Inclosed you will find the amended Declaration of Mrs Lydia Ray widow of Joseph Ray a Soldier of the Revolution. After examining your letter of the 22d March 1839 I have come to the conclusion that what you require in that letter in order to establish her claim to a Pension has already been substantially proved and that the testamony will be sufficient by her amended Declaration. By refering to the date of her first declaration you will discover that it was among the first claim sent on to you from Tennessee at least by me. I was then not apprised of the necessity of being so particular in the Statements of her declaration having seen so much of the traditionary manner of establishing soldiers Pensions under act of 1832 June 7th I also thought at that time that the services of the substitute would be taken as part of the services of the soldier that hired him. I do not recolect of asking Mrs Ray at the time taking her first declaration whether her husband served a previous tour at all events it was ommitted for I wanted to see what would be the result. Some having advised me that the law would not in all probability be carried into effect, I recolect her telling me a verry short time afterwards of the first tour of service I notified you in one of my letters not to make a decision for there would be more testamony offered but contrary to my expectation a report rejecting the claim was sent to me. I differ materially with your statement about her first declaration. In your letter above mentioned you say that she alledges "that after her husband served two or three months he returned home" Now if I am not greatly mistaken in my recolection she stated that her husband had served about four months. She alledged that her husband had engage to serve for six months and at the end of four months he came home sick and hired a substitute to serve out the ballance of the time to wit two months thus as she distinctly states her husband actually served four months before he came home sick and died, and then the substitute served out the ballan which was two months, and I think if you will examine you will find it so. Now this is my recolection yet I may be mistaken and would thank you to correct my mistake if upon examination you find I am so.

The witness is afterward proved positively the three months tour previous performed and I have taken some pains in acertaining whether they were two distinct tour and I am fully persuaded that they were two distinct and separate tours the one having been performed some time previous to the last one. The service in the last tour is I think fully proven by old Mrs Wilson and the first one by old Mr Ellison I have been raised from a boy in the same neighbbourhood with Mrs Ray I know her memory is verry good and at the time and since making her first declaration she had told me a great deal about the Revolution. Her character for veracity stands unimpeached. I therefore renew the claim application to allow the claim having but little doubt but upon all the circumstances you will feel authorized to admit it. I do not recolect that you ever held out the rule that it took two witnesses to prove a fact independant of the applicants declaration but it seems to me that where an applicant alledges a fact and swears positively to it and another witness swears positively to the same fact, thus in effect proving it by two witnesses, certainly your Department will accept of it as true. In this case therefore if I am not mistaken this has been done in manner above stated. I make these suggestions to you with feellings of the utmost respect and also that Justice may be done. It is imposible after a lapse of sixty years that each witness will tell the same tale exactly—loss of memory and many other things forbid the idea. It would be a burthen too great at this late day for an applicant to prove every tour of service by two witnesses besides his own oath. That indeed would be more than is required in a court of Justice. I hope you will allow the claim without subjecting the old Lady to any further expence