[No. 2] July the 26 1786 Sir I received a [undecipherable: powers?] some time ago of Sergeant [undecipherable: Pelton?] to settle and [undecipherable: receive?] his Pay, and to give such receipts as I should in my [undecipherable]. That [undecipherable: order?] with several other papers, that [undecipherable: respects?] [undecipherable: Pelton?], are in the hands of Capt [undecipherable: Howell?] who settled his accounts up to the first of January Eighty One, [undecipherable] from him I [undecipherable: refused?] his Pay, alledging that he was not [undecipherable: able?] to receive it. This [undecipherable: induced?] me to [undecipherable] your attention to [undecipherable] that [undecipherable: purpose?] I ask you to examine the papers that are in the [undecipherable: care?] of Captain Howell [undecipherable: respecting?] [undecipherable: Pelton?]. The Question is [undecipherable: whether?] [undecipherable: Pelton?] was in service from the first of January Eighty One until the [undecipherable: Army?] was [undecipherable: Discharged?] or not; if he was in service from [undecipherable] you will not hesitate to [undecipherable: grant?] his Pay, if [undecipherable: that?] [undecipherable] another he did much or [undecipherable] their [undecipherable: Congress?] measures [undecipherable: Discriminations?], and if they had it could not have [undecipherable: affected?] him; [undecipherable] that Congress never could have been [undecipherable] a [undecipherable: duty?] to [undecipherable: rob?] the unfortunate [undecipherable: aggrieved?] Veteran of his [undecipherable: service?] pay, this [undecipherable] could not have taken place; The question is then, whether he was in service or not, [undecipherable] he [undecipherable] in my [undecipherable: Company?], it [undecipherable: remained?] to appear before any [undecipherable: tribunal?] and Make Oath to the facts [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable: signed] [undecipherable] Because he was not able to the present, I should [undecipherable: suppose?] it [undecipherable] be [undecipherable: considered?] a sufficient [undecipherable: reason?]. When [undecipherable], I will not [undecipherable] the mention that I never was called on to [undecipherable: render?] as it was of my Company that [undecipherable] after I [undecipherable: joined?] this Regiment. The fact is, he was [undecipherable: rejected?] in the [undecipherable: Returns?] by the Officer who [undecipherable: made?] up the Company and [undecipherable: never?] was able to [undecipherable: join?] the [undecipherable: Regiment?]. I did expect that a [undecipherable: Captain?] so he would be [undecipherable: deemed?] sufficient to [undecipherable] many [undecipherable]. Respecting his being in service, especially when I ask it of you, [undecipherable] determined to serve him only because he is not able to serve himself, and am acquainted with the [undecipherable: circumstances?] better than any other Officer of the Regiment. [undecipherable] that is [undecipherable: named?], from General [undecipherable: Hard?] was the [undecipherable] until he was able to [undecipherable: serve?] the Troops, & he never was able, if he was & it can be [undecipherable: proved?] this he was, I should say no more. But this is not [undecipherable], he was not able & it is proved that his [undecipherable] not, by a Certificate from a Doctor who [undecipherable: attended?] him at different times, and [undecipherable: my?] [undecipherable] authority is [undecipherable] I confess [undecipherable] think of [undecipherable], he [undecipherable: left?] his pay & [undecipherable] of you [undecipherable] attendance [undecipherable] there should be [undecipherable: many?] thing [undecipherable: Necessary?] even for [undecipherable] to [undecipherable] as I [undecipherable] work [undecipherable] [undecipherable: Your most obedient Servant?] [undecipherable: signed] [undecipherable: Elias Ellet? Esqr?] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [PS] [undecipherable]