1st Session.

No. 28.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

JANUARY 10, 1854.-Ordered to be printed.

MR. FOOT made the following

REPORT.

[To accompany Bill S. 108.]

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of Rebecca Freeman, praying for a pension in consideration of the services of her husband, Pearson Freeman, during the Revolutionary war, report:

That having had the same under consideration, they find the following facts. The petitioner is the widow of Pearson Freeman, deceased, late a revolutionary pensioner, to whom she was married on the 26th day of July, A. D. 1790, by the Rev. Jeremiah Day, as appears from the records of the congregational church of New Preston, an ecclesiastical society within the present limits of the towns of Washington and New Milford, in the county of Litchfield and State of Connecticut. Pearson Freeman, the husband of the petitioner, enlisted into the army of the revolution, A. D. 1780, and served to the close of the war. Being a colored man, he was detailed as a waiter, in which capacity he served a portion of the time to Captain Ransom, and a portion of the time to Major Cogswell, of the wagon department, instead of serving in the ranks. From this circumstance, and being unable to state to what regiment he belonged, his application for a pension under the acts of A. D. 1818, and A. D. 1832, were rejected at the War Department. On the 25th day of July, A. D., 1832, the said Pearson Freeman made a declaration of his services in the revolutionary army before a court of competent jurisdiction, which was duly authenticated according to the rules and regulations of the War Department. He was at that time seventy-one years old, and was generally reputed and believed, in the neighborhood of his residence, to have been a soldier in the revolution, as he stated. A Mr. Daniel Squire, who was certified as a credible witness, testified that he knew said Pearson Freeman in the revolutionary war; that he saw him frequently with Captain Ransom, and that he was dressed in continental uniform. Mr. Rufus Whedon, another credible witness, testified that he knew said Pearson Freeman during the revolutionary war; that he, the deponent, was a sergeant in Colonel Meigs' 4th Connecticut regiment, and knew that said Freeman was in service during the latter part of the war, and for the period of three years, and that he saw him frequently at West Point, the Highlands, the Connecticut huts and elsewhere. John A. Graham, esq., of the city of New York, a gentleman of eminent position and respectability, testified that he had known the said Pearson Freeman

since A. D. 1779 or 1780; that he belonged to Capt. Roswell Ransom's department, and took charge of the continental horses; that he was intimate with Captain Ransom, and often heard him speak of said Freeman in terms of commendation. Said Graham further stated that he well remembered that said Freeman had in charge, during one entire winter, a large number of continental horses at Roxbury, in the county of Litchfield, Connecticut.

The said Pearson Freeman preferred his petition to Congress in 1833 for a pension, which was referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions. That committee, from the testimony before them, were of the opinion that said Freeman was in the service of the United States for more than two years during the revolutionary war, and therefore within the spirit and scope of the general pension acts of A. D. 1818 and 1832, if not within their letter, and reported a bill for his relief, which received the favorable action of Congress and became a law. By virtue of this act his name was placed upon the roll of revolutionary pensioners, at the rate of eight dollars per month during his

life.

It is shown to the committee that he died at an advanced age on the 27th day of January, A. D. 1847, leaving his widow, the petitioner, in indigent circumstances. They had lived together as husband and wife from the time of their marriage to the time of his death, and reared a family of children. The petitioner was advised that inasmuch as her husband received his pension by virtue of a special act of Congress, that she could not receive a pension under the provisions of the general acts of Congress granting pensions to the widows of revolutionary officers and soldiers, but that she must resort to Congress for a special act in her behalf. Her petition, with the accompanying testimony, was presented in the House of Representatives on the 12th of June, A. D. 1848, and referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions. That committee, as appears from the files, reported a bill for her relief on the 8th of August following, but upon which there was no further action at that Congress. The petition and accompanying papers were withdrawn from the files at the next Congress and referred again to the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions of the House on the 8th of February, A. D. 1850, who reported a bill for her relief on the 11th of April following, which bill passed the House of Representatives and was sent to the Senate, but not being reached, it failed for want of action in that body. The case was again committed to the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions of the House at the last Congress on the 9th of December, A. D. 1851, and received the favorable consideration of that committee, but with the great mass of private claims went over without receiving any further action at that term of Congress.

This case has been favorably considered in every instance to the extent that there has been any action upon it. Your committee regard the case as a most meritorious one, and as coming within the spirit and intent of the several acts granting and extending pensions to the widows of revolutionary officers and soldiers, if not within their strict letter. The cohabitation of the petitioner and the said Pearson Freeman as husband and wife; his reputed services in the revolutionary war; the period of his death; the advanced age of the petitioner, being now in

her ninetieth year; and her extremely impoverished condition, even to the extent of her becoming a beneficiary upon the town in which she resides, are facts known personally to the member of the committee presenting this report. The committee without hesitation and unanimously report the accompanying bill for the relief of the petitioner, and recommend its passage.

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Silas L. Loomis, report:

That Daniel Loomis was a sub-contractor for constructing a section of the Cumberland road. The present claim is for extra expenses caused by a change in the mode of constructing the road, adopted after the making of the contracts, and for keeping the road in repair for two years after it was completed, before it was finally accepted by the government. This delay arose out of a difficulty between the superintendents of the road and the department. The principles involved appear to have been properly settled by the passage of the acts for the relief of J. L. Skinner, and of Gay and Loomis, under precisely similar circumstances. The committee submit a bill authorizing the accounting officers to audit and settle this claim upon the same principles and in the same manner as was done in the parallel case of Loomis and Gay.

The nature and history of the case will be fully seen by reference to House Report, No. 176, first session twenty-fourth Congress, and Senate Report, No. 17, first session of the thirtieth Congress, which will be found among the papers in the case.