| 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, AUGUST 28, 1786.
Congress assembled. Present as before.3
[Note 3: 3 According to Committee Book No. 189 the report on the memorial of Marinus Willett was, this day, transferred. See ante, August 25.]
In Congress.
August 28, 1786.
Congress took into consideration the report of a committee of the whole, to whom were referred the letter of
Page 566 | Page image
the 29 of May, and the speech of the Secretary for foreign Affairs; which report being as follows:
"August 23, 1786. In committee of the whole. Agreed to report to Congress the following resolutions.
"Resolved, That so much of the resolution of Congress of the 25 day of August, 1785, being an instruction to the Secretary of the United States for the department of foreign affairs, as are contained in the following words, namely, And that the following be substituted in its place, 'that the Secretary to the U. S. for the department of foreign affairs be and hereby is instructed, in his plan of a treaty with the encargado de Negocios of his catholic Majesty, particularly to stipulate the right of the U. S. to their territorial bounds, and the free navigation of the Mississippi from the source to the Ocean, established in their treaties with Great Britain; and that he neither conclude nor sign any treaty, compact or convention with the said encargado de Negocios until he hath previously communicated it to Congress and received their approbation,'" be, and the same is hereby repealed and made void.
"Resolved, That the secretary of the U. S. for the department of foreign affairs be and hereby is instructed, ff in the course of his negotiation with the encargado de Negocios of his catholic Majesty, it shall be found indispensable for the conclusion of the same, that the U. S. and their citizens, for a limited time, should forbear to use so much of the river Mississippi as is south of the southern boundary of the U. S., that he be and hereby is authorized and directed, on behalf of the United States, to consent to an article or articles stipulating on their part and that of their citizens a forbearance of the use of the said river Mississippi, for a period not exceedingyears, from the point where the southern
Page 567 | Page image
boundary of the U. S. intersects the said river, to its mouth or the Ocean; provided that such stipulation of a forbearance of the use of the said river for a limited tune as aforesaid, shall not be construed to extinguish the right of the U. S., independent of such stipulation, to use and navigate the said river from its source to the Ocean; provided farther, that the Secretary of foreign Affairs shah not stipulate on behalf of the U. S., in favour of the exclusive navigation and use of the said river Mississippi by his Catholic Majesty and his subjects, below its intersection of the southern boundary of the U. S., unless it shall be agreed and stipulated in the same treaty, that the navigation and use of the said river from the intersection aforesaid to its head or source be and continue common to the U. S. and his Catholic Majesty and to their respective citizens and subjects. And the said secretary of foreign Affairs is hereby farther instructed, firmly to insist on the territorial boundaries of the United States southwardly and westwardly, as fixed by the definitive treaty of peace and friendship between the U. S. of America and his Britannic Majesty; and on no condition to consent to a treaty, unless the same shall contain a quit claim of all pretended rights and claims of his catholic Majesty to territory within the U. S. eastwardly of the Mississippi and northerly of the Floridas; whether the said rights or claims are pretended in virtue of conquest or otherwise. And if in the course of the negotiation a question should arise relative to the precise boundary line between the U. S. and the Floridas, the said Secretary of foreign Affairs is hereby instructed that the Floridas do not, and ought not of right to extend to the Northward of the boundary line between them and the U. S. as fixed by the definitive treaty aforesaid, and that he shall
Page 568 | Page image
not in any event by treaty or otherwise consent to the extent of the Floridas northerly of a line or boundary of the U.S. adjacent to the Floridas, specified in a separate Article of the provisional Articles between the U.S. and Great Britain, at Paris, on the 30 day of November, 1782. And provided that a disagreement shall take place between the said Secretary of foreign Affairs and the Encargado de Negocios of his C. Majesty, by the latter's insisting on the boundary line as specified by the aforesaid separate article, and the former's insisting on the boundary line as fixed in the aforesaid definitive treaty, the said Secretary of foreign Affairs is hereby authorised to agree to the settlement and final decision of such disagreement by Commissaries mutually appointed for that purpose; for the appointment of whom and for all other purposes incident to the final determination of the said disagreement by Commissaries, conformable to the laws of Nations, the said Secretary of foreign Affairs is hereby invested with full powers on behalf of the U.S. of America."1
[Note 1: 1 This report of the Committee of the Whole, in the writing of Charles Thomson, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 81, II, folio 241. It is crossed off and marked for the later amendments. According to indorsement it was read August 23 and made the "Order of the day for Monday 28 Aug." See ante, August 10, Motion of Delegates of Massachusetts. See post, August 29.]
A Motion was made by Mr. [Rufus] King, seconded by Mr. [Melancton] Smith, to amend the report by striking out the last clause in the second resolution, beginning with the words "And the said Secretary of "foreign Affairs is hereby further instructed firmly," &c. to the end, and in lieu thereof to insert "Provided farther, "that the said Secretary of foreign Affairs do and "hereby is directed, to insist on the territorial limits or "boundaries of the U.S. as fixed in the definitive treaty
Page 569 | Page image
"of peace and friendship between the U.S. of America "and his Britannic Majesty; and he is further instructed "not to form any treaty with the said Encargado de "Negocios, unless the said limits or boundaries are "thereby acknowledged and secured." And on the question to agree to this Amendment, the yeas and nays being required by Mr. [Rufus] King--
{table}
So the question was lost.
A division of the report and a decision on the first resolution being called for by Mr. King, a motion was made by Mr. [Charles] Pinckney, seconded by Mr. [Edward] Carrington, to postpone the first resolution in order to take up the following:
That the commission and instructions issued to J. Jay, secretary for foreign Affairs, to Negotiate on the
Page 570 | Page image
part of the U. S., with Don Diego de Gardoqui, Encargado de Negocios of his Catholic Majesty, be and the same are hereby revoked and repealed.
And on the question to postpone for the purpose abovementioned, the yeas and nays being required by Mr. [Timothy] Bloodworth--
{table}
So it passed in the negative.1
[Note 1: 1 These proceedings are entered in Secret Journal, Foreign, No. 5, and in Secret Journal, No. 6.]
The Commissioner for Settling the accounts of the late army to whom was referred the memorial of David Henley begs leave to report.
That the memorialist held a regular Commission as a Colonel of a Regiment of Foot in the service of the united States of America his Rank Commencing from the 1st. day January, 1777.
Page 571 | Page image
That no arrangement took place after the date of his Commission until the year 1779 when the army was new organized and the supernumeraries were considered as retiring on a years pay under the Resolutions of Congress of January 10th., 1778; February 26th., 1778; May 17th. 1778; June 4th., 1778; August 10st., 1778; November 24st. 1778; July 4st. 1779; March 9st., 1779, and September 5st., 1779, which were Carried into effect by the late Commander in Chief, as appears by his Returns and letters to and from the war Office.
That Colonel David Henley was not Continued in the list of officers of the Massachusetts line, or any of the sixteen additional Regiments, when said arrangement was made, which discontinuance leads your Commissioner to suppose that Colonel Henley then became a supernumerary officer, and entitled to only the emoluments then granted to such a character.
Your Commissioner, however, begs leave to state for the Consideration of Congress, the grounds on which Colonel has founded his claim for Commutation which are:
That his not being annexed to any Regiment in the service ought, to enable him to be considered as an officer of the Line in General and not as belonging to any particular State, which principle being acknowledged, will prevent his being Affected by the derangement of 1779, and include him in the One of December 31, 1781, which has given the Commutation.
Your Commissioner on considering this Reasoning Cannot esteem it as conclusive, because Mr. Henley's Commission, on which he founds his claim and is the highest evidence, has annexed him to a Regiment. The public offices are therefore obliged to consider him in the same light as the other officers of the Regiment at that time, the only difference between them is that he became a supernumerary in the service at a much earlier period than the others, tho' it could not take place in the legal sense, until a General Arrangement under the express authority of Congress.
Jno. Pierce.1
[Note 1: 1 This report is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 62, folio 161. According to indorsement it was read August 28 and referred to a committee September 1.]
Office of Army Accounts,
August 28, 1786.
The Commissioner for Settling the accounts of the late army to whom was referred the petition of John Leseur, begs leave to report:
Page 572 | Page image
That Ebenezer Storer, the paymaster to the Regiment in which the Petitioner belonged, drew from the military chest in 1778 and 1779 the sum of Two hundred and seventy-one Dollars as the ballance due to Leseur. That the said Storer made a settlement of his accounts as Paymaster with William Bedlow, Esquire, in August, 1779, and returned into the military chest the sum of One hundred and Twenty-Eight 83/90 dollars as the ballance then due to Leseur.
That Mr. Bedlow passed to Mr. Storer's Credit the remainder of the said sume of 271 dollars as paid to Leseur, tho' no voucher can be found that Mr. Leseur had received it. That the above mentioned sum of 128 33/90 Dollars was again drawn from the pay Office on the 3d. day of February, 1780, by the said Storer, and advanced by him to other persons for their pay when money was so depreciated as to answer in the settlement made with him by your Commissioner, to no more value to the united States than 60 for One.
That a Resolution of Congress of the twenty-seventh day of May, 1778, has directed that the Regimental paymaster be chosen by the Officers of the Regiment who were to Risque their pay in his hands.
Whereupon your Commissioner begs leave to remark That the United States cannot be answerable for the repayment of the ballance Carried to Mr. Storer's Credit by Mr. Bedlow, who being a public Officer and a disinterested person could not do it without a proper Voucher at the time, which is most probably mislaid.
That the United States also cannot be answerable for the depreciation of the money in Mr. Storer's hands, as he was the person who Legally had an authority to receive it, and whose Receipt was the same to the Public as if Mr. Leseur had received it himself.
It appears to your Commissioner that the United States are only holden to pay to Mr. Leseur the sum of 128 83/90ths dollars at 60 for One, being the value of the money when it was last Received from Mr. Storer.
Jno. Pierce.1
[Note 1: 1 This report is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 62, folio 169. According to indorsement it was read August 28. See post, September 6.]
Office of Army Accounts,
August 25th., 1786.
The Commissioner for Settling the Army Accounts of the late Army of the United States, to whom was referred the Petition of A. Baird requesting the Commutation in lieu of half pay for Life as a
Page 573 | Page image
deranged Surgeon in Baldwin's late Corps of Artificers, begs leave to Report:
That Doctor Baird founds his Claim on the resolution of January 17th., 1781, granting generally the half pay to the Hospital department and that of May 3d., 1782, granting the same particularly to a Surgeon of Artificers.
The Congress did on the 19th. October, last, refer to your Commissioner a Report made by a Committee of Congress on the petition of Sundry Officers of the Corps of Artificers for half pay or Commutation, which report your Commissioner was directed to take order on and is in the words following Vizt.
*******
Your Commissioner Therefore Supposes that he is not warranted to grant the Commutation to the Memorialist unless he has the direction of Congress.
Jno. Pierce.1
[Note 1: 1 This report is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 62, folio 177. According to indorsement it was read August 28 and referred to a committee September 5. The omitted portion, the report of the committee, is printed under the proceedings of October 19, 1785, q. v.
August 28: The committee of July 21 on the memorial of George Fisher was, this day, discharged.
Committee Book No. 190.
Also was read according to indorsement, the report of the Commissioner of Army Accounts on the account of the late Major General Lord Stirling, to the effect that he would have issued his certificate for the sum due "had a legal Executor or Administrator Appeared to have received it." It is in No. 62, folio 165.]
Office of Army Accounts,
New York, August 25st., 1786.
Board of Treasury, August 24, 1786.
The Board of Treasury beg leave to Report:
That in consequence of the Resolve of Congress of the 11st. of October last directing "That when the Agents appointed to issue Certificates for the Balances due to the Corps of the late Continental Army (not appertaining to any State) shah have finally adjusted the Accounts of their Respective Corps with the Commissioner of Army Accounts--The Board of Treasury be directed to ascertain and Report to Congress such compensation as from the Report of the
Page 574 | Page image
said Commissioner they shall judge proportionate to the service of the Respective Agents"; several applications have been made to them by Agents claiming the Benefit of this Resolve.
On a Conference with the Commissioner of Army Accounts on the Execution of this Act, we find that it will be very difficult (if not impracticable) to ascertain the true Merits of each Claimant. We have therefore judged it advisable to establish such a General Rule as would operate with as much Justice and Impartiallity, as would probably be the case, if a particular Examination was made into their respective Services. The Measure of these Services will in a great Degree be proportionate to the Amount of the Certificates severally issued by them.
From these Considerations we take the liberty to submit to the Opinion of Congress the following general Resolve, which (should it be approved of by Congress) will in our opinion greatly tend to Expedite the final Settlement of the Army Agents' Accounts.1
[Note 1: 1 This report, signed by Samuel Osgood and Arthur Lee, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 139, folio 371. According to indorsement it was read August 28 and the submitted resolve passed September 6, where it is spread verbatim on the Journal.]
PREVIOUS SECTION .. NEXT SECTION .. NAVIGATOR
| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |