| 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, OCTOBER 7, 1785.
Congress assembled. Present as before.
On a letter, of this day, from Mr. A. Lee, representing, that previously to his appointment to the board of treasury, he was elected a member of the Assembly of Virginia, which is to be in session the 17th instant and praying for leave of absence for the purpose of attending the session of the said Assembly,
Resolved, That leave of absence be granted to Mr. A. Lee, agreeably to his request.1
[Note 1: 1 Lee's letter is in No. 78, XIV, folio 673.
On this day, according to Thomson's indorsement on the printed copy of Gerry's motion of October 3, consideration was postponed to October 10.
Also, according to Committee Book No. 190, and Despatch Book No. 185, a petition of J[ohn] Alsop and F[rancis] Lewis "to be exonerated from the judgmt. agst. them on acct. of a charter party signed by them as Members of the Secret Comee. in 1776," was this day received and referred to the Board of Treasury to report. The memorial, dated November 1, 1784, was read December 11 and referred to a committee. It is in No. 41, V, folio 337.
Also, on this day, according to Committee Book No. 190, the last paragraph of C. W. F. Dumas' letter of June 26, 1785, was referred to the Secretary for foreign Affairs to report, which he did October 13 and the report was considered by Congress October 14.
Also to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was referred back his report of September 19 "on the number of Consuls and motion of Mr. Gerry," for further report. See post, October 14.]
A motion having been made by the State of Massachusetts, seconded by the state of Virginia,
That a committee be appointed to prepare a report, for expressing the highest disapprobation of Congress, of the disposition which appears in several districts within the United States, to be separated from the states which have exercised constitutional jurisdiction over such districts respectively, and be erected into independent governments, without the consent of the said States and of the United States, and for signifying the intention of Congress to support, when necessary, every state, when opposing such unconstitutional attempts to destroy the fundamental principles of the Union.
Page 811 | Page image
A motion was made by Mr. [David] Howell, seconded by Mr. [William] Ellery, to postpone the consideration of that motion, in order to take up the following:
"That a committee be appointed to devise and report an additional article to the Confederation, to be submitted to the legislatures of the several States, for the purpose of empowering and authorizing any nine states, or two thirds of the states in the federal Union, for the time being, of the United States in Congress assembled, to erect into a new state, and admit into the federal Union, on certain terms to be specified in the said article, any part or district of any of the United States: Provided that the legislature of the state to which such district may belong, shall join with the people of such district in an application to Congress, for the exercise of the power and authority aforesaid."
And on the question to postpone for the purpose beforementioned, the yeas and nays being required by Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry,
{table}
So the question was lost.
Page 812 | Page image
A motion was made by Mr. [David] Howell, seconded by Mr. [William] Ellery, to postpone the consideration of the Motion of Massachusetts, until the 5 day of November next.
And on the question to agree to this motion, the yeas and nays being required by Mr. [David] Howell,
{table}
So the question was lost.1
[Note 1: 1 On this day, as the indorsement states, was read a petition of Pierre Regnier de Roussi praying for a decision on his former petition. It is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 42, VI, folio 502.]
Office for Foreign Affairs, 6th. October, 1785.
The Secretary of the United States for the Department of foreign Affairs to whom was referred a Letter from Richard Soderstrom Consul of Sweden of 8th. Septr. to his Excellency the President of Congress, praying for Copies of certain Papers, reports--
That in his Opinion whenever Complaints against any Person are made to Congress, of such a Nature, as to render it proper for them to do any Act, which may affect the Party complained of, there and in such Cases Justice in general requires, that the Party should be informed of those Complaints and admitted to defend themselves.
Page 813 | Page image
But that where such Complaints are either nugatory or irregular as to Congress, or are merely in the Nature of Intelligence; it would very Seldom be adviseable to publish them. Because,
The Representations ill Question arose from an Apprehension that the Admission of Mr. Soderstrom to the Rights of a Consul might operate against the legal Recovery of the Debts due from him to the Complainants, and for which they had brought their Actions. But as he has been admitted, and consequently the Complainants have failed in that Object; your Secretary Cannot perceive any good Reason for giving Mr. Soderstrom Copies of those Papers.
Thus far your Secretary has treated this Complaint as if it had been made directly to Congress, either by Petition, Memorial or Letter to his Excellency the President--But the Fact, that this Complaint or Representation was made to your Secretary for foreign Affairs, and by him communicated to Congress.
As this is in a particular manner an Office of Secrecy and Confidence, and is generally so considered; he thinks that Line should not be deviated from, except on extraordinary Occasions and for cogent Reasons. The matter in Question indeed may not be of a secret Nature, but he thinks it better to keep many unimportant Things secret than by observing too little Reserve, destroy or impair that Opinion which encourages Information and free Communications.
All which is Submitted to the Wisdom of Congress.
John Jay.1
[Note 1: 1 This report is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 81, I, folio 433. According to indorsement it was read this day.]
Board of Treasury, 7th. October, 1785.
Sir: We beg leave to submit for the consideration of Congress the inclosed Report of this Board on the memorial of Alexander Fowler
Page 814 | Page image
and Daniel Elliott of Fort Pitt, claiming payment for certain advances made by them to Troops of the United States at Fort Pitt.
With great respect and Esteem We are, Your Excellency's Most Obedt. Humble Servts.
Samuel Osgood.
Arthur Lee.1
[Note 1: 1 This letter, with its enclosed report, also signed by Osgood and Lee, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 138, I, folios 509--13. The indorsement states they were read this day. See ante, April 4.]
Board of Treasury, October 6th., 1785.
The Board of Treasury to whom was referred the memorial of Alexander Fowler, and Daniel Elliott of Fort Pitt, claiming pay for certain advances made by them to the Troops under the command of Major Marbury at Fort Pitt in the year 1784, Beg leave to Report--
That although it appears by the Testimony of Major Marbury, that the memorialists in consequence of his encouragement made the advances Stated in their memorial, yet there is no record either in the Offices of the War, or Treasury Department, in support of the assurance stated to be made by the late Secretary of War "That the Troops under the command of Major Marbury should be paid quarterly, either in Specie, or in Notes of the late Superintendent of Finance."
That it appears by a Return made to this Board by the Commissioner for settling the Army Accounts, that on a final settlement with the Detachment of Troops under the command of Major Marbury, a stoppage had been made on account of the claims of Alexander Fowler of Two Thousand five hundred and sixty three dollars 20/90ths; but it does not appear that the Claim of Daniel Elliott was ever exhibited to the Commissioner of Army Accounts, or that any stoppage has been made for the same.
That no payment has been made in specie to persons who have made advances to the Troops, beyond the amount of six months pay advanced to the Linc of the Army in the years 1782 and 1783: and that to establish a precedent of payment in the case of the Troops under the command of Major Marbury, would subject the United States, either to a charge of partiality, or to expenditures to which the present state of the Revenue is altogether incompetent.
Page 815 | Page image
That, independent of these considerations, it ought in the opinion of this Board, to be an invariable Rule, not to permit the payment of the Troops to be made through any other line than that of the Pay Master General, at such periods, and in such proportion and manner, as shall be prescribed by the Resolves of Congress, or the express orders of the Minister at War; since a deviation from this system, will not only subject the Troops to imposition, and encourage a system of speculation highly injurious to the service, but expose the Treasury to disbursements of money, without any previous notice of the provision necessary to be made for such purpose.
Under these circumstances, the Board submit to the consideration of Congress the following Resolves, viz.--
Resolved, That the Commissioner of Army Accounts be authorized and directed, to issue to Alexander Fowler certificates to the amount of Two thousand five hundred and sixty three dollars 20/90th, being the amount of the stoppage made from the detachment commanded by Major Marbury at Fort Pitt, in the year 1784, on account of the claim of said Fowler; and that the above sum bear interest from the time it became due.
Resolved, That the memorial of Daniel Elliott, praying Reimbursement for certain advances stated to be made by him to the detachment under the command of Major Marbury at Fort Pitt in the year 1784, be dismissed; the said memorialist not having exhibited his claims to the Commissioner of Army Accounts previous to a final settlement of the accounts of said detachment.
All which is humbly submitted.1
[Note 1: 1 Also on this day, according to indorsement, was read a letter of October 7 from the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, forwarding translations of letters from C. W. F. Dumas. Jay's letter is in No. 80, II, folio 9.]
PREVIOUS SECTION .. NEXT SECTION .. NAVIGATOR
| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |