Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File R. 13, David Brown, Va. Sea Service

SERVICE
NUMBER
Va. Sea Service
Brown, David
R
Va. Half-Pay
CONTENTS
W. & H. photo litho for the d. about 1898

At a Court continued and held for Elizabeth City County. November 24 th 1849.
Ordered That it has been made to appear to the Court by satisfactory evidence That David Brown, now dec. d late of the County of Elizabeth City in the State of Virginia who was a Surgeon in the State Navy of Virginia in the war of the Revolution and who served as such to the end of said war. died sometime in the year seventeen hundred and ninety eight or thereabouts without ever being married and left as his heir at law the following persons to wit: William Brown who was his only heir at law. The said William Brown died and left two sons, his only children and heirs at law to wit: John Brown and Richard Brown. The said John Brown died and left William S. Brown and Mary Brown now the wife of James Burcher as his only heirs at law. The said William S. Brown is aged about forty eight years and resides in the Town of Petersburg in this State. The said Mary Burcher is aged about forty four years and now resides with her husband the said James Burcher in the said County of Elizabeth City. The said Richard Brown died and left the following children to wit: his only heirs at law. Jane K. Masonburg, now the wife of James Masonburg both of whom now reside in the said County of Elizabeth City. Elizabeth M. The wife of John Young both of whom now reside in the said County of Elizabeth City. Susan M. Brown single lady. Sarah Ann the wife of Thomas Whitfield both of whom now reside in the City of Norfolk in the State of Virginia and John W. Brown who now resides in the said County of Elizabeth City. The said Jane K. Masonburg is aged about forty four years. The said Elizabeth M. Young is aged about thirty six years. The said Susan M. Brown is aged about thirty four years. The said Sarah Ann Whitfield is aged about thirty two years and the said John W. Brown is aged about twenty six years.
A Copy Teste G. G. Howard Clk.

Virginia, Elizabeth City County to wit:
I, Samuel S. Howard, Clerk of the Court for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true transcript from the records of my Office —
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal of Office the 24 th day of November in the year 1849 —
S. S. Howard clk.
"15

"A"
Letter to Henry Whiting 8 Oct 1857 rejecting claim -

To His Excellency Lyttleton Waller Paynwell Gov r of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the petition of Noah Brown a resident of the State of New Jersey, respectfully represents - that he is the son of the late David Brown who was killed about fifty years ago by the Indians, in the western part of the State of New York - that his said father resided in the time of the Revolution, in the State of New York - that he entered the service of the United States in time of said war, and went to the South, and was engaged, (as your petitioner has ever understood and believes in the service of the State of Virginia, but in what capacity he is unable to say - Your petitioner was only about 8 or 10 years old at the close of the Revolution, and his said father being killed a very short time after his return from Virginia, he was deprived of an opportunity of learning much of his father's services - He recollects of often hearing his mother say, that his father was several years in service in Virginia -
He states that his father died intestate, and left eighteen children, most of whom have died and left children, which are now residents of several states & with the names of all which, your petitioner is not acquainted, nor has he time now to ascertain their names before the law granting an appropriation of land will expire. He therefore begs that your Excellency will consider his case, and if any bounty land shall be due for the services of his said father, that your Excellency will order the Register of the Land Office to issue his warrant for the same, to the heirs  Noah Brown.

State of New Jersey. Essex County, ss.
Before me John J. Plume one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas for the County of Essex, personally appeared Noah Brown, who being duly sworn according to law, on his oath, saith that the statements within mentioned & subscribed by him, are in all things correct and true, to the best of his knowledge, and belief.
Sworn & subscribed before } Noah Brown me this thirteenth day of July 1835 } J. J. Plume Judge
I do hereby certify that I am personally acquainted with the above mentioned Noah Brown. that he is a resident of the town of Newark, in the county of Essex, and a man of strict veracity. and implicit confidence may be placed in his statements.
J. J. Plume
I certify, that I belonged to the Navy of Virginia in the time of the Revolutionary war, and served on board of the ship Dragon, in the capacity of clerk and Midshipman. I further certify that I now have in my possession the original book of the said ship Dragon, & that David Brown stands charged on the said book as Surgeon of said ship with pay from the 21 st July 1777 to the 3 rd May 1778. and that the said book then shews that he s d Brown was turned over to the ship

Partar. I was acquainted with said Brown & saw him in or about the year 1783- or 1784- in the City of New York.
David Henderson
Corporation of Fredericksburg - State of Virginia - to wit:
David Henderson personally appeared before the subscriber a magistrate for the Corporation aforesaid, and made oath that the above certificate contains the truth, according to the best of his recollection.
Given under my hand this 29 day of July 1835.
Sam Horison J.P.
The affidavit of Anne Payne, taken this 23 rd day of January 1851- before me - a justice of the peace in and for the said county. The said Anne Payne being duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that she knew well and intimately Doctor David Brown of the County of Elizabeth City in the state of Virginia - that the said David Brown was, to her knowledge, a surgeon of one of the regiments of the Virginia Navy, the name of which she does not now recollect, from early in the war of the Revolution, till the Navy was laid up. She cannot state with precision the time of his service, but has no doubt that he served more than three years - And further this affiant saith not.
Sworn to by Anne Payne before me a justice of the peace in and for the county aforesaid, the day and year first before written.
J. M. Willis J. P.

Extracts from the Journal of the Navy Board.
Thursday October 9 th 1777.
Present.
Mr. Whiting, Mr. Archer and Mr. Lewis.
Ordered - that D r M c Clurg be desired to furnish D r Brown of the Dragon Galley, with such medicines as he may think necessary for the use of the said Galley.
From page 295.
Thursday the 25 th day of August 1778.
Ordered - that D r M c Clurg deliver to D r Brown such medicines as he may think necessary, for the use of the ship Dragon.
From page 454.
Wednesday the 26 th day of August 1778.
Ordered - that the Keeper of the public store deliver to D r Brown twelve pounds of coffee, one pound tea, fifty weight sugar, two dozen bottles of wine for the use of the sick on board the ship Dragon.
From page 455.
Thursday the 17 th day of December 1778.
Ordered - that D r Brown have leave of absence from the service of the Navy - till the last of this month. From page 520.
The above entries are truly copied from the Navy Journal. Given under my hand at the Auditor's Office -
Redmond the 23 rd day of November 1850. R o Johnston First auditor.

Report on the claim of the heirs of Dr. David Brown, Surgeon, State Navy, for bounty land for his services. To the Governor.
Sir.
The facts in this case are - that Dr. David Brown was Surgeon on board the Dragon at least from July 21. 1777, to the 17 January 1779 - (David Henderson esq.) of Fredericksburg, who was Midshipman and clerk of the Dragon , who in his possession the book of that vessel, has made afft. to the fact, that Dr. Brown stands charged with pay as Surgeon of the said vessel from July 21 1777, to May 3 d 1778 (see the affidavit of Mr. Henderson.) That he appears from sundry orders of the Navy Board, made respecting him, to have been Surgeon in the Navy, from Oct. 9. 1777, to Jan. 17. 1779. (See orders of the Navy Board - Navy Journal - pages 295 - 383 - 454 - 455 - 457 - 458 - 520 -) after his services on board the Dragon were performed, he was turned over to the Tartar . We do not know how long he served in the Tartar - or in other vessels of the State Navy - It does not appear that he ever resigned his commission. He probably served on board the Tartar , until she was turned over to the Board of Trade, in the summer of 1780 - or until he was discharged or became supernumerary, by the reduction of the officers of the Navy, pursuant to the resolution and acts of the General Assembly - The journals of the Navy Board were perfect,

records of the resignation of officers from the highest to the lowest in Commission. They do not furnish any proof of the resignation of Dr. Brown, I therefore consider that the fact may be fairly presumed, that Dr. Brown did not resign -
The Surgeons and Surgeon's mates were so often transferred from vessel to vessel, that it is a difficult task to trace them in their service. This difficulty is very much increased by the loss of the papers of many of the vessels of the State Navy -
Under all these circumstances I have thought that I ought to presume in favor of this claim - & to report the heirs of Dr. Brown entitled to bounty land for his services for 3 years -
Respectfully submitted
Jno. H. Smith Comm. v c
August 13 th 1855
Executive Department
Richmond Va May 31. 1857.
I hereby certify that the foregoing are true copies of papers filed in this department.
W. Richardson

60, Commissioner of Pensions
2 March 1853
Supplemental Report in the half pay case of Surgeon David Brown.
act 5 July 1832
Deposition of Lemuel Jenhup enclosed.
Clear
Rec. Mch. 3. 1853.

Pension Office 2 March 1853
Sir
When my Report in the half-pay case of Dr David Brown, under the act of 5 July 1832, was submitted on the 17 th of last month, I accidentally overlooked the enclosed deposition of Lemuel Fentrop, which had been previously filed by Mr Ellis. I do not regard it however as giving any strength to the claim, for it proves nothing but what has already been admitted - to wit: that Dr Brown was at one time in service, in the Virginia State Navy. Moreover the recollections of the witness cannot be very accurate, for he swears that he knew Dr Brown some years after the war and that he (Dr B) died in Elizabeth City County, Virginia - whereas Dr Browns own son declares under oath that his father was killed by the Indians in the State of New York about fifty years before the date of his application for bounty land, which would fix the period of his death in 1785.
I have the honor to be
Very respectfully
Yr obdt Servt
J E Keating
Comr Pensions
Hon. A H H Stuart Secretary of the Interior

To James E Heath Esq
Sir, I herewith present the claim of the adm. of Dock. Maria Brown, for halfpay under act 5 July 1832.
The following evidence is presented herewith, the deposition of Maria Henderson who was a midshipman in the Va State Navy before the services of Dr Brown on board the Dragon in 1778 to 1 st Jany 1779 about which time he was turned over to the Ship Tartar.
Mr Payn's deposition proving that Dr Brown was Surgeon till the Navy was laid up.
Orders from the Navy Board in 1777 & 1778 showing his services by the record.
Smith's report allowing him half pay on the foregoing testimony.
Respectfully Submitted
William Ellis Atty of the adm

65. / Com t of Pensions
18 March 1853
Supplemental Report in the half pay case of Dr David Brown Va State Navy, enclosing additional evidence.
act 5 July 1832
M. Clegg
Rec d March 19, 1853

Pension Office 18 March 1853
Sir
I have the honor to enclose herewith some additional evidence obtained from Richmond in relation to the half-pay case of Dr David Brown now pending before you on an appeal. This evidence was sent some weeks ago, but owing to some accidental cause has just been received. An examination of it will show that in the month of October 1779 John Swope was Surgeon on board the Dragon, and of course Dr Brown could not, at the same time, have been acting in that capacity.
I have the honor to be Very respectfully Yr obedt servt J. E. Heath Comm Pension
✓ Hon. R. M c Clelland Secretary of the Interior

Know all men by these presents that I Henry Whiting admr. of David Brown dec d who was a surgeon in the war of the Revolution, do hereby constitute nominate and appoint Thomas Moore of the city of Norfolk, my attorney to prosecute any claim for  warrant to land or money that may be due from the State of Virginia or the United States or from either on account of the Revolutionary services of the said David Brown dec d . Said Thomas Moore is authorized to prosecute by suit or petition, for any half pay or commutation and interest that may be due by the State of Virginia & the United States or by either of them, particularly by the act of July 5. 1832, and to substitute and appoint one or more attorneys under him for the purposes aforesaid, said prosecutions carried on at the expense of said Thos Moore, and when any claim for land warrant or money, pay half pay or commutation, and interest for the services of the said David Brown as aforesaid shall be established against the State of Virginia and the United States or either, the said Thos Moore or his substitute if authorized by him, may and he is hereby authorized to receive one fourth, of all such land warrant or warrants half pay commutation and interest, which may be so established, the remaining three fourths, be subject alone to the order of the admr. of the estate of said David Brown dec d . In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this, 20 th day of March. AD 1850.
Henry Whiting admr of David Brown dec d State of Virginia, Elizabeth City County. I Pro. A. Grinstead a justice of the peace in and for the county aforesaid in the state of Virginia, do hereby certify that Henry Whiting whose name is subscribed to the foregoing power of attorney, and who is personally known to me, this day personally appeared before me in my county aforesaid and acknowledged the foregoing power of attorney to be his act and deed. Given under my hand this 25 th day of March 1850. Pro. A. Grinstead

Virginia, Elizabeth City County to wit:
I, Samuel S. Howard, Clerk of the Courts for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Robert A. Armistead whose name is signed to the foregoing acknowledgment, is a justice of the peace for the said County, legally qualified to administer oaths and that the signature purporting to be his is genuine.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal of office this 25 th day of March 1850. J. J. Howard clk.
Know all men by these presents that I Thomas Moore of the City of Norfolk by virtue of the within power of Attorney to appoint or substitute one or more Attorney in my name and stead do hereby appoint Richard Burgess my true and lawful Attorney for me and in my name to do all I am permitted to do in the within power of Attorney As witness my hand and seal this 13 th day of May 1850. Thomas Moore
State of Virginia, City of Norfolk, ss:
On this thirteenth day of May A.D. 1850, personally appeared before me in my City aforesaid Thomas Moore whose name is subscribed to the above power of Attorney and acknowledged the same to be his voluntary act and deed.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my seal the day and year first above written.
Edwin P. Hatcher Notary Public.

Pension Office, July 6. 1853
Sir,
The claim of the heirs of Surgeon David Brown, having been again referred to me this Office, it has been carefully examined, and I herewith report as follows:
That the documentary evidence establishing the services of Dr. Brown comes down only to the 17 th of December, 1878. at which time an order appears, taken from the Journal of the Navy Board of Virginia, granting him leave of absence for the remainder of the month. Some previous entries in the same journal, also some proof from the books of the 'Dragon', prove the service of Dr. Brown from July 21 st 1877 until December 17 th 1878. The evidence of the witness Handusan is less satisfactory than it would have been, if, instead of stating the substance of the ship's book in his possession, he had set forth the entries relating to Dr. Brown, literally. But adopting his statements as they are given, it is observed that he states that the books shews "that he, said Brown, was turned over to the

Ship Ship Tartar."
In order to entitle the Officer or soldier to half pay, the Statute of Virginia of 1779 required a continued service until the end of the war, or until he became supernumerary by the act of the State.
Omitting, for the present, the parole proof, the documentary evidence of Dr. Brown's service ceases, as before stated, on the 17 th of December 1778, or about the period of his supposed transfer to the Tartar.
Now, upon the evidence of these entries alone, could a reasonable presumption of service be made, beyond this point? I think not. To presume, that he went on board the Tartar, or that he returned to the Dragon, and actually served for two years afterward, until the abandonment of the navy, in 1780, would be extending the theory of presumptions to a very great length, not warranted by the usages of this Department.
But even if such a presumption were otherwise admissible, it is greatly weakened, if not effectually destroyed, first, by the entire omission of the name of Dr. Brown, in all the subsequent

entries both of the Navy Board and the Board of War, to which the functions of the Navy Board were transferred, (See Records G.,) - secondly, by the entry from the Navy Journal, shewing that in nine months after the expiration of the furlough, Dr. Swope was the surgeon of the Dragon, and lastly, by the fact, that at the same time that John Swope was surgeon of the Dragon, that is, in the fall of 1779, (See Records AA.) Justice Livingston held the same post in the Tartar. So that from that time, at least, if Dr. Brown returned to the service at all, after his furlough, it must have been on some other vessel; a fact, which it is as necessary to shew by proper proof, as that he was in the service at all. On this point the reasoning of the late Commissioner is full and satisfactory. (See Opinion, 17 Feb. 1853.)
Is the void in the Records supplied by the affidavit of Mrs. Ann Payne?
Not to dwell with too great stress upon the doubtful character of the statement of a female, made at an age which in most

instances is the age of dotation, testifying in regard to a point so difficult to remember as the duration of the period of service of an officer who served seventy-three years ago - not to insist, unduly, or alone, on this grave objection - there are intrinsic objections to Mrs. Pyne's affidavit, which still further weaken its force, and show that it would be an unsafe basis of decision. First, the affidavit does not set forth any circumstances and details, by which the clearness of the recollection of events and dates is properly evidenced. Nothing is given, but a broad, general assertion. Secondly, her statement is erroneous, as is shown by the Navy Records, in this: these Records prove, as has been before stated, that Dr. Brown served on several vessels, if he served at all after the year 1778, as other surgeons were on the Dragon, and the Tartar, in 1779. But Mrs. Pyne, although she states, in general terms, that he served "until the said Navy was laid up," was ignorant of his being on more than one vessel . Her words are, "that the said David

Brown was, to her knowledge, a surgeon of one of the vessels of the Virginia Navy, the name of which she does not now recollect , from early in the war of the Revolution, till the Navy was laid up." And she adds, "she cannot state with precision the time of his service, but has no doubt that he served more than three years."
The inaccuracy of Mrs. Payne's recollection is quite manifest; for if Brown served on only one vessel, of which, from her language, she appears positive, then she is certainly mistaken in her belief that he served until the navy was abandoned; as he certainly left his very first station. Thus her testimony is not reliable, and must be discarded; for if she was mistaken in saying that he served on one vessel, (only,) no confidence can be placed in her statement as to the time of service.
I concur with the opinion of the late commissioner, that the opinion of the Virginia Land Commission, (Smith,) is not conclusive of this application; as I do in his general

Conclusion, that this claim ought to be rejected.
I have the honor to be
Yours ob t serv t .
J P Widdow
Commissioner
Hon. R. W. Willard
Secretary of the Interior

"C" Doc David Brown
Shuk Dragon 2
Doc Brown.

At a Court held for Elizabeth City County, February 28 th 1850
On the motion of Henry Whiting, who made oath, and together with William S. Slater, James Burcher, and John W. Brown, his securities, entered into and acknowledged a bond in the penalty of five thousand dollars, conditioned according to law, certificate is granted him for obtaining letters of administration on the estate of David Brown dec. d late a surgeon in the Virginia State Navy in the War of The Revolution, in due form — A Copy Test J. J. Howard clk.
Virginia, Elizabeth City County to wit:
I, Samuel S. Howard, Clerk of the Court for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the above is a true transcript from the records of my Office —
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal of Office this 25 th day of March 1850 —
J. J. Howard clk.

of a paper on file in this Department. It is a true copy M. Howard Asst. Sec Comth.
Paper A.A. filed with the Arguments of Appeal in the Virginia Half Pay case of Surgeon David Brown. " "

Monday 10 th February 1777.
Ordered that W m William Scott deliver unto Doct r Livingston two pounds Bark, two pounds Glauber Salts, one pound salts, one pound manna and four ounces Rhubarb for the use of the Sloop Scorpion (from page 174)
Wednesday 19 March 1777.
Ordered that Doct r W m Clurg deliver unto Doct r Justice Livingston half ounce of salts, half ounce of Jalap, half ounce of Ipecacuanna, 2 oz Conf. Cordia, 1 oz of Powders, 1/2 oz Pill ex Drob: 2 oz Tart. vit. and four ounces of flour of Sulphur for the use of the Sloop Scorpion (from page 193)
Saturday May 17. 1777.
Ordered that the Commanding Officer on board the Scorpion Sloop deliver to Doctor Julius Livingston, the Surgeon's Instruments, phials and such medicines as he may be in want of for the use of the Brig Northampton.
Wednesday May 21. 1777
Ordered that the Keeper of the Public Store deliver to Doctor Livingston for the use of the Brigantine Northampton, four yards of linen, upon his paying the money for the same (from page 22)
Tuesday 8 th September 1778.
Ordered that D r W m Clurg deliver D r Livingston such medicines as he may think necessary for the use of the Brigantine Northampton. (from page 467.)
Thursday 10 th September 1778.
Ordered that the Keeper of the Public Store, deliver to D r Livingston six pair of stockings for bandages for the use

of the Brigantine Northampton. (from page 470)
Wednesday 21 st October 1778.
Ordered that the Keeper of the Public Store deliver D r Livingston cloth for a suit of clothes and a great coat, two Blankets, a hat, one pair of shoes and seven yards check on his paying for the same (from page 489.)
Monday the 23 November 1778.
Ordered that D r M c Clurg deliver D r Livingston such medicines as he may want for the use of the sick on board the Brigantine Northampton. (from page 508)
Ordered that the Keeper of the Public Store deliver D r Livingston a quire paper, a hat, two pair of shoes, four yards of coarse cloth, ten yards of flannel, on his paying for the same, & ten pounds of Coffee & four pounds Tea for the sick on board the Brig e Northampton.
Tuesday 15 December 1778.
Ordered that the Keeper of the Public Store deliver D r Livingston two pounds of tea for the use of the Officers on board the Brigantine Northampton on his paying for the same. (from page 518)
Saturday 13 Feb. 1779.
Ordered that Captain Elliot deliver D r Livingston the medicine chest belonging to the Brig Northampton for the use of the Ship Tartar.
Ordered that D r Galt be directed to deliver D r Livingston medicine agreeable to the mem o sent.
Ordered that the Keeper of the Public Store deliver D r Livingston eight yards of flannel or Baize, seven yards of Linen, ten yards of Tape and a pound of Tea for the sick on Board of the Ship Tartar.
Ordered that W m Goodson deliver D r Livingston twenty w t rice for the sick on Board the Tartar. (from page 552.)

Tuesday 8. September 1778.
Ordered that the Keeper of the Public Store deliver to Dr. Livingston twenty five pounds of rice, one dozen bottles of wine, six pounds of Coffee, one pound of tea, thirty wt sugar and seven yards linen for the use of the sick on board the Brigantine Northampton. (from page 467.)
I certify the above are truly copied from the Navy Journal.
Given under my hand at the Auditor's Office Richmond, this 4 th day of November 1846.
Ja s E Heath Aud r P. Acc t .
Officers of the Ship Tartar: Allowance of Sugar & Coffee for 2 mo from 28 Sep to 28 Nov '79. W m Saunders Cap. 4 Coffee 12 Sugar W m Parker Lieut 2 ditto 12 Jno Topman Mast r 2 12 Justice Livingston Surg. 2 12
Board of Trade Mar 25. 1780.
The Ships Tartar & Dragon if immediately put under our direction will be a saving of several thousand Pounds to the State in the freight of the Tobaccos which the Executive engaged to deliver to Mr. Defsancy in York River.
J. Ambler Dun. Rose.
In Council Mar 25. 1780. The Ships Tartar & Dragon are transferred to the Board of Trade for the Commercial purposes of the State. Th. Jefferson.

I certify the foregoing are truly copied from 1 st Volume of Navy Papers now on file in this Office.
Given under my hand at the Auditor's Office Richmond this 4 th day of November 1846.
Jas. E. Heath Aud r P Acc ts .
These are to certify that Justice Livingston acted as Surgeon in the Virginia Navy for the term of three years successfully.
Given under my hand this 20 th July 1852.
John V. Kautzman Lieut.
Executive Department Richmond June 27. 1846.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a paper on file in this Department.
Th. Howard Asst. Sec Com te .
Paper A.A. Filed with the Department of State in the Virginia Navy case of Surgeon David Brown

No 198 Commissioner of Pensions 54.)
17 February 1853
Report in the case of the application for Half-pay of Surgeon David Brown: admt - on an appeal
act 5 July 1832
Clear
Recd July 18. 1853.

Pension Office 17 th February 1853
Sir
I have examined the claim of the representative of Surgeon David Brown of the Virginia State Navy for half pay under the act of 5 July 1832, and consider the evidence wholly insufficient to warrant its allowance.
The testimony filed to support this application will be found in paper marked A, and can be summed up as follows: viz:
Various extracts from the Navy Journals of Virginia are filed which show that Brown was a Surgeon in the Navy from the 9 th of Octo: 1777 to the 17 th of December 1777. There is no record proof of service after this latter date. Two affidavits are filed however, the substance of which can be thus briefly stated.
David Henderson, who was a Midshipman in the State Navy and Clerk of the ship Dragon, makes oath in 1835 that he has then in his possession the books of that vessel, and that it appears from them that David Brown was Surgeon of the Dragon from the 21 st of July 1777 to the 3 rd of May 1778, after which he was turned over to the ship Tartar.
Mrs Payne, an aged and respectable lady of Hampden, testified in 1851 that she was well acquainted

more than three years.
It will be observed, upon an analysis of the evidence, that with the exception of Mrs Paynes deposition there is nothing to show that Brown served in the Navy later than December 1778 - some four or five months prior to the passage of the act granting half-pay to the officers of the Army, and nearly eighteen months before the passage of the act granting half-pay to those in the Naval service. When this deposition was taken Mrs P was nearly in her 90 th year, and though her character for veracity was undoubted, yet from her sex and advanced age, it is unreasonable to suppose that her knowledge of revolutionary services was very profound or her recollection of them very perfect. If upon such evidence as this half-pay claims are to be allowed, it would be difficult to assign a limit to their number or to the amount which would be required for their full satisfaction.
There is however evidence afforded by the records of the Virginia Navy which raises a strong presumption that Dr Brown was never in service after the 17 th day of December 1778. Upon an examination of paper marked G, it will appear that Dr Brown was in service from the 9 th of Octo: 1777 to the 17 th Dec r 1778, at which latter time he was allowed leave of absence. No record of subsequent service appears either upon the Journal of the Navy Board, the Journal of the Board of War, (to which Board the duties of the Navy Board were transferred) or the minutes of the Navy Board, although the latter comes down

down to as late a period as the 19 th of Dec r 1780. It is highly improbable that this would have been the case, if Dr Brown had returned to the service after his furlough expired. The frequent entries in relation to him while he was in service, justify the inference that such entries would be met with again, if he had really continued in service after the 17 Dec r 1778. From this date to the 29 th Dec r 1780, excepting an interval of a few months, a full record of all the proceedings connected with the Navy are preserved; yet upon this record the name of Dr Brown does not appear.
From an inspection of David Henderson's affidavit it will be seen that he avers that Dr Brown after leaving the Dragon, was transferred to the Ship Tartar. If this be so, he must have remained on board the latter vessel a very brief time. Nowhere in the Navy Journal does his name appear in connection with that vessel, which most probably would have been the case, if he had ever acted as Surgeon on board of her. Moreover, there is evidence afforded by the papers in another half-pay case which proves conclusively that Brown was not Surgeon on board the Tartar. In the case of Surgeon Justice Livingston, whose representatives have already been allowed half-pay, there is evidence filed to show that in February 1779 he was transferred to the Tartar and served on board of her until the 25 March 1780, when she was ordered out of the Naval service of the State, and transferred to what was termed the 'Commercial Marine'. As it is highly improbable that two surgeons were ever attached, at the

the same time, to any one of the small cruizers belonging to the Virginia Navy, it follows necessarily that Dr Brown could not have been connected with the Tartar, at least after February 1779.
The latest evidence we have of Dr Brown's service shows that on the 17 Dec 1778 he applied for and received a furlough. It is incumbent therefore on the claimant, to shew by record proof that he returned to his post & resumed his duties as Surgeon. This proof they have not furnished, although a record of Naval transactions kept with some interruptions for nearly two years, subsequent to the date of his furlough, is in existence. The absence of such proof affords the very strongest ground for supposing that he never re-entered the service.
Mr Leoffin seems to attach much importance to the fact that Com d Smith reported Dr Brown entitled to land for a service of three years as Surgeon in the State Navy. I am not aware that the Pension Office in adjudicating claims against the Government is bound by the opinion or action of any State Officer in Virginia; but leaving this question out of view, there is nothing in the opinion of Mr Smith which entitles it to any great weight. The evidence upon which that opinion was formed is before the Office and though Mr Smith may have thought it sufficient to entitle the representatives of Brown to land bounty, it does not follow that it confers any just claim to half-pay. It is clear that he was greatly mistaken in at least one of the inferences upon which that opinion was

was based - to wit: that Brown served on board of the Tartar until she was transferred to the Board of Trade. This is plainly disproved by the evidence before referred to, filed in the case of Surgeon Justice Livingston. Moreover, Mr Smith does not say that the testimony proves that Brown served three years; he only infers so from the lights then before him, and under all the circumstances, thinks that he ought to presume in favor of the claim. It seems however that the Executive of Va thought very differently, and declined to carry out Mr Smiths recommendations; for no evidence is filed to show that land bounty was ever granted, which no doubt would have been done, if any allowance had been made.
It is scarcely necessary to add that no officer of the State Navy is entitled to half-pay, unless it is clearly shewn that he was in service after May 1779 and served to the end of the war or became supernumerary by the act of the State.
I have the honor to be
Very respectfully
Yr obdt Servt
J. K. Clarke Com r Pensions
Hon: A. H. Stuart Secretary of the Interior End

Power of Attorney of Thomas Moore to Isaac N. Coffin in the Virginia Half-Pay Claim of Surgeon David Brown.
D

Know all men by these presents that I Thomas Moore of Norfolk City, state of Virginia, by virtue of a Power of Attorney from _____ of _____ county administrator of the estate of Doctor David Brown, late of the County of Elizabeth City in said state, granting me the right of substituting an attorney to prosecute all claims for the services in the Revolutionary war of said Doctor David Brown, of the state line of Virginia, do hereby constitute, substitute and appoint Isaac N. Coffin of Washington in the District of Columbia my lawful attorney and substitute to prosecute said claims either for half pay or commutation and interest or claims for bounty land and to receive and give receipts for all money or land on account of any of said claims hereby giving to my said attorney and substitute the same power which is given me by said Power of Attorney Witness my hand and seal this 15 th day of September A.D. 1852
Signed, sealed & delivered } in presence of }
Thos Moore
State of Virginia, City of Norfolk to wit:
This day personally appeared before me a Notary Public, in and for the City and state aforesaid, Thomas Moore, the subscriber to the foregoing Power of Attorney and acknowledged the same to be his free act and deed
Given under my hand and seal of office this fifteenth day of September in the year eight hundred and fifty two
John S. Lovett " " " Notary Public

B
David Brown
Decision of the Secretary
Oct. 1853

278 Department of the Interior Washington, Oct. 8 th 1853
Sir,
Your decision in the case of the application of the representatives of David Brown dec d for half pay under the Act of 5 th July 1832, is affirmed, and the papers are herewith returned.
I am Sir, very respectfully, Your Off l Servant, P. M c Clelland Secretary.
Wm L. P. Waldo Comm r of Pensions.

II Henry Whiting Oct 12 '57
Answered Oct 12 '57
Official business
FREE
Cogniz
To the Commissioners of Pensions
Washington
D.C.

John corner of Pomeroy Dear Sir
Hampden Me Octo 2 nd 1857.
I am the admr of David Brown deed who was a surgeon in the state Navy of Va in the war of the rebellion.
I notify you Mr. Thos. Moore of the City of Norfolk to pay into his claim for twenty lines and half pay.
He is informed that the case is still under the passionate consideration of the Dept. while I am informed from another source that it has been rejected. The loss and distribution of Brown's est are anxious to hear from the matter. will you please inform me what is the conclusion of the claim and oblige me very resp.
Henry Whiting

Washington Oct r 14. 1852.
Sir:
I herewith transmit Power of Attorney from Thomas Moore Attorney of Henry Whiting Esq. Administrator of the Estate of Surgeon David Brown of the Virginia Navy of the Revolutionary War, which I request may be filed with the papers in the Virginia Half Pay case of said Surgeon David Brown.
I am
With the Highest Respect Your Obed t Serv t .
Isaac N. Coffin.
James E. Heath Esq. Commissioner of Pensions Washington. D.C.

Official Business
FREE
beaded
J. B. MINTON Esq. Commissioner of Pensions. Washington D.C.

Norfolk Va May 16 th 1856
A B Minor Esq Com re Pensions.
At the instance of the heirs at Law of the late David Brown I have to request you to inform me (as soon as possible) whether the claim of said David Brown for "half pay" for his services as Surgeon in the State Navy of Va has been allowed and paid, under the acts of Congress of 5 th July /32.
The Administrator of the late David Brown is Whiting B Hampton Va If paid, please inform me ( at once ) when , to whom and what amount —
Your prompt attention will greatly oblige Yours Respectfully —
J Edward Ford Box 18 19 - Norfolk Va
Please Address.

"B"

Thursday the 27 th day of August 1778.
Ordered. That the Keeper of the public store deliver to Dr. Brown, a suit of clothes, two shirts, three pr. stockings, two pair shoes, two hats, twelve yards of coarse linen, two blankets; and to Mr. Webb, one blanket, four yards linen and two hats - on their paying for the same - (page 457.)
Friday, the 28 th day of August 1778.
Ordered. That the Keeper of the public store deliver to Dr. Brown, six yards linen for bandages & dressing, four hanks silk, five ounces thread, one paper pins, three quire paper, three yds of flannel, for the use of the Dragon - (page 458.)
Thursday the 17 th day of December 1778.
Ordered. That the Keeper of the public store deliver to Dr. Brown, cloth for a suit of clothes and great coat, two shirts, two pair stockings, one pair of shoes, two blankets, one hat, 75 lbs of sugar, and two pounds tea, for his mess on board the Dragon, on his paying for the same - (page 520.)
The above extracts are truly copied from the Navy Journal -
Geo. W. Chittenden " Act. Adm.

NO  ✓
_____
_____
3038
Heirs of Dr David Brown
Va Navy
Revolution
Discharged _____, 18
3038
✓
H'g Pay — act 32
Received _____, 18
to 1
Doct David Brown
Report to Sec'y, July 7 1853
Appealed — decision confirmed —
Sec'y of Sec'y's conf
Report Oct 8 1853
Claim Rejected —

51.
Washington July 8, 1853
Isaac N. Coffin
Appeals from decision of Com Pen's in the case of Darius Brown
K
Decision affirmed by the Secretary of the Interior Oct. 8. 1853. in Letter to D. N. Coffin Esq. enclosing the Decision that in this case of the same character?
✓ July 9. 53.
Referred to the Commission of Pensions.
Left with D July 12/53
Mr. Cleary.
Recd Feb. 10. 1853.

Washington Feby 8 th 1853.
Sir:
In the Virginia half-pay case of Dr. David Brown an Appeal has been made by me as the Attorney in the case, which Appeal has been referred to the Pension Office for a Report. As it has been a long time since this case was referred by you, I have called at the Pension Office a number of times to request that the Report may be made. But there are so many other cases in which Reports have been required by the Secretary of the Interior to be made immediately , that although as I am informed that Report has been a long time half finished , it is impracticable to finish it. Under the circumstances that it has been so long delayed, and as it is a meritorious claim, equally and more so as I believe, as those to which it has had to yield its prior right to cases in which (as I am of the belief although I do not certainly know) the Appeal was made after its date of Appeal — I have respectfully and earnestly to solicit that a request may be made by you of the Commissioner of Pensions that no other case shall intervene to deprive it any farther of its right of priority. As I am suffering from the blame of delay and liable to have the case taken out of my hands by the delay of the Government, is my justification in addressing you.
I am, With the Highest Respect
Hon ble Alexander H. Stuart Secretary of the Interior.
Your Obed t Serv t Isaac N. Coffin Attorney in the case

Brief Case of Surgeon David Brown.
A. Evidence upon which land bounty was asked of Virginia. B. Extracts from the Journal of the Navy Board C D E. Letters of administration, powers of Atto de F. Brief of Mr Ellis G. Evidence obtained from Richmond & referred to in Report. H. Argument of Mr Coffin. I. Letter from Henry Whiting K. Letter from Mr Coffin.

St. Louis Brown
deposition
filed by V. Ellis

State of Virginia Norfolk county 3 ss.
This 13 th day April 1882 Samuel Gentrop aged seventy eight Years personally appeared before me John G. Sibley a notary public in and for the county aforesaid, and being duly sworn according to law depos- -eth and saith that he was well ac- quainted with doctor David Brown of Elizabeth City County, and as he has always under- stood, and believes, that he the said doctor Brown was in the Virginia State Navy in the war of the Revolution, that he the said Gentrop, knew him the said Brown some Years after the said war, and that he died in the said County of Elizabeth City, but in what Year he cannot say, and he the said Gentrop further swears that he is a disinterested witness
his Samuel X Gentrop mark
The above affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before me John G. Sibley a notary public in and for the County of Norfolk as above stated, the day and Year above written, and I hereby certify that the said Samuel Gentrop is a credible witness
John G. Sibley Notary Public

59,
Washington D.C., July 26. 1853,
Isaac A. Coffin, Files engrossed in the Va. half penny case of Jungen Daint Brown
Cleary Rec. Feb. 28. 1853.

Washington Feb'y 26 th 1853.
Sir:
In accordance with the Regulation of the Department of the Interior of June 5. 1832, which requires "the attorney" "to file" "any argument which he may propose to submit on the questions involved in the Appeal, I herewith file such argument in the Virginia Half Pay case of Surgeon David Brown. In the report or letter of Mr Heath Commissioner of Pensions to you in this case of 17 th inst. there are several Errors as follows viz.
Error No 1. The letter states in regard to Mrs Ann Payne's evidence "When this deposition was taken Mrs P. was nearly in her 90 th year, and though her character for veracity was undoubted, yet from her sex and advanced age, it is unreasonable to suppose that her knowledge of revolutionary services was very profound or her recollection of them very perfect. If upon such evidence as this, half pay claims are to be allowed, it would be difficult to assign a limit to their number or to the amount which would be required for their full satisfaction". This is an Error, Because, after the most deliberate and thorough consideration of a mind so profound in knowledge of legal principles and of what is Evidence in Law , as to hold the station of Secretary of the Interior at this moment, has  Decided as was done in the Virginia Half Pay claim of William Johnston that Mrs Payne's Evidence shall be received. A Letter was written to you by the Commissioner of Pensions in the Virginia Half Pay case of Alexander Wapensburg in which respectfully the following language is used — "As the claim of Johnston was allowed on the evidence of this lady [Mrs Ann Payne] and as has been  Decided in that case that parol proof is sufficient without material Record evidence, I recommend that the claim of Wapensburg be allowed"
In the letter of the Commissioner

of Pensions in the Virginia Half Pay case of Lt. James Davis of 18 th Sept r 1851, this lady is termed "Mrs Payne of Hampton who was well acquainted with many Officers belonging to Virginia particularly of the Navy in the Revolutionary War." It was impossible for anything to be more intensely impressed on her mind than the Disbandment of the Navy, because no Reception which has ever occurred in the little of time could equal the Extravagantly Joyous and Boisterously and Boundlessly Welcome Reception of those Heroic Officers - the Nation's Benefactors, - after aiding in accomplishing while barefoot and starving that Miracle of Miracles the achievement of the Country's Freedom against a Gigantic Enemy. If she could not remember this, admitted Officers who returned at that important event, admitted as she was in the full enjoyment of her faculties she must be the very perfection of a Fool. If the mere suggestion of a subordinate bureau shall brush her evidence away by stating that she was in her 90 th year, which fact was fully considered by the Secretary in Johnson's case abovementioned - and was considered by the Secretary NO valid objection , - then are we trifled with indeed - and the Department of the Interior would be subject to the grave charge that in one case this highly respectable and worthy lady's evidence is to be taken received as Legal Evidence and in another case it was not to be received as Legal Evidence. A Government acting in such a manner would be utterly unworthy of the taxes paid to support it, or the confidence or regard of the people. But we have no belief that it is within the range of possibility for the Secretary of the Interior thus to oppress us. The Department of the Interior is not to be frightened from its duty - from its onward career of justice by the number of claims to be allowed by giving to evidence its legal effect - and in addition to this consideration is the fact that the remaining Virginia Half Pay claims are but very few in number, ninety nine one hundredths of them having been settled.

Error No 2. The letter of Mr Heath states "There is however evidence afforded by the records of the Virginia Navy which raises a strong presumption that D r Brown was never in service after the 17 th day of December 1778." This is an Error, Because - the mere fact that "no record of subsequent service appears" "upon the Journal of the Navy Board" is not "evidence" that he was never in service after the 17 th Dec r 1778 and Because in several instances the interval between the entries is of over Six months duration, as in the 1 st & 2 d entries and 1 st & 8 th entries of Paper G and an interval of Fifteen months between the 4 th & 5 th entries of Paper A A herewith enclosed and it by no means follows that the person was not in service in those long intervals. The injustice is apparent that the absence of entries which were sometimes with Six Months and Fifteen months interval, - and Minutes to the Navy Board which are termed in Paper G, by the Auditor of Virginia mere Remnants should be allowed to presume & guess an Officer out of service, who is proved to be in.
Error No 3. The letter of Mr Heath states that "It is highly improbable that this [no record] would have been the case if D r Brown had returned to the service after his furlough expired." No effect ought to be given by you to a report so careless as to contain unfounded charges of  to charges of Desertion against a most Meritorious Officer. Evidence which overthrows this charge is the Report of Commissioner Smith, with the papers in the case which Official Report we have a right to have received as true as to the fact of an entry in the State Records. Commissioner Smith Twice Officially states that Surgeon David Brown was found on the Records, up to January 17 th 1779 . As he had leave of absence on the 17 th of December "till the last of this month" as the words of the entry are, equal to two weeks, the Record found by Commissioner Smith proves that he did return and continue in service longer and was in service on  even until  January 17 th 1779
Error No 4. The letter of Mr Heath states that in the Virginia State Secretary of the Interior. Isaac N. Coffin ,

Pay case of Surgeon Justice Livingston — There is evidence filed to show that "in February 1779 he was transferred to the Tartar and served on board of her "until the 25 th March 1780." This is an Error, Because there is not evidence filed to show or which shows, that he, Justice Livingston served until 25 th March 1780, — as that there is not such evidence is shown as follows. There is evidence of the Journals of the Navy Board that he served until the 28 th Nov r 1779 as see Paper A. A. herewith enclosed [which paper contains the entire evidence of service in that case] but no evidence from those Journals or from any other source that he served a day after. And yet the letter of M c Heath after making a great ado about the Journal of the Navy Board omitting Surgeon Brown — admits Surgeon Livingston to have served from 28 th Nov r 1779 to 25 th March 1780, notwithstanding the absence of a single entry mentioning him. The only evidence of D r Livingston's service besides the Journal of the Navy Board, is a certificate of Lt. John V. Kautzman, who was noted Officer of the Tartar and therefore neither knew nor states anything specific as to dates, — that he "acted as Surgeon in the Virginia Navy three years successfully." He does not state but that his service as Surgeon may have commenced in the year 1776, which as his service terminated in 1779, would have made the three years. Therefore, as the premises of M c Heath as above quoted that "there is evidence &c is entirely erroneous , the conclusion therefrom as follows — "it follows necessarily that D r Brown could not have been connected "with the Tartar, at least after February 1779" — must be also erroneous.
As there is not one word as shown above of any kind of evidence whatever, that Justice Livingston served a single day later than 28 th Nov r 1779 — but among the papers in the case of Livingston is the striking fact that the Attorney in that case Francis A. Dickinson Esq. an Attorney of probity and experience as to evidence & who is a man of too much honor if there was evidence that he served a day later, to deny it, — with the certificate of Lt. John V. Kautzman before him, in a paper in the Livingston states that he did not serve

later than 28 th Nov r : 1779. _____ therefore, there is not any evidence in that case antagonistical to the service of Surgeon David Brown in the Tartar between the 28 th Nov r : 1779 and the 25 th March 1780, at which latter date "she was ordered out of the Naval service of the State."
The Evidence in the case shews as follows. David Henderson Esq. who was "Midshipman and Clerk of the Dragon and has in possession the books of that Vessel" solemnly swears that Surgeon David Brown was transferred to the Tartar. He must therefore have been ordered to the Tartar sometime between 28 th Nov r : 1779 and March 25. 1780. It is profoundly improbable that he should not know where so cherished an Officer as his brother Officer the Surgeon was transferred. He states after which he was transferred but does not state immediately after which. He therefore served in the Tartar from after 28 th Nov r : 1779 to March 25. 1780. His Statement is confirmed by the Official Statement of John H. Smith Esq. Commis- sioner of Revolutionary Claims of Virginia as follows "The Journals of the Navy Board were perfect Records of the Resignation of Officers. They do not furnish any proof of the resignation of Dr Brown."
To which two Statements is added the Evidence of Mrs Ann Payne whose evidence you have solemnly Decided heretofore shall have effect to establish service that she "knew well and intimately Doctor David Brown" may he was a  key knowledge  a Surgeon of the Virginia Navy "from early in the War of the Revolution till the Navy was laid up."
As the representatives of Surgeon David Brown are entitled to half pay, we respectfully urge and demand of you that their right be admitted.
I am, With the Highest Respect
Your Obed t Serv t
Hon ble Alexander H. Stuart Secretary of the Interior.
Isaac N. Coffin

Washington Oct. 14 th 1852.
Sir:
I hereby Appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Pensions in the Virginia half pay case of Surgeon David Brown of Oct r 8 th 1851 addressed to Henry Whiting Administrator of the Estate of said David Brown in the following words "the evidence has been examined and deemed not sufficient"
The Reasons of Appeal are as follows
1 st It is an Error that the evidence is not sufficient — Because the evidence does come as will be apparent to you within the Law of July 5. 1832, as shown as follows The Official Report of John H. Smith Esq. Commissioner of Revolutionary Claims of the State of Virginia, states that by the Orders of the Navy Board Navy Journal pages 295-454-455-457-458-520 he is shown to have been Surgeon in the Navy from Oct r 9 "1777 to Jan y 17. 1779." "After his services on board the Dragon were performed he was "turned over to the Tartar" "It does not appear that he ever resigned his commission. "He probably served on board of the Tartar until she was turned over to the Board of Trade "in the Summer of 1780." The Journals of the Navy Board were Perfect Records "of the Resignation of Officers." They do not furnish any proof of the "resignation of D r Brown, I therefore consider the fact may be fairly presumed that "D r Brown did not resign." Under all these circumstances I have thought that I "ought to presume in favor of this claim — and to report the heirs of D r Brown entitled "to bounty land for his services for three years." This allowance for three years of course carries his services to three years from Oct r 9, 1777, that is, to Oct r 9, 1780. Thus has the Commissioner of Revolutionary Claims appointed by Law and acting Officially with a perfect authority to act and to Report facts and Principles of Evidence as the Supreme Court of Appeals had to act in the half pay cases — Solemnly Adjudged that on the principles of legal presumption that the Law requires that he "ought to presume" that the Law does

presume he was in service to Oct r 1780.
2 d . It is an Error, Because the legal effect of the Record Evidence reported by the Commissioner of Revolutionary Claims of Virginia, taken as a whole does, prove that he was a Supernumerary after May 1779 and therefore is sufficient. Three facts are thus as above immutably shown by the Record, 1 st that he was in service on "January 17. 1779" — 2 d that he "did not resign" — and 3 d that the Tartar on board of which he was in service on January 17. 1779 was as Officially stated "turned over to the Board of Trade, in the Summer of 1780," — by which act of reduction of the Navy by withdrawing that vessel from service he became Supernumerary, and thus the Law of July 5. 1832 includes him. It is positively shown by the Records that he "did not resign" it is then impossible that he could be out of service before the Tartar was "turned over to the Board of Trade in the Summer of 1780."
The Pension Office by stating the evidence is "not sufficient," decide that he was not in service until the disbandment of the Navy. If he did not serve to the until that time (which is however not admitted by his descendants) — and as the Records show he did not resign, it is impossible that he could have got out of service except by being Supernumerary — and as it is Officially Reported and immutably shown by Commissioner Smith that he is on the Official Records of Virginia up to January 17 th 1779 this date is the very short time of only three months prior to the Act of Virginia of May Session 1779, I aver that it is the right of his descendants to declare and they do through me respectfully declare that it is the duty of the Secretary of the Interior [and every Court of law admits the right thus respectfully to declare what is its duty where that duty is inseparably connected with their rights of the most sacred kind] With the utmost possible respect I aver, that it is the duty of the Secretary of the Interior taking into view the fact positively proved that he never resigned , to admit so very little as that he served the very short period of only 3 months beyond the abovementioned recorded January 17 th 1779 and if he did, then he was included by the Act of May Session 1779 by having served after the passage of that Act — and must have been one of the Supernumerary Officers included by that Act.

3rd It is an Error, Because the parol testimony is corroborated by and corroborates the Record Evidence and both together form a mass of evidence which is sufficient to and does bring him within the provisions of the Act of July 5. 1832. In addition to all the foregoing evidence and circumstances which ought in justice to be convincing that he served until the Navy was laid up by Act of November Session 1781, — is the positive testimony of M rs Ann Payne that he served "till the Navy was laid up" and notwithstanding the examining clerk of the Pension Office states on a paper among the papers in the case and thereby endeavors to depreciate the effect of her evidence, that she "does not remember the vessels on board of which he served," — it would be unspeakably ridiculous to assume that because M rs Payne did not remember the mere names of the vessels, which after all are but mere sounds , often words without any meaning whatever , that she could not remember the striking, important and exceedingly impressive circumstance (admitted as she is by the Pension Office in its Letter of Sept 18. 1851 in the case of James Davis to have been well acquainted with many officers belonging to Virginia particularly of the Navy in the Revolutionary War ) of the Disbandment of the Navy and the Boisterous Joyous Return of so many Officers of the Navy to their friends and acquaintances. Her evidence was Decided by you in the Virginia half-pay case of Johnson to be sufficient and Decided by the Commissioner in the Virginia half-pay case of Wapenburg to be sufficient and therefore these heirs have a right (and most particularly as all the foregoing recorded facts corroborate it) that it should be admitted in this case.
4th It is an Error, Because the Presumptive Evidence resulting from the circumstances shown by the Records shows that he did serve at least until the Sartar was turned over to the Board of Trade in the Summer of 1780 — and this added to the as he never resigned, to the disbandment of the Navy — and this Presumptive Evidence added to the Parol Evidence is sufficient. The Regulations under the Act of July 5. 1832 state that "secondary evidence will be admissible" and the want of the best evidence is "accounted for" by the Report of Commissioner Smith stating "the loss of the papers of many of the vessels of the State Navy." The Supreme Court of the United States Decides

in the case of U. S. v. Rayburn Peters Reports, vol 6, page 352 as follows "The rule as to the admission of secondary evidence does not require the strongest possible evidence." And in the case of Crane vs Morris 6 vol. 598 page as follows "Whenever evidence is offered to the jury which is in its nature prima facie proof, or presumptive proof, its character as such ought not to be disregarded: and no Court has a right to direct the jury to disregard it, or to view it under a different aspect from that in which it is actually presented to them. Whatever just influences it may derive from that character, the jury have a right to give it."
And in the case of Kelly vs Jackson 6 vol. 622 page as follows Prima facie evidence of a fact, is such evidence as in judgement of law is sufficient to establish that fact; and if not rebutted, remains sufficient for the purpose. The jury are bound to consider it in that light; unless they are invested with authority to disregard the rules of evidence by which the liberty and estate of every citizen are guarded and supported. No judge would hesitate to set aside their verdict and grant a new trial, if, under such circumstances, without any rebutting evidence, they disregard it. It would be error on their part which would require the remedial interposition of the Court. In a legal sense, then, such prima facie evidence, in absence of all controlling evidence or discrediting circumstances, becomes conclusive of the fact; that is, it should operate upon the minds of the jury as decisive to found their verdict as to the fact. Such are understood to be the clear principles of law on the subject. The Act of July 5. 1832 requires that these claims shall be settled "on the principles of the half pay cases already decided in the Supreme Court of Appeals of said State" and it is well known to you that the principles of universal law, which everywhere on which the Supreme Court of Appeals acts, are the principles of law all over the world, admits Presumptive Evidence. And our lives, lives, liberty, character and property, every thing that we hold dear, are held in most instances by Presumptive Evidence.
Rec. C Oct. 13. 1852.
5th It is an Error, Because the following Decision of the Secretary of the Interior shows that the evidence is sufficient. In the case of Jason H Hunter page 538 of Mayo & Moulton's edition of the Pension Laws, it was Decided by the Secretary of the Interior that the "burden of proof rests upon the Government to show that he was not willing to serve out his term." Here was a case where the person was  was actually out of service - But in the case of Doctor David Brown the Records positively show that he "did not resign" and as both presumptive and positive proof both show him in service to the Disbandment of the Navy in 1781 in his case equally the burden of proof rests upon the Government to show that he was not willing to serve out his term and equally as in that case  Decided  the claimant is entitled  the claimant is entitled "for service to the end of his term", which would be to the disbandment of the Navy. As the Act of July 5. 1832 does, therefore give half pay to these descendants of this worthy Officer, I respectfully solicit of you to allow the case. I am With the Highest Respect, Your Obed Servt Honble Alexander H. Stuart Secretary of the Interior. Isaac N. Coffin P.

4 May 1853
Isaac N. Coffin
Correcting error in previous letter and requesting this letter to be filed with papers in the case of Dr David Brown - claim for half pay.

Washington May 21 th 1853.
Sir:
In the case of Surgeon David Brown a Virginia Half Pay case in which an Appeal has been taken from the Decision of the late Commissioner of Pensions to the Secretary of the Interior — I desire to make an Amending Statement in regard to a point in my Appeal and as I am informed all Appeals have been referred to you for revision, I address this letter to you. I mentioned in the Appeal addressed to the Secretary of the Interior as follows.
"A Letter was written to you by the Commissioner of Pensions in the Virginia Half Pay case of Alexander Wapenburg in which the following language is used — "As the claim of Johnson was allowed on the evidence of this lady [Mrs Ann Payne] and as the Secretary has Decided in that case parol proof is sufficient without material Record evidence, I recommend that the claim of Wapinger be allowed."
In the above statement I was mistaken and am now enabled to state the matter correctly, having quite recently for the first time seen that letter. The Letter was written by the Commissioner of Pensions to Vespasian Ellis Esq. on 23 rd May 1852, and is as follows
"As the evidence of this lady [Mrs Ann Payne] was most essential in sustaining the claim of

"Dr Johnstone and as its allowance seems to have settled "the principle that parol testimony is sufficient to establish "such claims without the production of material record proof, "I shall recommend to the Secretary of the Interior that "the claim of Wapenburg be allowed." I request that this letter be placed in the letter of Hipel. I am
Very Respectfully Your Obed t Serv t Isaac N. Coffin.
Hon ble L. D. Waldo Commissioner of Pensions Washington D. C.