| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875
Journals of the Continental Congress --SATURDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1781
On motion of Mr. [Ezekiel] Cornell, seconded by Mr. [Abraham] Clark,
Resolved, That the resolution passed yesterday against issuing particular warrants, and respecting the mode of drawing for pay and subsistance, be extended to officers of the seperate corps, as well as to those in the lines of the several states.
On a report from the Secretary at War, to whom were referred motions made by the delegates of South Carolina and Georgia, for arms and ammunition for the use of their respective states,
War Office December 15th. 1781.
Sir,
I have attended to the motion for supplying South Carolina with four thousand stand of arms a quantity of ammunition &c. I am sorry that the state of our magazines here and in Virginia will not admit our sending at this time a supply which the representatives of the State think necessary to its safety. I hope however though their request cannot be fully complied with, yet if Congress should think proper to order the number of arms &c. mentioned in the draft of a
Page 1170 | Page image
resolve herewith submitted that the relief will for the present be ample and especially considering the eight hundred stand of arms, sent on from Virginia to General Greene, the three hundred stand reported in favor of Georgia and the two thousand stand lately granted to North Carolina.
Resolved, That the Secretary at War take order for furnishing the delegates of South Carolina with twelve hundred stand of arms, twelve hundred cartouch boxes, one ton of musket powder, two tons of lead, five thousand flints, with a sufficient quantity of paper and thread to make the powder into cartridges, the said supply to be charged to the account of the said State:
That the Secretary at War take order for furnishing the delegates of the State of Georgia, with three hundred stand of arms and accoutrements, three hundred cartouch boxes, five hundred pounds of powder, one thousand pounds of lead, fifteen hundred flints, with a sufficient quantity of thread and paper to make up the powder into cartridges, the said supply to be on the account and charged to the State of Georgia.1
[Note 1: 1 This report is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 149, I, folio 49.]
On a report of a committee, consisting of Mr. [Edmund] Randolph, Mr. [William] Ellery, and Mr. [Arthur] Middleton, to whom was referred a petition of John Larreguy, in behalf of John Joseph Lacoizqueta and John Barberis, subjects of his Catholic Majesty, concerning twenty-two barrels of cochineal, said to have belonged to the said Lacoizqueta and Barberis, and stated by him to have been taken by a vessel bearing the commission of the United States, and condemned in the first instance by the maritime court of Massachusetts, and afterwards by the Court of Appeals:
Resolved, That the said John Larreguy be informed that the Court of Appeals is the established judicature in the United States, in the last resort, on questions relative to prize; that the judges of that court are left free in their
Page 1171 | Page image
judgment; that as no proof nor even insinuation is suggested, that they affirmed the sentence of the maritime court of Massachusetts against their conscience, Congress cannot interfere in the complaint contained in the said petition; but that application for relief against the sentence of affirmation, if any, ought to be made to the Court of Appeals.1
[Note 1: 1 This report, in the writing of Edmund Randolph, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 19, III, folio 413. Larreguy's petition, dated October 4, 1781, is in No. 43, folio 141. According to the indorsement, it was read and committed December 14.]
On a report of a committee, consisting of Mr. [George] Clymer, Mr. [James] Lovell, and Mr. [Benjamin] Hawkins, to whom was referred a letter of 10 from Major Giles,
The Committee to whom was referred the letter of Decr. 10th. from Major Giles, report.
That by a resolution of Congress passed upon the 30th. of April 1778 it was settled that brevets given to commissioned officers in the United States should give rank only in detachments and on Courts Martial and should not entitle to any encrease of pay.
That upon November 24th. of that same year, it was determined that no brevets should be granted in future except to officers in the line or for eminent services.
That brevets variously worded have been since given to officers not of the line and therefore must have been for eminent services.
That some have been given to persons who were quitting the service while others appear to have been given for the purpose of placing in service those who were honoured with them.
That Major Giles appears to be of the latter class because the brevet of Major was given to him, on March 9th. 1781 upon the representations which several general officers made of his military talents and past services and particularly upon the letter of Brigadier Morgan of Jany. 20th. which your Committee herewith present.
That the brevet however which was given to Major Giles does not contain any words whereby he is entitled to pay even while in actual service although when a brevet was granted to Major McPherson upon the 16th. of Septr. 1779 it was resolved that he should receive the pay and subsistence of a Major while in actual service.
The Committee therefore recommend that (if Congress think it inexpedient to grant regular commissions to Major Macpherson and
Page 1172 | Page image
Major Giles to bear dates correspondent to those of their brevets) it be
Resolved, That Major Edward Giles, while in actual service, be entitled to receive the pay and subsistance of a major.1
[Note 1: 1 This report, in the writing of George Clymer, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 19, II, folio 407.]
Whereas it has been attended with much uncertainty and litigation to determine when an armed vessel or vessels may be said to be so in sight as to entitle them to share in any capture made, which to prevent,
Resolved, that no vessel or vessels for the future shall be entitled to share in any capture made unless they are so in sight at the time of capture as to be within gun shot of the vessel captured in which case and in no other the friendly vessel or vessels, being armed manned and properly commissioned shall be entitled to share with the captors in such prize or prizes so captured in proportion to their respective number of men and weight of metal, any law usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.2
[Note 2: 2 This motion, by Richard Law, and in his writing, was offered on this day and referred, as the indorsement shows, to Mr. [Edmund] Randolph, Mr. [William] Ellery and Mr. [Richard] Law. It is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 36, I, folio 243.
Also a letter of this date from the Secretary at War; it is in No. 149, I, folio 45.]
PREVIOUS SECTION .. NEXT SECTION .. NAVIGATOR
| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |