| 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 --MONDAY, MAY 6, 1782
On a report from the Secretary at War, to whom was referred a petition of M. Dedevans:
War Office May 3rd, 1782.
Sir,
I have attentively examined the papers which accompany the petition of Captain Desdevens, and find that he rests the justice of his petition on the following facts and observations.
Page 240 | Page image
From the foregoing representation it appears that the Petitioner was while in Canada of use to our army, and that his exertions to serve the United States have rendered him too obnoxious to the British government to live with safety under it.
It is to be wished that some employ might be given him by which he could obtain a subsistence. In the mean time considering his peculiar situation and the resolves of Congress, which invited the aid of the Canadians, I think he should be permitted to draw for his own and family's support four rations per day.
Should Congress countenance this opinion they will please to resolve,
Resolved, That Maurice Dedevans be, and hereby is, entitled to draw four rations per day, until it shall be otherwise ordered by Congress.1
[Note 1: 1 This report is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 149, I, folio 317.]
The order of the day for taking into consideration the report of the committee on the cessions of New York, Virginia and Connecticut, and the petitions of the Indiana, Vandalia, Illionois and Wabash companies, being called for by the State of Virginia, a motion was made by Mr. [Joseph] Montgomery, seconded by Mr. [Samuel] Osgood, that the order of the day be postponed.2
[Note 2: 2 The following indorsed "Motion of Mr. T[homas] Smith May 6, 1782," in the writing of Thomas Smith, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 36, I, folio 301:
Is it in order to call for the order of the day when reports from the Treasury or War office are on the table and no order taken or given concerning them either for postponing, committing, assigning a day for the consideration of them, or by passing them?]
On which the yeas and nays being required by Mr. [Theodorick] Bland,
{table}
Page 241 | Page image
So it was resolved in the affirmative.
The committee, consisting of Mr. [Abraham] Clark, Mr. [Theodorick] Bland, Mr. [Samuel] Osgood, to whom was referred a letter of 20 April from the Superintendant of finance, touching the appointment of an intendant of the army, brought in a report, which was taken into consideration, and the same being amended to read as follows:
"That the Superintendant of finance be authorised and directed to appoint a proper person to be Intendent for the main army an inspector for the main and another for the southern army, to take care that the contracts for supplying rations be duly executed by the contractors: that the said Intendant inspectors shall also be fully empowered and directed to attend to the expenditures of public property in the several departments of the army, and report any fraud, neglect of duty, or other misconduct by which the public property is wasted, or expence unnecessarily accumulated, so that the party charged therewith may be tried by court-martial on such charges exhibited against him by either of the said Intendant inspectors; and that neither the said Intendant inspectors nor the said contractors, or their property, be liable to arrest or subject to martial law, except by
Page 242 | Page image
the express order of the Commander in Chief, or commander of the army to which the Intendant inspectors shall be appointed, any resolution or act of Congress heretofore made notwithstanding: that the pay and allowance to the Intendant each inspector be 166 2--3 dollars per month,rations per day and forage forhorses in full of all allowances."
That the Superintendent of Finance be authorized to appoint an Intendant for the Southern Army when ever contracts shall be made for supplying that army with rations, which Intendant shall be vested with like powers, and entitled to the same privileges pay and allowances granted to the Intendant of the main army.
That each Inspector when appointed shall take an oath for the faithful and impartial execution of the trust reposed in him as Inspector of the contracts for the army.1
[Note 1: 1 This report, in the writing of Abraham Clark, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 19, IV, folio 355--2.]
A motion was made by Mr. [John] Rutledge seconded by Mr. [Theodorick] Bland, to amend the report farther by adding thereto, that the Superintendant of finance be directed forthwith to make contracts for the supply of the southern army.
On the question to agree to this amendment, the yeas and nays being required by Mr. [Arthur] Middleton,
{table}
Page 243 | Page image
So the question was lost.
War Office March 23rd, 1782.
Sir,
I have considered the memorial addressed by Major Macpherson to Congress--
It appears that Congress appointed him a Major in the Army of the United States, and that he has been considered by the Commander in chief as possessing that rank. I do not therefore conceive that there will be any impropriety in granting him the commission of Major. The pay of the appointment may be governed by the resolve of Congress which directs that he receive it while in actual service, although this gentleman's peculiar situation requires an attention also to the emoluments of the commission.
I therefore beg leave to submit the following Resolve,
Resolved, That the Secretary at War is hereby directed to issue the Commission of Major in the army to Major William Macpherson, to take rank as such from the 16th of September 1779.
War Office May 3rd. 1782.
Sir,
On the memorial of Major Macpherson referred to me to report specially whether his commission would interfere with the rank of any other officer, I beg leave to report that I do not conceive the commission of Major will militate in any greater degree with the rank of other officers than the Brevet which he now holds appointing him to that grade.1
[Note 1: 1 The first report was read March 26 and on April 24 referred to the Secretary at War to report especially whether granting a commission to Major Macpherson appointing him a major in the army of the United States will interfere with the rank of any officer in the army. On May 6 the question was taken on the report and passed in the negative. The first report is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 149, I, folio 171; the second is on folio 167.
On this day, according to the indorsement, was presented the petition, dated Philadelphia May 3, 1782, of Nicholas Reib. It was ordered to lie on the table. It is in No. 42, VI, folio 461.
Also a letter, dated April 24, from the Governor of Connecticut, relating to American prisoners in England. It was referred to Mr. [Elias] Boudinot, Mr. [Samuel John] Atlee, Mr. [John] Rutledge and is in No. 66, II, folio 224. According to Committee Book No. 186, "The several papers referred to Mr. Boudinot, Mr. Atlee and Mr. Rutledge" were, on June 21, committed to Mr. [Elias] Boudinot, Mr. [Samuel John] Atlee, Mr. [John] Lowell, Mr. [Ralph] Izard and Mr. [William] Few.
Also, a letter of this day, from Count Bieniewsky. It was referred to the Secretary at War, the indorsement states, and on May 14 to Mr. [Abraham] Clark, Mr. [John] Rutledge and Mr. [Theodorick] Bland. On May 27 it was referred to Mr. [James] Madison, Mr. [John Morin] Scott and Mr. [David] Ramsay. It is in No. 78, IV, folio 299. See post May 10, 24, and 29.
Also, on this or an approximate date, a letter dated Lancaster May 1. from William Henry to William Moore, President of Pennsylvania. It was referred to Mr. [Elias] Boudinot, Mr. [Samuel John] Atlee, Mr. [John] Rutledge to confer with the Superintendent of Finance and Secretary at War. On June 21 it was referred to Mr. [John] Lowell, Mr. [Ralph] Izard, Mr. [William] Few. It is in No. 78, XII, folio 315.]
PREVIOUS SECTION .. NEXT SECTION .. NAVIGATOR
| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |