| 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 --FRIDAY, MAY 16, 1783
On the report of a committee, consisting of Mr. [Abraham] Clark, Mr. [Oliver] Ellsworth and Mr. [Ralph] Izard, to whom was referred a memorial from the chaplains, respecting their half pay and commutation in lieu thereof:
Page 346 | Page image
The Committee to whom was referred a memorial from several Chaplains of the army respecting their claim to half pay after the war, Report the following resolution,
Resolved, That the five years full pay granted as a commutation in lieu of half pay for life, to all who are entitled to the same by any former act of Congress shall be considered the pay whereof the half was promised, in which the pay of Chaplains continued in service after the 8th day of May 1781, shall be that of a Captain agreeable to the resolution of that date in favor of deranged Chaplains.1
[Note 1: 1 This report, in the writing of Abraham Clark, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 21, folio 345. The indorsement states that it was passed this day.]
Resolved, That the commutation in lieu of half pay, as well to chaplains as to the officers of the hospital department and medical staff, shall be calculated by what they are respectively entitled to, agreeably to the resolutions of the 17 January and 8 May, 1781.
On the report of a committee, consisting of Mr. [Hugh] Williamson, Mr. [Daniel] Carroll and Mr. [Samuel] Osgood, to whom was referred so much of a letter of 11 June, 1781, from the hon. Dr. Franklin, and of a letter of 4 October, 1781, from the hon. J. Adams, as respects allowances to be made to the ministers of the United States at foreign courts,
Resolved, That the payment of couriers and the postage of letters and the hire of clerks shall be charged to the United States by their ministers at foreign courts, as contingent expences, and shall be allowed as such, exclusive of their salaries.2
[Note 2: 2 This report, in the writing of Hugh Williamson, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 25, II, folio 199. According to the indorsement, and the record in Committee Book No. 191, the report was delivered April 28. The resolution was also entered in the manuscript Secret Journal, Foreign Affairs.]
The committee of the week [Mr. John Montgomery, Mr. Jonathan Arnold and Mr. Thomas Mifflin] are of opinion that the memorial of Capt. Seth Harding, late Commander of the ship Confederacy, requesting a settlement of his account of pay and of disbursements for the said ship should be referred to the Agent of Marine to report thereon.3
[Note 3: 3 This report, in the writing of Thomas Mifflin, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 19, III, folio 43. The indorsement says that it was passed on this day. Harding's memorial, undated, is in No. 137, II, folio 493.]
Page 347 | Page image
The committee [Mr. Theodorick Bland, Mr. Alexander Hamilton, and Mr. Eliphalet Dyer] to whom was referred the memorial of Rev J. P. Tetard, are fully satisfied that his services, sufferings and sacrifices in the cause of America have been as set forth in the said memorial, bug in their opinion the prayer of the memorial cannot with propriety be granted.1
[Note 1: 1 This report, in the writing of Theodorick Bland, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 42, VII, folio 445. Committee Book, No. 186, gives it this date but the indorsement gives it May 17. John Peter Tetard's memorial, dated Philadelphia, 8th May, 1783, was read and referred to committee May 12, and is on folio 443.
On this day, as the indorsement states, a memorial of the officers of the Navy, praying for relief, dated Philadelphia, April 28, 1783, was referred to Mr. [John] Collins, Mr. [Abraham] Clark and Mr. [William] Hemsley. The indorsement further says it was "Answered by Act August 1st, 1787." It is in No. 41, VII, folio 99. According to Committee Books No. 186 and No. 191 the committee was renewed August 5, and the memorial referred on that date to Mr. [Abraham] Clark, Mr. [John Francis] Mercer and Mr. [William] Ellery, who delivered a report August 19.
Also a memorial of James McKenzie and others, sailors on the Bon Homme Richard, praying for relief. It was dated May 14, and on May 16 was referred to the Agent of Marine to report. It is in No. 137, II, folio 601. See post, September 15.
On May 19, according to the indorsement, was read a letter of May 14 from General Washington. It is in No. 152, XI, folio 275.
Also, on May 19, according to the indorsement, Mr. [Theodorick] Bland laid before Congress a communication, of the same date, from James Belsches, Jr., relative to the difficulty of recovering negroes from the British. It is in No. 78, IV, folio 395.
Also, on May. 19, a letter, of the same date, from the Secretary at War, transmitting a letter from General Washington, with a copy of one from Dr. James Craik, was referred to Mr. [Eliphalet] Dyer, Mr. [Hugh] Williamson and Mr. [Richard] Peters. The Secretary's letter is in No. 149, II, folio 585; Washington's letter is on folio 581, and a copy of Dr. Craik's letter on folio 577. According to Committee Books 186 and 191, a report was rendered June 10, 1783, and negatived April 16, 1784.
The following report, in the writing of Eliphalet Dyer, is marked "Col. Dyer's essay," and is on folio 575:
Your committee having taken into consideration the representation ofCraige and General Washington's letter thereon are of opinion that as the commutation proposed to Congress and by them adopted was founded wholly on their previous engagements for half pay and that notwithstanding the merits of any particular gentleman in either of the Departments to which the half pay could be applied, it would be attended with very great inconvenience to enter into a comparative view of the particular circumstances of every person concerned as in that case if it should appear that any of the officers in a comparative view of the time of their services or other circumstances should not be equally entitled with others yet Congress could not diminish from the substance of their contract, so on the other hand, it will not be proper to make any addition but the whole being considered in a collective view no addition or diminution can with propriety be made therein.]
PREVIOUS SECTION .. NEXT SECTION .. NAVIGATOR
| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |