rank and number ! I understand that the soldier whose number was 11.024 gave $54. 75 100 as the value the property in his possession. That was a pretty small amount for a pensioner to have in his possession even in those days. Perhaps there is evidence to show that that was not a true statement of his property and that

his name was ordered off of the Pension List on account of it. When grandfather was "restored" to the Pension List in February 1828 it was as a Major ! At the present day a pensioner's number is important , that is it is so considered in the Pension Office, but thus far in this case it has been for some reason treated as if it is of no consequence. Beside all I have said so far the United States justly owed grandfather. He did not like to be spoken of as a pensioner or as one who was receiving favors from the country. He said that he was no pensioner but that the country owed him. He was one of those officers who were entitled to half pay for life . The half pay which was promised to those officers of the Revolution who continued in the service until the close of

the War was accepted by each individual officer for himself. The "Commutation Pay" which they afterward received was as I understand accepted by the majority of the officers for the whole. Grandfather was probably one of the officers who did not willingly or from choice accept it. If this was so there was justly due him at the time of his death June 8, 1843, as principal more than $4000 after deducting the face value of what he may have as received as Commutation pay and the whole amount of what he received as pension under the Law of May 15th, 1828.
President Monroe signed the Law of May 1, 1820 which led to the injury of at least one officer who was

entitled to half pay, and some may perhaps think that retribution came to him in the next generation when a few years ago his own daughters were obliged to apply to Congress and received the half pay said to be due him as an officer of the Revolution.
This matter of grandfather losing his pension should have been looked into between 1820 and 1828, but probably "his friends" who undertook to get his name "restored" did not think it for their interest to do so, nor for the interest of their friend and connection, Mr. Tucker , who bought his Ohio mortgage . The fact that a part of his old homestead reverted to me as stated in my letter to you of the 30th of last May, is pretty

good evidence that he was unjustly deprived of his pension. He has a daughter now living in almost ninety years of age and grandchildren by two other children who are dead. But my brothers and myself are the only descendants of the name who are now heirs. I have three brothers in the West who perhaps would like shares in the old homestead. The Government has of the United States has the power and should restore it to us, but I want this done in my name because I am the one that was "separat" or "separated" from his brothers or brethren". None of the heirs of Major John Burnham should be overlooked . As this matter is connected with the restoration of Israel it is likely to be made pretty public. I don't mean the restoration of the Jews merely for they are but a small part of Israel, but of Israel

in the broadest acceptance of the term.
It is now more than a hundred years since the independence of the United States was acknowledged by Great Britain the Nation has become rich and prosperous and is about to rise by example to universal empire with unexampled rapidity it is therefore time that all just claims arising from the Revolutionary War should be settled, & therefore trust that Your Excellency will take these claims into consideration and see that they are satisfied and paid before another Spring.
I am Sir, very respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
Chester A. Arthur, President of the United States.
Chas. A. Burnham.
P. S. Sept. 30, 1884.
I direct this letter as I do because I think

that perhaps Your Secretary may have referred my letter of the 30th of last May without letting you see it. There was something in it well worthy of Your attention. No President of the United States ever had such an opportunity offered him for doing good as is now offered to You. C.A.B.

East Derry, N. H., July 30, 1884.
Hon. William W. Dudley, Commissioner of Pensions, Washington, D. C.
Sir: Your letter of the 17th inst., was received last week, relating to my grandfather Major John Burnham, a Revolu- tionary Pensioner under Act of March 18, 1818, who was stricken from the Pension List after the passage of the Law of May 1, 1820, and whose pension certificate was numbered 11.114.
I do not wish to take up any more of your time than I can not help, and am also will- ing to be convinced when I am wrong. If You will

be kind enough to send me copies of the Pension Laws Laws of March 18, 1818, May 1, 1820, and March 1, 1823. I shall soon know how it is,
Yours, most respectfully, Chas. A. Baruham.

LAWS of the State of New Hampshire, PASSED JUNE SESSION, 1884.
MANSION. 1884. ED.
AN ACT ceding jurisdiction over certain lands to the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
SECTION 1. The jurisdiction of this state is hereby ceded to the United States of America over such pieces or parcels of land within the limits of this state as have been or shall hereafter be selected and acquired by the United States for the purpose of erecting post-offices, custom-houses and other structures exclusively owned by the United States and used for its purposes: Provided , that a accurate description and plat of such lands so acquired, verified by the oath of some officer of the United States having knowledge of the facts, shall be filed with the Governor of this state: And, provided further , that this cession is upon the express conditions that the state of New Hampshire shall retain concurrent jurisdiction with the United States in and over all lands acquired or hereafter acquired as aforesaid, so far as that all civil and criminal process issuing under the authority of this state may be executed on the said lands, and in any buildings erected or to be erected thereon in the same way and manner as if this act had not been passed; and exclusive jurisdiction shall revert to and revert in this state whenever the said lands shall cease to be the property of the United States.
SEC. 2. The lands aforesaid, when acquired, shall be forever exempt from all taxes and assessments so long as the same shall remain the property of the United States.
SEC. 3. Whenever the agent or agents of the United States, and the person or persons owning or interested in any such land, cannot agree upon the purchase or the price to be paid for their interest therein, the mayor and aldermen of the city or selectmen of the town in which such land may be located shall, upon the petition of some officer of the United States, and in behalf thereof, and on notice to the owner or owners, as in case of petitions for laying out a highway, appraise the damages to the owner or owners of the land, and on payment of such damages or tender thereof the United States may enter upon the land so taken, and hold the same in fee; and all proceedings upon said petition, and the return and record of such proceedings, and the remedy of the owner in case he is dissatisfied with the damages awarded, shall be the same as in case of highways laid out by them.
4. This act shall take effect upon its passage. Approved June 14, 1883.
1884.

John
June 9/84
Received June 9/84
East Derry, N.H., May 31, 1884.
Your Excellency:
I congratulate you upon your being President of the Fifth Empire of Daniel. I believe that I am the first to thus address you. Mr. George William Curtis in his great oration entitled "Patriotism" which he delivered in the summer of 1857, and which was printed in the New York Tribune, said when speaking of this country: "Time is however inscrutably hewing out the most colossal structure of History." Abraham Lincoln in 1861 while going on to Washington to be inaugurated President of the United States stopped at Trenton New Jersey and addressed the Senate of that State then in session. He spoke

of the Battle of Trenton and said that he remembered of thinking, even when a boy that there was something more than common that our fathers fought for. He said he hoped to be a humble instrument in the hands of the Almighty and of this his almost chosen people for perpetuating the object of that great struggle. At Philadelphia he raised the National Flag over old Independence Hall and said that he hoped that it might yet float over five hundred millions of a free and happy people. (I have not given his exact words) He too failed to see that "the stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner." The United States is the beginning of the Fifth Empire, and the Declaration of Independence is a reproduction of the Mosaic Bill of Rights adapted to and intended for all nations and families of the

earth. The bell which was rung when the Declaration of Independence was signed bore for an inscription the command which God gave the Children of Israel because of their unalienable rights . The two men most active and influential in securing the Declaration of Independence died on its fiftieth anniversary . The Author of the Monroe doctrine , which was called forth by the South American Provinces declaring their independence of the Spanish crown, also died on the Fourth of July . Thus we see that God has twice set his seal of approval upon this Nation. But I hold in hand evidence that is tangible and certain viz: I inherited my ancestral estate according to the Declaration of Independence and the inscription on the Old Liberty bell . You will perhaps recollect that I wrote

to You on the 16th of February 1883 about my grandfather, Major John Burnham, a Revolutionary pensioner under Act of March 18, 1818, being by mistake stricken from the Pension List after the passage of the Law of May 1, 1820. On the 28th of February 1883 I received a letter from Your Secretary, Mr. Pruden, saying that you directed him to acknowledge the receipt of my letter and the matter had been referred to the Secretary of the Interior. I thought I would not thank you for your interest in the matter until I knew the result of the investigation. The number of my grandfather's pension certificate was 11.104 and he was stricken from the pension

Leist as pensioner number 11,024. My idea was that he was not the man they intended to strike from the Leist, and I wrote to you to that effect. On the 21st of March 1883 I received a letter from the Commissioner of Pensions saying in substance that no error was com- mitted and that it was in accordance with the rules and regulations offi- cially adopted in the execution of the law of May 1, 1820, and entirely in harmony with the action in numer- ous other cases presented, having Schedules of property and indebt- edness. This answer did not satisfy me, and I made a further exami- nation of the case and I found that the amount of his available real and personal property was about two hundred dollars less than his indebtedness. ($195.17 less) that he was more than seventy years of age, sick and

unable to labor on his farm which was his only means of support, and had a sick and helpless wife. These facts confirmed me in the belief that he was not the man the Secretary of War intended to strike from the List. I communicated them to the Commissioner of Pensions and in his reply in speaking of the Schedule of grandfather's property he said: "It specified that he was in possession of 3 farms, aggregating 165 acres." This statement was not correct. I have a copy of his schedule and the amount of his available real estate is thus given: "The farm on which he now lives consisting of one hundred acre lot one sixty acre lot and five acres of meadow land." This all lay together in the form of an oblong square with the exception of the five acres

of meadow land which were attached to one corner. It was originally two farms joined together. Grandfather had owned and improved it for more than twenty years, and there was as I understand but one set of buildings on it. One would hardly call it three farms unless he was disposed to misrepresent things, that is no one hereabouts would do it. Further on in his letter the Commissioner says: "This amount of available property" (he had stated his personal property with his real estate) "was deemed sufficient for the support of himself and family, without the aid of the pension, and he was advised of the adverse decision. Upon his Schedule is an endorsement in red ink for the

number of his pension certificate the figure 11.024 instead of 11.104 and the writer of the letter, which you allude to, copied this erroneous number." 11.024 was the number placed on the notice sent to grandfather by the Secretary of War that his name had been stricken from the Pension List. It may have been "in accordance with the rules and regulations, officially a- dopted in the execution of the law of May 1, 1820, and entirely in har- mony with the action in numerous other cases" to strike a pensioner from the List under another pension- er's number but I don't believe it. And I don't believe the Commission- er of Pensions would have said so if he had not been offended because I first wrote to Your Excellency about the case stating that I knew of no one with whom I could trust

it but the President of the United States. I had been corresponding with him about an attempt being made to get a pension which grandfather received continued to a daughter of his and I could not in politeness have done otherwise than first written to him had I known that he had charge of the papers relating to pension cases previous to 1828. Not very long after I wrote to you I received a letter from him making inquiries calculated, as I thought, to identify me as the one who had been corresponding with him.
Whether grandfather was the one they intended to strike from the Pension List or not the number and not the name should decide the case. There may have been several John Burnhams on the Pension List but there could have been but one  number  11,104 ,

and that number has never been regularly stricken from it . The Law of May 1, 1820 was itself a shameful and ridiculous one, passed more than two years too late . Like the Irishman's forethought it came afterward .
But I told you that I inherited my ancestral estate according to the Declaration of Independence and the inscription on the old Liberty bell. It is necessary that I write the above that you may understand what follows.
In consequence of being stricken from the Pension List grand father was compelled to sell his farm which he sold in parts. The part that had the

buildings on it was sold in the fall of 1826 . The man who bought it found it a "barren sceptre in his grip, no lineal heir of his succeeding." He had six children but they all died in infancy or childhood. In 1853 his wife died, and in the fall of 1854 he married my Mother, then a widow, and brought me a little boy of seven years back on to the old place. In 1863 he died and left most of his property to be divided among his heirs according to the Laws of New Hampshire in intestate estates. My Mother had half of his real estate in fee as her share. In 1867 my Mother died and gave me the part that fell to her. I had many heirs to get rid of and often compared myself to the Children of Israel expelling the Canaanites from the land of their fathers, and I found after I got it into my possession that I had been

Six years in doing it and that there were seven families, thirty- one heirs in all. Joshua you will remember in a war of six years conquered seven families or tribes and thirty one kings, and what he did on a small scale in the land of Canaan will be done on a larger scale in this country, for Abraham had two promised lands, the one the land of Canaan the other the world. The Jubilee was observed in Canaan be- cause of the atonement made by the Jewish high-priest. It The Decla- ration of Independence should be carried out in this country accord- ing to the inscription on the Old Lib- erty bell because of the atonement made by Jesus Christ the Antitype of the Jewish high-priest. This will lead to the conversion and return of the Jews to their own land and the gathering of all nations to Christ as

their Priest and King. The Nor- mans, who were Ephraimites from the North, in instituting surnames and introducing them into En- gland were, under God, preparing the way for this very thing.
My idea is that as grandfather was not regularly stricken from the Pension List his title to his farm here has never been extin- guished and I respectfully ask Your Excellency to restore it to me his heir representative and on- ly descendant of the name east of the Mississippi river to be held as a family homestead. I ask it as an earnest and a pledge of that grand Distribution of property ere long to take place when Un- cle Sam will give us all a farm."

It is the evidence of the Nation's birthright. The enclosed law, passed last year by the New Hampshire Legislature, gives the United States full power to do this I believe.
Gov. John Brooks of Massachusetts wrote to the Secretary of War on the 19th of Oct. 1820, that if any man in the Nation was entitled to the consideration of the Government because of meritorious services and present distressed circumstances no one could present stronger claims than Major Burnham. That this statement of Gov. Brooks was true I have abundant evidence to prove. Grandfather was "restored" to the Pension List in Feb. 1828 after the Government had exacted the sale of for a mortgage deed of three shares in the "Ohio Company's Purchase" which he had. This was sold at public auction for $305. on Jan 12, 1827. There

was $2178.37 due on the note but as the case was involved in a lawsuit very few wanted to buy it. Could he have kept it about two years longer he would have recovered the whole a- mount due. This claim was not available in 1820 and for many years previous had been no income but a bill of expense. The pension he lost from May 1, 1820 to March 3, 1828 1828 and what he lost on the sale of his Ohio claim together with the interest on those two sums will amount to considerable more than what it will cost the Government to buy back his farm here which he lost in consequence of having been unjustly and erroneous- ly stricken from the Pension List after the passage of the Law of May 1, 1820. Besides all this I have a claim on the United States  Government on my own account. I have been a kind of a volunteer in the service of my Country. I have

in various ways spent more than two thousand dollars (a very large sum for me) and the larger part of my time for the last twelve years in searching searching for evidence to prove among other things that the United States is the Nation of the nations, and that our flag is the Ensign for the nations . My evidence is now complete. My father the late George Burnham of Derry, who died in 1851, witnessed the injury done and the distress caused grandfather by his losing his pension. He expected that I would go back on to the old homestead as some of his writings show. He left for me a plan for the Union of the different denominations of Christians as the Israel of God . In 1871 I de- stroyed some of his writings not knowing what they were and it has cost me much

money and study to recover from the loss.
"Westward the course of empire takes its way: The first four acts already past, A fifth shall close the drama with the day,— Time's noblest offspring is the last!"
The above lines written by the celebrated Dr. Berkeley in 1726 were quoted by Daniel Webster in one of his great orations when speaking of the future of this country. Now as this Dr. Berkeley was then Dean of Derry he had very good reason for saying what he did for a very important emigration took place from that vicinity about eight years before which emigration perhaps was the second flight of the woman in the Revelation. One hundred years afterward, on the very day on which Adams and Jefferson died , the celebrated Teacher, Mary Lyon, wrote a letter to her sister from this town, in which she said in speaking of this Country and its wonderful growth: "Most

not all exclaim, "This is the finger of God!"
In conclusion I will say: I sent you in my former letter copies of grandfather's pension certificate and the two notices which he received from the Pension Office. In them it may be seen that he was placed on the Pension List as Major John Burnham, number 11.104, that he was stricken from the List as M er . John Burnham, number 11.024, and that he was afterwards restored to the List as Major John Burnham. The idea of restoring that which was never lost! Not wishing to take up too much of your time I wrote last winter to Senator Pike to make an examination in the Pension Office for me. He did so and said that Pensioner number 11.024 was also named Burnham . Perhaps he was the one they intended to strike from the List. Senator Pike promised to send me copies of the papers on file in the Pension Office, but has not yet done so.
I thank you for the interest you have taken in the matter and trust that my request contained in this letter may meet with your favorable consideration.
To Chester A. Arthur,                      Yours, most respectfully, President of the United States.      Chas. A. Burnham.

Chas A. Burleigh Eastberry N.H.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, June 29, 1887.
3/15/1. R. D. L.
18/11
In re
CHARLES A. BURNHAM, ) Heir of John Burnham, ) Major in Col. Brooks' Regt. ) Revolutionary War. )
ON APPEAL. Rejection Affirmed.
Certf. # 11,104. Docket # 1146 - 1886.
The Commissioner of Pensions,
Sir:
Herewith are returned the papers in the above entitled claim.
The claimant, dissatisfied with the affirmance by the Department of your rejection of his claim, has sent in a lengthy communication reiterating the grounds of his complaint.
It only remains to inform him that nothing more can be done for him in this Department, and, if he believes he has suffered a wrong, he must seek some other tribunal for his supposed rem-

edy.
And I am, very respectfully,
D. L. Hawkins Assistant Secretary.
Docket # 1146 - 1886.

P. S.
I believe that the Department of the Interior has common sense and a regard for justice . I also believe that they will give this case the careful examination which they promised me. My statement of the case is long from necessity but it will pay to examine it carefully . The Commissioner of Pensions probably feels in duty bound to defend the country as long as possible, but "there is reason in all things" and the Country will not thank him for willfully opposing this claim any longer, besides it is not perfectly clear that the action

in the case, that is the sending of of such an Exclusion from Pension as was received by grand- father, was the work of either the Secretary of War or the one at the head of the Pension Office, some clerk might have been bribed to do it. For the credit of the Sec- retary of War and the "Chief of the Pen- sion Department" it would be best for to think so. That a set of rascals here were determined to and did defraud grandfather out of his Ohio Mortgage I have papers, let- ters, facts and living witnesses to prove. What I said about Hanson Tucker's being offended at grandfather threatening him, and opposing his having a pension and favoring a pension for the other Burnham or Burnam I

learned from my Mother and her folks. Her father was first cousin to the Thoms and their sister, Mrs. Tucker, and his family probably had means of hearing about it which others did not have. The old soldier himself was afterwards much worried in his mind for fear that in disposing of his Ohio Mortgage as he did that he had been betrayed by his "friends" into doing that which was not strictly honorable by his country(!) But his conscience was altogether too sensitive .
The Commissioner of Pensions has perhaps been prejudiced against me by certain letters I wrote to the Pension Office in the winter of 1882-3 and before I knew about the mistake in the number on the Notice of Exclusion from

Pension received by grandfather. Perhaps there is some other reason why he opposes it the claim, However that may be the matter will probably be brought to the attention of nearly every man, woman and child in the United States. You have probably heard of the birthright and blessing of Israel , though there is not probably a minister of the Gospel who can give you an intelligent answer as to what has become of the birthright of Israel. I think an examina- tion of your Bible will convince you that Jacob or Israel convey- ed the birthright and blessing under Christ to the one "Sepa- rate from his brethren" and to the "ten thousands of Ephraim and

the thousands of Manasseh?" Not Joseph alone as has been erroneously thought but to a descendant of his also . Not the Israelites who were settled in Canaan by Joshua alone but those now and hereafter on the earth , I am the one who years ago started the idea about which so much has recently been written and blunders in the dark made, viz.: That the Anglo-Saxon race is descended from the "Least Tribes of Israel." I have seen no reason to change my mind on the subject but on the contrary also think that a very large share of the Caucasian race at least are Israelites after the flesh.

And I doubt not that all nations and families of the earth will be brought in to enjoy the civil, political and religious rights and privileges of Israelites though they be of as many different complexions as there were Colours in Joseph's Coat . This case of mine I have no doubt is connected with the restoration of Israel , and in my humble opinion it is very good evidence that the United States is the beginning of the Fifth Empire and that the "Star Spangled Banner", which they tried to make it appear in the St Nicholas Magazine of November 1883, sprang from the armors bearing of General Washington*, is "the ensign for the nations" or the ensign of the model republic !
Senator Samuel Bell was the most prominent in getting Grandfathers * Then properly called "Father of his Country." May all his children imitate his virtues.

name "restored" to the Pension List, Senator Bell was a distinguished lawyer and the foremost of all the New Hampshire Bells of his day and generation. But his highest plume shall be that old Pension certificate . He apparently labored long and hard for it and it was granted to him on his fifty eighth birthday . the 9th of February 1828 He commenced the restoration and under God as I believe another Bell finished it. This other Bell is a Philadelphia lawyer , a very eloquent speaker , and, although he has split his mouth telling the American people that they are fully God's chosen people and should obey his commands , his voice will soon be heard . This other Bell also had a birthday present I believe. It strikes me that

of the one who was separate from his brothers inherited my share in the old homestead according to the Declaration of Inde- pendence and the inscription on the of old Liberty Bell , and 1876 was my jubilee year. The old Bell became in one way the property of the Nation in 1776, and when he was a hundred years old like Abraham at the birth of Isaac, he had a man child born to him in whom his seed shall be called . It is Burnham and not Burnam that wins this time. A part of the Book of Joshua has been compared to the Dooms Day Book of the Norman Conquerors of England. The Normans introduced surnames into England, they grew out of landed estates . If you will examine surnames you will probably find that the name which I have the honor to rep- resent was the representative name at the English Survey eight hundred years ago. Now there will probably be a grand na- tional survey in this country and the peo- ple will all be Burnhams , real estate will be fixed in every family so as not to be permanently alienable and absolute pauperism  abolished . This should be done for the sake of Hein who is the Antitype of the Jewish High Priest. It is desirable for industrious Barons are preferable to Knights of Labor or bloated capitalists. The framers of the Constitution in prohibiting titles of nobility meant that the people should all be nobles . C. A. B.

LAW DIVISION.
In the matter of the appeal of
Name, Chas. A. Burnham , Department of the Interior,
Service, May. Col. Brooks' Mass BUREAU OF PENSIONS,
Reg. Perdutimany War
Number, 11.104
Washington, D. C., May 10, 1887
SIR:
Herewith are transmitted the papers in the above claim, together with the decision of the Secretary of the Interior, under date of 5 th Inst. upon the appeal had therein.
You are advised that the action of this office is affirmed
Very respectfully,
James Wilson
LAW CLERK. Law Clerk.
Gen. Cook Chief of P. M. M. Div.

This Bureau can furnish the military record of only such Revolutionary soldiers as were pensioned or whose widows were pensioned for their services.
Such of the original muster and pay rolls of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 as are now in the possession of the Government are on file in the Record and Pension Office, War Department. Original rolls and other records pertaining to service in the Revolutionary War may also be found on file in the archives of many of the original States.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BUREAU OF PENSIONS,
WASHINGTON, D. C.,
O. W. & N. DIV, REVOLUTIONARY.
December 17th, 1897.
Sir:-
I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of communications from Mr. Charles A. Burnham, relative to the pension claim of his grandfather John Burnham, an officer in the Revolutionary war, and to state that John Burnham was pensioned at $20.00 per month under the Act of March 18th, 1818, and his name was subsequently suspended from the pension roll by operation of the Act of May 1st, 1820, as his available property was, by the then Secretary of War, deemed sufficient for the support of himself and family.
Your correspondent, Mr. Charles A. Burnham, charges that the suspension of his grandfather's name was illegal, and as his heir, claims the amount of pension that should have been paid his grandfather from March 1st, 1820, date of suspension, to March 3rd, 1826, when it appears that his name was restored to the rolls under another act.
Communications, similar to those referred by you, have at various times been filed by Mr. Charles A. Burnham and upon an appeal made by him, the Hon Secretary of the Interior rendered a decision May 5, 1890, affirming the action of this Bureau.

This Bureau is powerless to grant any relief and Mr. Burnham has the right if he believes he has any title to the pension, to apply to the U. S. Commissioners of Claims or the Supreme Court of the United States.
I enclose, herewith, a copy of the decision referred to.
Very respectfully,
First Deputy Commissioner.
Hon. W. E. Chandler,
United States Senate.

M.B.
Old war
Copy of letter sent with Verbal amendments
Department of the Interior. PENSION OFFICE.
Washington, D.C. June 7. 1883
Sir,
Your letter of 23 d ult. is received relative to the pension under the act of March 18. 1818, to your grandfather, John Burnham, an officer in the war of the revolution, the payment of which was suspended by the operation of the act of May 1. 1820. Under the latter act, it was necessary for him, in order to obtain a restoration of his pension, to file a schedule of his property which he did soon after the passage of the law. It specified that he was in possession of 3 farms, aggregating 165 acres, 47 head of cattle, horses, sheep &c with a very good supply of farming utensils & household furniture. This amount of available property was deemed sufficient for the support of himself & family, without the aid of the pension, & he was advised of the adverse decision. On his schedule was an endorsement in red ink of 10.024 as the number of his pension certificate, instead of 11.104, and the writer of the letter, which you allude to, copied this erroneous number.
Subsequently, he was allowed a pension of 600 per annum commencing March 3. 1826 under another act, containing no provision as to the amount of property the applicant might possess. That there was no error in withholding his first pension is evident from the papers on file and it is certain that his pension would not be restored as long as he was in possession of the represented property represented in his schedule.
The holder of the pension certificate N o 11.024 had his pension restored was not deprived of his pension for the reason that the schedule of his property amounted to but $54.75.
much
Was
Was it

Old war Div. D. N. P. Ex't. No. Co. _____ Reg't _____
Department of the Interior. BUREAU OF PENSIONS.
Washington, D.C. June 4 th , 1889
n
Return this letter with your reply.
Sir,
In answer to your communication of the 22 d ult. addressed to the Secretary of the Interior, by him referred to this Bureau, I have to state that after you had been repeatedly informed that there was no law existing, under which you would be entitled to arrears on account of the pension allowed to John Burnham, an officer in the war of the Revolution, you appealed to the Secretary of the Interior, who affirmed that action, consequently, the claim cannot be favorably considered.
Very respectfully
James P. Turner
Commissioner
Mr Charles A Burnham Derry Rockingham Co N. H.

Old war Div. D.S.3. Ex'r No. Co. _____ Reg't _____
Department of the Interior. BUREAU OF PENSIONS.
Washington, D.C. November 18, 1889
Return this letter with your reply.
Sir,
In reply to your communication of the 14 th ultimo, relative to your claim for arrears of pension, which you have alleged to be due John Burnham, an officer in the war of the Revolution, I have to state that as it contains no statement or evidence than what has heretofore been fully considered, the former adverse action has not been changed.
Very respectfully
Yuan B. Raum Commissioner
Mr Charles A. Burnham Derry Rockingham County N.H.

(2nd copy)
1890 MAY 7 J. H. [unintelligible]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, May 5th, 1890.
Docket No. 1146--1886.
Adjudicated Pension Claim of
John Burnham,
Major in Col. Brooks Regt. (Rev. War),
Cert. No. 11,104.
 ) Motion for reconsideration.  )  )  ) Action affirmed.  )  ) 
----
The Commissioner of Pensions.
Sir:
The papers in the above entitled case are herewith returned. They were sent here upon a motion filed by Charles A. Burnham, a grandson of the pensioner, asking for a reconsideration of former departmental decisions adverse to his claim for some pension which he thinks was unjustly withheld from his grandfather.
The facts as set forth in your report of March 5th, 1887, are these: "Pension at the rate of $20 per month was allowed John Burnham, to commence April 7, 1818. Payment of pension was

"suspended under the act of May 1, 1820. By the provisions of said act "it was necessary for the pensioner to file a schedule of his "property in order to remove suspension and resume payment, which "he complied with soon after the passage of the act. The schedule "filed shows that the pensioner then owned 165 acres of land and "necessary farming implements and stock. This amount of available "property was deemed sufficient, by the then Hon. Secretary of War, "to render a support for the pensioner and his family and the "pension was discontinued as provided by the act. x x x It appears "from the old jacket, as per endorsement thereon, that his name "was restored to the roll from February 8, 1828."
The appellant, Charles Burnham, thinks that the discontinuance of his grandfather's pension was an error, and upon that theory he (as legal representative of the pensioner) bases a claim for the amount of pension withheld and interest upon the same up to the present time. He also claims that a farm, which his grandfather was compelled to dispose of before his pension was restored, should be restored to him and that he should receive money compensation for damage sustained by his grandfather in the premature sale of a mortgage which the latter held upon some land in Ohio,

and which he was compelled to dispose of at a sacrifice owing to the deprivation of his pension. There are claims for other damages which he considers just and equitable, but forbears to press.
From your refusal to allow the aforesaid claims he appealed in 1886.
The Department then made a careful examination of the evidence and held:
1. That the action of the Secretary of War in withholding Major Burnham's pension was not error. 2. That this Department has no jurisdiction to consider a question of damages suffered in consequence of a pension being withheld.
The appellant having reiterated the grounds of his complaint, in a lengthy communication, was, on the 29th of June, 1887, informed that nothing more could be done for him in this Department and that, if he believed he had suffered a wrong, he must seek some other tribunal for his supposed remedy.
Under date of January 25, 1888, he addressed to the Department a second motion for reconsideration of his appeal, containing no new point whatever, except a demand that the Depart-

ment lay the whole case before Congress--a demand which the Department declined to comply with.
His latest communication, dated June 11, 1889, which has been treated as a motion for reconsideration, is simply a reiteration of his fancied grievances, with a request that, if there is any doubt about his case, it be referred to the U.S. Court of Claims or Supreme Court.
The claim for reimbursement on account of financial losses of the appellant's grandfather supposed to have resulted from the discontinuance of his pension, needs no serious consideration. The gist of the remaining claim is that there is due to said appellant's grandfather, and unpaid, a certain amount of pension which was erroneously and unlawfully withheld from him by the Secretary of War, and which he (the appellant) is entitled to receive.
The Department, after careful consideration, finds no basis for such a claim. The Act of May 1, 1820, made it the duty of the Secretary of War to strike from the list of pensioners the names of such persons as, in his opinion , were shown, by the schedules of property exhibited, to be not in such indigent

circumstances as to be unable to support themselves without the assistance of their country. In striking from said list the name of John Burnham, whose schedule showed him possessed of 165 acres of land, 47 head of cattle, horses, sheep &c. , with a very good supply of farming utensils and household furniture, the Secretary was simply exercising the discretionary power vested in him by law. With the argument against the constitutionality of that law this Department has no concern, nor is it authorized to refer such a matter to the Court of Claims or the Supreme Court. The appellant totally misapprehends the functions and limitations of the several departments of the government.
The question presented resolves itself into this: Did the Secretary of War commit an error of judgment in holding that the aforesaid John Burnham was not in such indigent circumstances as to be unable to support himself?
It is the well settled policy of this Department not to consider appeals relating to matters of judgment or discretion settled under former administrations. This rule applies with peculiar force to a case of this kind, where the action complained of was taken a great many years ago, at a time when the business

to which it pertained was under the control of another Department, and where the party immediately interested has long since died.
But since the facts in the case have been incidentally brought to this Department's attention, it has no hesitancy in saying that it is clearly of the opinion that the action of the Secretary of War was right, and that under the act of May 1, 1820, John Burnham was not entitled to a continuance of his pension, so long as he was in possession of the property disclosed in his exhibit filed in July 1820.
The Department will go further, and state that even if the evidence showed that an error was committed, and that the name of the pensioner ought not to have been dropped from the pension roll, there is no law under which his name could now be restored and the accrued pension paid to his grandson, nor is there any fund out of which money for such a purpose could be paid.
It is trusted, therefore, that the appellant will perceive the uselessness of sending further communications upon the subject to this Department.
Very respectfully,
Gymn Bussey Assistant Secretary.

1/193 Rally
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, February 4, 1888,
In re
CHARLES A. BURNHAM, Grandson of ) John Burnham, Major in Col. ) Brook's Regiment, Revolution- ) ary War. )
SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
Motion Denied.
Certificate #11,104.) Docket #1146-1886. )
-----0000000000-----
Commissioner of Pensions,
Sir:
A motion for reconsideration was made by the claimant after the affirmance of your rejection of his claim and the same was denied as per Departmental letter of June 29, 1887, a copy of which it appears has been sent to the appellant.
Under date of Jan. 25, 1888, the appellant addressed to this Department a second motion for reconsideration of his appeal, containing no new point whatever except that he now demands that this Department lay the whole case before Congress.
You will please inform him by means of a copy of this letter, herewith transmitted, that this Department most respect-

fully refuses the demand. Its province is not to act as attorney, either for or against a pension, but simple to administer the law upon each claim as it may be found to have been enacted. This has been done in the present instance, and the claimant has no ground of complaint either as to the justice or the courtesy with which he has been treated, notwithstanding the continuance of a correspondence so obviously unnecessary.
There is nothing that calls for a reopening of this case by the Department.
The motion is therefore respectfully denied.
Very respectfully,
D. L. Hawkins Assistant Secretary.
Docket #1146-1886.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BUREAU OF PENSIONS,
WASHINGTON, D. C., May 5th, 1890.
Docket No.1146--1386.
Adjudicated Pension Claim of
John Burnham,
Major in Col.Brooks Regt.(Rev.War),
Cert. No.11,104.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
)Motion for reconsideration.
)Action affirmed.
---oOo---
The Commissioner of Pensions.
Sir:
The papers in the above entitled case are herewith returned. They were sent here upon a motion filed by Charles Burnham, a grandson of the pensioner, asking for a reconsideration of former departmental decisions adverse to his claim for some pension which he thinks was unjustly withheld from his grandfather.
The facts as set forth in your report of March 5th, 1887, are these: "Pension at the rate of $20 per month was allowed John Burnham, to commence April 7, 1818. Payment of pension was suspended under act of May 1, 1820. By the provisions of said act it was necessary for the pensioner to file a schedule of his property in order to remove suspension and resume payment, which he complied with soon after the passage of the act. The

"schedule filed shows that the pensioner then owned 165 acres of "land and necessary farming implements and stock. This amount of "available property was deemed sufficient, by the then Hon. Sec- "retary of War, to render a support for the pensioner and his "family and the pension was discontinued as provided by the act. "x x x It appears from the old jacket, as per endorsement "thereon, that his name was restored to the roll from February 8, "1828."
The appellant, Charles Burnham, thinks that the discontinu- ance of his grandfather's pension was an error, and upon that theory he (as legal representative of the pensioner) bases a claim for the amount of pension withheld and interest upon the same up to the present time. He also claims that a farm, which his grand- father was compelled to dispose of before his pension was restored, should be restored to him and that he should receive money com- pensation for damage sustained by his grandfather in the premature sale of a mortgage which the latter held upon some land in Ohio, and which he was compelled to dispose of at a sacrifice owing to the deprivation of his pension. There are claims for other dam- ages which he considers just and equitable, but forbears to press.
From your refusal to allow the aforesaid claims he appealed in 1886.

The Department then made a careful examination of the evidence and held:
1. That the action of the Secretary of War in withholding Major Burnham's pension was not error. 2. That this Department has no jurisdiction to consider a question of damages suffered in consequence of a pension being withheld.
The appellant having reiterated the grounds of his complaint, in a lengthy communication, was, on the 29th of June, 1887, informed that nothing more could be done for him in this Department and that, if he believed he had suffered a wrong, he must seek some other tribunal for his supposed remedy.
Under date of January 25, 1888, he addressed to the Department a second motion for reconsideration of his appeal, containing no new point whatever, except a demand that the Department lay the whole case before Congress--a demand which the Department declined to comply with.
His latest communication, dated June 11, 1889, which has been treated as a motion for reconsideration, is simply a reiteration of his fancied grievances, with a request that, if there is any doubt about his case, it be referred to the U. S. Court of Claims or Supreme Court.

The claim for reimbursement on account of financial losses of the appellant's grandfather supposed to have resulted from the discontinuance of his pension, needs no serious consideration. The gist of the remaining claim is that there is due to said appellant's grandfather, and unpaid, a certain amount of pension which was erroneously and unlawfully withheld from him by the Secretary of War, and which he (the appellant) is entitled to receive.
The Department, after careful consideration, finds no basis for such a claim. The Act of May 1, 1820, made it the duty of the Secretary of War to strike from the list of pensioners the names of such persons as, in his opinion , were shown, by the schedules of property exhibited, to be not in such indigent circumstances as to be unable to support themselves without the assistance of their country. In striking from said list the name of John Burnham, whose schedule showed him possessed of 165 acres of land, 47 head of cattle, horses, sheep &c., with a very good supply of farming utensils and household furniture, the Secretary was simply exercising the discretionary power vested in him by law. With the argument against the constitutionality of that law this Department has no concern, nor is it authorized to refer such a

matter to the Court of Claims or the Supreme Court. The appellant totally misapprehends the functions and limitations of the several departments of the government.
The question presented resolves itself into this: Did the Secretary of War commit an error of judgment in holding that the aforesaid John Burnham was not in such indigent circumstances as to be unable to support himself?
It is the well settled policy of this Department not to consider appeals relating to matters of judgment or discretion settled under former administrations. This rule applies with peculiar force to a case of this kind, where the action complained of was taken a great many years ago, at a time when the business to which it pertained was under the control of another Department, and where the party immediately interested has long since died.
But since the facts in the case have been incidentally brought to this Department's attention, it has no hesitancy in saying that it is clearly of the opinion that the action of the Secretary of War was right, and that under the act of May 1, 1820, John Burnham was not entitled to a continuance of his pension, so long as he was in possession of the property disclosed in his exhibit filed in July 1820.

(6)
The Department will go further, and state that even if the evidence showed that an error was committed, and that the name of the pensioner ought not to have been dropped from the pension roll, there is no law under which his name could now be restored and the accrued pension paid to his grandson, nor is there any fund out of which money for such a purpose could be paid.
It is trusted, therefore, that the appellant will perceive the uselessness of sending further communications upon the subject to this Department.
Very respectfully,
Cyrus Bussey,
Assistant Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BUREAU OF PENSIONS,
WASHINGTON, D. C., May 5th, 1890.
Docket No.1146--1886.
Adjudicated Pension Claim of
John Burnham,
Major in Col.Brooks Regt.(Rev.War),
Cert. No.11,104.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
)Motion for reconsideration.
)Action affirmed.
---oOo---
The Commissioner of Pensions.
Sir:
The papers in the above entitled case are herewith returned. They were sent here upon a motion filed by Charles Burnham, a grandson of the pensioner, asking for a reconsideration of former departmental decisions adverse to his claim for some pension which he thinks was unjustly withheld from his grandfather.
The facts as set forth in your report of March 5th, 1887, are these: "Pension at the rate of $20 per month was allowed John Burnham, to commence April 7, 1818. Payment of pension was suspended under act of May 1, 1820. By the provisions of said act it was necessary for the pensioner to file a schedule of his property in order to remove suspension and resume payment, which he complied with soon after the passage of the act. The

"schedule filed shows that the pensioner then owned 165 acres of "land and necessary farming implements and stock. This amount of "available property was deemed sufficient, by the then Hon. Sec- "retary of War, to render a support for the pensioner and his "family and the pension was discontinued as provided by the act. "x x x It appears from the old jacket, as per endorsement "thereon, that his name was restored to the roll from February 8, "1828."
The appellant, Charles Burnham, thinks that the discontinu- ance of his grandfather's pension was an error, and upon that theory he (as legal representative of the pensioner) bases a claim for the amount of pension withheld and interest upon the same up to the present time. He also claims that a farm, which his grand- father was compelled to dispose of before his pension was restored, should be restored to him and that he should receive money com- pensation for damage sustained by his grandfather in the premature sale of a mortgage which the latter held upon some land in Ohio, and which he was compelled to dispose of at a sacrifice owing to the deprivation of his pension. There are claims for other dam- ages which he considers just and equitable, but forbears to press.
From your refusal to allow the aforesaid claims he appealed in 1886.

The Department then made a careful examination of the evidence and held:
1. That the action of the Secretary of War in withholding Major Burnham's pension was not error.
2. That this Department has no jurisdiction to consider a question of damages suffered in consequence of a pension being withheld.
The appellant having reiterated the grounds of his complaint, in a lengthy communication, was, on the 29th of June, 1887, informed that nothing more could be done for him in this Department and that, if he believed he had suffered a wrong, he must seek some other tribunal for his supposed remedy.
Under date of January 25, 1888, he addressed to the Department a second motion for reconsideration of his appeal, containing no new point whatever, except a demand that the Department lay the whole case before Congress--a demand which the Department declined to comply with.
His latest communication, dated June 11, 1889, which has been treated as a motion for reconsideration, is simply a reiteration of his fancied grievances, with a request that, if there is any doubt about his case, it be referred to the U. S. Court of Claims or Supreme Court.

The claim for reimbursement on account of financial losses of the appellant's grandfather supposed to have resulted from the discontinuance of his pension, needs no serious consideration. The gist of the remaining claim is that there is due to said appellant's grandfather, and unpaid, a certain amount of pension which was erroneously and unlawfully withheld from him by the Secretary of War, and which he (the appellant) is entitled to receive.
The Department, after careful consideration, finds no basis for such a claim. The Act of May 1, 1820, made it the duty of the Secretary of War to strike from the list of pensioners the names of such persons as, in his opinion , were shown, by the schedules of property exhibited, to be not in such indigent circumstances as to be unable to support themselves without the assistance of their country. In striking from said list the name of John Burnham, whose schedule showed him possessed of 165 acres of land, 47 head of cattle, horses, sheep &c., with a very good supply of farming utensils and household furniture, the Secretary was simply exercising the discretionary power vested in him by law. With the argument against the constitutionality of that law this Department has no concern, nor is it authorized to refer such a

matter to the Court of Claims or the Supreme Court. The appellant totally misapprehends the functions and limitations of the several departments of the government.
The question presented resolves itself into this: Did the Secretary of War commit an error of judgment in holding that the aforesaid John Burnham was not in such indigent circumstances as to be unable to support himself?
It is the well settled policy of this Department not to consider appeals relating to matters of judgment or discretion settled under former administrations. This rule applies with peculiar force to a case of this kind, where the action complained of was taken a great many years ago, at a time when the business to which it pertained was under the control of another Department, and where the party immediately interested has long since died.
But since the facts in the case have been incidentally brought to this Department's attention, it has no hesitancy in saying that it is clearly of the opinion that the action of the Secretary of War was right, and that under the act of May 1, 1820, John Burnham was not entitled to a continuance of his pension, so long as he was in possession of the property disclosed in his exhibit filed in July 1820.

(6)
The Department will go further, and state that even if the evidence showed that an error was committed, and that the name of the pensioner ought not to have been dropped from the pension roll, there is no law under which his name could now be restored and the accrued pension paid to his grandson, nor is there any fund out of which money for such a purpose could be paid.
It is trusted, therefore, that the appellant will perceive the uselessness of sending further communications upon the subject to this Department.
Very respectfully,
Cyrus Bussey,
Assistant Secretary.