The Committee on Pensions, to whom were referred the petition and accompanying papers of B. M. Van Derveer, praying a pension on account of his father's services, beg leave to report:

That this petition has been examined by the Committee on Pensions, at several sessions since the 1st of March, 1836, when it was first presented; and while there is no evidence of a single favorable report, several adverse reports have been presented and concurred in.

Honorable J. L. Edwards, Commissioner of Pensions, under date of January 12, 1837, states that the claim cannot be allowed for want of sufficient proof of service. No additional evidence has since been offered by the petitioner.

Under these circumstances, the committee recognize no obligation to re-investigate the case further, or to sit in judgment upon the decisions of former committees, based upon the same statement of facts, and the same evidence.

They therefore recommend that the prayer of the petitioner be denied.

The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom the memorial of the Petersburg volunteers was referred, report:

That the claim for services, &c., of the Petersburg volunteers was stated by the accounting officers of the treasury during the last Congress, and an appropriation was accordingly made of $10,334 31, to pay it. [See act of Congress, approved 3d March, 1853, chapter 98.]

The claim now presented is, that the company only received five of its seven rations during its term of service, and that they are entitled to interest upon their claim, from the time the money was received by the paymaster, until 1853, when it was appropriated by Congress.

There is no means at present of ascertaining whether this company was fully subsisted or not, as at that time the army was supplied by contract; but no deficiency was reported-none complained of by the other companies of the same batallion.

It is alleged, that the statement upon which the appropriation was made was based upon the evidence of Nathaniel Harrison, who was before the department in 1832; that the claim was thereby as well established then as now, and that therefore, as the payment to the company was delayed by the fault of the government, they should be allowed interest thereupon.

A moment's examination of Harrison's affadavit will show that if the estimate had been made upon it, the company would have been allowed only five months' pay instead of seven months', which they did receive. It is obvious, therefore, that the statement of the Treasury Department was made up in 1832 upon the testimony of Captain McRae and others, among whom was Mr. Saunders, one of the memorialists. Captain McRae, in his printed certificate, states that the company received six months' pay, and therefore, there was only six months' due them. But the department, in the estimate upon which the appropriation was made, allows them seven months' pay.

The committee, therefore, in every view of the case, are of the opinion that the Petersburg volunteers have been very liberally dealt with, and therefore report adversely upon their memorial, that the prayer be not granted.