New York April 23^d 1788 Sir Finding that M^r Stevens by lodging his claim in this office prior to August 1786 was not precluded from his demands by the act foreclosing such claims, as I at first supposed, I have therefore inquired into the merits of his claims against the Union and find that on the 21^st of January 1777 he drew from Richard Dullam a continental paymaster his own pay and that of nine men who were detained in Philadelphia from Jan^y 1^st 1777 to the 21^st of January following on an Order from Gen Gates. As he now charges his own pay again for the same time he is not only foreclosed, by his former payment from the sum he demands on his own account but it also leaves a disagreeable impression in respect to his other demands for his men — Another circumstance deserves consideration, which is, that in his letter to you, he says that he applied to Gen Gates for his pay who he insinuates, refused an allowance of it; whereas it appears by the account paid by Dullam, that he paid it on Gen Gates [strikethrough: own] warrant; and the last circumstance appearing material in the conviction of this man, is that the account rec[ei]ved by M^r Dullam [strikethrough: at those. [undecipherable]] [undecipherable] swears to be a true one of the men of Colonel [undecipherable: probable reading "Hutchins"] regiment under his command then in Philadelphia; but in [strikethrough: his] the account now presented he has substituted other mens names and a much greater number than was contained in his others. Wherefore I am of opinion that besides the iniquity of attempting to obtain his own pay twice he has been guilty of a falsehood respecting it. That the account of men now presented, agreeably to his own oath, is not a just one. And therefore that the whole ought to be discharged from any allowance without more satisfactory evidence — Pierce ^e Honorable M^r Nathan Dane